misdiagnosis of the deaf

GrendelQ said:
Initial screening has a high margin for error. But ABRs alone tell a great deal about the hearing level of a child. And there are a whole range of tests employed in assessing a child for candidacy, not just that one.

Unlike Jillio's suggestion that profoundly deaf children who receive amplification find that their unaided hearing typically improves over time (how many of you have found that to be the case? How many reports have you read making such a claim?) -- my daughter's un-implanted ear (with which we used a HA) declined rapidly within the profound range during her 2nd year. I have no question based on both the many tests we undertook and the experience with the ear that was not implanted, that she was not going to miraculously gain some hearing that she had never had before by waiting.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I have no doubt that my hearing worsened and improved over the course of my lifetime, and maybe they were measurable, maybe not. But it made no significant difference overall. Perhaps your daughter's situation is different, and I hope it works out well for you both.
 
jillio said:
You are completely distorting what I stated. I did not say that hearing improved over time. I said that test results improved over time, even unaided. That is very different from hearing improved over time.:roll:
Click to expand...

Sure, even if you mean that ABR results in infants/toddlers tend to improve over time with the use of HAs, I still question where you've seen that trend, either anecdotally or based on a report or stats.
 
Beowulf said:
Interesting. I have no doubt that my hearing worsened and improved over the course of my lifetime, and maybe they were measurable, maybe not. But it made no significant difference overall. Perhaps your daughter's situation is different, and I hope it works out well for you both.
Click to expand...

No, I agree with you, I too have never heard of this trend towards better testing results over time in infants/toddlers using HAs.
 
GrendelQ said:
Sure, even if you mean that ABR results in infants/toddlers tend to improve over time with the use of HAs, I still question where you've seen that trend, either anecdotally or based on a report or stats.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anything about ABR results improving? Again, you are putting way too much faith in the accuracy of ABR testing. And ABR is not used as the ultimate tool of diagnosis, nor is it used past the screeening phase. It simply suggests a possible level of loss from a very wide perspective. I am here to tell you that, not only I, but many others that have been connected to the field of deafness for any length of time at all have seen that auditory test results improve, even unaided, over time, for a child that has been aided and then has learned to use the amplification and to discriminate which stimili in their environment needs their focused attention. I have seen it, deaf individuals have reported it, research has supported it. You are totally discounting the fact that to perceive and process sound is a learning process...even for the hearing and moreso for the deaf. As one learns, responses change. And changed responses account for variance in test results.
 
jillio said:
Have you actually researched it?
Click to expand...

Yes, the moment you made the claim I looked for something that might support what you are saying. I found many reports supporting the accuracy of ABRs, but nothing indicating that children who wear hearing aids have been found to have 'improvements' in their ABRs over time.

Jillio, no matter what I've experienced, or researched in the past, when I'm faced with a new claim I don't disregard it out of hand, I check.

And I'm not being a stickler for source on this, if you were to tell me that your child experienced an improvement in his ABR test from age 1 to age 2 to age 3, I'd consider that absolutely valid.
 
GrendelQ said:
Yes, the moment you made the claim I looked for something that might support what you are saying. I found many reports supporting the accuracy of ABRs, but nothing indicating that children who wear hearing aids have been found to have 'improvements' in their ABRs over time.

Jillio, no matter what I've experienced, or researched in the past, when I'm faced with a new claim I don't disregard it out of hand, I check.

And I'm not being a stickler for source on this, if you were to tell me that your child experienced an improvement in his ABR test from age 1 to age 2 to age 3, I'd consider that absolutely valid.
Click to expand...

If you just started looking for something at the time I made my claim, then you have not researched it. And if all you have done is Google a few articles, you have not researched it.

Again, you are using a single lens focus, and you are using your perspective to read something into my post. I never said that ABR results improve. In fact, I have not limited my statement to ABR results at all. But ABR results are not important in the long run when doing testing to determine the functional levels of a child with a hearing loss.
 
jillio said:
Where did I say anything about ABR results improving? Again, you are putting way too much faith in the accuracy of ABR testing. And ABR is not used as the ultimate tool of diagnosis, nor is it used past the screeening phase. It simply suggests a possible level of loss from a very wide perspective. I am here to tell you that, not only I, but many others that have been connected to the field of deafness for any length of time at all have seen that auditory test results improve, even unaided, over time, for a child that has been aided and then has learned to use the amplification and to discriminate which stimili in their environment needs their focused attention. I have seen it, deaf individuals have reported it, research has supported it. You are totally discounting the fact that to perceive and process sound is a learning process...even for the hearing and moreso for the deaf. As one learns, responses change. And changed responses account for variance in test results.
Click to expand...

I listed several tests as examples of the many that are performed on a candidate, including an ABR which is not reliant upon an infant's familiarity with test taking, learning, or conscious responses.

But you don't like those tests because they don't support your argument, so you have some other test that indicates that a profoundly deaf child's hearing, or rather, auditory test results tends to improve over time if he uses HAs. I'd like to know more about those findings, this trend is not something I'm familiar with. I've not found any reports that indicate this, nor do I know any previously profoundly or severely deaf who wore HAs and are now at a moderate or mild level, unaided, as a result.
 
jillio said:
If you just started looking for something at the time I made my claim, then you have not researched it. And if all you have done is Google a few articles, you have not researched it.

Again, you are using a single lens focus, and you are using your perspective to read something into my post. I never said that ABR results improve. In fact, I have not limited my statement to ABR results at all. But ABR results are not important in the long run when doing testing to determine the functional levels of a child with a hearing loss.
Click to expand...

:) I have pretty good access to medical research at my fingers. Why are you making this an argument about my research skills when you are making some pretty vague claims that the use of HAs improve results in whatever this mysterious auditory test is, if not the ABR we were discussing.
 
GrendelQ said:
:) I have pretty good access to medical research at my fingers. Why are you making this an argument about my research skills when you are making some pretty vague claims that the use of HAs improve results in whatever this mysterious auditory test is, if not the ABR we were discussing.
Click to expand...

I'm not making it an issue about your research skills. Just saying if you have not spent time researching the topic from both sides, and actually looking at studies and results, it explains why you have not seen some of the things you have not seen. Just because, in your limited experience, you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
 
GrendelQ said:
I listed several tests as examples of the many that are performed on a candidate, including an ABR which is not reliant upon an infant's familiarity with test taking, learning, or conscious responses.

But you don't like those tests because they don't support your argument, so you have some other test that indicates that a profoundly deaf child's hearing, or rather, auditory test results tends to improve over time if he uses HAs. I'd like to know more about those findings, this trend is not something I'm familiar with. I've not found any reports that indicate this, nor do I know any previously profoundly or severely deaf who wore HAs and are now at a moderate or mild level, unaided, as a result.
Click to expand...

You are completely misreading and distorting. An ABR is limited, and that, my friend, has nothing to do with whether I "like" the test or not. It is simply a fact of the test.

And tests that do depend on a child's learning and conscious responses is far more indicative of that child's true level of functioning. That, as well, is a fact of testing.

Quite frankly, I don't know what you are arguing about, unless it is that you believe that an ABR is the end all and be all of auditory testing. It is nothing but a beginning point.

We have gotten off topic. This thread is about people being misdiagnosed with other conditions based on the fact that they were deaf, not about the misdiagnosis of deafness.
 
jillio said:
I'm not making it an issue about your research skills. Just saying if you have not spent time researching the topic from both sides, and actually looking at studies and results, it explains why you have not seen some of the things you have not seen. Just because, in your limited experience, you haven't seen it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You can deflect while you scramble for a way to back out of your claim that deaf children's auditory test results tend to improve over time or you can just say what leads you to believe that.
 
GrendelQ said:
You can deflect while you scramble for a way to back out of your claim that deaf children's auditory test results tend to improve over time or you can just say what leads you to believe that.
Click to expand...

I'm not deflecting. I have taken pains to explain several times. You can refuse to believe what you don't want to believe. I still stand by my statements as they were made and explained.
 
This talk about testing how deaf kid are reminds me of my HOH sister. I can't remember my own cos I was far too young and I doubt my hearing test changed anything but with my HOH sister was different.

When she had her first hearing test with other test, they thought she was severe deaf. Then they fitted her with hearing aids, few months later she was tested again, it went up to moderate to severe, they said it that cos she starting to repsonse to sound, before if she heard sounds she just ignore it, and few months later (1 year on from 1st test) tested again and end up mild to moderate. From then she been mild to moderate rest of her life.
 
Speedy Hawk said:
This talk about testing how deaf kid are reminds me of my HOH sister. I can't remember my own cos I was far too young and I doubt my hearing test changed anything but with my HOH sister was different.

When she had her first hearing test with other test, they thought she was severe deaf. Then they fitted her with hearing aids, few months later she was tested again, it went up to moderate to severe, they said it that cos she starting to repsonse to sound, before if she heard sounds she just ignore it, and few months later (1 year on from 1st test) tested again and end up mild to moderate. From then she been mild to moderate rest of her life.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was talking about. Thank you for sharing that experience and supporting what I was trying to explain earlier.
 
faire_jour said:
Then why are you so sure that they are not doing neurological testing?
Click to expand...

A conversation with you is next to impossible. Use your common sense as to how one would know that without having been personally tested.:roll:
 
Back
Top