Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teacherofthedeaf said:
No, it says that 70% of oral only kids catch up to hearing kids.
Click to expand...

Ok, Lets assume the figure is exact, what About the other 30% that Dont catch up?

Also No reply on the other points?

What does it imply of the group of Which they didnt receive feedback ? 40 kids dropping of the charts is not an insignificant number ...
 
Mieke said:
Ok, Lets assume the figure is exact, what About the other 30% that Dont catch up?

Also No reply on the other points?

What does it imply of the group of Which they didnt receive feedback ? 40 kids dropping of the charts is not an insignificant number ...
Click to expand...
They only lost 6 kids. The cohort started at 97 and they got data for 91. As for the other 30%...well, 40% of deaf children have disabilities, and no, not every child will end up in the normal range, deaf or not.
 
Beowulf said:
Thanks for the kind reply. I am in total agreement with you. Lol
I hope you forgive me for being jaded today, thinking that perhaps the "key words" were loaded with some kind of voice inflection to make them recognizable, etc.
Yeah, times are different now. In the old days we deafies were encouraged to be printers. Now that is out. Lol
Have you noticed that retail stores are closing more frequently, thanks to competition from online shopping? It begs the question: what is the use of being able to speak if the likelihood is growing that it won't be needed?
As Tetra sez, curses to reality. ;)
Click to expand...
Sadly the unemployment rate for people who are deaf is still way to high even today! Even today some people still think that because someone is deaf they must be unable to perform in some jobs because they are deaf: I could see being a receptionist or someone who must talk on the phone as being a challenge, but pretty much anything else should be wide open. Yes, the closing of retail stores because of online stores is a big problem. It will ultimately have many consequences: eliminating jobs being number one and also reducing the amount of communication skills you need to shop, but I see texting as a bigger reason for not having to speak. I know many people who will no longer talk on the phone and insist of doing everything via text. Maybe in the near future you won't need to talk because everyone will communicate through texting or though thought transfer, but I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes.
 
Mieke said:
Ok, Lets assume the figure is exact, what About the other 30% that Dont catch up?

Also No reply on the other points?

What does it imply of the group of Which they didnt receive feedback ? 40 kids dropping of the charts is not an insignificant number ...
Click to expand...
I had a college professor who firmly believed that everything in nature falls into a bell shaped curve and 30% is close the the David and Franklin territory, ie, D's and F's.
 
it is a very risk for small kids who receives CI that would likely have struggles to hear since CI has limited of numbers of channels than hearing people.

my hub did have a hard time growing up without ASL yet he can speak very well at this time he had HA. so he just got a CI when he was in late 30's he admitted that CI is neat however he still thinks that CI still is limited and still need ASL in any way.

My friends who work at Deaf school and mainstreaming school. I have seen lot of CI users ended up in the Special program where they can learn ASL at a late age and their languages are way delayed. I think the article is not a 100 true.
 
Frisky Feline said:
it is a very risk for small kids who receives CI that would likely have struggles to hear since CI has limited of numbers of channels than hearing people.

my hub did have a hard time growing up without ASL yet he can speak very well at this time he had HA. so he just got a CI when he was in late 30's he admitted that CI is neat however he still thinks that CI still is limited and still need ASL in any way.

My friends who work at Deaf school and mainstreaming school. I have seen lot of CI users ended up in the Special program where they can learn ASL at a late age and their languages are way delayed. I think the article is not a 100 true.
Click to expand...

The study was of children who received their CI before the age of three and before they entered elementary school and followed them throughout elementary school. Most studies I have read show that the earlier the implant is done the better the patient does in regard to speech recognition and this study takes it one step further and shows that the more the patient is exposed to the spoken word and the less of sign language, the better their speech recognition scores will be.
 
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this study. They picked 97 kids, none profoundly deaf and eliminated 40 of them from the results due to lack of follow up. It would be interesting to know the details of the nearly half that were eliminated. Perhaps their CI provided them with no benefit.

ASL is beneficial for language acquisition and cognitive skills. I am fairly sure it would be easy to dig up more reliable studies that prove the opposite of what this one is suggesting.
 
seb said:
The study was of children who received their CI before the age of three and before they entered elementary school and followed them throughout elementary school. Most studies I have read show that the earlier the implant is done the better the patient does in regard to speech recognition and this study takes it one step further and shows that the more the patient is exposed to the spoken word and the less of sign language, the better their speech recognition scores will be.
Click to expand...
So the study was just saying that speech recognition scores were high? So? What were their verbal IQs? Verbal IQs actually do measure mastery of language, much better then speech recognition scores. The only thing that this proves is that a carefully selected population did well on speech recognition scores. Name me a study that proves that high speech recogition scores is equated with GLOBAL high life achievement. It doesn't. Oralists want parents to think that speech and listening skills equate with high global life acheivement. If that was true then all hearing people would acheive at high levels.
 
deafdyke said:
So the study was just saying that speech recognition scores were high? So? What were their verbal IQs? Verbal IQs actually do measure mastery of language, much better then speech recognition scores. The only thing that this proves is that a carefully selected population did well on speech recognition scores. Name me a study that proves that high speech recogition scores is equated with GLOBAL high life achievement. It doesn't. Oralists want parents to think that speech and listening skills equate with high global life acheivement. If that was true then all hearing people would acheive at high levels.
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine. I didn't read anything about verbal IQ in the study. All studies if they are conducted correctly will have a carefully selected group taking part in it. In this case it was children who had CI's implanted by the age of three and were followed throughout their elementary school lives and were given regular tests to measure their word recognition scores. What this study shows is that children who had the least exposure to sign language had higher scores on the word recognition test than those children in the study who were exposed to more sign language throughout their formative years. These scores might not equate with a high global life achievement, but these children who scored higher will more likely be able to converse with those in the hearing world much better than those who didn't score as high.
 
seb said:
Your guess is as good as mine. I didn't read anything about verbal IQ in the study. All studies if they are conducted correctly will have a carefully selected group taking part in it. In this case it was children who had CI's implanted by the age of three and were followed throughout their elementary school lives and were given regular tests to measure their word recognition scores. What this study shows is that children who had the least exposure to sign language had higher scores on the word recognition test than those children in the study who were exposed to more sign language throughout their formative years. These scores might not equate with a high global life achievement, but these children who scored higher will more likely be able to converse with those in the hearing world much better than those who didn't score as high.
Click to expand...
Well said. The statement" all hearing people would achieve at high levels" is a bit silly for being ill-defined. Think of it as a statistician and refine it.
 
DOD said:
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this study. They picked 97 kids, none profoundly deaf and eliminated 40 of them from the results due to lack of follow up. It would be interesting to know the details of the nearly half that were eliminated. Perhaps their CI provided them with no benefit.

ASL is beneficial for language acquisition and cognitive skills. I am fairly sure it would be easy to dig up more reliable studies that prove the opposite of what this one is suggesting.
Click to expand...
Or maybe the cherry-picked 40 were eliminated because of negative results. Lol
 
Frisky Feline said:
it is a very risk for small kids who receives CI that would likely have struggles to hear since CI has limited of numbers of channels than hearing people.

my hub did have a hard time growing up without ASL yet he can speak very well at this time he had HA. so he just got a CI when he was in late 30's he admitted that CI is neat however he still thinks that CI still is limited and still need ASL in any way.

My friends who work at Deaf school and mainstreaming school. I have seen lot of CI users ended up in the Special program where they can learn ASL at a late age and their languages are way delayed. I think the article is not a 100 true.
Click to expand...
But this data says the opposite. It says that 70% of kids who use spoken language only catch up to hearing kids. Only 30% of those who use sign do.
 
DOD said:
I wouldn't put a lot of stock in this study. They picked 97 kids, none profoundly deaf and eliminated 40 of them from the results due to lack of follow up. It would be interesting to know the details of the nearly half that were eliminated. Perhaps their CI provided them with no benefit.

ASL is beneficial for language acquisition and cognitive skills. I am fairly sure it would be easy to dig up more reliable studies that prove the opposite of what this one is suggesting.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? They all have profound hearing loss.
 
deafdyke said:
So the study was just saying that speech recognition scores were high? So? What were their verbal IQs? Verbal IQs actually do measure mastery of language, much better then speech recognition scores. The only thing that this proves is that a carefully selected population did well on speech recognition scores. Name me a study that proves that high speech recogition scores is equated with GLOBAL high life achievement. It doesn't. Oralists want parents to think that speech and listening skills equate with high global life acheivement. If that was true then all hearing people would acheive at high levels.
Click to expand...
If you bothered to read the study you would see that none of the things you are saying are true.
 
The study essentially says that it basically boils down to if you don't use it, you lose it or will never get it!
 
Back in the early seventies there was a theory that the oral deaf are that way because they read a lot. They get that way because of reading a lot. Reading.
Now we get they cannot hear a lot because sound is so freaking important you have to join us.
This is too depressing, I am outta here.
 
BTW TOD, you are aware that most studies like this are sponsored by the industry right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top