New Study Provides Strong Evidence Regarding the Effectiveness of AVT

Miss-Delectable

New Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2004
Messages
17,160
Reaction score
7
New Study Provides Strong Evidence Regarding the Effectiveness of AVT

In its most recent issue, The Volta Review published a longitudinal study on the effectiveness of auditory-verbal therapy over time. “Is Auditory-Verbal Therapy Effective for Children with Hearing Loss?” completes a 50-month longitudinal study following the language, literacy, and emotional development of children with hearing loss who choose listening and spoken language. The end results indicate that the children with hearing loss who succeed with auditory-verbal therapy are well-adjusted and have language skills on par with their peers who have typical hearing.

Dimity Dornan, Ba.Sp.Th., F.S.P.A.A., LSLS Cert. AVT, who led the research team, noted, “Study on the outcomes of the AVT group is important because few controlled longitudinal studies of speech and language outcomes are available for children with hearing loss. In addition, an extension of the study time allowed us to include measures of academic outcomes for the children.”

The study matched children who were deaf or hard of hearing and using listening and spoken language with a control group of children who had typical hearing. Dornan and her team proceeded to conduct bench mark assessments for receptive, expressive, and total language, receptive vocabulary, and speech, and re-assessed at the 9-, 21-, 38- and 50-month mark. Over the last 12 months of the study, the team also assessed for reading and mathematics skills as well as self-esteem.

Results indicate that at the 50-month mark there were no significant differences between the children who are deaf or hard of hearing and the children with typical hearing. Speech perception improved significantly with moderate to high levels at the 50-month mark. Although the group was identified at a mean age of 22.29 months, much later than the current recommended age of 6 months, their language and speech attainments have been the same as the matched control group. Reading, mathematics and self-esteem outcomes were also comparable for both groups over the last 12 months of the study period.

Dornan stated, “This study has provided a research model, utilizing a control group matched for language age, which could also be replicated across different languages, cultures, and countries and with different education approaches.” The researchers concluded that auditory-verbal therapy was effective for this group of children with hearing loss. The study was published in the Fall 2010 issue of The Volta Review.

For over 110 years, The Volta Review has been the preeminent scholarly research and scientific journal in the field of listening and spoken language. The journal is published three times a year and research topics include speech and language development and processing, literacy skill development, hearing technology, educational outcomes, early intervention, and auditory (re)habilitation, among others. To learn more about the journal, its mission and its submission criteria, please visit Alexander Graham Bell redirect.

The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing helps families, health care providers and education professionals understand childhood hearing loss and the importance of early diagnosis and intervention. Through advocacy, education and financial aid, AG Bell helps to ensure that every child and adult with hearing loss has the opportunity to listen, talk and thrive. With chapters located in the United States and a network of international affiliates, AG Bell supports its mission: Advocating Independence through Listening and Talking!

Volta is biased. I don't fully trust the veracity of this study.
 
Yeah..notice they don't go into specifics about how they reached the conclusion.....they don't mention if it's a sizable population, what the demographics of the population are, etc etc etc. Besides, I think you'd have to wait til the kids are teens or adults to really get REAL longittudtal studies. Little kids tend to parrot what their parents think.
There is NOTHING wrong with seeing an AVT therapist for speech and listening therapy....BUT, saying that AVT is the BEST and gives consistant good results is like saying that those Korean cram schools are THE BEST and give consistant good results.
 
Yeah..notice they don't go into specifics about how they reached the conclusion.....they don't mention if it's a sizable population, what the demographics of the population are, etc etc etc. Besides, I think you'd have to wait til the kids are teens or adults to really get REAL longittudtal studies. Little kids tend to parrot what their parents think.
There is NOTHING wrong with seeing an AVT therapist for speech and listening therapy....BUT, saying that AVT is the BEST and gives consistant good results is like saying that those Korean cram schools are THE BEST and give consistant good results.

Yeah, I noticed. One could submit a "study" to AG Bell's Volta Review with the following criteria (about conclusions): "Common aspects of this section include an explanation of relationships among variables and noted trends, which shall be appropriate to the scope of the study." Uh huh. Sounds like an invitation to skewer it beyond all recognition. :lol:
 
And besides, what they don't tell you......The population that traditionally opts for auditory verbal (meaning whole hog, NOT JUST AVT) tends to be the type of family that is VERY VERY over involved with making sure their kids acheive. I'm NOT bashing acheivement at all.....but the overacheiver families almost seem to be "stage mothers" ...like the type of parent who would ask their kid's pediatrician if there's any toys that can give the kid an "edge" into getting into preschool.
Could it be that it's NOT AVT that is making the kid acheive, but rather the fact that the parents are VERY VERY VERY involved? In other words, if they'd opted for ASL or bi bi, they'd receive the same benifit?
 
Oh, and a longittudtual study of kids with HAs, indicated that about 30% still aquired ASL as a second language! Gee if hearing and speaking were enough, then how come a significent percentage of auditory verbaled kids picked up ASL? Makes you wonder.
 
I wondered about this.....when I read about studies, I think to myself - WHO funded the study?
and I noticed the marketing tactics and lines about listening and talking in the last few paragraphs
:blah::roll:
 
New Study Provides Strong Evidence Regarding the Effectiveness of AVT

In its most recent issue, The Volta Review published a longitudinal study on the effectiveness of auditory-verbal therapy over time. “Is Auditory-Verbal Therapy Effective for Children with Hearing Loss?” completes a 50-month longitudinal study following the language, literacy, and emotional development of children with hearing loss who choose listening and spoken language. The end results indicate that the children with hearing loss who succeed with auditory-verbal therapy are well-adjusted and have language skills on par with their peers who have typical hearing.

Dimity Dornan, Ba.Sp.Th., F.S.P.A.A., LSLS Cert. AVT, who led the research team, noted, “Study on the outcomes of the AVT group is important because few controlled longitudinal studies of speech and language outcomes are available for children with hearing loss. In addition, an extension of the study time allowed us to include measures of academic outcomes for the children.”

The study matched children who were deaf or hard of hearing and using listening and spoken language with a control group of children who had typical hearing. Dornan and her team proceeded to conduct bench mark assessments for receptive, expressive, and total language, receptive vocabulary, and speech, and re-assessed at the 9-, 21-, 38- and 50-month mark. Over the last 12 months of the study, the team also assessed for reading and mathematics skills as well as self-esteem.

Results indicate that at the 50-month mark there were no significant differences between the children who are deaf or hard of hearing and the children with typical hearing. Speech perception improved significantly with moderate to high levels at the 50-month mark. Although the group was identified at a mean age of 22.29 months, much later than the current recommended age of 6 months, their language and speech attainments have been the same as the matched control group. Reading, mathematics and self-esteem outcomes were also comparable for both groups over the last 12 months of the study period.

Dornan stated, “This study has provided a research model, utilizing a control group matched for language age, which could also be replicated across different languages, cultures, and countries and with different education approaches.” The researchers concluded that auditory-verbal therapy was effective for this group of children with hearing loss. The study was published in the Fall 2010 issue of The Volta Review.

For over 110 years, The Volta Review has been the preeminent scholarly research and scientific journal in the field of listening and spoken language. The journal is published three times a year and research topics include speech and language development and processing, literacy skill development, hearing technology, educational outcomes, early intervention, and auditory (re)habilitation, among others. To learn more about the journal, its mission and its submission criteria, please visit Alexander Graham Bell redirect.

The Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing helps families, health care providers and education professionals understand childhood hearing loss and the importance of early diagnosis and intervention. Through advocacy, education and financial aid, AG Bell helps to ensure that every child and adult with hearing loss has the opportunity to listen, talk and thrive. With chapters located in the United States and a network of international affiliates, AG Bell supports its mission: Advocating Independence through Listening and Talking!

Volta is biased. I don't fully trust the veracity of this study.

Terribly biased. I would love to see this study in its entirety so i could check methodolgy, age of participants at beginning, and age of participants at end. A 50 month study means nothing if they stop following the kids at the age where the gaps begin to widen, and I suspect that is what they have done. A good longitudinal should follow participants in a study like this from childhood to adulthood.

In short, a quick critical review would find numerous problems that would render these results skeptical, to say the least/
 
Yes, my thoughts exactly jillo. So nowadays, kids don't have an ENOURMOUS gap like the way they did in the old days.....when kids actually NEEDED K-8 oral education.
But they still tend to have a gap, and they still start doing badly around fourth grade. And the sad thing is that the parents will be told that's normal for dhh kids, and there' nothing they can do.....sigh....
 
Yes, my thoughts exactly jillo. So nowadays, kids don't have an ENOURMOUS gap like the way they did in the old days.....when kids actually NEEDED K-8 oral education.
But they still tend to have a gap, and they still start doing badly around fourth grade. And the sad thing is that the parents will be told that's normal for dhh kids, and there' nothing they can do.....sigh....

Yeah, I'm guessing these kids were probably 1-2 at the beginning of the study, and 5-6 at the end. That is hardly sufficient for determining success, particularly what is to come in an academic environment.

I'd also be interested to know what level of hearing loss the participants had, whether they are aided or have a CI, and the criteria used to determine effectiveness. Additionally, how they have determined that AVT is responsible for the result. That would have to involve a very controlled experimental study using a control group. Also, how often were evaluations done during the 50 months, and how other environmental influences were controlled.

Also note that the head of the research team is a certified AVT therapist. Can anyone say "bias'? LOL

Far too many questions for me to give this any credibility at all.
 
Yeah, I'm guessing these kids were probably 1-2 at the beginning of the study, and 5-6 at the end. That is hardly sufficient for determining success, particularly what is to come in an academic environment.
Yes. They are assuming that they're going to function as minimal accomondation hoh kids. It is FAR too soon to say if they will do well or not. All I can say is that I think that Clarke and CID will have residental programs for many many many decades to come....and we will have a lot of kids who discover ASL and Deaf culture late....and history is gonna repeat itself YET AGAIN! I have to say when I was doing research the other day, I was saddened to discover that most oral schools are just Early Education programs. Granted, that is a good thing that a lot of kids aren't in those schools for years and years struggling, orally but on the other hand just b/c they do well in an oral deaf school, it does not reflect how well they do in a solotaire mainstream sitution.
 
Wirelessly posted

the only oral school that goes beyond 12 is Clarke in Mass. It is the only residential school.
 
Back
Top