Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Beowulf

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Eh, I read it before I posted it to make sure it was correct. The principal isn't overly complex.
Thank you for checking.
It is just that I thought Wikipedia was notoriously unreliable, that anyone could add tidbits to the articles, but that was years and years ago. Am I behind the times?
 

Lysander

Active Member
Premium Member
Thank you for checking.
It is just that I thought Wikipedia was notoriously unreliable, that anyone could add tidbits to the articles, but that was years and years ago. Am I behind the times?
No. You're absolutely correct here. It's not notoriously inaccurate. It just can't be accepted as a valid scientific source. There were people in college trying to use it as a source for writing papers and it's just not acceptable for that type of documentation. A lot of the information there is valid. In fact, a lot of the information that can be found on Wikipedia can also be sourced back to actual scientific documents that have gone through peer review and scientific rigor. You just can't guarantee that that's the case. You're actually better off to use Wiki for the information that has been footnoted and then to follow the footnote and read the original article.
 

Barbaro

Well-Known Member
cherry picked and biased.

the study itself and responses could be considered cherry picked and biased but I'd rather believe the side who have had personal experience AND research experience with the subject matter more than the side who doesn't necessarily do.

Like I said round and round we go. We can dither til the earth blows up but doubtful anyone will change their minds- most of all the more prolific posters in this thread. Even if there is later research disproving the previous research because they'd disclaim THAT research!
Okay dokey. ;)
 

seb

Well-Known Member
A good friend of mine who is a retired doctor(gynecologist), once told me that one thing you have to remember about doctors is that 50% of them finish in the lower half of their class. He went went on to say the medical establishment hopes they go into research, but some end up seeing patients.
 

DeafDucky

Well-Known Member
Well I certainly hope that isn't totally true. I have a friend who graduated top of her high school class (Valedictorian), went to MIT, Harvard (no idea on class ranking but wouldn't surprise me if top half)- well known in her medical field- could have chosen to practice full time but decided not to. She is doing research now; she does see a small percentage of patients- very limited.

And I would say that there are probably medical professionals who graduated in the top 50% who are HORRIBLE and don't do right by their patients and those who graduated in the bottom 50% who are wonderful and do quite well. While book learning IS valuable, real experience in the world once graduated tend to be the bigger measuring stick.
 
Teacher of the Deaf, You keep claiming that oral deaf kids are doing so well. They might be doing slightly better in terms of speech skills, but this study proves that while they can learn to talk, they still are unable to delvelop SOPHISTICATED spoken language. Basicly they're still "hitting the oral deaf ceiling" https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/66509 The ONLY way a child does better orally is by not counting vocabulary. I believe the preeminent study by Dr. Christine Yoshinaga-Itano that claimed kids were doing better speechwise, did not count vocab. But you cannot say that you've had a command of language (ANY language) by not counting vocabulary, since that is the BASIS of language.
That study is true, but your statement is not. You have absolutely no data that says that children who use sign have better vocabularies than those who don't.
 
In fact the study even states this outright (bolding added):

"The design of this study does not allow us to determine causality among variables but rather to explore the influence of variables on communication outcomes in young adolescents."
Of course we cannot yet determine the cause. We can, however, follow patterns.
 
Maybe because their audiologists or teacher's of the deaf strongly discouraged it.

Maybe because our hearing society devalues signed language over spoken language.

Or maybe, like the study suggests: "presumably because their child’s listening and spoken language skills continued to develop."

My husband is profoundly Deaf from birth. He very literally cannot speak more than a few intelligible words, cannot listen and cannot read lips. ASL is his L1 and written English is his L2.

His mother barely signs and his dad knows no sign. Many of his friends grew up in situations where their parents never learned any sign at all. Those kids cannot understand spoken English, do not have the capacity to learn spoken English, and their parents don't sign. This happend because audiologists, people working with Deaf children, and TOD told them that if they signed their children would never learn how to speak.

This is horrific.
Your claim was that the kids who continued to sign needed to sign, not because sign lowered their ability to understand spoken language, but because their impaired access to spoken language made them rely on sign. That would mean that all of those kids happened to start in the sign group. Why didn't any of the spoken language only kids need to add sign?
 
Your claim was that the kids who continued to sign needed to sign, not because sign lowered their ability to understand spoken language, but because their impaired access to spoken language made them rely on sign. That would mean that all of those kids happened to start in the sign group. Why didn't any of the spoken language only kids need to add sign?
I don't know, and neither do you.

It could be that some of the 40 kids lost to follow up were lost because they transferred to a different educational program emphasized sign.

It could be that some kids would highly benefit from sign but their parents refuse to sign with them because of negative perceptions about signing.

It could be because none of them needed to add sign because they had sufficient oral skills.

It could be because parents whose kids fail to use their implants to develop functional speech and who give up using them entirely think, "why bother to follow up with this study about CI, my kid doesn't use it anyway."

(Note: I am not jumping to conclusions, forming ideas based on conjecture, or making assumptions. I am stating possible reasons why none of the kids added sign, to emphasize the point that we do not know and therefore should not make assumptions about why.)

I live in St. Louis which has NO schools for Deaf kids where they sign. It's ALL "listening and spoken language". I know many Deaf in the area who were not allowed to sign, or who thought signing was bad, and did not learn how to do it until they were in high school or adults. This is actually extremely common. They desperately wish their parents had let them learn earlier. Some kids themselves believed ASL was for those "poor disabled Deaf kids" and were against sign until their perspectives changed. I know other Deaf who never developed oral skills and never developed good signing skills and basically don't have a fluent language at all. That's a disgrace and society has failed those folks. The reason they never developed a fluent language is because their educators only gave them a language they were unable to access, due to negative perceptions that ASL would hinder their spoken language development.
 

seb

Well-Known Member
https://www.intechopen.com/books/co...ituation-and-practical-measures-toward-reachi

I'll just put this here. Section 3.1 is especially helpful as it speaks to the number of children implaned with CI who abandon their devices or never learn a primary spoken language. Denying these children a language based on fears that sign language will somehow harm them is unconscionable.
I read the article and was surprised it was posted by you. For someone who is in medical research this study used nothing more than estimates, no hard facts and was basically an opinion piece with a lot of conjecture leading them to come to their "findings".

This one paragraph pretty much says it all:
[While an educated estimate of the true benefits of CI's is nothing more than that, we note two important facts. First the burden should be on the promoters of CI's to provide reliable facts and understandable figures regarding success. In the absence of such information we have stepped forward. Second even if one argues that the failure rate is much lower, such as 5%, taking the risk that 5% of small children who are implanted will not get accessible language during the critical period and thus be linguistically deprived is unconscionable.]
The list of contributors is very impressive, but this "study" has no basis of scientific fact, no real numbers to back up their claims and is simply the opinion of this highly biased group of authors. The bias comes through loud and clear when you look at the authors and their backgrounds all have basically been immersed in the deaf community for their entire lives. This fluff piece was a complete waste of time if you want any factually based information about the subject, all I found in this piece was estimates, wild guesses and voodoo numbers to back up their claims. I would of expected more from a person who claims to be a medical researcher. Your bias is truly showing in this matter.
 
Last edited:
I read the article and was surprised it was posted by you. For someone who is in medical research this study used nothing more than estimates, no hard facts and was basically an opinion piece with a lot of conjecture leading them to come to their "findings".

This one paragraph pretty much says it all:
[While an educated estimate of the true benefits of CI's is nothing more than that, we note two important facts. First the burden should be on the promoters of CI's to provide reliable facts and understandable figures regarding success. In the absence of such information we have stepped forward. Second even if one argues that the failure rate is much lower, such as 5%, taking the risk that 5% of small children who are implanted will not get accessible language during the critical period and thus be linguistically deprived is unconscionable.]

This wasn't a study. It's a book. I thought the point they made about children growing up language deprived was a good one. What I said about the book when I posted it is rooted in fact.

You are right, I am biased. My bias is that I have experience with language-deprived Deaf adults who could not access spoken language and were denied ASL and thus denied a fluent language.

I admittedly have an opinion that it's a horrible shame that Deaf people end up language-deprived.

Terrible, I know.
 
Last edited:

seb

Well-Known Member
This wasn't a study. It's a book. I thought the point they made about children growing up language deprived was a good one. What I said about the book when I posted it is rooted in fact.

You are right, I am biased. My bias is that I have experience with language-deprived Deaf adults who could not access spoken language and were denied ASL and thus denied a fluent language.

I admittedly have an opinion that it's a horrible shame that Deaf people end up language-deprived.

Terrible, I know.
It's too bad that they wrote the book without doing any research to get their numbers right or even get numbers in the first place. Coming out with comments like an estimated guess or educated guess, just doesn't cut it. I would expect more from these people with the level of education they have. Sorry.

So did they receive CI or were they just deprived of learning sign language? Yes, it is a shame if someone is language deprived. However I wouldn't say that children who receive CI are language deprived. I know some who get along very well as well as a number of adults who also get along very well with their CI's too.
 
It's too bad that they wrote the book without doing any research to get their numbers right or even get numbers in the first place. Coming out with comments like an estimated guess or educated guess, just doesn't cut it. I would expect more from these people with the level of education they have. Sorry.

So did they receive CI or were they just deprived of learning sign language? Yes, it is a shame if someone is language deprived. However I wouldn't say that children who receive CI are language deprived. I know some who get along very well as well as a number of adults who also get along very well with their CI's too.

They do back up their claims with research. The problem is that the research is highly variable in outcomes. Which is why they can only make an educated guess, because that's all the research can give us at this point. It's not some kind of failure on their part at all. It has zero to do with their education and everything to do with the current, available research.

Yes, I do know Deaf adults, with CI, who were language deprived. Some are not language deprived, and some are.

You are disputing the fact that some children who are implanted end up linguistically deprived, based on your statement, "I wouldn't say that children who receive CI are language deprived"

Yet the research literature states otherwise. There are children, with CI, who are language-deprived.

"I know some who get along very well as well as a number of adults who also get along very well with their CI's too"

I am sure you do, but I know a number of implanted adults who do not get along well. I am not saying ALL children with CI are language deprived. Some of them do great! While others end up language deprived.

Just out of curiosity- do you think I am pro or anti-ci?
 
Last edited:

seb

Well-Known Member
They do back up their claims with research. The problem is that the research is highly variable in outcomes. Which is why they can only make an educated guess, because that's all the research can give us at this point. It's not some kind of failure on their part at all. It has zero to do with their education and everything to do with the current, available research.

Yes, I do know Deaf adults, with CI, who were language deprived. Some are not language deprived, and some are.

You are disputing the fact that some children who are implanted end up linguistically deprived, based on your statement, "I wouldn't say that children who receive CI are language deprived"

Yet the research literature states otherwise. There are children, with CI, who are language-deprived.

"I know some who get along very well as well as a number of adults who also get along very well with their CI's too"

I am sure you do, but I know a number of implanted adults who do not get along well. I am not saying ALL children with CI are language deprived. Some of them do great! While others end up language deprived.

Just out of curiosity- do you think I am pro or anti-ci?
Sorry but the authors backing up their claims with made up numbers and educated guesses just doesn't cut it and actually does more harm to discredit their credibility as researchers who give the perception of perhaps bending the truth to make their case or fortify their beliefs. George H.W. Bush would call this Voodoo science.
Yes, some who receive CI;s end up being linguistically deprived, just as their are some who use sign language who end up in the same situation, but I would make an educated guess that most do well if implanted early enough.
If you're using this book to back up your claims, forget it. This isn't science and it isn't research, it's total opinion and conjecture.
Adults who were hearing and then went deaf do much better with a CI than those who were born deaf who are implanted. It basically boils down to if you don't use it, you lose it.
You are definitely anti CI, at least that is how you come across.
 
Last edited:
Yes, some are but I would make an educated guess that most do well if implanted early enough.
I don't dispute that most do well if implanted early enough. The research seems to suggest that.

However, not all of them do well, and some of them will end up language deprived due to unfounded fears and negativity about ASL.
 

deafdyke

Well-Known Member
I live in St. Louis which has NO schools for Deaf kids where they sign. It's ALL "listening and spoken language". I know many Deaf in the area who were not allowed to sign, or who thought signing was bad, and did not learn how to do it until they were in high school or adults. This is actually extremely common. They desperately wish their parents had let them learn earlier. Some kids themselves believed ASL was for those "poor disabled Deaf kids" and were against sign until their perspectives changed. I know other Deaf who never developed oral skills and never developed good signing skills and basically don't have a fluent language at all. That's a disgrace and society has failed those folks. The reason they never developed a fluent language is because their educators only gave them a language they were unable to access, due to negative perceptions that ASL would hinder their spoken language development.
No private schools, no. But the public Special School District teaches in ASL. Matter of fact, if a child isn't doing too well at CID, St Joseph's or Moog, they get asked to leave and end up at the Special School District
 
No private schools, no. But the public Special School District teaches in ASL. Matter of fact, if a child isn't doing too well at CID, St Joseph's or Moog, they get asked to leave and end up at the Special School District
Yup, I used to work for SSD and we had a few kids with CI there who signed and had interpreters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.