Has anyone read this new study?

[seb]

Really? Did you know she was claiming the EXACT same things about oral deaf kids with HEARING AIDS back in the 80's and 90's? And of course she'd waffle and say that her study is true. Oralism is her lifeblood. That's how she MAKES MONEY. If her study was disproved, she LOSES the money.

Her primary source of income is from being a tenured professor at the University of Texas. So what your basically saying is that this woman who has not one but three doctorates is a fraud? And what exactly is your educational background and what research have you done to dispute her findings? Sorry, but I think I will believe her findings before I would yours. That is unless you can provide published studies to dispute her findings.

 

[Barbaro]

Once again without actual proof all you have offered is your opinion.

I too know people with a CI or CI's who can actually carry on a conversation, have jobs with public interaction, can talk on the phone, etc. and these are adults who aren't kids who were implanted before the age of two.

Yes, they are proof. I can tell you more, but I've been promised to not discuss it further, and I have been to Callie center myself. You are in denial. You just don't want to see the truth.

 

[Barbaro]

Yes, 38,000 in the entire world. That includes anyone implanted under the age of 18, in the last 20 years. This study could only follow children implanted before age 3, in the United States, that they could follow for 5+ years. That is a very small number of children.

Stop making it up. That's not what it said in the link.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Did you read the article? Apparently not. Here, let me expand what I quoted.




YOU seem to be turning a DEAF ear to anything that disputes your precious study.

I'm so sorry, you are right, I misread this number. About 4 million babies are born each year. Of those, 2 to 3 of every thousand will have hearing loss. That is about 8,000 a year. But, only 4-11 out of every 10,000 will be a cochlear implant candidate. That is between 1,200 and 4,000 (let's say 2500 to split the difference). So, we 2,500 children who are eligible for a CI. Let's say that 50% of them get a CI before age 3 (because not everyone chooses a CI and not everyone is able to get one early) that is 1,250 children each year. Let's pretend we try to follow all of them.

In research, a 50% return rate is outstanding. That means that we would get half of the parents to say yes, that they will be a part of our study. That gives us 625 kids to follow (are you starting to see that 100 is actually pretty good!) Of those, 2.5% will have a severe cognitive impairment bringing us down to 610. You would need to follow every single deaf child given a cochlear implant in the country to get a group that big. They couldn't do that, so they picked 6 of the largest CI centers and followed all their children implanted under age 3.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Yes, Callier Center is essentiyally an ORAL school. That is most likely the reason for the high results. If you take away the Callier center kids, I have a feeling the successes would drop like a rock. So suburban wealthy kids with the resources of an oral school are able to learn to speak. Not that big of a surprise. However if you looked at the BIG PICTURE of implantees, you'd see a VAREITY of results all over the board. And of course AG Bell and the Cailler Center seem not to understand that just b/c you get the kid talking, it doesn't mean that they have fluency in the langugage or that they will keep up with advancing with spoken language. Our special ed classrooms are FILLED with dhh kids who while they can hear and speak, may not have advanced spoken language skills. In other words they function just like one of those kids who 20 years ago, would have transferred to Clarke, CID, or St Joseph's in fourth grade/middle school, due to hitting the oral deaf ceiling. Heck, my friend Sidney was struggling as an oral/mainstreamed kid. Guess what? She went to a Hands and Voices get togehter and a woman there, told her and her mom that what she was going through was VERY VERY common. I'm betting that while Callier Center doesn't have a lot of pure oral failures, it ALSO does not produce a lot of superstars.

They specifically measured the fluency and complexity of spoken language, in late elementary school. They also measured the ability to understand spoken language.

Do you have any research that shows that "our special ed classrooms are filled with d/hh kids who can hear and speak"?

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Really? Did you know she was claiming the EXACT same things about oral deaf kids with HEARING AIDS back in the 80's and 90's? And of course she'd waffle and say that her study is true. Oralism is her lifeblood. That's how she MAKES MONEY. If her study was disproved, she LOSES the money.

She doesn't make money from her research.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Oh and I notice you never responded about the AVT. Is it because you cannot respond?

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. I saw where you said that the premise of AVT (auditory brain development) was disproven, but I didn't see where you had a follow up or proof of that.

 

[seb]

Yes, they are proof. I can tell you more, but I've been promised to not discuss it further, and I have been to Callie center myself. You are in denial. You just don't want to see the truth.

How are they the proof? Unless you actually have some actual proof all you have provided is hear say evidence, your belief and your opinion .
All I have seen from this study is one that has provided their findings and put them out for review and now it's up to other researchers to either confirm them or dispute them with their own findings.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Cardon, G., Campbell, J., & Sharma, A. (2012). Plasticity in the developing auditory cortex: Evidence from children with sensorineural hearing loss and auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 23, (6), 396-411(16).

Caskey, M., Stephens, B., Tucker, R., & Vohr, B. (2011). Importance of parent talk on the development of preterm infant vocalizations. Pediatrics, 128(5), 910- 916.

Chen, S. H., Kennedy, M., & Zhou, Q. (2012). Parents’ expression and discussion of emotion in the multilingual family: Does language matter? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(4), 365-383.

Ching, T.Y. (2016). Population outcomes of children with hearing loss: Early treatment is crucial, but not sufficient. American Academy of Audiology Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.

Dettman, S.J., Dowell, R.C., Choo, D., Arnott, W., Abrahams, Y., Davis, A., Dornan, D., Leigh, J., Constantinescu, G., Cowan, R., & Briggs, R.S. (2016). Long term communication outcomes for children receiving cochlear implants younger than 12 months: A multi-centre study. Otology and Neurotology, 37(2): e82–e95.

Dillon, H., Cowan, R., & Ching, T.Y. (2013). Longitudinal outcomes of children with hearing impairment (LOCHI). International Journal of Audiology, 52, (Suppl 2: S2-3). doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.866448.

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2007). Outcomes of an auditory-verbal program for children with hearing loss: A comparative study with a matched group of children with normal hearing. The Volta Review, 107(1), 37–54.

Dornan, D., Hickson, L, Murdoch, B., & Houston, T. (2009). Longitudinal study of speech perception, speech, and language for children with hearing loss in an auditory-verbal therapy program. The Volta Review, 109(2-3), 61–85.

Dornan, D., Hickson, L., Murdoch, B., Houston, T., & Constantinescu, G. (2010). Is auditory-verbal therapy effective for children with hearing loss? The Volta Review, 110(3), 361–387.

Eriks-Brophy, A., Durieux-Smith, A., Olds, J., Fitzpatrick, E., Duquette, C., & Whittingham, J. (2012). Communication, academic, and social skills of young adults with hearing loss. The Volta Review, 112(1), 5–35.

Eriks-Brophy, A., Gibson, S., & Tucker, S. (2013). Articulatory error patterns and phonological process use of preschool children with and without hearing loss. The Volta Review, 113(2), 87–125.

Eriks-Brophy, A., Ganek, H., & DuBois, G. (2016). Evaluating the research and examining outcomes of auditory-verbal therapy. In W. Estabrooks, K. MacIver-Lux, & E. A. Rhoades, eds. Auditory-verbal therapy. (pp. 35-94). San Diego: Plural Publishing.

Estabrooks, W., MacIver-Lux, K., & Rhoades, E.A. (2016). Auditory-verbal therapy. San Diego: Plural Publishing.

Fagan, M.K. (2014). Frequency of vocalization before and after cochlear implantation: Dynamic effect of auditory feedback on infant behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 126, 328-338.

Fairgray, E., Purdy, S., & Smart, J. (2010). Effects of auditory-verbal therapy for school-aged children with hearing loss: An exploratory study. The Volta Review, 110(3), 407–433.

Fulcher, A., Purcell, A., Baker, E., & Munro, N. (2012). Listen up: Children with early identified hearing loss achieve age appropriate speech/ language outcomes by 3 years-of-age. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 76(12), 1785–1794.

Geers, A.E., Mitchell, C.M., Warner-Czyz, A., Wang, N.Y., Eisenberg, L.S., & the CDaCI Investigative Team. (2017). Early sign language exposure and cochlear implantation benefits. Pediatrics, 140(1). e20163489

Geers, A.E., Strube, M.J., Tobey, E.A., Pisoni, D.B., & Moog, J.S. (2011). Epilogue: factors contributing to long-term outcomes of cochlear implantation in early childhood. Ear & Hearing, 32(1 Suppl.), 84S–92S.

Geers, A. (2016). Emergence of literacy in Children with prelingual profound hearing loss. American Academy of Audiology Conference, Phoenix, Arizona.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1999). The social world of children: Learning to talk. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company.

Hogan, S., Stokes, J., & Weller, I. (2010). Language outcomes for children of low income families enrolled in auditory-verbal therapy. Deafness and Education International, 12(4), 204–216.

Houston, D. M., et al. (2012). Word learning in deaf children with cochlear implants: Effects of early auditory experience. Developmental Science, 15(3), 448-461.

Kral, A. (2013). Auditory critical periods: A review from system’s perspective. Neuroscience, 247, 117–133.

Kral, A., Kronenberger, W. G., Pisoni, D. B., & O’Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Neurocognitive factors in sensory restoration of early deafness: A connectome model. The Lancet Neurology, 15(6), 610-621.

Kral, A., & Lenarz, T. (2015). How the brain learns to listen: deafness and the bionic ear. E-Neuroforum, 6(1):21-28.

Kral, A., & Sharma, A. (2012). Developmental neuroplasticity after cochlear implantation. Trends in Neurosciences, 35(2): 111-122.

Leigh, J.R., Dettman, S.J., & Dowell, R.C. (2016). Evidence-based guidelines for recommending cochlear implantation for young children: Audiological criteria and optimizing age at implantation. International Journal of Audiology, S55, S9-S18.

Lew, J., Purcell, A., Doble, M., & Lim, L. (2014). Hear here: Children with hearing loss learn words by listening. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 78(10), 1716–1725.

Lim, S. R, & Hogan, S.C. (2017). Research findings for AV practice. In E.A. Rhoades, & J. Duncan, eds. Auditory-verbal practice: Family centered early intervention, 2nd ed. (pp. 52-64). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

McCreery, R.W., Walker, E.A., Spratford, M., Bentler, R., Holte, L., Roush, P., Oleson, J., Van Buren, J., & Moeller, M.P. (2015). Longitudinal Predictors of Aided Speech Audibility in Infants and Children. Ear & Hearing, 36, pp. 24S-37S.

Moon, C., Lagercrantz, H., & Kuhl, P. K. (2013). Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception after birth: A two-country study. Acta Pædiatrica, 102(2),156-160.

Morrison, H. (2012). Co-articulation in early vocalizations by children with hearing loss: A locus perspective. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 26(3), 288–309.

Musiek, F. E. (2009). The human auditory cortex: Interesting anatomical and clinical perspectives. Audiology Today, 21(4), 26–37.

Robertson, L. (2014). Literacy and deafness: Listening and spoken language, 2nd ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing, Inc.

Sahli, A. & Belgin, E. (2011). Researching auditory perception performance of children using cochlear implants and being trained by auditory-verbal therapy. The Journal of International Advanced Otology, 7(3), 385–390.

Sininger, Y.S., Grimes, A., & Christensen, E. (2010). Auditory development in early amplified children: Factors influencing auditory-based communication outcomes in children with hearing loss. Ear & Hearing, 31(2), 166-185.

Suskind, D. (2015). Thirty million words: Building a child’s brain. New York: Penguin Random House.

Von Muenster, K., & Baker, E. (2014). Oral communicating children using a cochlear implant: Good reading outcomes are linked to better language and phonological processing abilities. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 78(3), 433–444.

Vouloumanos, A. & Werker, J.F. (2007). Listening to language at birth: Evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science, 10(2), 159-164.

Zupan, B., & Sussman, J.E. (2009). Auditory preferences of young children with and without hearing loss for meaningful auditory–visual compound stimuli. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42, 381–396.

 

[AmputeeOT]

Correlation does not equal causation!

This data from this study, depending on the author's particular interest, could be interpreted in the exact opposite way that it is being interpreted by the authors.

Like this: Kids who did poorer on various oral scores X benefited more from signing.

Same data, different conclusion.

It doesn't show that sign *caused* oral delays, only that sign is *correlated* with oral delays

Which makes sense, because orally-delayed kids are more likely to use sign. Because they are orally delayed.

 

[AmputeeOT]

She doesn't make money from her research.

She most likely does make money from her research. Researchers, especially tenured ones, typically receive grants in order to conduct research.

 

[Barbaro]

How are they the proof? Unless you actually have some actual proof all you have provided is your belief and your opinion.
All I have seen from this study is one that has provided their findings and put them out for review and now it's up to other researchers to either confirm them or dispute them with their own findings.

Care to tell what my opinion is? Your post is very vague.

You can go to scientific journal websites where researchers and psychologists made comments on this study and determined the study is flawed.

 

[Barbaro]

Correlation does not equal causation!

This data from this study, depending on the author's particular interest, could be interpreted in the exact opposite way that it is being interpreted by the authors.

Like this: Kids who did poorer on various oral scores X benefited more from signing.

Same data, different conclusion.

It doesn't show that sign *caused* oral delays, only that sign is *correlated* with oral delays

Which makes sense, because orally-delayed kids are more likely to use sign. Because they are orally delayed.

I would like to know if those deaf children in study use ASL or SEE or any form of sign communication. You see, in North Dallas, many deaf children at public schools are taught with SEE, not ASL. That is one of the flaws in the study.

 

[seb]

She most likely does make money from her research. Researchers, especially tenured ones, typically receive grants in order to conduct research.

Yes, and it cost money to conduct the research.

 

[seb]

Care to tell what my opinion is? Your post is very vague.

You can go to scientific journal websites where researchers and psychologists made comments on this study and determined the study is flawed.

Please provide the links. Since you made the accusations it's up to you to defend your comments. As I said it's only hear say, opinion or your belief until you do.

 

[seb]

I would like to know if those deaf children in study use ASL or SEE or any form of sign communication. You see, in North Dallas, many deaf children at public schools are taught with SEE, not ASL. That is one of the flaws in the study.

Have you actually read the study? If not maybe you should and many of your questions will be answered.

 

[seb]

It doesn't show that sign *caused* oral delays, only that sign is *correlated* with oral delays

Which makes sense, because orally-delayed kids are more likely to use sign. Because they are orally delayed.

It could also be the opposite too. When I first read the study it came off as pretty much common sense to me that the kids who signed the least would do the best on word rec scores and language skills.

 

[Reba]

I would like to know if those deaf children in study use ASL or SEE or any form of sign communication. You see, in North Dallas, many deaf children at public schools are taught with SEE, not ASL. That is one of the flaws in the study.

Along with that, who taught them the signs and in what manner? Not all "sign language" instruction is equal. Also, how was the signing reinforced? Were the children adequately exposed to fluent signers with whom they could communicate during their language-formative years?

 

[Barbaro]

Have you actually read the study? If not maybe you should and many of your questions will be answered.

Yes, I have except footnotes and references. I still have some readings to do. I have way too questions for the study. I consider asking one of the authors myself at Callier Center if she is available when I have a chance to visit there in North Dallas for Christmas this year.

Please provide the links. Since you made the accusations it's up to you to defend your comments. As I said it's only opinion or your belief until you do.

You still didn't say what my opinion is. What accusations I have made? What are they? It is not difficult to answer my questions, don't you think? You can find many medical journal websites. Just type Ann Geer and any word that related to the study. Here is one of the links I read- you can read the comments there.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/08/peds.2016-3489

 

[Barbaro]

Along with that, who taught them the signs and in what manner? Not all "sign language" instruction is equal. Also, how was the signing reinforced? Were the children adequately exposed to fluent signers with whom they could communicate during their language-formative years?

Exactly. They added those parent interviews to the study, but they didn't do observation on their parents. How fluent are their parents?

My old regular terp from the church in North Dallas is a schoolteacher. Believe it or not, she is a level 3 cert. terp. She doesn't believe in ASL. Her belief is that all deaf children at schools should be taught with SEE because of the reading and writing skills. That's what she does at her school.