Has anyone read this new study?

[Teacherofthedeaf]

HARM?!?!?!? Oh lord. Since this is a Geers study, you know how they define good? It's not "quality of language" or having a higher verbal IQ. It's b/c Geers is one of those researchers who considers ASL a "crutch". A kid could have excellent speech, but b/c they also signed, they'd be classified as "lesser then" an oral only kid simply b/c they sign. You do realize that what you're saying is that dhh kids are so low functioning they cannot learn to speak without their life being an eternal speech therapy session right?

I spoke to Ann Geers yesterday. I asked her many questions about her study. We had a 30 minutes presentation followed by a 45 minute Q & A. None of the things you are saying are true.

 

[AlleyCat]

The kids all came from the same CI centers, so they had access to the same audiologists and surgeons. They had the same access to therapy. The difference was signing and not signing.

Same CI center, same audiologists, same surgeons, same therapy.

Talk about being biased. No wonder. Do this study all across the country and with a bigger number. Come back then.

 

[seb]

It's a FACT. Ann Geers is a VERY well known oral deaf researcher, and the way they classify "good" is that they view ASL as a crutch. It's not about bigger vocab, or normal verbal IQ...it's the fact that Ann Geers is extremely audist and only looks at ONE part of a child....and of course there are other studies. Oralism is BIG BUSINESS!

Can you actually provide proof? Such as articles stating what you claim to be factual actually being true. Right now all you've given is opinion.

 

[Jane B.]

Can you actually provide proof? Such as articles stating what you claim to be factual actually being true. Right now all you've given is opinion.

Based on what deafdyke has done in the past this type of opinion is all you will get from her.

 

[Barbaro]

I do confirm it. Callier Center is a few blocks from where I used to live.

I cannot discuss things regarding Anne Geer for privacy reasons, but I do think her study is small and controlled. If you live in North Dallas, You'd see people with CIs everywhere. I bump into them at malls and places and ask them. They all come with same results- they can hear better, and carry conversation, but they still deal with same struggles and receive bad attitudes from people even before they were implanted with CIs. Getting CI for oneself is like enabling hearing people to make it worse.

They even take their CIs for a break sometimes when it becomes too much for them. Since they got CIs, they get weird dreams and hear music in the middle of the night. They may find it a hassle and have to adjust their diet to cut it down. Blame it on their auditory nerve.

In North Dallas, My hearing husband knows ASL and tutored a teen with CIs who never knew ASL in her entire life. I am told she's got it when she was a toddler. She was a client from Callier center. She depended on private tutors, because she had hard time catching up with her teachers' lectures at her school. I personally know a Dallas native guy with both CIs can carry conversation, has a job that requires interacting with others and is a volunteer at a hospital. He used to be involved with Callier Center for a while, but not anymore because Callier Center is a good friend with AGBell. He sent AGbell letters trying to convince them to be opened mind and support ASL. He is distressed. I can go on and on.

That's all I can say for that on this thread.

 

[Calvin]

The kids who signed were almost 4 times more likely to be delayed in reading.

I call bs on this part. It has nothing to do with signed vs non signed. Your study is too obviously biased, you need to do better than that.

 

[DeafDucky]

The kids all came from the same CI centers, so they had access to the same audiologists and surgeons. They had the same access to therapy. The difference was signing and not signing.

Same CI center, same audiologists, same surgeons, same therapy.

Talk about being biased. No wonder. Do this study all across the country and with a bigger number. Come back then.

Well any wonder why the stats "say the oral CI kids did 4x better"? They're all from the same mold if you will. That is not how it works in the world. You still need to account for a wider range of abilities and skills. The study is giving a false read on how successful the CI can be. Yes it can be successful but it doesn't even show any failures or even oral CI at the SAME level as those who sign.

In testing I was always taught (and have used) to remember to test for extremes as well- include all variables or as many variables that you can that a normal user would do/come across. Then include outside variables that may not happen or aren't supposed to happen.

My brain is still fuzzy (sleeping routine is so FUBARed right now) so examples are not forthcoming...:/.

Point is...AC is right- it's biased... if anything it's TOO controlled.

 

[LoveBlue]

Again, I ask. Why would someone post this minuscule study that is so biased on a Deaf forum.

I don't recall anyone giving positive feedback on it other than an HoH person who has his own biased opinions.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Same CI center, same audiologists, same surgeons, same therapy.

Talk about being biased. No wonder. Do this study all across the country and with a bigger number. Come back then.

It was 6 large CI centers across the country. This is a very large study for the small number of deaf children with CIs that exist. They had to control for things like audiologist's skill and post-implantation therapy so that they can actually look at communication mode without those other things complicating it.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

I call bs on this part. It has nothing to do with signed vs non signed. Your study is too obviously biased, you need to do better than that.

This is not my study. What data do you have that shows that this is inaccurate?

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Well any wonder why the stats "say the oral CI kids did 4x better"? They're all from the same mold if you will. That is not how it works in the world. You still need to account for a wider range of abilities and skills. The study is giving a false read on how successful the CI can be. Yes it can be successful but it doesn't even show any failures or even oral CI at the SAME level as those who sign.

In testing I was always taught (and have used) to remember to test for extremes as well- include all variables or as many variables that you can that a normal user would do/come across. Then include outside variables that may not happen or aren't supposed to happen.

My brain is still fuzzy (sleeping routine is so FUBARed right now) so examples are not forthcoming...:/.

Point is...AC is right- it's biased... if anything it's TOO controlled.

None of what you said is true. It was 6 large CI centers across the country. They only excluded kids with cognitive delays. They have to control for other variables so that they can see the correlation between communication mode and outcomes.

It showed that 39% of children who sign caught up, but 70% of spoken language only kids did.

The biggest "aha" was that none of the non-signers started signing, even when entering middle school (which is often claimed).

 

[LoveBlue]

It was 6 large CI centers across the country. This is a very large study for the small number of deaf children with CIs that exist. They had to control for things like audiologist's skill and post-implantation therapy so that they can actually look at communication mode without those other things complicating it.

WHAT!?! Small number of deaf children with CIs that exist????

www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants

In the United States, roughly 58,000 devices have been implanted in adults and 38,000 in children. (Estimates provided by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA], as reported by cochlear implant manufacturers.)

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

WHAT!?! Small number of deaf children with CIs that exist????

www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants

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.

 

[AlleyCat]

It was 6 large CI centers across the country. This is a very large study for the small number of deaf children with CIs that exist. They had to control for things like audiologist's skill and post-implantation therapy so that they can actually look at communication mode without those other things complicating it.

Ick. Is all I can say. I have no disrespect for CI implants. I have zero respect for this CI study. SMH. I still don't understand why you as a hearing person who knows nothing about the actual experience is here in this thread. It's like ..... I can't even think of a good word for it at this point.

 

[LoveBlue]

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.

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

In the United States, roughly 58,000 devices have been implanted in adults and 38,000 in children.

Since 2000, cochlear implants have been FDA-approved for use in eligible children beginning at 12 months of age.

Studies have also shown that eligible children who receive a cochlear implant before 18 months of age

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

 

[Beowulf]

I call bs on this part. It has nothing to do with signed vs non signed. Your study is too obviously biased, you need to do better than that.

Same here. When I went to NTID/NTID during the early seventies, the hottest theory on why students were oral or not was because of their reading. The more they read, the better they spoke. I don't think that is true any longer, but that is only my opinion, mind you.
I am struck by the intelligence of all responses in here, so it has my respect. That is all I can say.

 

[seb]

I do confirm it. Callier Center is a few blocks from where I used to live.

I cannot discuss things regarding Anne Geer for privacy reasons, but I do think her study is small and controlled. If you live in North Dallas, You'd see people with CIs everywhere. I bump into them at malls and places and ask them. They all come with same results- they can hear better, and carry conversation, but they still deal with same struggles and receive bad attitudes from people even before they were implanted with CIs. Getting CI for oneself is like enabling hearing people to make it worse.

They even take their CIs for a break sometimes when it becomes too much for them. Since they got CIs, they get weird dreams and hear music in the middle of the night. They may find it a hassle and have to adjust their diet to cut it down. Blame it on their auditory nerve.

In North Dallas, My hearing husband knows ASL and tutored a teen with CIs who never knew ASL in her entire life. I am told she's got it when she was a toddler. She was a client from Callier center. She depended on private tutors, because she had hard time catching up with her teachers' lectures at her school. I personally know a Dallas native guy with both CIs can carry conversation, has a job that requires interacting with others and is a volunteer at a hospital. He used to be involved with Callier Center for a while, but not anymore because Callier Center is a good friend with AGBell. He sent AGbell letters trying to convince them to be opened mind and support ASL. He is distressed. I can go on and on.

That's all I can say for that on this thread.

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.

 

[deafdyke]

I do confirm it. Callier Center is a few blocks from where I used to live.

I cannot discuss things regarding Anne Geer for privacy reasons, but I do think her study is small and controlled. If you live in North Dallas, You'd see people with CIs everywhere. I bump into them at malls and places and ask them. They all come with same results- they can hear better, and carry conversation, but they still deal with same struggles and receive bad attitudes from people even before they were implanted with CIs. Getting CI for oneself is like enabling hearing people to make it worse.

They even take their CIs for a break sometimes when it becomes too much for them. Since they got CIs, they get weird dreams and hear music in the middle of the night. They may find it a hassle and have to adjust their diet to cut it down. Blame it on their auditory nerve.

In North Dallas, My hearing husband knows ASL and tutored a teen with CIs who never knew ASL in her entire life. I am told she's got it when she was a toddler. She was a client from Callier center. She depended on private tutors, because she had hard time catching up with her teachers' lectures at her school. I personally know a Dallas native guy with both CIs can carry conversation, has a job that requires interacting with others and is a volunteer at a hospital. He used to be involved with Callier Center for a while, but not anymore because Callier Center is a good friend with AGBell. He sent AGbell letters trying to convince them to be opened mind and support ASL. He is distressed. I can go on and on.

That's all I can say for that on this thread.

Yes, Callier Center is essentially 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.

 

[deafdyke]

I spoke to Ann Geers yesterday. I asked her many questions about her study. We had a 30 minutes presentation followed by a 45 minute Q & A. None of the things you are saying are true.

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.

 

[deafdyke]

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