Achieving consensus in a review of the Queensland Minimum Standards of Practice - Early Intervention for Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and their Families
Tracks
6
Deaf and hard of hearing
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I)
Early childhood education
Early intervention
Early language
Early years education
Expressive language
Hearing loss
Innovative practice
| Sunday, June 15, 2025 |
| 11:45 AM - 11:55 AM |
Overview
Vanessa Bond
Details
⏫ Research insights
⏲️ 12.35pm - 12.55pm
⌛20-minutes
📚 Assumed knowledge of attendees: Foundational (new/casual familiarity with the topic e.g. treated a single case)
⏲️ 12.35pm - 12.55pm
⌛20-minutes
📚 Assumed knowledge of attendees: Foundational (new/casual familiarity with the topic e.g. treated a single case)
Presenter
Ms Erin West
Achieving consensus in a review of the Queensland Minimum Standards of Practice - Early Intervention for Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and their Families
Presentation summary
Background. Whilst error patterns in spoken languages are well researched, limited data exists regarding error patterns used by child learners of Auslan. Past research has typically described errors displayed by individual children in sign languages such as British Sign Language (BSL) or American Sign Language (ASL) which differ from Auslan. Whilst markedness is proposed to influence handshape use in Auslan, there has not been handshape data available to support this notion.
Aim. To describe the error patterns in handshape use in a group of young children learning Auslan and consider the possible impact of markedness.
Method. A novel template was created and implemented to enable Deaf Educational Staff who are Auslan users to document spontaneous signs used within the classroom. This yielded 3849 handshapes from 3166 signs used by 44 children aged 3 - 6 years who were enrolled in a bilingual Auslan/English program across a two-year period.
Results. Coding and analysis of the 3849 handshapes demonstrated higher frequency of handshapes: B, 1, S, 5 and Bent 5. These handshapes were also produced with high accuracy; from 89 – 94%. These data were compared to the current model of proposed handshape acquisition levels in ASL by Boyes Braem (1990).
The similarities and differences between errors in this corpus and previous research will be discussed. The implications of these preliminary data with regard to possible marked and unmarked handshapes in Auslan will be outlined.
Conclusions. The results of this study may be used to inform expectations for handshape use when children begin using Auslan and what errors would be considered typical. These preliminary data could be used to develop an expected trajectory for Auslan production and a standardised test for handshape acquisition.
Aim. To describe the error patterns in handshape use in a group of young children learning Auslan and consider the possible impact of markedness.
Method. A novel template was created and implemented to enable Deaf Educational Staff who are Auslan users to document spontaneous signs used within the classroom. This yielded 3849 handshapes from 3166 signs used by 44 children aged 3 - 6 years who were enrolled in a bilingual Auslan/English program across a two-year period.
Results. Coding and analysis of the 3849 handshapes demonstrated higher frequency of handshapes: B, 1, S, 5 and Bent 5. These handshapes were also produced with high accuracy; from 89 – 94%. These data were compared to the current model of proposed handshape acquisition levels in ASL by Boyes Braem (1990).
The similarities and differences between errors in this corpus and previous research will be discussed. The implications of these preliminary data with regard to possible marked and unmarked handshapes in Auslan will be outlined.
Conclusions. The results of this study may be used to inform expectations for handshape use when children begin using Auslan and what errors would be considered typical. These preliminary data could be used to develop an expected trajectory for Auslan production and a standardised test for handshape acquisition.
Refrences
Boyes Braem, P. (1990). Acquisition of the handshape in American Sign Language: A preliminary analysis. In From Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children (pp. 107-127). Springer.
Henner, J., Novogrodsky, R., Reis, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2018). Recent issues in the use of signed language assessments for diagnosis of language disorders in signing Deaf and Hard of Hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(4), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny014
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge University Press (CUP).
Morgan, G. (2006). ‘Children are just lingual’: The development of phonology in British Sign Language (BSL). Lingua, 116(10), 1507-1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.010
Morgan, G., Barrett-Jones, S., & Stoneham, H. (2007). The first signs of language: Phonological development in British Sign Language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070014
Rice, K. (2007). Markedness in phonology. In P. d. Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (pp. 79-98). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511486371.005
Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Barker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery for Australian sign language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.1.18
Watts, E., & Rose, Y. (2020). Markedness and implicational relationships in phonological development: A cross-linguistic investigation. International journal of speech-language pathology, 22(6), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1842906
Webster, J., & Safar, J. (2020). Ideologies behind the scoring of factors to rate sign language vitality. Language & Communication, 74, 113-129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.003
West, E. & Dettman, S. (2024). A new method for documenting sign language productions in schools. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(3), 994-1001. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-23-00189
Henner, J., Novogrodsky, R., Reis, J., & Hoffmeister, R. (2018). Recent issues in the use of signed language assessments for diagnosis of language disorders in signing Deaf and Hard of Hearing children. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 23(4), 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/eny014
Johnston, T., & Schembri, A. (2007). Australian Sign Language (Auslan): An introduction to sign language linguistics. Cambridge University Press (CUP).
Morgan, G. (2006). ‘Children are just lingual’: The development of phonology in British Sign Language (BSL). Lingua, 116(10), 1507-1523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.07.010
Morgan, G., Barrett-Jones, S., & Stoneham, H. (2007). The first signs of language: Phonological development in British Sign Language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 28(1), 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716407070014
Rice, K. (2007). Markedness in phonology. In P. d. Lacy (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology (pp. 79-98). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511486371.005
Schembri, A., Wigglesworth, G., Johnston, T., Leigh, G., Adam, R., & Barker, R. (2002). Issues in development of the test battery for Australian sign language morphology and syntax. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(1), 18–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/7.1.18
Watts, E., & Rose, Y. (2020). Markedness and implicational relationships in phonological development: A cross-linguistic investigation. International journal of speech-language pathology, 22(6), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2020.1842906
Webster, J., & Safar, J. (2020). Ideologies behind the scoring of factors to rate sign language vitality. Language & Communication, 74, 113-129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.06.003
West, E. & Dettman, S. (2024). A new method for documenting sign language productions in schools. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(3), 994-1001. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_LSHSS-23-00189
**********
Erin West (she/her) is a speech pathologist who has worked in paediatrics for the past 17 years. She completed her Bachelor of Speech Pathology at Flinders University in 2006 and Masters of Communication Disorders through Macquarie University in 2013.
Erin is particularly interested in the ways that research data collection can be embedded within clinical practice. Her research is focused on building the repository of knowledge on the development of Auslan (the sign language of the Deaf in Australia). Erin submitted her PhD thesis on this topic in 2025.
Mrs Vanessa Bond
Children's Health Queensland
Achieving consensus in a review of the Queensland Minimum Standards of Practice - Early Intervention for Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and their Families
11:45 AM - 12:05 PMPresentation summary
The Queensland Minimum Standards of Practice - Early Intervention for Children who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and their Families (the ‘minimum standards’) was developed in 2015 by the Healthy Hearing Early Intervention Working Group to address issues of disparate and inequitable early intervention in speech pathology in Queensland, Australia. Since then, changes have occurred to the hearing healthcare landscape, necessitating review.
The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on items to be included in the revision of the minimum standards.
A modified eDelphi study was conducted from May-September 2024. A steering group, consisting of representatives from five key early intervention services and a consumer, reviewed the current minimum standards and proposed reworded or new items. Next, panellists, identified as experienced clinicians or researchers, completed two eDelphi surveys where they were asked to rate the importance of each standard on a nine-point Likert scale and provide comments. Consensus for each item was defined a priori as >70% rating 7-9, and <15% rating 1-3. The steering group met after Round One to refine items for Round Two.
The steering group revisions resulted in 28 items, which were presented to the panellists in Round One. Overall, 41 panellists were recruited in this round, and 27 items met consensus. Subsequent to open-ended feedback, two modified items were presented to panellists in Round Two. In total, 35 (85%) of panellists completed Round Two and consensus was achieved for all items.
This study achieved expert consensus for a set of minimum care standards that are recommended to ensure family-centred early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Dissemination and implementation of these standards across different settings is now required to support adequate service planning and to ensure families are accessing best practice care.
The aim of this study was to achieve expert consensus on items to be included in the revision of the minimum standards.
A modified eDelphi study was conducted from May-September 2024. A steering group, consisting of representatives from five key early intervention services and a consumer, reviewed the current minimum standards and proposed reworded or new items. Next, panellists, identified as experienced clinicians or researchers, completed two eDelphi surveys where they were asked to rate the importance of each standard on a nine-point Likert scale and provide comments. Consensus for each item was defined a priori as >70% rating 7-9, and <15% rating 1-3. The steering group met after Round One to refine items for Round Two.
The steering group revisions resulted in 28 items, which were presented to the panellists in Round One. Overall, 41 panellists were recruited in this round, and 27 items met consensus. Subsequent to open-ended feedback, two modified items were presented to panellists in Round Two. In total, 35 (85%) of panellists completed Round Two and consensus was achieved for all items.
This study achieved expert consensus for a set of minimum care standards that are recommended to ensure family-centred early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Dissemination and implementation of these standards across different settings is now required to support adequate service planning and to ensure families are accessing best practice care.
Refrences
1. Children’s Health Queensland Hospital and Health Service (2020). Queensland Minimum Standards of Practice, Early intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their families (Version 2). Retrieved from https://www.childrens.health.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/174805/hh-min-stds-prac-qld.pdf Accessed January 4, 2024
2. Ching, T. Y. C. (2015). Is early intervention effective in improving spoken language outcomes of children with congenital hearing loss? American Journal of Audiology, 24(3), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007
3. Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y., Button, L., Seeto, M., Zhang, V., Whitfield, J., M. Gunnourie, L. Martin & Marnane, V. (2018). Spoken language and everyday functioning in 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. International journal of audiology, 57(sup2), S55-S69. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1370140.
4. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2000). Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Year 2000 Position Statement. Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Audiol Today, 12, 6-27.
5. Moeller, M. P., Gale, E., Szarkowski, A., Smith, T., Birdsey, B. C., Moodie, S. T., ... & Holzinger, D. (2024). Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Introduction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 29(SI), SI3-SI7.
6. Nair, R., Aggarwal, R., & Khanna, D. (2011, October). Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. In Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism (Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 95-105). WB Saunders.
7. Nott, P., Cowan, R., Brown, P. M., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Early language development in children with profound hearing loss fitted with a device at a young age: Part I—The time period taken to acquire first words and first word combinations. Ear and hearing, 30(5), 526-540.
8. Retamal‐Walter, F., Waite, M., & Scarinci, N. (2022). Identifying critical behaviours for building engagement in telepractice early intervention: An international e‐Delphi study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 57(3), 645-659.
9. Scarinci, N., Erbasi, E., Moore, E., Ching, T. Y., & Marnane, V. (2018). The parents’ perspective of the early diagnostic period of their child with hearing loss: Information and support. International journal of audiology, 57(sup2), S3-S14. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1301683.
10. Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153-156.
11. Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Universal newborn hearing screening programs and developmental outcomes. Audiological Medicine, 1(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/16513860310002031
12. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Mason, C. A., Wiggin, M., & Chung, W. (2020). Early intervention, parent talk, and pragmatic language in children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 146(Supplement_3), S270-S277. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-0242F.
2. Ching, T. Y. C. (2015). Is early intervention effective in improving spoken language outcomes of children with congenital hearing loss? American Journal of Audiology, 24(3), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJA-15-0007
3. Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y., Button, L., Seeto, M., Zhang, V., Whitfield, J., M. Gunnourie, L. Martin & Marnane, V. (2018). Spoken language and everyday functioning in 5-year-old children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. International journal of audiology, 57(sup2), S55-S69. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1370140.
4. Joint Committee on Infant Hearing. (2000). Joint Committee on Infant Hearing Year 2000 Position Statement. Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Audiol Today, 12, 6-27.
5. Moeller, M. P., Gale, E., Szarkowski, A., Smith, T., Birdsey, B. C., Moodie, S. T., ... & Holzinger, D. (2024). Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Introduction. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 29(SI), SI3-SI7.
6. Nair, R., Aggarwal, R., & Khanna, D. (2011, October). Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development. In Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism (Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 95-105). WB Saunders.
7. Nott, P., Cowan, R., Brown, P. M., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). Early language development in children with profound hearing loss fitted with a device at a young age: Part I—The time period taken to acquire first words and first word combinations. Ear and hearing, 30(5), 526-540.
8. Retamal‐Walter, F., Waite, M., & Scarinci, N. (2022). Identifying critical behaviours for building engagement in telepractice early intervention: An international e‐Delphi study. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 57(3), 645-659.
9. Scarinci, N., Erbasi, E., Moore, E., Ching, T. Y., & Marnane, V. (2018). The parents’ perspective of the early diagnostic period of their child with hearing loss: Information and support. International journal of audiology, 57(sup2), S3-S14. DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2017.1301683.
10. Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: an adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153-156.
11. Yoshinaga-Itano, C. (2003). Universal newborn hearing screening programs and developmental outcomes. Audiological Medicine, 1(3), 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/16513860310002031
12. Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Mason, C. A., Wiggin, M., & Chung, W. (2020). Early intervention, parent talk, and pragmatic language in children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 146(Supplement_3), S270-S277. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-0242F.
**********
Vanessa is a certified practicing paediatric speech pathologist who graduated from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor of Speech pathology in 2013, and Flinders University with a Graduate Certificate in Clinical Education in 2021. Vanessa has worked clinically with Hearing Impairment and Cochlear Implant caseloads (The Queensland Children’s Hospital – Children’s Health Queensland), in community and education settings with Deaf/Blind caseloads (Vision Australia), and in rural/regional/remote outreach with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children diagnosed with conductive hearing loss (Deadly Ears – Children’s Health Queensland). Vanessa currently acts as the Early Intervention Lead – Advanced Speech Pathologist at the Healthy Hearing Program, Children’s Health Queensland. She has a special interest in workforce education, and enablement of equitable and timely access to high quality early intervention for children with a hearing loss.
The information contained in this program is current at of the time of publishing but is subject to changes made without notice.
Disclaimer: © (2024) The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited. All rights reserved.
Important Notice, please read: The views expressed in this presentation and reproduced in these materials are not necessarily the views of, or endorsed by, The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited ("the Association"). The Association makes no warranty or representation in relation to the content, currency or accuracy of any of the materials comprised in this presentation. The Association expressly disclaims any and all liability (including liability for negligence) in respect of use of these materials and the information contained within them. The Association recommends you seek independent professional advice prior to making any decision involving matters outlined in this presentation including in any of the materials referred to or otherwise incorporated into this presentation.
.
