This one doesn't seem to be sponsored by the industry. Those taking part in the study were: a Callier Center for Communication Disorders, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas; bWelch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; and c Tina and Rick Caruso Department of Otolaryngology, Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. It was designed to find out and it's sole purpose was to find out what the amount of sign language use had on speech recognition scores with children who received CI before the age of three by the time they entered middle school. [Outcomes were compared for early-implanted children from a prospective, national cohort differing in amount and duration of sign language use. Children exposed to sign language performed more poorly on auditory-only speech recognition, speech intelligibility, spoken language, and reading outcomes.]
Has anyone read this new study?
- Thread starter Teacherofthedeaf
- Start date
- Status
I will go back and look again. Regardless, I would not rely on this study. Very small sampling to start with and then they eliminated 1/2 from the results.
My point was more to the already small sample size that was further reduced by another 1/2.
Here is an interesting and comprehensive review article on the use of ASL to support the development of English and literacy.
Barbaro
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 2,816
- Reaction score
- 521
While I lived in Dallas, I was approached at parties by three different people on three occasions. They all work at Callier Center for Communication Disorders, University of Texas at Dallas. They tried to convince me to get CI, but I declined politely. One of them tried to follow me and made attempts to change my mind. He was like, "It will change your life." It was annoying, let me tell ya.
It looks like the OP study may have been funded by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. While it may have been published by the provided source in June of 2017, the CDaCI study was conducted between November 2002 and December 2004. Child development after cochlear implant for those that the CI is successful for will naturally become more fluent in spoken language by exposure. This is nothing more than CI supporting literature. They will never show you numbers that don't support CI's. Take it with a grain of salt. Seek out opposing information to get a balanced view and more complete picture. There is plenty out there.
Can you back this up with any evidence to confirm this such as studies or... ?
Your really comparing apples to oranges here. The study in question followed children who received CI's prior to the age of three and followed them through elementary school to see what those having little to no ASL interaction speech rec scores were in relation to those who received more ASL interaction. In another study on Med El looked at how young was too young and how old was too old for a CI they referred to "Another study looking at 53 children implanted between the ages of 2.5 years and 21 years. It found that children who were implanted after age 10 didn’t see their hearing improve as much as those implanted at a younger age—if they have had their profound hearing loss since birth.2 More studies have shown that children implanted before their second birthday “perform significantly better” than those implanted at an older age.3,4,5."
Ronnie Wilbur's article was to show how deaf children who use ASL develop english language skills. She points out , "by age 18, deaf students do not have the linguistic competence of 10 year old hearing children in many syntactic structures of English." Her theory is that it is caused by "insufficient input and interaction, teaching approaches." This is theory because she bases it on only her own experience and doesn't state any scientific studies to base it on. Some of the studies she quoted in the article had fewer participants than that of the study in question and some of her claims are based solely on her observations or theories.
I did not intend to make a comparison. I posted the review article to show that ASL is useful more to counter the statement that it wasn't. The context of the comment on the study can easily be mis-interpreted. You have to consider that the CI will not be successful for all candidates. For those that are profoundly deaf with no aided benefit, ASL would be crucial. It seems obvious that spoken language would be acquired easier for those that can hear and visual conceptual language would be acquired easier for those that can't.
The study never said it wasn't useful, it's conclusions were that if I child had received a CI prior to age three, there word rec scores would be higher if they primarily used spoken word rather than spoken and sign; the less sign they used the higher their word rec scores would be. It has been shown that the earlier someone receives a CI the better their results with it will be. This is especially true if the person receiving the CI is under the age of two.
AND it's a fact that the effectiveness of CI varies HUGELY. Yes, there are some kids who reach HOH levels..... But according to a study only about 33% of CI kids in classrooms without a terp were able to easily understand the teacher. Very few kids function as hearing. Pretty much ALL still function as hard of hearing. Remember the hard in the hard of hearing. It's still hard for them to hear. So why not give them sign, cued speech, deaf school, deaf classes etc? They could then not have to work so hard to hear, and concentrate on THRIVING and REALLY acheiving!
It has also been shown that the earlier the implant is done, the better the results will be and this study looked into just those cases. All the children were implanted before the age of three and then followed throughout elementary school. The results as it stated were the kids who received the least sign language scored the highest on word recognition tests and those receiving the most sign language scores were significantly lower. You basically have a two year window to implant a child who is profoundly deaf. If you miss that window the results will not be anywhere near as good as if you do the implant during the two year window. Some studies have shown that children who receive bilateral implants have a better outcome than those who have a unilateral implant. Studies have also been shown that the more channels the processor has the better although the person will receive a degraded signal when compared to someone who can hear. Several studies of children with multi channel processors have had the respondents perform better than chance on closed set tests and have achieved word rec scores of 70-100%. The study in question is not withholding sign but saying that if you do give sign to early implanted children their scores on word recognition tests will be lower than those receiving less sign by the end of elementary school. Most kids that I have seen with a CI are in deaf schools or spend part of their day in classes for the deaf.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495322
http://www.asu.edu/clas/shs/cilab/documents/publications/2000dormanloizoukempkirk.pdf
Teacherofthedeaf
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2016
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 63
- Status