Has anyone read this new study?

[AmputeeOT]

Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term. As a teacher, I would have serious concerns if a child was not making more than month for month progress when enrolled in a language rich program. Without that, they will never close the gap.

"Language deprivation" is both a scientific and an educational term. It's also known as "Language dysfluency" I am concerned that as a Teacher of the Deaf, you do not know this.

Unsurprisingly, these two terms are very much associated with Deaf/HoH people and Deaf education.

But yeah, if you don't believe me you can Google Scholar and see all of the scientific research articles and educational articles using this term:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwiF7ZiM47HVAhVFKCYKHZcADOQQgQMIJjAA

Or you could put that term into Pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=language+dysfluency

...or you could just freaking Google it and you will find myriad scientific and educational articles and references on that issue. Here, let me do that for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lan...0.69i59j0l5.3725j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It's so bizarre that the NIH would award a half-million dollar grant to research language deprivation in deaf children if language deprivation isn't a scientific term...

https://www.bu.edu/sed/dr-naomi-cas...search-language-deprivation-in-deaf-children/


But yet, according to someone with the handle Teacherofthedeaf - who I presume is an actual teacher of the deaf -"Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term"...

 

[deafdyke]

"Language deprivation" is both a scientific and an educational term. It's also known as "Language dysfluency" I am concerned that as a Teacher of the Deaf, you do not know this.

Unsurprisingly, these two terms are often associated with Deaf/HoH people and Deaf education.

But yeah, if you don't believe me you can Google Scholar and see all of the scientific research articles and educational articles using this term:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwiF7ZiM47HVAhVFKCYKHZcADOQQgQMIJjAA

Or you could put that term into Pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=language+dysfluency

...or you could just freaking Google it and you will find myriad scientific and educational articles and references on that issue. Here, let me do that for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lan...0.69i59j0l5.3725j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It's so bizarre that the NIH would award a half-million dollar grant to research language deprivation in deaf children if language deprivation isn't a scientific term...
https://www.bu.edu/sed/dr-naomi-cas...search-language-deprivation-in-deaf-children/


But yet, according to someone with the handle on Teacherofthedeaf - who I presume is an actual teacher of the deaf -"Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term"...

AND if dhh kids are indeed doing so well orally, why did the NIH award a half million grant to research it? The government isn't anti oral you know.....if there is a severe issue then they will want to deal with it. If it is appearing on their radar screens, then yes....it's legit.

 

[deafdyke]

She is accusing her of taking bribes.

Bribes? No. But you know how regular doctors can be under the influence of montary influence from Big Pharma? The same happens with audis etc For some reason the industry pushes the myth that there's a LOT of money to be made with hearing devices. That parents of dhh kids have unlimited amounts of money to spend on their hearing care.(which is rediclous seeing as the biggest issue of our time is AFFORDING regular healthcare in the first place) The same thing happens in our government you know......It boils down to MONEY and the fact that some professionals think that they might get rich off of promoting expensive hearing devices.

 

[deafdyke]

The key word is "obvious" here.
No court will agree that dd's posts were intentionally malicious.
Teacherofthedeaf, do not misunderstand us. We are neither pro-CI or anti-Ci. It is just that some of these studies run contrary to our own personal experiences, and do you expect us to sit back and say nothing? I do not want a fight, because no one ever wins a fight, but others may feel differently. Deafdyke is one of them because she is surprisingly knowledgeable, and we should let it go at that. You are also the same way, so ditto.
Don't take things so close to your heart unless they're actionable.
I am glad you are here, though.

Exactly. I said MAYBE. It's a theory. It's also possible that I might have brought up something that is true about the industry and you're simply attacking me as a way to deflect attention. If you are lashing out maybe there's something to what I said? And yes Beo I'm not pro or anti CI. I do however have issues with PR style marketing, which might also include deeply flawed studies that try to promote a particular methodology in which a researcher might have a financial stake.

 

[deafdyke]

"Damages." If there is no monetary damage (such as loss of income, being blacklisted or incurring legal expenses), then there is no case.

Yes. If she admitted that she lost income by me theorizing that there may be financial incentives for her to promote CIs or oralism, then yes she would be admitting that the financial incentives exist and she would be laughed out of court . All I want to say (in case anyone is lurking) is that the industry will still make money if kids sign. Many if not most kids who sign use devices (including ...*GASP* CI) and speak. There's no reason to be "pure" with speech. There's still financial benefit....and kids will and do develop good speech skills, even if they sign.

 

[AmputeeOT]

And yes Beo I'm not pro or anti CI. I do however have issues with PR style marketing, which might also include deeply flawed studies that try to promote a particular methodology in which a researcher might have a financial stake.

For the record, I'm not either. In fact, I am scheduled to have CI surgery in less than a month.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Yes. If she admitted that she lost income by me theorizing that there may be financial incentives for her to promote CIs or oralism, then yes she would be admitting that the financial incentives exist and she would be laughed out of court . All I want to say (in case anyone is lurking) is that the industry will still make money if kids sign. Many if not most kids who sign use devices (including ...*GASP* CI) and speak. There's no reason to be "pure" with speech. There's still financial benefit....and kids will and do develop good speech skills, even if they sign.

Actually, all she would have to prove was that she did NOT take bribes. Libel does not have to prove intent, but only whether or not it was true.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

"Language deprivation" is both a scientific and an educational term. It's also known as "Language dysfluency" I am concerned that as a Teacher of the Deaf, you do not know this.

Unsurprisingly, these two terms are very much associated with Deaf/HoH people and Deaf education.

But yeah, if you don't believe me you can Google Scholar and see all of the scientific research articles and educational articles using this term:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...ved=0ahUKEwiF7ZiM47HVAhVFKCYKHZcADOQQgQMIJjAA

Or you could put that term into Pubmed:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=language+dysfluency

...or you could just freaking Google it and you will find myriad scientific and educational articles and references on that issue. Here, let me do that for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lan...0.69i59j0l5.3725j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It's so bizarre that the NIH would award a half-million dollar grant to research language deprivation in deaf children if language deprivation isn't a scientific term...

https://www.bu.edu/sed/dr-naomi-cas...search-language-deprivation-in-deaf-children/


But yet, according to someone with the handle Teacherofthedeaf - who I presume is an actual teacher of the deaf -"Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term"...

So what is the measurement for someone to be considered language deprived? How delayed? What is the criteria? I am not saying that it isn't a term that people banter around, I am saying that there is not current criteria or measurement for that term.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Exactly. I said MAYBE. It's a theory. It's also possible that I might have brought up something that is true about the industry and you're simply attacking me as a way to deflect attention. If you are lashing out maybe there's something to what I said? And yes Beo I'm not pro or anti CI. I do however have issues with PR style marketing, which might also include deeply flawed studies that try to promote a particular methodology in which a researcher might have a financial stake.

I never attacked you, I said that you were slandering a scientist with absolutely nothing to back up your claims.

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Bribes? No. But you know how regular doctors can be under the influence of montary influence from Big Pharma? The same happens with audis etc For some reason the industry pushes the myth that there's a LOT of money to be made with hearing devices. That parents of dhh kids have unlimited amounts of money to spend on their hearing care.(which is rediclous seeing as the biggest issue of our time is AFFORDING regular healthcare in the first place) The same thing happens in our government you know......It boils down to MONEY and the fact that some professionals think that they might get rich off of promoting expensive hearing devices.

You accuse Ann Geers of getting rich off CIs. How exactly would that work? She is a scientist who works at a university. She is paid regardless of the outcomes of her research.

 

[AmputeeOT]

So what is the measurement for someone to be considered language deprived? How delayed? What is the criteria? I am not saying that it isn't a term that people banter around, I am saying that there is not current criteria or measurement for that term.

You didn't say that. You said, "Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term."

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of "moving the goalposts?"

Language deprivation/deprived/disfluency/dysfluency is an educational and scientific term.

This is *not* just a term that is *bantered around* it is used in scientific and educational literature and has a real meaning. There are real people who were never given access to a fluent language. They aren't fluent in a spoken language *or* a signed language despite having no other psychological or educational impairments outside of being Deaf. Obviously this is a spectrum, where some people are only mildly disfluent where others re severely disfluent.

As far as the criteria or measurements, here, let me Google that for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lan...iLXVAhVDOSYKHc3CBJwQ7xYIJSgA&biw=1536&bih=686

https://www.google.com/search?q=cri...gbXVAhWBNiYKHe-tCo8QvwUIJSgA&biw=1536&bih=686

Or maybe pubmed that for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=language+deprivation+deaf

That NIH grant I mentioned earlier is in part going to be used to develop more robust measurement criteria.

 

[deafdyke]

You accuse Ann Geers of getting rich off CIs. How exactly would that work? She is a scientist who works at a university. She is paid regardless of the outcomes of her research.

Ever hear of stocks? She may have a decent living, but it's always nice to have more money for things like trips, a second home, retirement etc etc etc

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

You didn't say that. You said, "Language deprived is not a scientific or educational term."

Have you ever heard of the fallacy of "moving the goalposts?"

Language deprivation/deprived/disfluency/dysfluency is an educational and scientific term.

This is *not* just a term that is *bantered around* it is used in scientific and educational literature and has a real meaning. There are real people who were never given access to a fluent language. They aren't fluent in a spoken language *or* a signed language despite having no other psychological or educational impairments outside of being Deaf. Obviously this is a spectrum, where some people are only mildly disfluent where others re severely disfluent.

As far as the criteria or measurements, here, let me Google that for you:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lan...iLXVAhVDOSYKHc3CBJwQ7xYIJSgA&biw=1536&bih=686

https://www.google.com/search?q=cri...gbXVAhWBNiYKHe-tCo8QvwUIJSgA&biw=1536&bih=686

Or maybe pubmed that for you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=language+deprivation+deaf

That NIH grant I mentioned earlier is in part going to be used to develop more robust measurement criteria.

In order to be a scientifically valid diagnosis, there must be criteria. Nothing you have shown me has defined language deprivation. Dysfluency is not the same as "language deprivation".

 

[Teacherofthedeaf]

Ever hear of stocks? She may have a decent living, but it's always nice to have more money for things like trips, a second home, retirement etc etc etc

Are you claiming that she is being given gifts or kickbacks (including stocks) by cochlear implant companies? What proof do you have of this?

 

[LoveBlue]

And on and on and on it goes. There's never going to be any consensus here. I wish Alex would just lock this thread.

 

[Beowulf]

And on and on and on it goes. There's never going to be any consensus here. I wish Alex would just lock this thread.

Nawww. He's cackling in his corner.

 

[AmputeeOT]

In order to be a scientifically valid diagnosis, there must be criteria. Nothing you have shown me has defined language deprivation. Dysfluency is not the same as "language deprivation".

You keep moving the goalposts.

First it wasn't a scientific or educational *term*

I pointed out that it was.

Then you said that there had to be "measurements".

I pointed out that there are.

Now you say there has to be a "diagnosis."

There isn't, BUT THAT IS WHAT THAT GRANT IS FOR THAT I LINKED TO A FEW TIMES, TO DEVELOP A DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA for "language deprivation disorder" which would be a disorder that can result from language deprivation.

Aside from which, language deprivation is (one) cause of language dysfluency, and language dysfluency does have criteria for diagnosis.

I don't think there is a diagnosis for social deprivation, nor emotional deprivation (though there is Emotional Deprivation Disorder which can result from emotional deprivation) , but these, like language deprivation, are not just nonscientific, noneducational terms people "banter around". They are real things with real consequences for real people's actual lives.

You know and I know that some children, even with implants, are not able to obtain fluent spoken language. I don't think it's okay to deny (deprive) those children a fluent language. If they don't have access to spoken languages, then they should be given access to a language in which they do have full access, including access to fluent language role-models. If they can't access a fluent spoken language and are denied access to a fluent language that they are physically able to access, then they are being deprived. I certainly hope you can agree with me.

 

[Calvin]

 

[deafdyke]

You keep moving the goalposts.

First it wasn't a scientific or educational *term*

I pointed out that it was.

Then you said that there had to be "measurements".

I pointed out that there are.

Now you say there has to be a "diagnosis."

There isn't, BUT THAT IS WHAT THAT GRANT IS FOR THAT I LINKED TO A FEW TIMES, TO DEVELOP A DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA for "language deprivation disorder" which would be a disorder that can result from language deprivation.

Aside from which, language deprivation is (one) cause of language dysfluency, and language dysfluency does have criteria for diagnosis.

I don't think there is a diagnosis for social deprivation, nor emotional deprivation (though there is Emotional Deprivation Disorder which can result from emotional deprivation) , but these, like language deprivation, are not just nonscientific, noneducational terms people "banter around". They are real things with real consequences for real people's actual lives.

You know and I know that some children, even with implants, are not able to obtain fluent spoken language. I don't think it's okay to deny (deprive) those children a fluent language. If they don't have access to spoken languages, then they should be given access to a language in which they do have full access, including access to fluent language role-models. If they can't access a fluent spoken language and are denied access to a fluent language that they are physically able to access, then they are being deprived. I certainly hope you can agree with me.

Actualy correction. ... Very few dhh kids can acheive completely fluent spoken language. Yes, there aren't a lot of kids who absolutly fail to develop spoken language with CI. But even kids with milder delays, even just social or figures of speech style delays can still STRONGLY benefit from ASL. Guess what? At best a child with a CI is FUNCTIONALLY hard of hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. It is STILL hard for dhh kids who use HA and CI to hear! You know with ASL dhh kids could do EVEN better. Why the resistance to giving kids EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!? Teacher of the Deaf you and the AG Bell philosophy seem to assume that if a child develops speech, then they'll automaticly become high achecivers. You do realize if speech confered high acheivment then all hearing people would be high acheivers right? Why then the assumption that dhh people will be high acheiving? Also The truth needs to be told to all parents. The CI works for some, does not work for some, and in between works only part of the time. In most cases it requires a lot of training to get minimal or average results. Only a few actually hear well enough to not need interpreters in class or in telephone conversations with strangers. It also requires a lot of work to maintain--mappings, batteries, parts replacement, regular visits to the audiologists, and most of this is paid out of pocket. If a part is lost or broken after the warranty period, it can be expensive, and many Deaf people don't bother to pay for replacements once a major component is broken. Insurance is changing currently, so one cannot depend on insurance to always cover it. The benefit is more of a gamble than a sure thing. Balance this with the risks of surgery and general anesthesia

 

[deafdyke]

Are you claiming that she is being given gifts or kickbacks (including stocks) by cochlear implant companies? What proof do you have of this?

Well with the fact there's VERY heavy promotion on FB for devices in groups, plus the fact that audis and oral proponets seem to think that parents of dhh kids are all incredibly wealthy, it wouldn't surprise me. The altrustic impluse to make a dhh child normal (through use of devices, and nothing like ASL or Cued speech) does not make for huge profit factors. Heck without the profit motive with speech, you would not have a job. Would you teach speech to dhh kids for free? Didn't think so!