Has anyone read this new study?

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlleyCat said:
Man, now I feel like a failure even though I'm profoundly deaf, but speak well, read well, and write well.

All based on a study of what, 100 and half were thrown out? Try again on 1000+ and I bet the results would be different.
Click to expand...
Half were not thrown out. 97 started the study and 97 ended. 188 children were treated by the implant centers. Some were not entered into the study because they were implanted later than 38 months or the parents declined, or did not report.
 
Still. 97 is still not a good number to validate a study. I put no stock into this study whatsoever with such a small quantity.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
They did speech intelligibility, speech comprehension, overall English language and reading. The sign users scored worse in all of those areas.
Click to expand...
See, it was all about speech and English language. Nothing about their native language. *SMH*
I feel sorry for the kids who were forced to only learn the language of others and not their native language. I imagine they had an unhappy childhood.
 
AlleyCat said:
Man, now I feel like a failure even though I'm profoundly deaf, but speak well, read well, and write well.

All based on a study of what, 100 and half were thrown out? Try again on 1000+ and I bet the results would be different.
Click to expand...

Where did it say half were thrown out? Did I miss something? I've read a good number of studies on hearing issues and many use 100 or less to base their findings.
I doubt 1,000 would bring about a huge difference in the results. If you have a kid with a CI and he's getting half or even more of his incoming information from sign, he will do worse than someone who gets all or most of his information verbally. I guarantee it. If you don't use it, you will never understand it.
 
DeafDucky said:
The difference is that it's just noisy for hearing people. For Deaf/HOH people...it's noise...amplified AND speech comprehension is still muffled/garbage in some cases. I hate going to any events that is loud/noisy for that reason... my hearing aids amplifies every sound there is..and I still can't understand it!

Hearing people in general cope better with noisy environments. Yes they do have trouble but I doubt to the degree as a person with a hearing aid on.

*above is personal view.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what your talking about, I wear HA's also. However, I do have one pair of HA's that has an excellent speech in noise program that allows me to hear in the noisiest of restaurant environments.
 
seb, I may be thinking of a different thread as far as half being thrown out. I still stand by my statement that 97 is thoroughly insignificant. That's all I was saying.
 
Teacherofthedeaf said:
Half were not thrown out. 97 started the study and 97 ended. 188 children were treated by the implant centers. Some were not entered into the study because they were implanted later than 38 months or the parents declined, or did not report.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem like you have thoroughly read the study that you posted.
 
LoveBlue said:
See, it was all about speech and English language. Nothing about their native language. *SMH*
I feel sorry for the kids who were forced to only learn the language of others and not their native language. I imagine they had an unhappy childhood.
Click to expand...
To me, language acquisition and cognition are more important that learning English.
 
LoveBlue said:
See, it was all about speech and English language. Nothing about their native language. *SMH*
I feel sorry for the kids who were forced to only learn the language of others and not their native language. I imagine they had an unhappy childhood.
Click to expand...
The children's native language is English.
 
LoveBlue said:
No, their native language is sign language.
Click to expand...
Since all of the children were implanted before the age of three and many much earlier than that, their native language can be argued hasn't been set yet and it is important to immerse the children in the English language since they have received a CI because their parents want their children to hear and to be able to speak English.
 
AlleyCat said:
Man, now I feel like a failure even though I'm profoundly deaf, but speak well, read well, and write well.

All based on a study of what, 100 and half were thrown out? Try again on 1000+ and I bet the results would be different.
Click to expand...

I practically do too but the only difference between AC and me is that she grew up with ASL, I didn't. And for what it's worth, I think AC grew up more well rounded, grounded and more confident than I'd ever be.

They did speech intelligibility, speech comprehension, overall English language and reading.
Click to expand...

Speech comprehension is the part I'd likely have failed. The only reason why my English language is higher is because of my reading all the time as it was just plain easier to do. I did not get my first hearing aid until I was past 2. There's so much more to a child's education and life than just these 4 areas.

The study feels like it poo-poos the success rate of children who either use ASL only or along with speech. I've met a few whose speech was excellent and grew up either in a deaf culture/deaf school environment or had inclusive schooling that allowed for ASL at home/school.

How much worse were the other two groups?
 
DeafDucky said:
I practically do too but the only difference between AC and me is that she grew up with ASL, I didn't. And for what it's worth, I think AC grew up more well rounded, grounded and more confident than I'd ever be.



Speech comprehension is the part I'd likely have failed. The only reason why my English language is higher is because of my reading all the time as it was just plain easier to do. I did not get my first hearing aid until I was past 2. There's so much more to a child's education and life than just these 4 areas.

The study feels like it poo-poos the success rate of children who either use ASL only or along with speech. I've met a few whose speech was excellent and grew up either in a deaf culture/deaf school environment or had inclusive schooling that allowed for ASL at home/school.

How much worse were the other two groups?
Click to expand...
They go into the scores in the study. The longer they used sign language, the lower the scores. So, the group that stopped within a year of being implanted had scores closer to the non-signing group than those who signed for the full three + years.

Also, 70% of the non-signers ended up within the normal range when compared to hearing students, but only 39% of the long term signers did.
 
This study does not show a CAUSAL effect of sign language on spoken language skills. Only a correlation.

Which means that maybe the kids who were not doing well with a CI, their parents stuck with using ASL for communication. The kids who did well with their CI, parents had no need to continue ASL.

Also, in science, there are many studies published showing the effect of ASL. Some will show positive results and some will show negative results. So this is why one study does not probe anything. One must look at the aggregate of studies and look at the methodology of each in order to come to a conclusion.

If 50 studies show a positive effect of ASL on English language acquisition and one study does not show a positive effect, we should not discount all the other 50 studies in favor of the one study.
 
AmputeeOT said:
This study does not show a CAUSAL effect of sign language on spoken language skills. Only a correlation.

Which means that maybe the kids who were not doing well with a CI, their parents stuck with using ASL for communication. The kids who did well with their CI, parents had no need to continue ASL....
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering. :hmm:
 
Those with CI's will eventually sign, believe me.
 
AmputeeOT said:
This study does not show a CAUSAL effect of sign language on spoken language skills. Only a correlation.

Which means that maybe the kids who were not doing well with a CI, their parents stuck with using ASL for communication. The kids who did well with their CI, parents had no need to continue ASL.

Also, in science, there are many studies published showing the effect of ASL. Some will show positive results and some will show negative results. So this is why one study does not probe anything. One must look at the aggregate of studies and look at the methodology of each in order to come to a conclusion.

If 50 studies show a positive effect of ASL on English language acquisition and one study does not show a positive effect, we should not discount all the other 50 studies in favor of the one study.
Click to expand...
Do you have 50 studies that show a positive effect of ASL? I would love to see them. I have never seen a study (before now) that compared signer and non-signers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top