Background: This study compares the mental health and psychological response of students with or without hearing loss during the recurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic in Beijing, the capital of China. It explores the relevant factors affecting mental health and provides evidence-driven strategies to reduce adverse psychological impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We used the Chinese version of depression, anxiety, and stress scale 21 (DASS-21) to assess the mental health and the impact of events scale—revised (IES-R) to assess the COVID-19 psychological impact. Results: The students with hearing loss are frustrated with their disability and particularly vulnerable to stress symptoms, but they are highly endurable in mitigating this negative impact on coping with their well-being and responsibilities. They are also more resilient psychologically but less resistant mentally to the pandemic impacts than the students with normal hearing. Their mental and psychological response to the pandemic is associated with more related factors and variables than that of the students with normal hearing is. Conclusions: To safeguard the welfare of society, timely information on the pandemic, essential services for communication disorders, additional assistance and support in mental counseling should be provided to the vulnerable persons with hearing loss that are more susceptible to a public health emergency.

Background/Objectives: The study was aiming to determine the test–retest repeatability of DEX or CH as single sedative agents on ABR indices by analyzing data from initial test and retest. We also preliminarily explored the correlation between sleep deprivation and onset time of sedation in group DEX and group CH, respectively. Methods: We collected data from two groups of children sedated with either DEX (n = 20, 40 ears) or CH (n = 20, 40 ears). Paired- samples t-tests and Bland–Altman plots were used to evaluate repeatability between the initial test and retest. Pearson correlation analysis was used to measure the relationship between the average onset time of sedation and the average duration of sleep deprivation in both groups. Results: Within each sedative group, no significant differences were observed in ABR indices between the initial test and retest. Additionally, in group DEX, the mean onset time was 12.15 ± 4.40 min and the mean sleep deprivation duration was 442.80 ± 85.91 min, with no correlation between them (r = 0.01, p = 0.96). In group CH, the mean onset time was 27.55 ± 15.70 min and the mean sleep deprivation duration was 455.10 ± 90.94 min, showing a significant negative correlation (r = −0.97, p = 0.00). Conclusions: ABR indices exhibited high repeatability when DEX and CH were used as a sedative in pediatric ABR examinations. The choice of sedative agent in clinical practice should be individualized, taking into account institutional protocols and clinical requirements.