Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOD said:
It looks like the OP study may have been funded by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. While it may have been published by the provided source in June of 2017, the CDaCI study was conducted between November 2002 and December 2004. Child development after cochlear implant for those that the CI is successful for will naturally become more fluent in spoken language by exposure. This is nothing more than CI supporting literature. They will never show you numbers that don't support CI's. Take it with a grain of salt. Seek out opposing information to get a balanced view and more complete picture. There is plenty out there.
Click to expand...
Where is that literature? Where have you seen a single study that shows that children who use ASL have better spoken language outcomes than those who do not?
 
deafdyke said:
Actually, did you know that when an oral kid struggles with reading, they claim that the kid has "additional issues? Bet you anything they used that little trick here.
Click to expand...
They did no such thing. These children were followed from such a young age that unless they had major disabilities (such as very low IQ or blindness) they would have continued in the study because no one would have known pre-CI.
 
DOD said:
I did not intend to make a comparison. I posted the review article to show that ASL is useful more to counter the statement that it wasn't. The context of the comment on the study can easily be mis-interpreted. You have to consider that the CI will not be successful for all candidates. For those that are profoundly deaf with no aided benefit, ASL would be crucial. It seems obvious that spoken language would be acquired easier for those that can hear and visual conceptual language would be acquired easier for those that can't.
Click to expand...
Except that the study shows that 70% of those who don't use ASL will catch up to hearing kids, but only 40% of those who do use ASL will.
 
deafdyke said:
AND it's a fact that the effectiveness of CI varies HUGELY. Yes, there are some kids who reach HOH levels..... But according to a study only about 33% of CI kids in classrooms without a terp were able to easily understand the teacher. Very few kids function as hearing. Pretty much ALL still function as hard of hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. It's still hard for them to hear. So why not give them sign, cued speech, deaf school, deaf classes etc? They could then not have to work so hard to hear, and concentrate on THRIVING and REALLY acheiving!
Click to expand...
And clearly communication mode is one of the factors. Half as many ASL users were able to catch up compared to non-signers.

Also, you say that "very few function as hearing", what does that mean? We see that 70% fall within the normal range for speech, spoken language and reading, so what other measures are you using?
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
Almost 100 students is actually a very large sample. If you look at other studies 20 is huge. There are some with samples as small at 10-15.
Click to expand...
I was going to say the same thing. Most of the studies I have read have involved fewer than 100 and that includes Ms. Wilbur who's studies were mentioned.
 
seb said:
The study never said it wasn't useful, it's conclusions were that if I child had received a CI prior to age three, there word rec scores would be higher if they primarily used spoken word rather than spoken and sign; the less sign they used the higher their word rec scores would be. It has been shown that the earlier someone receives a CI the better their results with it will be. This is especially true if the person receiving the CI is under the age of two.
Click to expand...
And I quote "Contrary to earlier published assertions, there was no advantage to parents’ use of sign language either before or after CI." ..."no lasting advantage to using sign before and immediately after a CI"

Except for when the CI doesn't work and you are left deaf as a stone. Do you think visual conceptual language would be beneficial then?
 
The more things change, the more remains the same.
Now, wait a minute.
Ahhh, never mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DOD
Teacherofthedeaf said:
Almost 100 students is actually a very large sample. If you look at other studies 20 is huge. There are some with samples as small at 10-15.
Click to expand...
I get it and then they extrapolate, add a little conjecture, mix it up to come up with likelihoods and probabilities. With larger sample sizes, confidence in the likelihoods and probabilities are higher. We also know that metadata doesn't always align with empirical data. I am no statistician but to me, 100 is a small number.

My main point is to take it with a grain of salt. I am no expert but my research leads me to believe this is industry funded CI supporting material. I would not consider it conclusive in a decision to opt for a CI.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
And clearly communication mode is one of the factors. Half as many ASL users were able to catch up compared to non-signers.

Also, you say that "very few function as hearing", what does that mean? We see that 70% fall within the normal range for speech, spoken language and reading, so what other measures are you using?
Click to expand...
Well you do realize that NO hearing people use closed captioned FM devices, and other specialized hearing things. Those are for HARD of hearing people.....Not hearing.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
They did no such thing. These children were followed from such a young age that unless they had major disabilities (such as very low IQ or blindness) they would have continued in the study because no one would have known pre-CI.
Click to expand...
How do you know they didn't exclude them when it was found they may have had issues with reading? They do this all the time with the oral schools. Most kids can and do develop speech...But when the kids start to struggle, they are asked to leave the school, so they don't mess up the stats.
 
DOD said:
And I quote "Contrary to earlier published assertions, there was no advantage to parents’ use of sign language either before or after CI." ..."no lasting advantage to using sign before and immediately after a CI"

Except for when the CI doesn't work and you are left deaf as a stone. Do you think visual conceptual language would be beneficial then?
Click to expand...
Or in noisy listening situtions? God, the world is not a soundbooth!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DOD
DOD said:
And I quote "Contrary to earlier published assertions, there was no advantage to parents’ use of sign language either before or after CI." ..."no lasting advantage to using sign before and immediately after a CI"

Except for when the CI doesn't work and you are left deaf as a stone. Do you think visual conceptual language would be beneficial then?
Click to expand...

Since these kids parents who are most likely hearing since 90% of deaf kids parents are, have decided to have their child get an implant they probably want them to have the most beneficial outcome from them, so my guess is that if they see that with no sign there child has a 70% of catching up to their hearing friends by the time they leave elementary school they will choose to use as little sign language as possible.
 
Last edited:
deafdyke said:
Or in noisy listening situtions? God, the world is not a soundbooth!
Click to expand...
Got news for you, even people who can hear have problems in a noisy listening situation.
 
seb said:
Got news for you, even people who can hear have problems in a noisy listening situation.
Click to expand...

The difference is that it's just noisy for hearing people. For Deaf/HOH people...it's noise...amplified AND speech comprehension is still muffled/garbage in some cases. I hate going to any events that is loud/noisy for that reason... my hearing aids amplifies every sound there is..and I still can't understand it!

Hearing people in general cope better with noisy environments. Yes they do have trouble but I doubt to the degree as a person with a hearing aid on.

*above is personal view.
 
DOD said:
I get it and then they extrapolate, add a little conjecture, mix it up to come up with likelihoods and probabilities. With larger sample sizes, confidence in the likelihoods and probabilities are higher. We also know that metadata doesn't always align with empirical data. I am no statistician but to me, 100 is a small number.

My main point is to take it with a grain of salt. I am no expert but my research leads me to believe this is industry funded CI supporting material. I would not consider it conclusive in a decision to opt for a CI.
Click to expand...
What proof do you have that this scientist and her research is compromised? I really want to know because I am seeing her speak in less than a week, so if you have evidence, I want to confront her.
 
deafdyke said:
Well you do realize that NO hearing people use closed captioned FM devices, and other specialized hearing things. Those are for HARD of hearing people.....Not hearing.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely wrong. I have closed captions on in my house (I love them) and my perfectly hearing husband uses a CC device when we go to the movies.
 
deafdyke said:
How do you know they didn't exclude them when it was found they may have had issues with reading? They do this all the time with the oral schools. Most kids can and do develop speech...But when the kids start to struggle, they are asked to leave the school, so they don't mess up the stats.
Click to expand...
Because they clearly state the numbers that started and those who continued. You are accusing them of fraud.
 
It seems that this study was JUST to determine speech comprehension and not overall communications. I feel sorry for the kids who PREFERRED to communicate with ASL. They're probably doing just as well in life as the others, but because they don't have as good of speech comprehension as the others, they're being made to look like failures. Surely an audist study and being promoted here by audists.
 
LoveBlue said:
It seems that this study was JUST to determine speech comprehension and not overall communications. I feel sorry for the kids who PREFERRED to communicate with ASL. They're probably doing just as well in life as the others, but because they don't have as good of speech comprehension as the others, they're being made to look like failures. Surely an audist study and being promoted here by audists.
Click to expand...
They did speech intelligibility, speech comprehension, overall English language and reading. The sign users scored worse in all of those areas.
 
Man, now I feel like a failure even though I'm profoundly deaf, but speak well, read well, and write well.

All based on a study of what, 100 and half were thrown out? Try again on 1000+ and I bet the results would be different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top