Deaf Adoption: A Rhetorician's New Family

deafdyke said:
?
Nope I have NEVER said anything like that! I am NOT one of those "kids with mild losses are more hearing then deaf" folks. THAT was the attitude that caused virtually ALL the problems out there for me.
Experts have pushed that attitude for YEARS, and it hasn't really helped the hoh population as a whole. I'm just saying that the needs of a post or peri (lost while learning language) dhh person are different from someone who has ALWAYS been dhh, that's all.
Click to expand...

And you are absolutely correct in that statement.
 
Oh, so you aren't a scholar of rhetoric? And I still say that you cannot claim correlation without statistical analysis.
Click to expand...
Um, yes I can since I haven't stated that my observed relationships is a positive correlation or negative correlation. You know, between -1 and 1 with the number 1 being the perfect straight line fit? Known as "R"? Coefficient "R"? The question then becomes just how much of this positive correlation exists. That is if you choose variables x and y, for example, with "X" being increasing percentages on discrimination score while "Y" would be the increasing dB loss. It certainly cannot be a positive correlation which would be like saying, in this example, that with increasing dB loss you have you have increasing percentages on word discrimination score. It just doesn't compute.

So, yes. I can claim correlation. The real question becomes about the "fit."

If I were reticent about anything, it would be subjecting my son to someone who makes such snap judgements about individuals as you have claimed to make in your post.
Click to expand...
Again, going about using the statistical gag routine again and again shows a defensiveness posture when I already stated this has nothing to with academic or rigorous statistical exercise/research.

If my son chooses to contact you, as I have stated prior, it will be his decision to do so. He is an adult.
Click to expand...
I hope so. I will certainly take some notes.
 
kokonut said:
Um, yes I can since I haven't stated that my observed relationships is a positive correlation or negative correlation. You know, between -1 and 1 with the number 1 being the perfect straight line fit? Known as "R"? Coefficient "R"? The question then becomes just how much of this positive correlation exists. That is if you choose variables x and y, for example, with "X" being increasing percentages on discrimination score while "Y" would be the increasing dB loss. It certainly cannot be a positive correlation which would be like saying, in this example, that with increasing dB loss you have you have increasing percentages on word discrimination score. It just doesn't compute.

So, yes. I can claim correlation. The real question becomes about the "fit."


Again, going about using the statistical gag routine again and again shows a defensiveness posture when I already stated this has nothing to with academic or rigorous statistical exercise/research.


I hope so. I will certainly take some notes.
Click to expand...

And no, you can't claim correlation,e tiher postive or negative unless you have done a controlled correlational study that rules out other variables that could result int he observed connection. Pearson "R' is not the only correlational statistic, but only one of several.

Goodness of fit is a post hoc test, and is done only after statistical analysis of controlled correlational study.

And, as I said prior, if you are not doing a statistical analysis, you cannot claim correlation. On observation alone, the only thing you can claim is that you have observed 2 variables that appear to be connected in some way. That connection would form the foundation of a hypothesis to be tested using experiment methodology and statistical analysis.
 
kokonut said:
Um, yes I can since I haven't stated that my observed relationships is a positive correlation or negative correlation. You know, between -1 and 1 with the number 1 being the perfect straight line fit? Known as "R"? Coefficient "R"? The question then becomes just how much of this positive correlation exists. That is if you choose variables x and y, for example, with "X" being increasing percentages on discrimination score while "Y" would be the increasing dB loss. It certainly cannot be a positive correlation which would be like saying, in this example, that with increasing dB loss you have you have increasing percentages on word discrimination score. It just doesn't compute.

So, yes. I can claim correlation. The real question becomes about the "fit."


Again, going about using the statistical gag routine again and again shows a defensiveness posture when I already stated this has nothing to with academic or rigorous statistical exercise/research.


I hope so. I will certainly take some notes.
Click to expand...

And, if you take notes, I would certainly reccommend that you have a signed consent form in your possession prior.
 
jillio said:
And no, you can't claim correlation,e tiher postive or negative unless you have done a controlled correlational study that rules out other variables that could result int he observed connection. Pearson "R' is not the only correlational statistic, but only one of several.

Goodness of fit is a post hoc test, and is done only after statistical analysis of controlled correlational study.

And, as I said prior, if you are not doing a statistical analysis, you cannot claim correlation. On observation alone, the only thing you can claim is that you have observed 2 variables that appear to be connected in some way. That connection would form the foundation of a hypothesis to be tested using experiment methodology and statistical analysis.
Click to expand...

I never said correlation was based on my observation alone (ie calls) . Did you not see what I wrote? There is already a correlation when you have decreasing word discrimination scores along with increasing dB loss unless you suggesting that word discrimination scores increase along with increasing dB loss which, again, doesn't compute. I don't how much more direct I can get with you on this one.
 
jillio said:
And, if you take notes, I would certainly reccommend that you have a signed consent form in your possession prior.
Click to expand...

Sigh....

No consent form is needed since no names will be used and neither sexes identified. Nor will I even ask his name or identify him by location (e.g. university). Just his voice.

No need to be paranoid.
 
kokonut said:
Sigh....

................

No need to be paranoid.
Click to expand...

Looks like it's going to take some effort and time to hear a person with profound hearing loss (and no CI) communicating on the phone.

I think that person still has to be born.....
 
Cloggy said:
Looks like it's going to take some effort and time to hear a person with profound hearing loss (and no CI) communicating on the phone.

I think that person still has to be born.....
Click to expand...

Somehow I get the feeling I won't hear from him. Insecurity?
 
deafdyke said:
?
Nope I have NEVER said anything like that! I am NOT one of those "kids with mild losses are more hearing then deaf" folks. THAT was the attitude that caused virtually ALL the problems out there for me.
Experts have pushed that attitude for YEARS, and it hasn't really helped the hoh population as a whole. I'm just saying that the needs of a post or peri (lost while learning language) dhh person are different from someone who has ALWAYS been dhh, that's all.
Click to expand...

And since my daughter and I were both diagnosed with a hearing loss before infant hearing screenings who knows exactly when it began. not I. I also noted that we do have a reverse slope so did hear the higher frequencies, which would be a plus. When in the classroom and not able to hear others speaking clearly it really does't matter exactly when you lost your hearing.

I do remember sitting in the ent's room and having them amazed that I did participate in band, cheerleading, basketball etc etc. One, must have been a resident seemed to think tumbling shouldn't have been possible with as bad as my hearing loss was. I also had no idea what he was saying for the most part even though he was sitting 2 feet from me. That's how bad my hearing was...for male voices.

In my family having a mild hearing loss would not be apparent until reaching school age just because there are adults with hearing loss so people generally speak louder, the tv is louder, the radio or stereo is played louder so the child with the hearing loss spends time in an enviroment where the spoken language is loud enough for her to hear.

A child with a CI gets much MORE imput then you or I ever got through the HA's. The earlier that imput is given the more the child will be able to do what myself or my daughter did. But having the CI will help informed parents get accomodations if needed. (I think more parents and therapists also need to look at auditory processing problems for kids who are having problems to but that is an area where the excuse is always that the childs problem can only be from the hearing loss, I expect that to gradually change just as things are changing slowly in the SL area for kids with downsyndrome. They are now recognizing that those kids can have speech problems that kids with normal developement have and those problems have causes that are not related to the mental retardation, that is progress)

.
 
A child with a CI gets much MORE imput then you or I ever got through the HA's.
Click to expand...
That's true for YOU maybe, but not me and not many if not most other hoh folks out there for whom hearing aids work well for.
I didn't mean to imply that posties don't have issues in the classroom......they do. But my point being is that posties are more like parapelgics who aquire their disabilty, whereas prelingal and perilingal are more like people who've always had to use wheelchairs.
jag, is your hoh daughter also the one who is MR? I know that its notoriously hard to differentate MR from hearing loss. Back in the late seventies a lot of "MR" kids were discovered to simply be hoh. I know too that its hard to figure out what MR folks hear.
Oh, and I am NOT being anti MR. I respect people with MR. God, I have a syndrome that can and DOES cause MR. I'm not bashing them. I'm simply saying that their sped needs are COMPLETLY different from kids with sensory and learning disabilites. When I bash the "Ummm who's President Bush?" types I'm talking about the students who clog up sped b/c there's no real other place for them. They are the apatheic ones who really give sped a bad name. They aren't MR.........
Oh, and what does infant screening have to do with anything? Lots of people here were dx as dhh even without it. Hey, I WAS,(dx at 18months, has at three) and I have pretty much the same sort of loss as you do (reverse slope loss) I know it was really common for hoh kids to be dx somewhat late in the past.........but boy its hard to believe that someone would fall throu the cracks so easily....I mean usually people noticed around kindergarten and first grade.........
 
kokonut said:
Sigh....

No consent form is needed since no names will be used and neither sexes identified. Nor will I even ask his name or identify him by location (e.g. university). Just his voice.

No need to be paranoid.
Click to expand...

Nmes are never used in researcdh projects. However, consent forms ar required. Identifying anyone by any method for any type of study requires a consent form. I'm not being paranoid, but as I engage in academic research, I am informing you of IRB standards as well as ethical considerations.
 
kokonut said:
Somehow I get the feeling I won't hear from him. Insecurity?
Click to expand...
I don't know... your request to speak to him turned into a research project...
I'm not sure how this happened... and not willing to find out..

Perhaps.... when you find out the boy cannot use the phone.... that doesn't mean that all deaf persond cannot use the phone....

Either that or she's lying....

Anyway.... I wish you lots of luck, and I hope you will be able to speak to him...
 
Post # 122: "I haven't stated that my observed correlation" is a statement that your correleation is based on your observations.

So, let me get this straight......you are saying that milder loss = greater sound perception and profound loss = less sound perception. Wow, how long did it take you to figure that one out? That ranks right up there with, "The longer you live the older you get."
 
Cloggy said:
I don't know... your request to speak to him turned into a research project...
I'm not sure how this happened... and not willing to find out..

Perhaps.... when you find out the boy cannot use the phone.... that doesn't mean that all deaf persond cannot use the phone....

Either that or she's lying....

Anyway.... I wish you lots of luck, and I hope you will be able to speak to him...
Click to expand...

Cloggy, don't accuse me of lying. In case you haven't noticed, your posts have been being ignored, as you obviously have nothing worthwhile to add to the discussion. Your childish attempts to reduce everythingto personal insult are ridiculas, buit exactly what is expected of one who has no more knowledge than yourself.
 
Cloggy said:
I don't know... your request to speak to him turned into a research project...
I'm not sure how this happened... and not willing to find out..

Perhaps.... when you find out the boy cannot use the phone.... that doesn't mean that all deaf persond cannot use the phone....

Either that or she's lying....

Anyway.... I wish you lots of luck, and I hope you will be able to speak to him...
Click to expand...

Not really a research but I've been doing these phone calls since the days of Gallaudet, almost 20 years ago, calling and talking to my hoh and hearing friends. It's not a matter of not using the phone but the level of conversation that can be understood fluidly.
 
jillio said:
Nmes are never used in researcdh projects. However, consent forms ar required. Identifying anyone by any method for any type of study requires a consent form. I'm not being paranoid, but as I engage in academic research, I am informing you of IRB standards as well as ethical considerations.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with academic research regarding the use of names. As I said before, again, all I require is a simple phone call. No names. No location. No other identifying features that will identify who I am talking about. Plus, he wouldn't be the only one. I'm not the one being overly defensive here.
 
jillio said:
Post # 122: "I haven't stated that my observed correlation" is a statement that your correleation is based on your observations.

So, let me get this straight......you are saying that milder loss = greater sound perception and profound loss = less sound perception. Wow, how long did it take you to figure that one out? That ranks right up there with, "The longer you live the older you get."
Click to expand...

Um, the referrence about my observations wasn't related to talking people on the phone. It was something else. I made that clear earlier.

I was talking about word discrimination and not sound perception per se. Again, are you denying that there is NO correlation on what you've just now described?

LoL.
 
Last edited:
kokonut said:
I am familiar with academic research regarding the use of names. As I said before, again, all I require is a simple phone call. No names. No location. No other identifying features that will identify who I am talking about. Plus, he wouldn't be the only one. I'm not the one being overly defensive here.
Click to expand...

And, as I've said, my son is free to do as he wishes. He is an adult.
 
kokonut said:
Not really a research but I've been doing these phone calls since the days of Gallaudet, almost 20 years ago, calling and talking to my hoh and hearing friends. It's not a matter of not using the phone but the level of conversation that can be understood fluidly.
Click to expand...

Ah, so what we are really talking about here is anecdotal evidence, not correlation.
 
Back
Top