Parants of CI children.

[jillio]

Who should be doing the research?

And can you show some research that shows there is no link between length of deafness and effectiveness of CI?

Since ENTs do not have anything to do with the therapy necessary to develop speech skills following implantation, they are certainly not qualified to do research of this nature.

But the issue is not who did the research, but who published it. And for the website provided, they have an obvious audist bias, and have chosen to review only that which they think will support their position. Likewise, this is not the actual research, but a literature review, which means that it hasbeen reinterpreted by someone with an obvious bias.

Are you talking about a correlation? A correlation does not prove cause and effect.

 

[Hear Again]

It does kind of seem that while there are a lot of "obvious" cases, where people cannot benifit from HA get the CI, it does kind of seem like the marketing practices with the loosening of the requirements (after all if you're an adult you can get implanted if you hear 60% with or without aids) aren't exactly honest.

DD,

Actually, CI candidacy criteria states that a person must have 40% or less speech discrimination *with* hearing aids in the best aided listening conditions. If a person hears more than 40% (especially without hearing aids), they have too much residual hearing to qualify for a CI.

Perhaps this varies from one CI center to another, but from all of the CI users I know, each of them report their CI center requiring a speech discrimination score of 40% or less aided.

The only time a person can have 60% speech discrimination (aided) is if they are participating in an FDA clinical research study.

 

[AlleyCat]

Still need a citation. What you have posted is useless. I need to see the methodology and the population and assignment, as well as the instruments used in order to evaluate the research and the results. Odd that you don't seem to want to provide the source.

Really no different than all the times you were asked to provide a source, and you wouldn't. You told us to google it, look it up, whatever .. why do you think some people don't bother reading these threads or posting anymore? People who have left over this. Sad, unfortunately. Too bad this can't be a place where people willingly post their citations instead of giving everyone else a hard time. What goes around comes around. And of course, once again, we've deviated from the original topic.

 

[deafdyke]

Hear Again.....really? Well in that case......if FDA criteria is strictly adhered to (with exceptions for things like severe recruitment and tintituas) I do think that's a good benchmark for being implanted. It would be like the difference between hearing with an ITE vs. a BTE.
I still kind of think there is somewhat of a " latest technology" vibe among some people. I also think there might be some not too savoury relationships between the CI companies and the audis, sort of like there is with regular docs and Big Pharma.

 

[Hear Again]

Hear Again.....really? Well in that case......if FDA criteria is strictly adhered to (with exceptions for things like severe recruitment and tintituas) I do think that's a good benchmark for being implanted. It would be like the difference between hearing with an ITE vs. a BTE.
I still kind of think there is somewhat of a " latest technology" vibe among some people. I also think there might be some not too savoury relationships between the CI companies and the audis, sort of like there is with regular docs and Big Pharma.

I know what you mean about some people wanting the latest and greatest technology. My former CI audi told me about a client who came in for a CI evaluation. She had a mild to moderate hearing loss. Her hearing wasn't expected to change, so according to my audi, there was no reason to implant her at that time.

 

[jillio]

Really no different than all the times you were asked to provide a source, and you wouldn't. You told us to google it, look it up, whatever .. why do you think some people don't bother reading these threads or posting anymore? People who have left over this. Sad, unfortunately. Too bad this can't be a place where people willingly post their citations instead of giving everyone else a hard time. What goes around comes around. And of course, once again, we've deviated from the original topic.

Actually, it is much different. Everytime I have quoted directly from research, or anytime I have copied and pasted from a web page, a link and/or a citation has been provided by me. The only time I have ever told anyone to "look it up" is when I have made a generalized statement regarding research findings, and did not refer to a specific piece of research. In that case, I suggested that posters access the numerous articles available on the topic.

I prefer not to guess as to why people do things they do. It is much better to ask than to assume.

If you disagree with the rules of the forum regarding the posting of links and citatations in the case of direct quotes or copies and pastes, perhaps you should take it up with the mods. I have already done so, and my position has been confirmed.

Thank you.

 

[Angel]

Does Angel have the link for this one?

:roll:

 

[jillio]

:roll:

Does that mean no? I'd like to access the full article or website.

 

[Daredevel7]

I spent 20 minutes last night trying to find an article that backs up what rick48 was saying. I found several abstracts, but none with full access. I also found a full access literature review, but I'm sure Jillio doesn't even want it. I tried, rick48, I tried. :shrug:

Based on the abstracts, it does seem to me that the earlier the better. After all, isn't this kind of the same thing as hearing aids anyway? Someone who was raised with HA vs those without? Or am I wrong on this too?

Someone who is affiliated with college/university and has its research access would definitely help out!

 

[jillio]

I spent 20 minutes last night trying to find an article that backs up what rick48 was saying. I found several abstracts, but none with full access. I also found a full access literature review, but I'm sure Jillio doesn't even want it. I tried, rick48, I tried. :shrug:

Based on the abstracts, it does seem to me that the earlier the better. After all, isn't this kind of the same thing as hearing aids anyway? Someone who was raised with HA vs those without? Or am I wrong on this too?

Someone who is affiliated with college/university and has its research access would definitely help out!

Be careful with the abstracts. What you really need to take a look at is the methodology, the research design, the instruments, and the ppaticipants. That is the information that will allow you to see if the study is generalizable, or useful at all beyond the specific participants in that particular study. It will also indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the study, translating to the strengths and weaknesses of the conclusions reached.

Lit reviews are useful for seeing what research is currently out there, but not very useful for actually looking at studies. One needs to access the studies used in the lit review to do a proper analysis, as a lit review is an interpretation of an interpretation. So you are correct; I prefer the original research documents to another's interpretation of the original research documents.

Tell me what it is you are looking for, and I will check my personal data base, as well as other data bases to access what it is you are looking for.

 

[doubletrouble]

I spent 20 minutes last night trying to find an article that backs up what rick48 was saying. I found several abstracts, but none with full access. I also found a full access literature review, but I'm sure Jillio doesn't even want it. I tried, rick48, I tried. :shrug:

Based on the abstracts, it does seem to me that the earlier the better. After all, isn't this kind of the same thing as hearing aids anyway? Someone who was raised with HA vs those without? Or am I wrong on this too?

Someone who is affiliated with college/university and has its research access would definitely help out!

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but I can tell you that my son's audie, Dr. Pat Chute, has done extensive studies (one of which my son was a participant) and she always tells people , the earlier the better. I believe she also says it in the movie. I don't have the name of the studies.. but from a PERSONAL viewpoint, my son was implanted at 11 months, my niece at 9 1/2 years... there is a BIG difference between the two... To further back that up, her brother was implanted at 8 and my other nephews were implanted at 2 and 3... they too, are worlds apart in terms of auditory comprehension as well as speech articulation. I can call my younger nephews from another room and they will come, while the older one cannot do so.

 

[jillio]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but I can tell you that my son's audie, Dr. Pat Chute, has done extensive studies (one of which my son was a participant) and she always tells people , the earlier the better. I believe she also says it in the movie. I don't have the name of the studies.. but from a PERSONAL viewpoint, my son was implanted at 11 months, my niece at 9 1/2 years... there is a BIG difference between the two... To further back that up, her brother was implanted at 8 and my other nephews were implanted at 2 and 3... they too, are worlds apart in terms of auditory comprehension as well as speech articulation. I can call my younger nephews from another room and they will come, while the older one cannot do so.

I don't doubt your claims of differences at all, but without the empirical data, it cannot be said that the difference is due to the CI. The only thing that can determine cause and effect is data collected using the scientific method.

 

[faire_jour]

why it's so important to "hear" without visual cues.
And Lieb.....I totally agree with you. It does kind of seem that while there are a lot of "obvious" cases, where people cannot benifit from HA get the CI, it does kind of seem like the marketing practices with the loosening of the requirements (after all if you're an adult you can get implanted if you hear 60% with or without aids) aren't exactly honest.

Agreed!! If HA doesn't work too well, then kids should have the option to try it if they want it.

I would say that I am trying to help my daughter reach her maxium potential in all area, including her hearing. We want her to be able to use her device, in situations where she can not see to lipread, so that is our focus right now. Outside of therapy we will never cover our mouths or intentionally obscure our faces or lips.

 

[shel90]

I would say that I am trying to help my daughter reach her maxium potential in all area, including her hearing. We want her to be able to use her device, in situations where she can not see to lipread, so that is our focus right now. Outside of therapy we will never cover our mouths or intentionally obscure our faces or lips.

I see..thanks for explaining.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Be careful with the abstracts. What you really need to take a look at is the methodology, the research design, the instruments, and the ppaticipants. That is the information that will allow you to see if the study is generalizable, or useful at all beyond the specific participants in that particular study. It will also indicate the strengths and weaknesses of the study, translating to the strengths and weaknesses of the conclusions reached.

Lit reviews are useful for seeing what research is currently out there, but not very useful for actually looking at studies. One needs to access the studies used in the lit review to do a proper analysis, as a lit review is an interpretation of an interpretation. So you are correct; I prefer the original research documents to another's interpretation of the original research documents.

Tell me what it is you are looking for, and I will check my personal data base, as well as other data bases to access what it is you are looking for.

I would like to add one thing:

When looking at research, check the dates in which the study was conducted. Research done in 1999 may NOT be applicable to today. Same with a study done in 2002, ect. I've seen alot of people on the forum throw up studies to prove a point; only to realize that the study they used was outdated.

 

[shel90]

I would like to add one thing:

When looking at research, check the dates in which the study was conducted. Research done in 1999 may NOT be applicable to today. Same with a study done in 2002, ect. I've seen alot of people on the forum throw up studies to prove a point; only to realize that the study they used was outdated.

Yea, that was what I learned in my Research Foundation/Statistics class during my grad school. Funny, I hated that class so much but I am realizing how useful it has been!

 

[Hear Again]

Yea, that was what I learned in my Research Foundation/Statistics class during my grad school. Funny, I hated that class so much but I am realizing how useful it has been!

I'm working towards my Bachelor's degree in social work and am currently taking a Statistics course. We've already discussed the importance of up-to-date research as well as how one should critically analyze research studies. Although I hate this class (like Shel), I'm finding the information to be extremely useful.

 

[shel90]

I'm working towards my Bachelor's degree in social work and am currently taking a Statistics course. We've already discussed the importance of up-to-date research as well as how one should critically analyze research studies. Although I hate this class (like Shel), I'm finding the information to be extremely useful.

Good luck! It can get overwhelming..at least it was for me.

 

[Hear Again]

Good luck! It can get overwhelming..at least it was for me.

Thanks! I can't believe how intense this class is. I normally push for "As" and "Bs," but with this course, I'd be happy with a passing grade. Right now I'm doing everything I can to keep my head above water...

 

[rick48]

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest, but I can tell you that my son's audie, Dr. Pat Chute, has done extensive studies (one of which my son was a participant) and she always tells people , the earlier the better. I believe she also says it in the movie. I don't have the name of the studies.. but from a PERSONAL viewpoint, my son was implanted at 11 months, my niece at 9 1/2 years... there is a BIG difference between the two... To further back that up, her brother was implanted at 8 and my other nephews were implanted at 2 and 3... they too, are worlds apart in terms of auditory comprehension as well as speech articulation. I can call my younger nephews from another room and they will come, while the older one cannot do so.

Doubletrouble,

Dr. Pat Chute is one of the most knowledgable people in the cochlear implant field and a great person who was so helpful to my wife and I throughout the years. And as you may know, our daughter was not implanted at her center but that is just the type of person she is. What she says carries a great deal of weight given her credibility. Also what she says is exactly what you have observed in your own family and what I have observed with close friends who have multiple implanted children.
Rick