AUTHORS

1) Mrs. Nita Hazra Samanta

Lecturer (education), PKK, BANDEL

9831051351, samirnitasounak@gmail.com

Corresponding Author

2) MR.INDRANIL CHATTERJEE

LECTURER

ALI YAVAR JUNG NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRMENT

EASTERN REGIONAL CENTER

B.T. ROAD, NIOH CAMPUS

BONHOOGHLY,

KOLKATA-700090.

inchat@gmail.com

3) MR. DIPAK KUMAR AICH

LECTURER , (Education), AYJNIHH, KOLKATA

dipakayjnihh@gmail.com, 9038328779

4) MS. ARPITA CHATTERJEE SHAHI

AUDIOLOGIST AND SPEECH THERAPIST

ALI YAVAR JUNG NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRMENT

EASTERN REGIONAL CENTER

B.T. ROAD, NIOH CAMPUS

BONHOOGHLY,

KOLKATA-700090., arpizee@yahoo.co.in, 8820688172

Development and analysis of Bangla Phonological Awareness test in children with Cochlear Implant.

ABSTRACT

The phonological awareness skills of segmenting and blending are the most highly correlated factor of reading acquisition. It is the ability to reflect on and manipulate the constituent segment of spoken words. For the purpose of the present study, five areas of phonological awareness were undertaken; (i) rhyme identification (ii) rhyme production (iii) syllable blending (iv) syllable segmentation and (v) syllable deletion. A phonological awareness test was developed in Bangla for the colloquial population. The final tool consisted of ten items in each area. For comparing the performance of phonological awareness between hearing children and children using cochlear implant (CI) the independent t-test was applied. The statistical analysis of the scores obtained by the hearing children as well as children using cochlear implant shows that the hearing children performed better than the children using cochlear implant. It was seen that the hearing children and CI children scored relatively poor in rhyme production than other phonological tasks. By analyzing the overall performance it was seen that there was a significant difference in phonological awareness between hearing children and children using cochlear implant which can be related to poor language and reading skills. CI children faced difficulties to produced rhyming words which might be detrimental on reading skills of these children. But in this two area both group scored similar result, i.e., in this two area they had no significant difference.

Key words: phonological awareness, cochlear implant, rhyme, syllable, blending, segmentation

Introduction

Reading skills plays an important role in the life of a deaf person. Since reading is a language based activity, and the early years are crucial in terms of language learning, the pre- school years become very important for a child with hearing impairment for developing reading skills. It is evident that early reading skills are primarily based on Phonological awareness, which is the important pre-requisite for advanced reading skills. Inadequate phonological awareness skills in children render greater risk of educational failure in these children. Phonological awareness is the ability to reflect on and manipulate the constituent segments of spoken words. It is a strong predictor of reading ability in young hearing children.1In broader terms it is the ability to use skills such as rhyming, alliteration, and syllabication. It includes specific phonemic awareness skills such as sound identification, sound blending, segmenting, and sound manipulation. It is a multi-dimensional construct which is the ability to identify, delete, isolate, blend or count syllables, onsets, rimes or phonemes.7,14 The development of phonological awareness is predicated upon the opportunity and ability to explicitly access the phonological structure of spoken language and build up phonological representations in the mental lexicon. Children with very less residual hearing loss, endure auditory deprivation and inadequate or no benefit from sensory aids. Hence their phonological representations are based on articulatory information obtained from their lip reading and speaking experiences.6 More recently, the invention and use of the cochlear implant; a surgically implanted device in inner ear for children with profound deafness; has facilitated the use of spoken language communication by deaf children substantially10 and to a lesser extent by adults who are either prelingually or postlingually deafened adults.4

METHODOLOGY

Phonological awareness test was developed in Bangla. A comparative study on phonological awareness test developed was used to compare between hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Research Design

A comparative research design was chosen to investigate the relationship between phonological awareness in children with cochlear implant matched with their control groups.

Participants

The participants were children using cochlear implant and their age matched controls. All of the participants shared same geographical contour and economic status. First group consisted of thirty hearing participants (19 boys and 11 girls) and second group consisted of 10 (5 boys and 5 girls) participants using cochlear implant.

Selection criteria

The cochlear implantee selected for the study had undergone cochlear implant surgery within three years after birth. Their age ranged between 7-9 years for both the groups. The participants were selected based on random sampling technique.

Tools and its Development

For the present study the tool was developed in Bangla and finalized by following steps (i) planning (ii) development (iii) testing the face validity and (iv) preparation of final tool given in Appendix 1 and 2.

Planning of the areas

From the review of literature, the researcher has experienced that phonological awareness played an important role of developing the reading skill of hearing as well as cochlear implanted children. To investigate the phonological awareness skill between hearing children and children using cochlear implant, the same was broadly selected as the area of the study.

Development of Tool

For phonological assessment, in Bangla, a test material was developed. It consisted of five areas; rhyme identification, rhyme production, syllable blending, syllable segmenting, and syllable deletion. Each segment had ten items. Testing of each of the phonological awareness skills were included with three practice items and ten test items.

Testing the face validity

The proposed tool was validated by five special educators, five speech language pathologists and five linguists. They were requested to read the tool and to comment in a likert scale: ranging from inappropriate, appropriate, and most-appropriate, with reference to objectives and areas selected for the study.

Preparation of final tool

All responses obtained from the fifteen judges were tabulated for percentage calculation. The test items which got a most appropriate scoring by 80% of judges were selected to form final test containing 10 items in each category.

Task and Instructions

The participants were instructed and demonstrated the underwritten test items by using 3 items for familiarization and then going through the actual test items.

Rhyme is a regular recurrence in sequentially (syntagmatically) corresponding positions of phonologically (paradigmatically) equivalent sounds, equivalence being expressed in terms of ideal markedness values

RHYME IDENTIFICATION: The participants were asked to state whether two words rhyme or not rhyme with each other. E.g. sit and bit (expected answer yes), chair and cow (expected answer no).

RHYME PRODUCTION: The participants were asked to say a rhyming word with the test word. E.g., hen (expected answer pen, den, etc.).

Syllables are often considered thephonological"building blocks" ofwords. Asyllableis a unit of organization for a sequence ofspeechsounds.A syllable is typically made up of a syllable nucleus (most often avowel) with optional initial and final margins (typically,consonants).

SYLLABLE BLENDING: The participants were asked to put the parts of the words together and say the final word. For example: the participants would be given parts of words, such as pen-cil and were asked to say the final words by putting them together i.e. pencil.

SYLLABLE SEGMENTATION: The participants were given a word, say Rainbow. They were asked to break the word into parts or syllables. For example: rain and bow.

SYLLABLE DELETION: The participants were involved in word game. They were asked to delete the syllable asked by the examiner and say the remaining word. For example: in the word sunshine if we remove shine then the word left would be sun. Now the participants were asked to say the word Airline by removing the word air (expected answer line).

Procedure

Both the group of participants; school going children with normal hearing and the ones using cochlear implant were selected from colloquial district ranging within 30 kilometers radius. The concerned schools were approached with prior permission and consent from parents and school authority was obtained.

A comfortable seating arrangement was provided for the participants. For participants with normal hearing the test was administered in their school. Care was taken to reduce environmental noise and other distractions. For participants with cochlear implantation either school or their home was selected based on maximum signal to noise generalization.

The participants were made familiar with the researcher by ice breaking and rapport building. Each child was tested for a period of approximately thirty minutes. Tangible reinforcement was provided to break boredom. The responses provided by the children during all tasks were recorded in digital audiotape and transferred to a computer for storage and later analysis.

Scoring

The tester scored each participant with one mark for giving right answer and zero mark for giving wrong answer.

Statistical analysis

The independent t-test was applied for analyzing the data by using R-Console software.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION

All the participants of this study; thirty hearing student and ten children using cochlear implant were administered the developed test material. The test contained ten items each in rhyme identification, rhyme production, syllable blending, syllable segmentation and syllable deletion task. Scores obtained were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean calculation).

Table 1

Scores obtained by hearing children in rhyme identification, rhyme production, syllable blending, syllable segmentation and syllable deletion task of phonological awareness test.

Participants

Rhyme identification

(10 marks)

Rhyme production

(10 marks)

Syllable blending

(10 marks)

Syllable segmentation

(10 marks)

Syllable deletion

(10 marks)

Overall performance

(50 marks)

1

8

6

10

9

10

43

2

8

6

10

10

10

44

3

8

4

10

10

10

42

4

8

8

10

10

10

46

5

9

7

10

10

10

46

6

9

7

10

10

10

46

7

8

8

10

10

9

45

8

7

8

10

10

9

44

9

9

7

10

10

10

46

10

9

8

10

9

10

46

11

9

8

10

10

10

47

12

8

4

10

10

10

42

13

6

7

10

9

10

42

14

7

6

10

10

10

43

15

8

4

10

10

10

42

16

8

5

10

10

10

43

17

9

4

10

10

10

43

18

7

6

10

10

10

43

19

8

6

10

10

10

44

20

10

8

9

10

10

47

21

5

2

10

10

10

37

22

10

7

10

10

9

46

23

10

8

10

10

10

48

24

10

8

10

10

10

48

25

9

10

10

10

10

49

26

8

8

10

10

10

46

27

10

4

10

9

10

43

28

9

7

10

10

10

46

29

8

7

10

10

10

45

30

9

8

10

10

10

47

Mean score

8.36

6.53

9.96

9.86

9.9

44.63

Table 1 indicates the performance on phonological awareness of hearing student in the age range of 7-9 years. The results reveals that the mean score of rhyme production was comparatively lower than rhyme identification, syllable blending, syllable segmentation and syllable deletion. Performance of hearing student on phonological awareness reveals that the mean score in rhyme production is 6.53 and eighteen students scored more than the average marks and the remaining twelve students fell under the bellow average level. Mean scores in syllable blending, syllable segmentation, and syllable deletion were approximately same and most of the student performed near or above the mean scores. Mean score of rhyme identification was just below the mean scores of syllable blending, syllable segmentation and syllable deletion tasks. Only fifty percent of the students were able to score above the mean score for rhyme identification task.

It is interesting to note that the hearing children performed better on syllable tasks. Maximum number of hearing students scored full marks on these tasks. May be these tasks were very easy to them. They also faced difficulties on rhyme production task. Most hearing students have some sense of syllableness, even if they do not know what a syllable is.

Figure 1

Mean scores of overall performance on phonological awareness test of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

The mean score in overall performance of hearing student was 44.63. On the other hand the mean score of children using cochlear implant was 37.9. The scores obtained by hearing students and C.I students indicates that it was most difficult to score more marks in rhyme production and rhyme identification tasks than syllable blending, syllable segmentation and syllable deletion tasks. In overall performance, hearing children scored better than children using cochlear implant.

The poor performance of C.I children in rhyme production might be due to lack of oral language and poor vocabulary than hearing children which may play a vital part to produce rhyme words. In a previous study the children with cochlear implants and the profoundly deaf children without cochlear implants achieved phonological awareness scores that were highest at the syllable level, then at the rhyme level, and poorest at the phoneme level.8 The cause behind the variations in results of hearing children and children using cochlear implant might be the fact that the age of implantation be an effective factor for delayed language development of children with cochlear implant. Another study found that English and Cantonese hearing aids users with severe to profound hearing loss did not perform significantly different on syllable awareness as their hearing peers.9,15

Table 2

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of rhyme identification in phonological awareness task of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Area

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard Deviation )

t-test

df

P-value

Significant/ not significant (0.05 level)

Rhyme identification

Hearing

30

8.36

1.18

2.61

13.8

0.02

Significant

C. I

10

7.1

1.37

Table-2 shows that the mean score of rhyme identification in phonological awareness of hearing children was 8.3 and standard deviation) was 1.18. In case of children using cochlear implant the mean score in rhyme identification was 7.1 and standard deviation was 1.37. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 2.61 and the corresponding p-value was 0.02 which was significant at 0.05 level with 13.8 degree of freedom (df). The result clearly indicates that there was significant difference between mean scores of rhyme identification in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant not confirming the second hypothesis.

Table 3

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of rhyme production in phonological awareness task of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Area

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard deviation

t-test

df

P-value

Significant/ not significant

(0.05 level)

Rhyme production

Hearing

30

6.53

1.77

3.24

17.254

.0046

Significant

C.I

10

4.6

1.57

Similarly, comparing performance on rhyme production (Table 2) the mean score of rhyme production obtained by hearing children was 6.53 and standard deviation was 1.77. In case of children using cochlear implant the mean score in rhyme production was 4.6 (lowest of all) and standard deviation was1.57. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 3.24 and the corresponding p-value was .0046 which was significant at 0.05 level with 17.254 degree of freedom (df). Once again the third hypothesis was rejected.

Children using cochlear implants may typically remain delayed in the acquisition of speech and language skills. May be for this reason their performance in rhyme production was low. The speech production skills of children with cochlear implants were often significantly delayed, even after the children have had years of experience with their cochlear implant, and even when they were compared to younger children whose age was matched with the deaf childrens duration of cochlear implant experience. 2,3

Table 4

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of syllable blending in phonological awareness task of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Area

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard deviation

t-test

df

p-value

Significant/ not significant

(0.05 level)

Syllable blending

Hearing

30

9.96

0.182

1.76

9.03

0.1107

Not significant

C.I

10

8.7

2.26

The mean score of syllable blending in phonological awareness of hearing children was 9.96 (highest of all) and standard deviation was 0.182. In case of children using cochlear implant, mean score was 8.7 and standard deviation was 2.26. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 1.76 and the corresponding p-value was 0.1107 which was not significant at 0.05 levels with 9.03 degree of freedom (df). The result clearly indicates that there was no significant difference between mean scores of syllable blending in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant confirming the fourth hypothesis.

This findings were similar to one reported by that the children with cochlear implants and the profoundly deaf children without cochlear implants achieved phonological awareness scores that were highest at the syllable level, then at the rhyme (onset/rime) level, and poorest at the phoneme level.8

Table 5

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of syllable segmentation in phonological awareness task of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Area

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard deviation

t-test

df

p-value

Significant/ not significant

(0.05 level)

Syllable segmentation

Hearing

30

9.86

.345

1.66

9.27

0.129

Not significant

C.I

10

9

1.63

Similarly, comparing performance on syllable segmentation (Table 5) the mean score of syllable segmentation obtained by hearing children was 9.86 and standard deviation was 0.345. In case of children using cochlear implant the mean score in syllable segmentation was 9 (highest of all) and standard deviation was 1.63. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 1.66 and the corresponding p-value was 0.1291 which was not significant at 0.05 level with 9.27degree of freedom (df). The result clearly indicates that there was no significant difference between mean scores of syllable segmentation in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant confirming the fifth hypothesis. This is supported by other researchers who quotes that better perception ability may enable children with cochlear implant to perform similar level on syllable awareness with their hearing age-matched peers.16, 17 Most students have some sense of syllableness, even if they do not know what a syllable is. They can recognize how many beats or syllables there are in a word. This is the easiest level of segmenting word parts.17

Table 6

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of syllable deletion in phonological awareness task of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Area

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard deviation

t-test

df

p-value

Significant/ not significant (0.05 level)

Syllable deletion

Hearing

30

9.9

.305

2.56

9.19

0.029

Significant

C.I

10

8.5

1.71

It reveals from the Table-6 that the mean score of syllable deletion in phonological awareness of hearing children was 9.9 and standard deviation) was .305. In case of children using cochlear implant the mean score in syllable blending was 8.5 and standard deviation was 1.71. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 2.56 and the corresponding p-value was 0.029 which was significant at 0.05 level with 9.19 degree of freedom (df). The result clearly indicates that there was significant difference between mean scores of syllable blending in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant not confirming the sixth hypothesis. It was confirmed that sixth hypothesis was rejected.

Result indicates that CI children faced difficulties in syllable deletion task. This may be due to their inadequate knowledge of deletion task. It was noted that children with cochlear implant had specific difficulty when they were asked to omit the first syllable.

Table 7

Standard Deviation and t-test scores of overall performance in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant.

Performance in phonological awareness

Type of children

N

Mean score

Standard deviation

t-test

df

P-value

Significant/ not significant

(0.05 level)

Hearing

30

44.63

2.47

3.69

10.2

0.004

Significant

C.I

10

37.9

5.58

It reveals from the table-7 that the mean score of overall performance in phonological awareness of hearing children was 44.63 and standard deviation) was 2.47. In case of children using cochlear implant the mean score in overall performance was 37.9 and standard deviation was 5.58. The independent t-test reveals that the t-value was 3.69 and the corresponding p-value was 0.004 which was significant at 0.05 level with 10.198 degree of freedom (df). The result clearly indicates that there was significant difference between mean scores of overall performance in phonological awareness of hearing children and children using cochlear implant not confirming the first hypothesis. It was confirmed that first hypothesis was rejected.

The present study found that the cochlear implant group and the hearing group had both similarities and differences in terms of their phonological awareness abilities. The cochlear implant group generally performed poorer than the hearing group on phonological tasks. Due to auditory deficits, children with cochlear implants were suspected to have impaired phonological awareness abilities. Age of implantation might be the confounding factor to develop the phonological skills. Researchers suggested that children with early cochlear implantation would be able to show comparable performance on their expressive language abilities and their speech production as their hearing peers in later years.11,5 The results might not reflect the exact developmental pattern or techniques of their phonological awareness abilities. A longitudinal study might be needed in order to show exactly how the phonological awareness abilities develop in children with cochlear implants.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Oral language skills are learned through hearing language in the environment. Hearing children hear the words of their language spoken thousands of times before they speak their first word. Children with hearing impairment typically gain access to their oral language later, after being fitted with amplification. The lack of accessibility to the sound of language also creates a problem when discussing phonological awareness skills.1

Other researchers in their study found that children with cochlear implants completed a reading comprehension task with greater accuracy than deaf children without cochlear implant.13 They concluded that the auditory information about speech provided by a cochlear implant may facilitate a deaf childs ability to decode or recode orthographic representations of speech into a speech code. Children with cochlear implants typically remain delayed in the acquisition of speech and language skills. Specifically, the speech production skills of children with cochlear implants are often significantly delayed, even after the children have had years of experience with their cochlear implant, and even when they are compared to younger children whose age is matched with the deaf childrens duration of cochlear implant experience.3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are especially grateful to Dr. A.K. Sinha, Director, AYJNIHH, for permitting us to do this study.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, M. J. (l990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

2. Chin, S. B. (2003). Children's consonant inventories after extended cochlear implant use. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46,849-862.

3. Chin, S. B., & Kaiser, C. L. (2000). Measurement of articulation in pediatric users of cochlear implants. The Volta Review, 102(4), 145-156.

4. Firszt, J. B., Holden, L. K., Skinner, M. W., Tobey, E. A., Peterson, A., Gaggl, W., Runge-Samuelson, C. L., & Wackym, P. A. (2004). Recognition of speech presented at soft to loud levels by adult cochlear implant recipients of three cochlear implant systems. Ear & Hearing, 25, 375-387.

5. Flipsen, P. (2008). Intelligibility of spontaneous conversational speech produced by children with cochlear implants: a review. Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 72, 559-564.

6. Hanson, V. L. (1991). Phonological processing without sound. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Liberman (pp. 153161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hearing-Impaired Adolescents. Unpublished honors dissertation, The University of Hong Kong.

7. Hoien, T., Lundberg, I., Stanovich, K. E., & Bjaalid, I. K. (1995). Components of phonological awareness. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 7: 171-188.

8. James, D., Rajput, K., Brown, T., Sirimanna, T., Brinton, J., & Goswami, U. (2005). Phonological awareness in deaf children who use cochlear implants. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 48(6), 1511-1528.

9. Law, I. K. Y. (1999). Phonological Awareness of Cantonese-Speaking Hearing-Impaired Adolescents. Unpublished honors dissertation, The University of Hong Kong.

10. Moog, J. S., & Geers, A. E. (2003). Epilogue: Major Findings, Conclusions, and Implications for Deaf Education. Ear & Hearing, 24, 121S-125S.

11. Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2007). Effects of early auditory experience on the spoken language of deaf children at 3 years of age. Ear & Hearing, 27(3), 286-298.

12. Paul, P. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing and literate thought. Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

13. Spencer, L. J., Tomblin, J. B., & Gantz, B. J. (1997). Reading skills in children with multichannel cochlear-implant experience. The Volta Review, 99(4), 193-202.

14. Stackhouse, J. & Wells, B. (1997). Children's Speech and Literacy Difficulties:A Psycholinguistic Framework. London: Whurr.

15. Sterne, A., & Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological awareness of syllables, rhymes, and phonemes in deaf children. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 41(5), 609-625.

16. Tyler, R. S., Fryauf-Bertschy, H., Kelsay, D. M. R., Gantz, B. J., Woodworth, G. P., & Parkinson, A. (1997). Speech perception by prelingually deaf children using cochlear implants. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 117(3), 180-187

17. Wilson, B. S., Finley, C. C., Lawson, D. T., Wolford, R. D., Eddington, D. K., & Rabinowitz, W. M. (1991). Better speech recognition with cochlear implants. Nature, 352, 236-238.

APPENDIX-I

FINAL TOOL F.M:- 50

Name:- Age/Sex:-

Type:- Hearing/CI Age of implantation:-

:

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. No Item

1 ()

2 ()

3 - ()

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 - ( ) ( )

6 - () ()

7 - () ()

8 - () ()

9 - () ()

10 - ( ) ( )

Total:-..

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 ( ) ( )

8 ( ) ( )

9 ( ) ( )

10 ( ) ( )

Total:-

-

- /

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - ( ) ( )

2 - ( ) ( )

3 - ( ) ( )

4 - ( ) ( )

5 - ( ) ( )

6 - ( ) ( )

7 - ( ) ( )

8 - ( ) ( )

9 - ( ) ( )

10 - ( ) ( )

Total:-.

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 ( ) ( )

8 ( ) ( )

9 ( ) ( )

10 ( ) ( )

Total:-

:-

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Item:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total:-..

APPENDIX-II

Example of raw data of hearing children F.M:- 50

Name:- Joydeep Dutta Age/Sex:- 8+yrs./M

Type:- Hearing/CI Age of implantation:-

:

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. No Item

1 ()

2 ()

3 - ()

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 - ( ) ( )

6 - () ()

7 - () ()

8 - () ()

9 - () ()

10 - ( ) ()

Total:-9

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 () ( )

8 ( ) ()

9 ( ) ( )

10 ( ) ( )

Total:-8

-

- /

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - ( ) ( )

2 - () ( )

3 - () ( )

4 - () ( )

5 - () ( )

6 - () ( )

7 - () ( )

8 - () ( )

9 - () ( )

10 - () ( )

Total:-10..

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 ( ) ()

8 () ( )

9 () ( )

10 () ( )

Total:-9

:-

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Item:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total:-10

APPENDIX-III

Example of raw data of CI children F.M:- 50

Name:- Rimi Maity Age/Sex:- 9yrs./F

Type:- Hearing/CI Age of implantation:-3yrs.

:

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. No Item

1 ()

2 ()

3 - ()

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 - ( ) ( )

6 - () ()

7 - () ()

8 - () ()

9 - () ()

10 - ( ) ( )

Total:-7.

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 () ( )

8 ( ) ()

9 () ( )

10 () ( )

Total:-6

-

- /

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 - () ( )

2 - () ( )

3 - () ( )

4 - () ( )

5 - () ( )

6 - () ( )

7 - () ( )

8 - () ( )

9 - () ( )

10 - () ( )

Total:-10.

-

-

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 -

2 -

3 -

Test Items:-

SL. NO Item

1 ( ) ( )

2 ( ) ( )

3 ( ) ( )

4 ( ) ( )

5 ( ) ( )

6 ( ) ( )

7 () ( )

8 () ( )

9 () ( )

10 () ( )

Total:-10

:-

:- ,

Practice Items:-

SL. NO Item

1

2

3

Test Item:-

SL. NO Item Answer

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total:-10..

Hearing childrenRhyme identificationRhyme productionSyllable blendingSyllable segmentationSyllable deletionOverall performance8.36000000000000486.539.96000000000000269.86000000000000489.944.63C.I. childrenRhyme identificationRhyme productionSyllable blendingSyllable segmentationSyllable deletionOverall performance7.14.59999999999999968.700000000000001198.537.9