| Title |
School failure in students who are normal-hearing or deaf: with or without cochlear implants
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-1927-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ivone Duarte, Cristina Costa Santos, Guilhermina Rego, Rui Nunes |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the impact of cochlear implants on the school failure of deaf who attend mainstream classes by comparing them to their normal-hearing peers as well as deaf without cochlear implants. This case-control study included participants aged 8-18 years. The number of school years failed was obtained from school records. The greatest differences in achievement levels were found between hearing students and those who were deaf without cochlear implants. Cochlear implants provide educational opportunities for hearing-impaired students, yet those without cochlear implants remain at a great disadvantage. These findings suggest that measures promoting greater equity and quality for all deaf students allow achievement levels closer to those of the not impaired. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#14,839,922
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#835
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,901
of 297,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#73
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.