Content uploaded by Nannette Nicholson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nannette Nicholson on Apr 17, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Volta Review, Volume 114(1), Spring/Summer 2014, 57–82
Trekking to the Top—Learning
to Listen and Talk: Changes in
Attitude and Knowledge After
a Family Camp Intervention
Nannette Nicholson, Ph.D., CCC-A; Kathy Shapley, Ph.D., CCC-SLP;
Patti Martin, Ph.D., CCC-A; Rebekah Ann Talkington, Au.D., CCC-A;
Teresa H. Caraway, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT
A camp-based conference was designed through collaborative efforts as a replicable
intervention for infants and young children newly identified with hearing loss and
their families. The educational curriculum was designed to target families choosing
listening and spoken language as a communication outcome for their child. One of
the goals of this conference was to promote parental empowerment and self-efficacy
utilizing a coaching model of family-centered intervention and engagement in a
shared learning environment. Pre- and post-conference program assessment of the
educational curriculum was conducted to evaluate changes in attitude and
knowledge. Results of the conference assessment show significant improvement in
parental attitude about the importance of early intervention and knowledge of
intervention principles. Results of this conference provide empirical evidence of the
value of camp-based family support interventions.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the concept of family-centered care has evolved
from community-based initiatives enhancing the well-being of families and
Nannette Nicholson, Ph.D., CCC-A, is an Associate Professor at the University of Arkansas
for Medical Sciences and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Kathy Shapley, Ph.D.,
CCC-SLP, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Patti Martin, Ph.D., CCC-A, is the Director of
Audiology and Speech Pathology at Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Rebekah Ann Talkington,
Au.D., CCC-A, is a Pediatric Audiologist at Eastern Virginia Medical School/Children’s
Hospital of the King’s Daughters. Teresa H. Caraway, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, LSLS Cert. AVT, is
Founder and President of Learning Innovation Associates, LLC and the Co-Founder and
former Co-Executive Director of Hearts for Hearing. Correspondence concerning this
manuscript may be addressed to Dr. Nicholson at nn@uams.edu.
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 57
children into federally funded programs focused on translating research into
evidence-based practice. At the core of all family support efforts is the
fundamental belief that increased family participation and engagement result
in improved intervention and educational outcomes for children. The current
challenge of Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs is the
implementation of existing policies and practices in ways that will enable and
empower families by increasing individual family and child capabilities and
strengths (White, Forsman, Eichwald, & Munoz, 2010). The method used to
engage parents of children with hearing loss as adult learners in an
environment conducive to shared learning is fundamental to meeting this
challenge.
Early Intervention
Early intervention for families of children with disabilities recognizes the
importance of the family as a system on outcomes of services. For example,
Bailey, Raspa, Humphreys, and Sam (2011) propose family outcomes are
improved when family-centered principles are embedded within program
activities. Within their framework, family outcomes are defined as under-
standing their child’s abilities and special needs, knowing their child’s rights,
advocating effectively for their child’s needs, helping their child develop and
learn, having support systems in place, and accessing the community.
Many children with special needs, including children who are deaf and hard
of hearing, are born to families with little prior knowledge about how to parent
a child with special needs (Miles, Holditch-Davis, Burchinal, & Nelson, 1999).
Parents of infants who are diagnosed with hearing loss must not only deal with
the unanticipated news about their child’s hearing loss, but take on the role of
being an advocate and an informed consumer about a complicated and
confusing array of options and interventions (Moeller, 2000). Best practices for
the design of services for children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their
families embrace the notion of involving parents as equal and active partners,
recognizing their central and ongoing importance in the intervention process,
acknowledging that services exist to assist parents in carrying out their child-
rearing responsibilities, and helping them achieve their dreams for their child
(Mahoney & Wheeden, 1998). This paradigm focuses on promoting family
strengths and defines a broad range of community services and resources as
early intervention rather than limiting the definition to professional services; it
also views professionals as responsive to family desires and goals rather than as
experts who determine the needs of the family (Robbins & Caraway, 2010).
Commitment to involving parents and family members as equal partners
within the framework of early intervention and education reflects the
understanding of the family system as a constant in a child’s life. One of the
primary principles embraced by proponents of EHDI programs and eloquently
58 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
stated by the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (2007) is that of family-
centered care: ‘‘The most important role for the family of an infant who is deaf
or hard of hearing is to love, nurture, and communicate with the baby. From this
foundation, families usually develop an urgent desire to understand and meet
the special needs of their infant. Families gain knowledge, insight, and
experience by accessing resources and through participation in scheduled
early intervention appointments including audiologic, medical, habilitative,
and educational sessions.’’
Family Camp as an Intervention
Despite the fact that child- and family-focused camps for children who are
deaf and hard of hearing have existed for more than 25 years (Folts, 2008; Gross,
2011), we were unable to locate any peer-reviewed studies reporting family
outcomes related to camp-based interventions for families and children who
are deaf and hard of hearing. A number of authors have reported on ‘‘ summer
camp’’ as educational experiences offered to meet the needs of special interest
groups or specific health populations (Heike et al., 2010; Huelsing, Kanafani,
Mao, & White, 2010; Maslow & Lobato, 2009, 2010; O’Mahar, Holmbeck,
Jandasek, & Zukerman, 2009; Pratt et al., 2009; Seal & Seal, 2011; Singh, Kable,
Guerrero, Sullivan, & Elsas, 2000). The majority of studies are reports of health-
specific, child-focused camp experiences related to chronic medical conditions
(i.e., asthma, autism, burn injury, cleft palate, diabetes, obesity, spina bifida),
often for adolescents and teens. Few studies published in peer-reviewed
journals examine family outcomes with regard to parent education and early
intervention camp experiences. Day and Kleinschmidt (2005) reported the
results of a pre- and post-camp survey with a follow-up telephone interview six
months after the camp to evaluate the efficacy of a family camp experience for
families of children with visual impairments. Walker, Barry, and Bader (2010)
examined pre- and post-treatment assessments for parental ratings of change
in adaptive social skills following a four-week child-focused camp interven-
tion. Both of these reports conclude that intervention provided within the
camp-based context yielded promising results.
O’Mahar et al. (2009) suggest the context offered by a camp-based
intervention format provides an opportunity to access groups of children with
a similar health condition and their families, caregivers, or guardians. They
suggest data might be gleaned through opportunities for child-focused
programs targeting language enrichment and development of social skills
with peers, while delivering family-focused interventions aiming toward
specific educational objectives. Although not specific to camp-based contexts,
Houston and Caraway (2010) postulate that through direct coaching, parents
and caregivers can learn techniques and appropriate language modeling that
facilitate auditory learning and spoken language. In addition, adult learning
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 59
principles endorse the idea that retention of information is enhanced when
content is taught in an appealing co ntext within a small group or social network
of other parents and/or family members in situations requiring active
participation (Das, Malick, & Khan, 2008; Dunst, Trivette, & Hamby, 2010;
Woods & Brown, 2011). Further evidence regarding parent education
employing active practice with coaching, including specific feedback and
reflection, showed increased maintenance and generalization of parent-
implemented social communication interventions on child outcomes (Dunst
et al., 2010; Woods & Brown, 2011). The purpose of this paper is to present
‘‘ Trekking to the Top—Learning to Listen and Talk’’ as a replicable collaborative
model for camp-based conferences employing adult learning principles, active
participation, and a coaching model to provide a family-centered early
intervention program. In addition, results of the program evaluation are
presented and used to inform best practices for family support interventions
for children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their families.
Methods
This study examined the results of the program evaluation using a pre- and
post-camp questionnaire from ‘‘ Trekking to the Top—Learning to Listen and
Talk,’’ a family-centered camp that served as the target intervention. This study
was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS IRB protocol no.
114668). This family camp was cosponsored by Arkansas Children’s Hospital
(Little Rock, AR) and Hearts for Hearing (Oklahoma City, OK) and was funded
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; no. 1H13HM000707-
01). Collaborative partners for the camp, held at Mount Sequoyah Retreat and
Conference Center located in Fayetteville, Arkansas, included Arkansas Hands
and Voices, the Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology at the
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences/University of Arkansas at Little
Rock, and the Department of Speech Pathology at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville. The family camp was designed for families of infants and toddlers
newly diagnosed with hearing loss who chose a listening and spoken language
outcome for their child. The family camp focused on the ongoing involvement
and education of parents as critical components of a comprehensive EHDI
system and employed the use of a pre- and post-camp questionnaire for
program assessment. Conference goals included the following:
To provide parent training in normal child development as well as an
understanding of hearing and hearing loss specific to their own child
and strategies to promote learning and spoken language
To promote parental self-efficacy by introducing current resources,
materials, and technology options, thereby facilitating the ongoing
decision-making process
60 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
To introduce families to state and federal legislation relative to children
who are deaf and hard of hearing, thereby increasing parental
confidence and the development of advocacy skills
To engage siblings as valuable partners in a family-centered approach to
intervention
To form a peer parent-to-parent network for continuing support by
connecting families to similar others through shared experiences and
interactions
To expose future speech and hearing professionals to children with
hearing loss through the supervised planning of developmentally
appropriate activities planned to stimulate language and promote
listening
Essential components used in establishing the camp were founded on a
collaborative care model and included identifying the key collaborators and
securing the necessary facilities, funding, and staff. The unique accommoda-
tions of Mount Sequoyah Retreat and Conference Center, with family cottages
and historic conference halls, served as the site for this family-centered
intervention, providing ample space for educational sessions and child
activities. Pre-planning included developing parent education components,
gathering child-specific case histories and current levels of functioning in order
to develop child-specific listening and language goals, organizing develop-
mentally appropriate child care activities, and conducting staff education in
coaching and mentoring models. Throughout the adult family educational
program offered at the conference/camp, emphasis was placed on teaching
information about the role of technology on auditory access, language learning,
and brain development as well as providing opportunities for parents and
caregivers to practice these essential skills. The curriculum was infused with
programming designed to develop a sense of empowerment and self-efficacy
through shared hope and confidence.
Curriculum and Camp Activities
The educational curriculum was designed to teach families about their
individual child’s hearing loss and the implications, the role of auditory access
in brain development, using daily routines to develop and expand language,
building parent-to-professional relationships, advocating for their child’s
needs, and the value of sharing their journey with other families. During the
participatory adult educational sessions, children with hearing loss and their
siblings were engaged in developmentally appropriate listening and language
activities designed to facilitate spoken language development. Adult educa-
tion instructors and child activity directors were audiologists and speech-
language pathologists employed by Arkansas Children’s Hospital or Hearts
for Hearing. Students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate audiology and
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 61
speech pathology programs were engaged to provide educational and child
activity support. Two families with older children who were deaf and hard of
hearing and had chosen spoken language as the communication method for
their child/children were recruited through Arkansas Hands and Voices and
participated as role models. In addition to modeling successful outcomes for
children with hearing loss, these families were present to encourage parent-to-
parent support and helped plan family evening activities. The family camp
sample overview and agenda are presented in Appendix A.
Camp Participants
Families with children aged birth to 3 years who were diagnosed with
hearing loss within the past year were invited to participate in the family
conference/camp. All child participants and their families were currently
receiving listening and spoken language services at either Hearts for Hearing in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, or Arkansas Children’s Hospital in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Family attendance included siblings and, in some cases, extended
family members or caregivers. Inclusion criteria for this retrospective report of
the pre- and post-conference program evaluation were (a) attendance during
the entire time the camp was scheduled (Friday at 5:00 p.m. until Sunday at
11:45 a.m.) and (b) completion of both pre- and post-program evaluation forms.
From a potential pool of 77 parents, extended family members, guardians,
and/or caregivers, 61 parents and caregivers met the inclusion criteria and
served as the study sample for this report by completing both pre- and post-
conference program evaluation forms. A total of 61 children who met the age,
diagnostic, and treatment criteria attended the camp, as did 12 of their siblings.
The camp/conference was staffed by six audiologists, 14 speech-language
pathologists, 17 graduate student assistants enrolled in audiology or speech-
language pathology programs from three state universities, and four parent
members representing Arkansas Hands and Voices.
Adult participants reported their relationship to child camp participants as
biological parent (N¼43), stepparent (N¼1), partner of parent (N¼1), or
grandparent (N¼16). Participants also reported marital status as married
(N¼58), divorced (N¼2), or living together (N¼1). In addition, although the
majority of adult participants were from the target states of Arkansas (N¼24)
and Oklahoma (N¼35), Texas was represented (N¼2). Primary language was
reported as English (N¼60) or Spanish (N¼3), suggesting that two participants
were bilingual. Additional adult demographic data, including age in years,
race/ethnicity, and education level, are shown in Table 1.
Characteristics of the 61 children with hearing loss who were related to the
adult participants meeting the inclusion criteria are shown in Table 2. There
were 21 female children and 40 male children. Nineteen of the children used
bilateral hearing aids, 30 children used bilateral cochlear implants, seven
62 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
children wore one hearing aid and one cochlear implant, four children wore a
unilateral cochlear implant, and one child wore a bone-anchored implant.
Additional child demographic data, including age in months, race/ethnicity,
and state of residence, are shown in Table 2.
Pre- and Post-Camp Questionnaire
A pretest-posttest design was used to evaluate the family outcomes of the
conference/camp. The pre- and post-camp questionnaire consisted of 27
questions designed to evaluate parent/caregiver perceptions. Content for the
assessment tool was informed from work by DesJardin (2004) in developing the
Scale of Parental Involvement and Self-Efficacy (SPISE). The format for the
assessment tool was similar to that developed by Young, Gascon-Ramos,
Campbell, and Bamford (2009) to evaluate early intervention services for
children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Content topics included in the
questionnaire reflected the conference curriculum across four broad categories:
listening and language (items 1–6), family support (items 7–15), advocating for
the child’s needs (items 16–23), and sharing information (items 24–27). For each
item, two questions were posed for a total of 54 responses. The first question
focused on the perception of importance or value (i.e., ‘‘ How important is this to
you?’’). The adult participants could select one of four choices: not important,
somewhat important, important, or very important. The second question for
each item focused on self-perception of knowledge about a topic (i.e., ‘‘ How
much do you know about this?’’). Adult participants could select one of three
options for this item: nothing, not enough, or enough. The questionnaire used
for program evaluation can be found in Appendix B.
Procedures
All adult family conference participants were given the opportunity to
complete pre- and post-conference evaluation forms at registration and during
the last session of the conference. To ensure that the pre- and post-camp
questionnaires could be paired for later analysis, the participant recorded their
name on a cover page on each of the evaluation forms. Immediately after the
conference, pre- and post-conference evaluation forms were matched by name
and assigned a number. Cover sheets with the names were removed from
conference assessment forms to ensure confidentiality.
Data Analysis
Responses to the demographic items as well as the 27 conference evaluation
items were coded and entered into a database. Descriptive statistics and
frequency distributions were generated for the adult and child demographic
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 63
Ta b l e 1. Demographics of adult participants (N¼61) who attended the family
conference/camp.
Adult Participant Demographics N
Age (Years)
Female (N¼36)
25 3
26–35 16
36–45 5
46–55 6
55 6
Male (N¼25)
25 2
26–35 9
36–45 6
46–55 3
55 5
Total 61
Race/Ethnicity
Female (N¼36)
White, Not Hispanic 28
Black, Not Hispanic 4
Hispanic 2
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1
Asian/Pacific Islander 1
Biracial 0
Male (N¼25)
White, Not Hispanic 16
Black, Not Hispanic 3
Hispanic 3
American Indian/Alaskan Native 1
Asian/Pacific Islander 0
Biracial 2
Total 61
Education Level
Female (N¼36)
No Degree 1
GED* 1
High School 5
Vocational Training 1
Some College 5
College Degree 23
Continued
64 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
data. Two overall scores representing parental attitude (possible range 27–108)
and parental knowledge (possible range 27–81) were summed from the
individual items. Paired t-tests were conducted on each of these summed
scores for comparisons. Data analysis was conducted using Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). A
significance level of p.025 was used for statistical significance.
Results
A total of 61 parents or caregivers attended the family camp and were
included in the data analysis. Of those completing both pre- and post-
conference program evaluations, 59% were female and 41% were male.
Demographic characteristics for conference attendees and campers are
described fully in the Methods section. The program evaluation form can be
found in Appendix B. A paired t-test was used to compare parents’ attitudes
(i.e., ‘‘How important?’’) before and after the camp experience (see Table 3 for
column totals and percentage of responses). On the pre-camp questionnaire,
the attitude scores ranged from 48 to 108 (M¼94.5, SD ¼11.4). On the post-
camp questionnaire, the attitude scores ranged from 40 to 108 (M¼100.3, SD¼
13.0). There was a statistically significant difference in the parents’ scores for
attitude on the pre-camp questionnaire and post-camp questionnaire, t(60) ¼
3.7, p,.000. Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d¼0.47 indicating a
moderate effect size. A paired t-test was used to compare parents’ knowledge
(i.e., ‘‘How much do you know?’’ ) before and after the camp experience. On the
pre-camp questionnaire the knowledge scores ranged from 0 to 80 (M¼57.9, SD
¼16.3). On the post-camp questionnaire the knowledge scores ranged from 13
to 81 (M¼68.2, SD¼14.1). There was a statistically significant difference in the
parents’ scores for knowledge on the pre-camp and post-camp questionnaire,
t(60)¼4.3, p,.000. Effect size was calculated using Cohen’s d¼0.68 indicating
Ta b l e 1 . Cont.
N
Male (N¼25)
No Degree 0
GED 0
High School 3
Vocational Training 3
Some College 12
College Degree 6
No Response 1
Total 61
*General Educational Development equivalency.
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 65
Ta b l e 2 . Demographics of child participants with hearing loss (N¼61) who
attended the family conference/camp.
Child Participant Demographics N
Age (Months)
Female (N¼21)
0–6 0
7–12 2
13–24 1
25–36 12
37 6
Male (N¼40)
0–6 1
7–12 1
13–24 3
25–36 15
37 20
Total 61
Race/Ethnicity
Female (N¼21)
White, Not Hispanic 12
Black, Not Hispanic 4
Hispanic 3
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0
Asian/Pacific Islander 0
Biracial 2
Male (N¼40)
White, Not Hispanic 29
Black, Not Hispanic 4
Hispanic 3
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0
Asian/Pacific Islander 0
Biracial 4
Total 61
State of Residence
Female (N¼21)
Arkansas 10
Oklahoma 9
Texas 2
Male (N¼40)
Arkansas 15
Oklahoma 23
Texas 2
Total 61
66 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
a moderate effect size. All changes between pre- and post-conference
evaluations were positive, indicating an increased perception of importance
and knowledge regarding intervention strategies for facilitating spoken
language with children who are deaf and hard of hearing.
Discussion and Conclusions
Results of the camp assessment demonstrate the efficacy of this educational
curriculum in a camp-based context. This intervention focused on facilitating
spoken language development and resulted in positive changes in parental
attitude about the importance and knowledge of spoken language develop-
ment. The principles of family-centered care—recognizing parents as partners,
respecting and supporting family choice, and focusing on family strengths—
were embedded within the program activities. As a best practice model for
camp implementation, adult learning methodology included activities that
required active engagement and parental involvement in acquiring, using,
evaluating, and reflecting on the new knowledge or practices introduced
(Dunst et al., 2010). Emphasis was placed on the importance of effective
communication as well as collaboration and coordination of services within a
flexible framework designed to achieve improved family outcomes as
described by Bailey et al. (2011). Our findings provide evidence to support
the use of a camp-based family conference as an educational intervention for
parents choosing listening and spoken language as the communication method
for their child with hearing loss. In addition, these findings lend support to the
validity of the EHDI Family Support Model (DesGeorges, 2010; Martin,
Nicholson, & Hall, 2012).
Much of what is recognized as early intervention has to do with coaching and
educating parents and caregivers. This model of early intervention serves to
extend the intervention available to the child by training the parents/
caregivers to use daily routines as language activities and opportunities to
provide additional language enrichment. The results of this analysis suggest
that the family camp education program, with simultaneous modeling of
listening and language enrichment skills offered concurrently with structured
activities for children, can result in measureable improvements in parent/
caregiver knowledge. These results provide empirical support for providing
parents with direct instruction regarding the relationship of accessing auditory
information via technology to facilitate listening and language development;
opportunities for guided practice in listening and language activities; family
support in terms of sharing their journey with existing communities as well as
developing relationships with professionals and other parents; and informa-
tion about advocating for their child’s needs, rights to services, and protection
via federal legislation. Results demonstrated that instruction provided in a
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 67
Table 3. Pre- and post-conference responses for 27 items in response to two questions: ‘‘ How important is this for you now?’’
and ‘‘How much do you feel you know about this?’’ For each it em the coding was as follows: 1a ¼not import ant, 2a ¼somewhat
important, 3a ¼imp ortant, 4a ¼very important, NRa ¼no response, 1b ¼nothing, 2b ¼not enough, 3b ¼enough, and NRb ¼no
response. The column total is shown in each cell for pre- and post- responses, followed by the percentage of responses in
parentheses. The items were grouped into four categories, coded by abbreviations in the first column: listening and language
(LL; items 1–6), family support (FS; items 7–15), advocacy (A; items 16–23), and sharing information (SI; items 24–27).
Item
Query How important is this for you now? How much do you feel you know about this?
Condition 1a 2a 3a 4a NRa 1b 2b 3b NRb
1 LL Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (18) 47 (77) 3 (5) 4 (7) 29 (48) 25 (41) 3 (5)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (10) 53 (87) 2 (3) 1 (2) 20 (33) 36 (59) 4 (7)
2 LL Pre-camp 0 (0) 1 (2) 13 (21) 43 (70) 4 (7) 3 (5) 27 (44) 28 (46) 3 (5)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (11) 53 (87) 1 (2) 0 (0) 17 (28) 42 (69) 2 (3)
3 LL Pre-camp 3 (5) 2 (3) 18 (30) 24 (39) 14 (23) 22 (36) 11 (18) 21 (34) 7 (11)
Post-camp 0 (0) 2 (3) 6 (10) 50 (82) 3 (5) 4 (7) 15 (25) 39 (64) 3 (5)
4 LL Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 58 (95) 0 (0) 0 (2) 42 (69) 1 (26) 3 (5)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 57 (93) 1 (2) 0 (0) 20 (33) 40 (66) 1 (2)
5 LL Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) 56 (92) 1 (2) 1 (2) 38 (62) 17 (28) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) 57 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (30) 43 (70) 0 (0)
6 LL Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (15) 52 (85) 0 (0) 0 (0) 29 (48) 28 (46) 4 (7)
Post-camp 0 (0) 1 (2) 2 (3) 57 (93) 1 (2) 0 (0) 15 (25) 45 (74) 1 (2)
7 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 3 (5) 7 (11) 48 (79) 3 (5) 2 (3) 21 (34) 33 (54) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (10) 53 (87) 2 (3) 1 (2) 13 (21) 44 (72) 3 (5)
8 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 57 (93) 1 (2) 1 (2) 15 (25) 40 (66) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (35) 59 (97) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (18) 49 (80) 1 (2)
9 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 60 (98) 0 (0) 1 (2) 10 (16) 46 (75) 4 (7)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 60 (98) 0 (0) 0 (0) 11 (18) 50 (82) 0 (0)
10 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 1 (2) 4 (7) 54 (89) 2 (3) 1 (2) 17 (28) 33 (54) 10 (16)
Post-camp 0 (0) 1 (2) 4 (7) 56 (92) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (15) 51 (84) 1 (2)
11 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 2 (3) 11 (18) 47 (77) 1 (2) 3 (5) 34 (56) 20 (33) 4 (7)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 8 (13) 53 (87) 0 (0) 1 (2) 22 (36) 35 (57) 3 (5)
Continued
68 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
Table 3. Cont.
Item
Query How important is this for you now? How much do you feel you know about this?
Condition 1a 2a 3a 4a NRa 1b 2b 3b NRb
12 FS Pre-camp 8 (13) 25 (41) 13 (21) 13 (21) 2 (3) 13 (21) 24 (39) 17 (28) 7 (11)
Post-camp 5 (8) 12 (20) 11 (18) 32 (52) 1 (2) 4 (7) 25 (41) 27 (44) 5 (8)
13 FS Pre-camp 12 (20) 18 (30) 12 (20) 18 (30) 1 (2) 12 (20) 25 (41) 16 (26) 8 (13)
Post-camp 9 (15) 11 (18) 7 (11) 33 (54) 1 (2) 5 (8) 24 (39) 27 (44) 5 (8)
14 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 5 (8) 22 (36) 33 (54) 1 (2) 6 (10) 30 (49) 20 (33) 5 (8)
Post-camp 1 (2) 2 (3) 6 (10) 49 (80) 3 (5) 1 (2) 25 (41) 31 (51) 4 (7)
15 FS Pre-camp 0 (0) 6 (10) 20 (33) 34 (56) 1 (2) 6 (10) 36 (59) 13 (21) 6 (10)
Post-camp 0 (0) 2 (3) 8 (13) 49 (80) 2 (3) 1 (2) 22 (36) 35 (57) 3 (5)
16 A Pre-camp 0 (0) 3 (5) 21 (34) 37 (61) 0 (0) 1 (2) 25 (41) 31 (51) 4 (7)
Post-camp 0 (0) 2 (3) 9 (15) 48 (79) 2 (3) 0 (0) 13 (21) 45 (74) 3 (5)
17 A Pre-camp 0 (0) 2 (3) 8 (13) 49 (80) 2 (3) 1 (2) 25 (41) 30 (49) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 6 (10) 53 (87) 2 (3) 0 (0) 11 (18) 47 (77) 3 (5)
18 A Pre-camp 0 (0) 1 (2) 12 (20) 47 (77) 1 (2) 1 (2) 30 (49) 25 (41) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) 55 (90) 2 (3) 0 (0) 17 (28) 41 (67) 3 (5)
19 A Pre-camp 1 (2) 1 (2) 9 (15) 48 (79) 2 (3) 7 (11) 27 (44) 22 (36) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 58 (95) 2 (3) 0 (0) 21 (34) 37 (61) 3 (5)
20 A Pre-camp 2 (3) 0 (0) 4 (7) 53 (87) 2 (3) 5 (811) 33 (54) 18 (30) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5) 55 (90) 3 (5) 0 (0) 20 (33) 35 (57) 6 (10)
21 A Pre-camp 2 (3) 1 (2) 14 (23) 39 (64) 5 (8) 9 (15) 21 (34) 24 (39) 7 (11)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (8) 54 (89) 2 (3) 3 (5) 22 (36) 33 (54) 3 (5)
22 A Pre-camp 0 (0) 3 (5) 10 (16) 45 (74) 3 (5) 12 (20) 22 (36) 22 (36) 5 (8)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 (7) 55 (90) 2 (3) 4 (7) 20 (33) 33 (54) 4 (7)
23 A Pre-camp 1 (2) 1 (2) 6 (10) 51 (84) 2 (3) 1 (2) 39 (64) 17 (28) 4 (7)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) 58 (95) 2 (3) 0 (0) 17 (28) 40 (66) 4 (7)
24 SI Pre-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 9 (15) 50 (82) 2 (3) 0 (0) 35 (57) 20 (33) 6 (10)
Post-camp 0 (0) 0 (0) 2 (3) 57 (93) 2 (3) 0 (0) 20 (33) 37 (61) 4 (7)
25 SI Pre-camp 2 (3) 3 (5) 10 (33) 35 (57) 1 (3) 5 (8) 30 (49) 23 (38) 3 (5)
Post-camp 1 (2) 4 (7) 8 (13) 46 (75) 2 (3) 1 (2) 17 (28) 39 (64) 4 (7)
Continued
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 69
Table 3. Cont.
Item
Query How important is this for you now? How much do you feel you know about this?
Condition 1a 2a 3a 4a NRa 1b 2b 3b NRb
26 SI Pre-camp 2 (3) 7 (11) 23 (38) 28 (46) 1 (2) 9 (15) 30 (49) 19 (31) 3 (5)
Post-camp 2 (3) 6 (10) 9 (15) 42 (69) 2 (3) 0 (0) 20 (33) 37 (61) 4 (7)
27 SI Pre-camp 1 (2) 8 (13) 22 (36) 29 (48) 1 (2) 10 (16) 27 (44) 20 (33) 4 (7)
Post-camp 3 (5) 5 (8) 10 (16) 41 (67) 2 (3) 0 (0) 20 (33) 36 (59) 5 (8)
70 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
manner consistent with adult learning principles is a highly effective means of
achieving these knowledge-based objectives and goals.
This camp served as a powerful example of sharing the journey with other
parents who have had similar experiences. DesGeorges (2010) states that
whether parents/family members have the opportunity to speak one on one,
chat online, or attend support groups or other activities, communicating with
other parents and families is a valued component of the circle of support.
Family support models may be an informal process of matching families with
similar stories within a given community to formalized programs where
trained parents embedded in the system provide systematic, knowledgeable
support (DesGeorges, 2010). Parent-to-parent support recognizes that the birth
of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing affects everyone in the family and that,
despite the best intention of the professional, parents receive a type of support
from those who have ‘‘ been there’’ that professionals simply cannot provide
(Martin et al., 2012). Santelli, Turnbull, and Higgins (1997) indicated that two of
the benefits received through parent-to-parent contact were emotional support
and informational support as reported on a national survey of 374 parent-to-
parent programs. Shilling et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review of studies
reporting on peer support for parents of children with chronic disabling
conditions and drew four themes from the qualitative synthesis: shared social
identity, learning from the experience of others, personal growth, and
supporting others. It is generally accepted that parent-to-parent support
affords families an opportunity to share information, brainstorm and express
feelings, learn acceptance, experience hope, gain self-confidence, increase self-
efficacy and advocacy skills, and practice coping skills (Martin et al., 2012).
Data from the current study provide evidence to support the value of parent-to-
parent support provided through a camp context and suggest the need for
further research.
Strengths and Limitations
Although participants represented a diverse educational background,
approximately one half were college graduates. In addition, the majority of
participants were female Caucasians between the ages of 25 and 45. All
conference participants valued listening and spoken language and exercised
family choice in this option. Conference attendees were self-selected in that
they took time to participate in this collaborative effort, demonstrating their
implicit recognition of the role of family engagement in improved family and
child outcomes. In general, this suggests that conference attendees inherently
valued relationships with professionals and were motivated learners. In
addition, as generational members who grew up during the digital information
age, the majority of parent/caregiver participants may be multi-taskers who
are likely to be technologically savvy, experiential learners. We hope that this
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 71
report will help others adapt the model to their individual needs and replicate
the efforts. Overall, the information provided by this report contributes to the
ongoing efforts to contribute to the growing body of literature that
demonstrates the valuable role of family support for families of children who
are deaf and hard of hearing. In addition, the program evaluation indicated that
intervention delivered through a camp model was highly effective in achieving
the goals of delivering critical information to adult learners; providing children
with structured, language-rich opportunities to practice communication; and
providing college students with interdisciplinary, family-centered pre-service
training with children who are deaf and hard of hearing and their families.
There are several possible limitations in our study that could potentially
impede application to other populations. Our participants were limited to
those receiving services at one of the two sponsoring agencies. Participants
who attended were likely those who were highly motivated to successfully
accomplish their communication goals for their children with hearing loss.
Our inclusion criteria and process may have therefore biased the results by
including participants who would benefit more due to motivation while
excluding those less motivated as a function of the self-selection process.
Although our goals did not include measurement of short-term child
outcomes, we were remiss in considering potential assessments for this
option during the planning process. Our family outcome findings would have
been better supported if a six-month follow-up interview had been conducted
to measure long-term retention and implementation of knowledge and skills.
With these limitations in mind, we recognize that further research is needed to
evaluate the effects of camp intervention and recommend that future
program evaluation methods be coupled with program procedures that link
family outcomes with child outcomes. We recommend including the
relationship among the age of the child at diagnosis and intervention, type
of technology, consistency of technology use, frequency and duration of
listening and language therapy, and other variables known to impact
outcomes in an effort to better understand the impact of camp intervention
models.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the families and their children for their participation
in the conference/camp. In addition, appreciation is expressed to the students
and professionals who so graciously volunteered their time to make the dream
of this collaborative endeavor into a reality. We would like to thank Wendy
DeMoss, founder of DeMoss Consulting LLC, formerly with Hearts for
Hearing, for her invaluable assistance in the organization and implementation
of the family camp. Teresa Caraway is the co-founder and former executive co-
director of Hearts for Hearing. This conference was funded by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention no. 1H13HM000707-01.
72 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
References
Bailey, D. B., Raspa, M., Humphreys, B. P., & Sam, A. M. (2011). Promoting
family outcomes in early intervention. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan
(Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 668–684). New York, NY: Routledge.
Das, K., Malick, S., & Khan, K. (2008). Tips for teaching evidence-based
medicine in a clinical setting: Lessons from adult learning theory—Part one.
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 101, 493–500.
Day, J. N., & Kleinschmidt, J. (2005). The efficacy of family camp experience for
families who have children with visual impairments. Journal of Visual
Impairment and Blindness, 99, 775–779.
DesGeorges, J. (2010). Family support and cultural competence. In L. Schmeltz
(Ed.), The NCHAM e-book: A resource guide for early hearing detection and
intervention (EHDI). Logan, UT: NCHAM, Utah State University. Retrieved
from http://infanthearing.org/ehdi-ebook/index.html.
DesJardin, J. (2004). Family empowerment—Supporting language develop-
ment in young children who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Volta Review,
106(3), 275–298.
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2010). Meta-analysis of the
effectiveness of four adult learning methods and strategies. International
Journal of Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning, 3(1), 91–112. Retrieved
from http://research.hkuspace.hku.hk/journal/ijcell/.
Folts, D. K. (2008). Summer programs provide deaf children with a different
perspective. The Hearing Journal, 63(5), 49.
Gross, A. (2011). Postcards from summer camp. Hearing Health, 27(2), 14–18.
Heike, C. L., Leavitt, D., Aspinall, C., Andrews, M., Carey, H., & Ose, M. (2010).
Craniofacial summer camp: An educational experience for campers, camp
staff, and the craniofacial team. Plastic Surgical Nursing, 30(1), 6–11.
Houston, T. K., & Caraway, T. (2010). For children with hearing loss: The times,
they are a changing. Perspectives on Hearing and Hearing Disorders in Children,
20(2), 48–55.
Huelsing, J., Kanafani, N., Mao, J., & White, N. H. (2010). Camp jump start:
Effects of a residential summer weight-loss camp for older children and
adults. Pediatrics, 125(4), e884–e890.
Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (2007). Position statement: Principles and
guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs. Pediatrics,
120, 898–921.
Ling, D. (1976). Speech and the hearing-impaired child: Theory and practice.
Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard
of Hearing.
Ling, D. (1989). Foundations of spoken language for the hearing-impaired child.
Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard
of Hearing.
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 73
Mahoney, G., & Wheeden, C. (1998). Effects of teacher style on the engagement
of preschool aged children with special learning needs. Journal of
Developmental and Learning Disorders, 2(2), 293–315.
Martin, P., Nicholson, N., & Hall, C. (2012). Family support in early hearing
detection and intervention (EHDI) systems. Perspectives on Hearing and
Hearing Disorders in Childhood, 22(1), 11–21.
Maslow, G. R., & Lobato, D. (2009). Diabetes summer camps: History, safety,
and outcomes. Pediatric Diabetes, 10, 278–288.
Maslow, G. R., & Lobato, D. (2010). Summer camps for children with burn
injuries: A literature review. Journal of Burn Care and Research, 31(5), 740–749.
Miles, M. S., Holditch-Davis, D., Burchinal, P., & Nelson, D. (1999). Distress and
growth outcomes in mothers of medically fragile infants. Nursing Research,
48(3), 129–140.
Moeller, M. P. (2000). Early intervention and language development in children
who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, 106(3), e43–e51.
O’Mahar, K., Holmbeck, G. N., Jandasek, B., & Zukerman, J. (2009). A camp-
based intervention targeting independence among individuals with spina
bifida. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35(8), 848–856.
Pratt, K., Lamson, A. L., Collier, D. N., Harris, N., Ballard, S., Saporito, M., et al.
(2009). Camp Golden Treasures: A multidisciplinary weight-loss and a
healthy lifestyle camp for adolescent girls. Family Systems and Health, 27(1),
116–124.
Robbins, A. M., & Caraway, T. (2010). Missing the mark in early intervention for
babies who are hard of hearing or deaf learning spoken language. Perspectives
on Hearing and Hearing Disorders in Children, 20(2), 41–47.
Santelli, B., Turnbull, A., & Higgins, C. (1997). Parent to parent support and
health care. Pediatric Nursing, 23(3), 303–306.
Seal, N., & Seal, J. (2011). Developing healthy childhood behavior: Outcomes of
a summer camp experience. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 17, 428–
434.
Shilling, V., Morris, C., Thompson-Coon, J., Ukoumunne, O., Rogers, M., &
Logan, S. (2013). Peer support for parents of children with chronic disabling
conditions: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 55(7), 602–609.
Singh, R. H., Kable, J. A., Guerrero, N. V., Sullivan, K. M., & Elsas II, L. J. (2000).
Impact of a camp experience on phenylalanine levels, knowledge, attitudes,
and health beliefs relevant to nutrition management of phenylketonuria in
adolescent girls. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(7), 797–803.
Walker, A. N., Barry, T. D., & Bader, S. (2010). Therapist and parent ratings of
changes in adaptive social skills following a summer treatment camp for
children with autism spectrum disorders: A preliminary study. Child Youth
Care Forum, 39, 305–322.
White, K. R., Forsman, I., Eichwald, J., & Munoz, K. (2010). The foundations and
evolution of EHDI. In L. Schmeltz (Ed.), The NCHAM e-book: A resource guide
74 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
for early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI). Logan, UT: NCHAM, Utah
State University. Retrieved from http://infanthearing.org/ehdi-ebook/
index.html.
Woods, J. J., & Brown, J. A. (2011). Integrating family capacity-building and
child outcomes to support social communication development in young
children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(3),
235–246.
Young, A., Gascon-Ramos, M., Campbell, M., & Bamford, J. (2009). The design
and validation of a parent-report questionnaire for assessing the character-
istics and quality of early intervention over time. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Deaf Education, 14(4), 422–435.
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 75
Appendix A: Sample Weekend Schedule
Trekking to the Top: Learning to Listen and Talk
Day Time Event Location Agency Responsible
Thursday
Staff Meeting 3:00–8:00 p.m. Staff Planning/Prep/
Dinner
Small Conference ACH
Friday
Staff Breakfast 8:00–9:00 a.m. Staff Breakfast Cafeteria ACH/HH/H&V
Staff Preparation 9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Staff Meetings/Prep Assigned Rooms ACH/HH/H&V
Staff Lunch 12:00–1:00 p.m. Staff Lunch Cafeteria ACH
Registration 2:00–3:00 p.m. Staff at Stations
Check In 3:00–5:00 p.m. Check In/Pre-camp
questionnaire
Cafeteria HH/ACH
Family Kick-Off 5:00–6:00 p.m. Meet the Families Large Conference ACH/H&V
Dinner 6:00–6:30 p.m. Dinner Cafeteria ACH
Drop Off
Children
6:30–6:45 p.m. Drop Off Children for
Child Care Activities
Assigned Rooms ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Opening Session
(Snacks Served)
6:45–8:15 p.m. Trekking to the Top:
Learning to Listen and
Talk
Large Conference HH
Saturday
Wake-Up Walk 7:00–7:30 a.m. Optional Hike/Walk
Breakfast 7:30–8:15 a.m. Breakfast Cafeteria HH
Drop Off
Children
8:30–8:50 a.m. Drop Off Children for
Child Care Activities
Small Conference ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Morning Session 9:00–11:30 a.m. Blazing the Trail to the
Top (Growing the Brain
Through Listening)
Large Conference HH
Pick Up Children 11:30–11:45 a.m. Child Care Pick-Up Assigned Rooms ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Lunch 12:00–1:00 p.m. Lunch Cafeteria HH
Break Out Sessions
(Repeat)
1:00–1:45 p.m. 1. The Doctor Is In Large Conference (Demo
CART)
ACH
2. Ear Gear Etcetera
Continued
76 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
Appendix A: Cont.
Trekking to the Top: Learning to Listen and Talk
Day Time Event Location Agency Responsible
Break Out Sessions
(Repeat)
1. The Doctor is In Large Conference (Demo
CART)
ACH
2. Ear Gear Etcetera
Drop Off Hearing
Siblings
2:45–3:00 p.m. Drop Off Siblings for
Child Care Activities
[Keep Child (DHH)
With Parent]
Assigned Rooms ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Afternoon Session
With Children
3:00–3:45 p.m. Guided Practice Activities Assigned Rooms HH
Drop Off DHH
Children
3:45–4:00 p.m. Drop Off Child (DHH) for
Child Care Activities
Small Conference ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Afternoon Session 4:00–5:15 p.m. Lightening the Load:
Sharing the Adventure
Large Conference HH
Pick Up Children 5:15–5:30 p.m. Child Care Pick-Up Assigned Rooms ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Dinner 5:30–6:15 p.m. Dinner Cafeteria HH
Evening Session 6:30–8:00 p.m. Sounds of Celebration:
Drumming Circle
Large Conference ACH
Fire Pit Fun 8:30–9:30 p.m. Optional Fire Pit Fun
(s’mores, guitar,
singing)
Patio ACH/H&V
Sunday
Breakfast 7:30–8:30 a.m. Breakfast Cafeteria HH
Drop Off
Children
8:45–9:00 a.m. Drop Off Children for
Child Care Activities
Small Conference ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Morning Opening
Session
9:00–9:30 a.m. Finding Your Way
Through Uncharted
Territory: Word of the
Weekend
Large Conference ACH
Continued
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 77
Appendix A: Cont.
Trekking to the Top: Learning to Listen and Talk
Day Time Event Location Agency Responsible
Morning Session 9:30–11:00 a.m. Panel: Parents and
College-Age Kids
Large Conference ACH
Morning Closing
Session
11:00–11:30 a.m. Reaching the Summit:
May All Your Dreams
Come True
Large Conference ACH
Evaluation and Wrap-Up
Pick Up Children 11:30–11:45 a.m. Child Care Pick-Up Small Conference ACH/UA/UALR/UAMS
Check Out/Lunch 11:45 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Check Out and Pick Up
Sack Lunch
Cafeteria HH/ACH
Team Wrap-Up 1:00–2:30 p.m. Staff Debriefing/
Celebration
Cafeteria ACH
Abbreviations include the following: ACH ¼Arkansas Children’s Hospital; HH ¼Hearts for Hearing; H&V ¼Arkansas Hands and Voices; UA ¼
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville; UALR ¼University of Arkansas at Little Rock; UAMS ¼University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences; CART ¼
Communication Access Real-time Translation; DHH ¼deaf or hard of hearing.
78 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
Appendix B: Pre- and Post-Conference Program Evaluation Form
Item Concept
How important is this to you? How much do you know about this?
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Very
Important Nothing
Not
Enough Enough
1. How to care for and
troubleshoot your child’s
cochlear implant/hearing
aids
2. How to place/remove and
adjust the cochlear
implant/hearing aid
controls (programs)
3. Using the Ling Six Sound
Test
4. How to help encourage your
child’s communication
skills
5. Information about how to
communicate with your
child
6. Knowledge about how to
play with your child
7. Talking with the medical
staff when your child
visits a medical center
8. Having a team of
professionals to whom you
have access and who
know your child and
family
Continued
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 79
Appendix B: Cont.
Item Concept
How important is this to you? How much do you know about this?
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Very
Important Nothing
Not
Enough Enough
9. Having an audiologist to
whom you have access
and who knows your child
and family
10. Having an early
interventionist (speech-
language pathologist, deaf
educator, etc.) to whom
you have access and who
knows your child and
family
11. Information about available
support services
12. Having contact with adults
who are deaf/hard of
hearing
13. Having contact with a
teacher of the deaf
14. Getting support in your
existing community
15. Talking with parents in the
same type of situation and
learning about their
experience
Continued
80 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
Appendix B: Cont.
Item Concept
How important is this to you? How much do you know about this?
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Very
Important Nothing
Not
Enough Enough
16. Explaining your child’s
hearing loss and its
implications to friends and
neighbors so that they will
understand
17. Making decisions about your
child’s amplification and
intervention as a family
18. Revising decisions about
your child’s amplification
and intervention plans as
needed
19. Advocating for your child
20. Understanding early
intervention and how to
access and fund these
services
21. What an Individualized
Family Service Plan (IFSP)
is and how it pertains to
your child
22. What an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) is
and how it pertains to
your child
23. Information about your
child’s potential
Continued
Changes in Attitude and Knowledge After a Family Camp Intervention 81
Appendix B: Cont.
Item Concept
How important is this to you? How much do you know about this?
Not
Important
Somewhat
Important Important
Very
Important Nothing
Not
Enough Enough
24. Balancing family life with
your child’s needs
associated with their
hearing loss
25. Sharing reading material
about your child’s hearing
loss and intervention with
extended family members
26. Sharing CD material about
your child’s hearing loss
and intervention with
extended family members
27. Sharing DVD material about
your child’s hearing loss
and intervention with
extended family members
Note: Ling Six Sound Test (oo, ah, ee, shh, sss, mm) (Ling, 1976, 1989)
82 Nicholson, Shapley, Martin, Talkington, & Caraway
