Abstract
Abstract
Background
The present study aimed to test the hypothesis stating that the cognitive potential of individuals with deafblindness is equal to those without a deafblind condition, an assumption that until now has been empirically unsubstantiated within the field of deafblindness.
Methods
To explore the assumption, 15 children and adolescents with CHARGE underwent cognitive assessment with WISC-V using a sequential two-level assessment design. The 1st level involved standardized test conditions. The 2nd level was designed as a continuation of the performances obtained from the 1st level and involved accommodations to compensate for sensory motor impairment. Statistical procedures involved the sample as a whole and when divided into two subgroups: (i) participants with CHARGE without deafblindness; (ii) participants with CHARGE and deafblindness using the 1st level scores as base line.
Results
Although results showed significantly lower scores in the deafblind subgroup with standardized procedures, they approximated the others after accommodating for their sensory deficits. This positive increase proved significant.
Conclusion
Findings supported the assumption of equal cognitive potential of individuals with and without deafblindness. Results indicated that the children and adolescents with deafblindness had most effect of the accommodations, enabling them to approximate the results of the subgroup without deafblindness. These gains were attributed enhanced accessibility endorsed by the accommodations and represented the participants latent cognitive dispositions only realized under certain circumstances.
Funder
The Signo Foundation and Signo Resource Centre
The SOR Foundatiom
University of Oslo
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. Pagon RA, Graham JM, Zonaina JI, Yong S. Coloboma, congenital heart disease and choanal atresia with multiple anomalies: CHARGE association. J Pediatr. 1981;99(2):223–7.
2. Davenport SLH, Hefner MA, Mitchell JA. The spectrum of clinical features in CHARGE syndrome. Clin Genet. 1986;29(4):298–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.1986.tb01258.
3. Deuce GD. The education of learners with CHARGE syndrome. Br J Spec Educ. 2017;44(4):376–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12183.
4. Bendixen TK, Costain K, Damen S, Einarsson V, Gibson J, Gullvik T, et al. Revealing hidden potentials. Assessing cognition in individuals with congenital deafblindness. Stockholm: Nordic Welfare Centre. 2020. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1464021/FULLTEXT01.pdf.
5. Dalby DM, Hirdes JP, Stolee P, Strong JG, Poss J, Tjam EY, et al. Characteristics of individuals with congenital and acquired deaf-blindness. J Vis Impair Blind. 2009;103:93–102.