Demographic and Audiological Profiles of
Deaf Children in Texas with Cochlear Implant

Thomas E. Allen, Brenda W. Rawlings, and Elizabeth Remington (1993)
American Annals of the Deaf, Vol. 138, No.3, 260-266

This paper reports the findings of a study that examined the demographic, educational and audiological characteristics of a sample of children in Texas who had received cochlear implants. Children who had received implants and children who had not during were compared. Differences between the two groups are discussed in the context of the criteria that have been published in the literature for selecting implant candidates. The data presented are from the 1991-92 Texas Survey of Hearing Impaired Children and Youth. Results indicate that although the published selection criteria were predictive of the characteristics of the implanted sample, there was a degree of flexibility in applying the criteria to choose implant recipients. Audiological comparisons revealed that cochlear implants recipients experience greater reductions in average hearing thresholds than do users of conventional aids, although these findings should be viewed as preliminary.


  • Allen, T.E. (1992). Subgroup differences in educational placement of deaf students. (5), 381-388.
  • Hellman, S., Chute, P., Kretschmer, R., Nevins, M., Parisier, S., & Thurston, L. (1991). The development of a children's implant profile. (2), 77-81.
  • Moog, J., & Geers, A. (1991). Educational management of children with cochlear implants. (2), 69-76.
  • Northern, J. (1986). Selection of children for cochlear implantation. (4), 341-347.
  • Staller, S.,Beiter, A., Brimacombe, J., Mecklenburg, D., & Arndt, P. (1991). Pediatric performance with the Nucleus 22 channel cochlear implant system. (Supplement), 126-135.

[Last modified: 2011.12.05 16:50:34. by Kevin Cole]

DISCLAIMER: This website contains documents with terms that may be considered by today's reader as outdated and even offensive. For example, the term "hearing impairment" is sometimes used as a category for levels of hearing loss, such as hard of hearing and deaf. Some people now see cultural identification and communication preference as defining characteristics behind terms such as hard of hearing and deaf, and they do not favor terms conveying medical distinctions and loss. Yet we recognize that removing and changing terms may alter the precise meaning of the scientific author. A solution may be found by expanding the scope of future research to include non-medical perspectives.
Valid HTML 5 Valid CSS 3 WAVE (WebAIM) Approved