Nelson, White and Grewe
Uploaded by abcohende on 04.03.2012
Transcript:
Good morning. This morning, I checked Facebook and saw that a person posted a lengthy status that included a link.
Curious, I clicked on the link and it lead me to a website. It was an article from a psychology journal published in January
2012. The article was co-authored by three people: 1. Lauri Nelson, Ph.D.; 2. Karl White - you might have heard of Karl
White - he is the head of National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) and is responsible for
monitoring infant hearing screening all across the United States; 3. and Jennifer Grewe.
They wrote a 29-page report - journal article. 29 pages emphasizing what? Nelson, White, and Grewe decided to do a
study of 33 different websites that focus on the topic of using sign language with hearing babies. After some exploring, they
discovered that those websites used sources - for example, on a website, there would be a sentence or two mentioning the source
that supports the statement and benefits of why parents should use sign language with their hearing babies.
From the 33 websites, they collected and created a list of evidence that supports the benefits of using sign language with
hearing babies. The benefits include improving communication, reducing temper tantrums, developing a closer relationship,
increasing IQ and self-esteem in children. There are 82 sources on the list. What they have found is that 90% of the sources
from the 33 websites were mostly opinions. The remaining 10% were from Arcedolo and Goodwyn, and Daniels. The two groups of people
have written and published research papers that were financially supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The three researchers - Nelson, White, and Grewe - from the University of Utah, after much analysis, determined that the 8
research papers by Arcedolo & Goodwyn and Daniels were not valid. They utilized a special measuring system in order to
analyze and determine the validity of the research papers. This particular system uses numbers to measure the quality.
For example, 1-5 with "1" being "excellent". "Excellent" means high quality research methods were used and plenty of evidence
were documented. In short, "1" equals valid. "5" on the other hand is the opposite; invalid. The reason for the invalidation
could be that the researchers did not use a sufficient amount of subjects in their research. To be considered a good study,
researchers must meet and satisfy a long list of stringent requirements set by the American Psychological Association.
So, the three co-authors scrutinized all 8 research papers and assigned not a single "1". They mostly gave 3s and a few 5s.
Basically, the three of them decided to shoot down the research by Arcedolo and Goodwyn, and Daniels. It's shocking.
This means the research is deemed "no-good". "3? Weak and invalid. They did not research properly."
They are scoffing at all of the baby signs industry and children of deaf adults (CODAs) and the deaf community.
They scoff at the research put forth by us. I am livid. Livid at how the three co-authors decided to lead this research against
baby signs. It is fine if they decide to nitpick and take apart the research by Arcedolo & Goodwyn and Daniels but they are
opening up the door to potential ramifications. For example, other psychologists might take on the measuring of the validity
of Nelson, White, and Grewe's research.
I don't understand their ulterior motives, their attempt to minimize and decrease credibility of the
research that supports the benefits of baby signs. In Nelson, White, and Grewe's research paper, they have said that are not
trying to minimize or criticize the benefits of baby signs. That is not what I am concerned about. I am talking about the
fact that this research paper exists only to proclaim that the work done by Arcedolo & Goodwyn, and Daniels are invalid, and
thus decreasing the credibility of the 33 websites.
Wow. Wow. What can I say? Just, wow.
Curious, I clicked on the link and it lead me to a website. It was an article from a psychology journal published in January
2012. The article was co-authored by three people: 1. Lauri Nelson, Ph.D.; 2. Karl White - you might have heard of Karl
White - he is the head of National Center for Hearing Assessment and Management (NCHAM) and is responsible for
monitoring infant hearing screening all across the United States; 3. and Jennifer Grewe.
They wrote a 29-page report - journal article. 29 pages emphasizing what? Nelson, White, and Grewe decided to do a
study of 33 different websites that focus on the topic of using sign language with hearing babies. After some exploring, they
discovered that those websites used sources - for example, on a website, there would be a sentence or two mentioning the source
that supports the statement and benefits of why parents should use sign language with their hearing babies.
From the 33 websites, they collected and created a list of evidence that supports the benefits of using sign language with
hearing babies. The benefits include improving communication, reducing temper tantrums, developing a closer relationship,
increasing IQ and self-esteem in children. There are 82 sources on the list. What they have found is that 90% of the sources
from the 33 websites were mostly opinions. The remaining 10% were from Arcedolo and Goodwyn, and Daniels. The two groups of people
have written and published research papers that were financially supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH).
The three researchers - Nelson, White, and Grewe - from the University of Utah, after much analysis, determined that the 8
research papers by Arcedolo & Goodwyn and Daniels were not valid. They utilized a special measuring system in order to
analyze and determine the validity of the research papers. This particular system uses numbers to measure the quality.
For example, 1-5 with "1" being "excellent". "Excellent" means high quality research methods were used and plenty of evidence
were documented. In short, "1" equals valid. "5" on the other hand is the opposite; invalid. The reason for the invalidation
could be that the researchers did not use a sufficient amount of subjects in their research. To be considered a good study,
researchers must meet and satisfy a long list of stringent requirements set by the American Psychological Association.
So, the three co-authors scrutinized all 8 research papers and assigned not a single "1". They mostly gave 3s and a few 5s.
Basically, the three of them decided to shoot down the research by Arcedolo and Goodwyn, and Daniels. It's shocking.
This means the research is deemed "no-good". "3? Weak and invalid. They did not research properly."
They are scoffing at all of the baby signs industry and children of deaf adults (CODAs) and the deaf community.
They scoff at the research put forth by us. I am livid. Livid at how the three co-authors decided to lead this research against
baby signs. It is fine if they decide to nitpick and take apart the research by Arcedolo & Goodwyn and Daniels but they are
opening up the door to potential ramifications. For example, other psychologists might take on the measuring of the validity
of Nelson, White, and Grewe's research.
I don't understand their ulterior motives, their attempt to minimize and decrease credibility of the
research that supports the benefits of baby signs. In Nelson, White, and Grewe's research paper, they have said that are not
trying to minimize or criticize the benefits of baby signs. That is not what I am concerned about. I am talking about the
fact that this research paper exists only to proclaim that the work done by Arcedolo & Goodwyn, and Daniels are invalid, and
thus decreasing the credibility of the 33 websites.
Wow. Wow. What can I say? Just, wow.