CI's for under 1 ???

[R2D2]

We will have a student (I cant give more details on gender, age or whatever due to privacy reasons) who will get a CI this summer so we are all very curious to how that student will do with it.

We had a boy who got a CI 2 years ago at the age of 8...interesting that after he got his CI, his expressive language improved using ASL but still doesnt use spoken language. However, his receptive language in both signing and spoken language improved so..never know but at least he is being exposed to both and doing great with both..just expressed that he is not interested in learning how to speak but likes to "listen" using his CI. Cant explain why that happens. However, he loves his CI so that's good rather than him hating it and then resenting his parents for making the decision for him.

If he wasn't using spoken language prior to his implant then 8 years old is quite a late age to receive a CI and it would have been quite remarkable if he had been able to develop spoken language from that point on. The improvements that you have noticed are quite realistic and consistent with expectations for a child of that situation. It's great that he loves his CI!

 

[R2D2]

Glasses is not invasive surgery.

Vison and language development are not correlated.

Some sight problems do require invasive surgery (my sister had eye surgery as a child) and in fact, it's necessary to be able to see well to read, so vision is correlated to language development, yes?

 

[jillio]

Oh well, the fact was that it was still considered of a sufficient standard enough to be published in a well respected journal is good enough for me. It's a peer reviewed paper! I would agree that the study would need to be repeated to either strengthen or discredit the hypothesis but it's a good start!

In this thread that you created about a particular study http://www.alldeaf.com/hearing-aids-cochlear-implants/42192-psychosocial-development-ci.html
there were only 22 subjects, even fewer than the study that you have so many problems with on account of sample size. Obviously since you told us about it, you think this study is valuable despite the small sample size. Why the difference in attitude?

My mistake--22 not 28. didn't have the study in front of me when I replied. And I do think this study is valid, and especially so if one reads all of the results. When it was first posted, it was posted only as an example of teenagers being satisfied and doing remarkably well with their CIs. When the whole article became available, it was discovered that while they may be saying they are satisfied, here are the problems that are still occurring, etc......and here are the limitations of the study. And it confirmed what I had claimed all along. You cannot properly interpret a study from an abstract. You must read the results. And the results gave quite a different picture than was originally portrayed.

 

[jillio]

Some sight problems do require invasive surgery (my sister had eye surgery as a child) and in fact, it's necessary to be able to see well to read, so vision is correlated to language development, yes?

Uhhhhh........no.

 

[R2D2]

Uhhhhh........no.

Please explain. I thought that in the concept of Bi Bi education for example L2 was written English? So you would need to have either good or corrected vision to be able to read.

 

[R2D2]

My mistake--22 not 28. didn't have the study in front of me when I replied. And I do think this study is valid, and especially so if one reads all of the results. When it was first posted, it was posted only as an example of teenagers being satisfied and doing remarkably well with their CIs. When the whole article became available, it was discovered that while they may be saying they are satisfied, here are the problems that are still occurring, etc......and here are the limitations of the study. And it confirmed what I had claimed all along. You cannot properly interpret a study from an abstract. You must read the results. And the results gave quite a different picture than was originally portrayed.

Sorry I think you may have misunderstood, and you didn't make a mistake. The 22 subjects were not in the study of the deaf teenagers but in another study that you posted in this forum about. If you click on the link I provided you can see it. I was just asking why you didn't see the sample size as a problem for that particular study, that's all.

Don't forget, for the study about the deaf teenagers, they produced a plain English report as well for parents that outlined those problems that occured, from memory one worry was about technological dependency. The link to this report was posted here but I'm too lazy to find it now. So I wasn't just going from the abstract.

 

[jillio]

My mistake--22 not 28. didn't have the study in front of me when I replied. And I do think this study is valid, and especially so if one reads all of the results. When it was first posted, it was posted only as an example of teenagers being satisfied and doing remarkably well with their CIs. When the whole article became available, it was discovered that while they may be saying they are satisfied, here are the problems that are still occurring, etc......and here are the limitations of the study. And it confirmed what I had claimed all along. You cannot properly interpret a study from an abstract. You must read the results. And the results gave quite a different picture than was originally portrayed.

I never said that a small ample size invalidated a study...I have claimed and will stick by that claim, that a samll sample size creates problems with generalizability. That would include the one I cited, and the other one as well. The reason I brought up the sample size in the other study was because all that was posted was an abstract, and in order for me to interpret the study properly, I needed to see the whole paper......variables to offset the sample size and other control that can mediate need to be known to properly interpret results. But yes, small sample size creates a lack of generizability in any experiment, and certain methodologies create limitations in other ways. If all of these are combined in one study, then I would not consider it valid. But the only way to determine it it to see the study in its entirety.

 

[jillio]

Sorry I think you may have misunderstood, and you didn't make a mistake. The 22 subjects were not in the study of the deaf teenagers but in another study that you posted in this forum about. If you click on the link I provided you can see it. I was just asking why you didn't see the sample size as a problem for that particular study, that's all.

Don't forget, for the study about the deaf teenagers, they produced a plain English report as well for parents that outlined those problems that occured, from memory one worry was about technological dependency. The link to this report was posted here but I'm too lazy to find it now. So I wasn't just going from the abstract.

Yes, you're right. The limitations and restrictions were posted in the completed study. But if you will recall, when the topic was first opened, only the abstract was available, as the volume of the journal was not yet available.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

I think it's wrong to implant deaf babies or anyone else who is not capable of communicating wether they want the device or not. Child should be old enough to make their own minds up. Some people do well with Implants. Some people hate them. You should at least be given a choice as wether you get this device or not.

I have two oral deaf teenagers that have cochlear implants. My son was implant at three and it was my right as is mother to implant him. No there is no way I would have waited for him to make that decision when he was adult because all of those language opportunity windows would have closed for him. The cochlear implant is not for everyone but it was the best decision I have made for my son. My daughter was implanted at the age of ten. She was old enough to weigh in on the decision. And if she would have told me NO then I would have respect her decision. She spoke to her doctor, to her audiologist and to other friends that have implants.

Drema, neither you nor anyone else has the right to take away the decision making process from parents. I don't know about other parents but I know I made an informed decision.

 

[jackiesolorzano]

What is it with you oralist supporters? You are so defensive that you take any post that is contradictory to the way you view things, and immediately, instead of defending your position with logic and empirical eveidence, start to throw personal insults around like they were baseballs. Thenn, when the same is directed right back at you, you want to whine about being picked on. Get a grip.

Jillio I can agree with you that at times I am defensive especially when it comes to deal with my children. Can you agree that you and others like you are also defensive? I wonder if you are secure enough in yourself to agree that you are very very defensive.

 

[Raykat]

Glasses is not invasive surgery.

Vison and language development are not correlated.

You will note that there was no mention of any sort of surgery in my posted question, merely the fitting of glasses to "fix" the vision problem. I would have thought that a child needed reasonably good sight to be able to learn lipreading and sign, also to eventually write with paper and pen, tho of course Helen Keller managed just fine.

 

[Raykat]

As with HA, glasses can be removed and are not surgically implanted into the body. Comparison is fallicious.

What was I comparing it with???????? no mention of HA or CI in my post, simply asking a question

 

[R2D2]

Yes, you're right. The limitations and restrictions were posted in the completed study. But if you will recall, when the topic was first opened, only the abstract was available, as the volume of the journal was not yet available.

From my memory, I first introduced discussion about the study via the plain English report produced on the NDCS website, which was fairly comprehensive and included information about worries and concerns that the teenagers had.

I remember that because people didn't really think it was a proper study to begin with and thought it was only anecdotal evidence in the form of a glamourous brochure. It was only a few weeks later that the abstract appeared on Pubmed, indicating that it had been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. The researchers basically wrote two versions - one for parents, in order to educate them and the other for peer review later on.

 

[jillio]

You will note that there was no mention of any sort of surgery in my posted question, merely the fitting of glasses to "fix" the vision problem. I would have thought that a child needed reasonably good sight to be able to learn lipreading and sign, also to eventually write with paper and pen, tho of course Helen Keller managed just fine.

You compared glasses to a CI. Invasive surgery is implied. Had you compared glasses to HA, it would have been reasonable.

 

[R2D2]

I never said that a small ample size invalidated a study...I have claimed and will stick by that claim, that a samll sample size creates problems with generalizability. That would include the one I cited, and the other one as well. The reason I brought up the sample size in the other study was because all that was posted was an abstract, and in order for me to interpret the study properly, I needed to see the whole paper......variables to offset the sample size and other control that can mediate need to be known to properly interpret results. But yes, small sample size creates a lack of generizability in any experiment, and certain methodologies create limitations in other ways. If all of these are combined in one study, then I would not consider it valid. But the only way to determine it it to see the study in its entirety.

Okay. I think I must have got the wrong impression from the way that you seemed to be far more critical of the methodological limitations of the deaf teenager study compared to the other study you posted about. Apologies if I got the wrong impression.

 

[jillio]

From my memory, I first introduced discussion about the study via the plain English report produced on the NDCS website, which was fairly comprehensive and included information about worries and concerns that the teenagers had.

I remember that because people didn't really think it was a proper study to begin with and thought it was only anecdotal evidence in the form of a glamourous brochure. It was only a few weeks later that the abstract appeared on Pubmed, indicating that it had been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. The researchers basically wrote two versions - one for parents, in order to educate them and the other for peer review later on.

Yep, you're right. Been awhile since that thread. But in the form it was orignially introduced, as the brochure, it was anecdotal, becasue it wa taken out of context, and contained only the comments made by some of the students, and not all of the information that qualified their comments, as in the research paper. It attempted to present a false impression of the actual research findings. Which brings us back to my original problem. Is it fair to parents to take only the most positive items from a research project and create a false impression without also providing those items that refute?

 

[jillio]

Okay. I think I must have got the wrong impression from the way that you seemed to be far more critical of the methodological limitations of the deaf teenager study compared to the other study you posted about. Apologies if I got the wrong impression.

Not a problem. Apologies not necessary. And I am sorry as well, if I sometimes come across too harshly. This is a subject that I am very passionate about.

 

[R2D2]

Not a problem. Apologies not necessary. And I am sorry as well, if I sometimes come across too harshly. This is a subject that I am very passionate about.

I can tell! No hard feelings. Even though we may not always agree, I appreciate that you care very much about deaf children.

 

[jillio]

I can tell! No hard feelings. Even though we may not always agree, I appreciate that you care very much about deaf children.

Thank you. Its good that you understand that disagreement is not equal to enemy!

 

[Raykat]

You compared glasses to a CI. Invasive surgery is implied. Had you compared glasses to HA, it would have been reasonable.

If you can find a mention of CI in my original question you have better eyes than me.