首页> 外文期刊>Research in developmental disabilities >Definitions of deafblindness and congenital deafblindness
【24h】

Definitions of deafblindness and congenital deafblindness

机译:耳聋和先天性耳聋的定义

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In order to compile knowledge on deafblindness (DB) and congenital deafblindness (CDB), one important factor is comparison of results between different scientific studies. In an attempt to do a systematic review of the literature on cognitive assessment and CDB, considerable difficulties in determining eligibility of the studies were encountered due to heterogeneity in definitions and inclusion criteria used in the articles. The present systematic review aims to provide both an overview of this terminological and methodological heterogeneity and suggestions for better future research practices. A systematic review of definitions used in (N= 30) studies employing psychological assessment of people with CDB served as a sample of the scientific literature on DB and CDB. Absent or heterogeneous definitions and inclusion criteria regarding both DB and CDB are evident in the sample. Fifty percent of the studies reported no definition of DB and 76.7% reported no definition of CDB. Main discrepancies are: (1) medical/functional versus ability/functioning definitions regarding DB; and (2) different criteria for onset of DB in the case of defining CDB (e.g. age versus developmental level). The results of this study call attention to a scientifically inadequate approach to the study of DB and CDB. Findings indicate that clear guidelines for sample descriptions of the DB and/or CDB populations are needed. It is suggested that studies including DB and CDB participants provide the following information: definitions of DB and CDB used; severity of sensory impairments; level of sensory ability in relation to mobility, access to information, and communication; age at onset of DB; and communication as well as language ability at onset of DB.
机译:为了汇编有关失聪(DB)和先天性失聪(CDB)的知识,一个重要因素是比较不同科学研究之间的结果。在试图对认知评估和CDB的文献进行系统回顾时,由于文章中使用的定义和纳入标准存在异质性,因此在确定研究资格时遇到了相当大的困难。本系统综述旨在提供这种术语和方法异质性的概述,并为更好的未来研究实践提供建议。对使用CDB患者进行心理评估的(N = 30)研究中使用的定义的系统综述,是有关DB和CDB的科学文献的样本。关于DB和CDB的缺乏或异类定义和包含标准在样本中显而易见。 50%的研究报告未定义DB,76.7%的报告未定义CDB。主要差异是:(1)关于DB的医学/功能与功能/功能定义; (2)在定义CDB的情况下,DB发病的标准不同(例如年龄与发育水平)。这项研究的结果提醒人们注意科学上不足的DB和CDB研究方法。结果表明,需要针对DB和/或CDB种群的样本描述的明确指南。建议包括DB和CDB参与者在内的研究提供以下信息:使用的DB和CDB的定义;感觉障碍的严重程度;与机动性,获取信息和交流有关的感觉能力水平; DB发病的年龄; DB刚开始时的沟通能力和语言能力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号