Tuesday, September 07, 2010

The role of audiologists

From American Speech-Language-Hearing Association they produced a 2007 position paper called "Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs" that was adopted by a joint committee on infant hearing. Below is the position statement:


The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing (JCIH) endorses early detection of and intervention for infants with hearing loss. The goal of early hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) is to maximize linguistic competence and literacy development for children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Without appropriate opportunities to earn language, these children will fall behind their hearing peers in communication, cognition, reading, and social-emotional development. Such delays may result in lower educational and employment levels in adulthood (Holden & Diaz, 1998). To maximize the outcome for infants who are deaf or hard of hearing, the hearing of all infants should be screened no later than 1 month of age. Those not passing screening should have a comprehensive audiologic evaluation no later than 3 months of age. Infants with confirmed hearing loss should receive appropriate intervention no later than 6 months of age from health care and education professionals with expertise in hearing loss and deafness in infants and young children. Regardless of previous hearing-screening outcomes, all infants with or without risk factors should receive ongoing surveillance of communicative development beginning at 2 months of age during well-child visits in the medical home (American Academy of Pediatrics [AAP] Medical Home Initiatives, 2002). EHDI systems should guarantee seamless transitions for infants and their families through this process.
This was a 2007 position paper where a number of revisions were made to improve it from the 2000 position paper. One thing that was updated can be seen on page 2 in the Early Invention section:


• Early intervention services for infants with confirmed hearing loss should be provided by professionals with expertise in hearing loss, including educators of the deaf, speech-language pathologists, and audiologists.
• In response to a previous emphasis on “natural environments,” the committee recommends that both home-based and center-based intervention options should be offered.
And on page 3 on Communication that was updated for 2007:


• Families should be made aware of all communication options and available hearing technologies (presented in an unbiased manner). Informed family choice and desired outcome guide the decision-making process.
Throughout the position paper it brings up sign language several times such as this one on page 23.

Early intervention professionals should follow family-centered principles to assist in developing communicative competence of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing (Baker-Hawkins & Easterbooks, 1994; Bamford, 1998; Fischer, 1994). Families should be provided with information specific to language development and access to peer and language models as well as family-involved activities that facilitate language development of children with normal hearing and children who are hard of hearing or deaf (Marschark, 1997; Thompson, 1994). Depending on family choices, families should be offered access to children and adults with hearing loss who are appropriate and competent language models. Information on spoken language and signed language, such as American Sign Language (Pollack, Goldberg, & Caleffe-Schenck, 1997) and cued speech, should be provided.
And then we get to what the role is for audiologists from the National Joint Committee on Infant Hearing 2007 Position paper on EDHI programs. The National Joint Committee is a multidisciplinary committee.
An audiologist is a person who, by virtue of academic degree, clinical training, and license to practice, is qualified to provide services related to the prevention of hearing loss and the audiological diagnosis, identification, assessment, and nonmedical and nonsurgical treatment of persons with impairment of auditory and vestibular function, and to the prevention of impairments associated with them. Audiologists serve in a number of roles. They provide newborn hearing-screening program development, management, quality assessment, service coordination and referral for audiological diagnosis, and audiological treatment and management. For the follow-up component, audiologists provide comprehensive audiological diagnostic assessment to confirm the existence of the hearing loss, ensure that parents understand the significance of the hearing loss, evaluate the infant for candidacy for amplification and other sensory devices and assistive technology, and ensure prompt referral to early intervention programs. For the treatment and management component, audiologists provide timely fitting and monitoring of amplification devices. Other audiologists may provide diagnostic and auditory treatment and management services in the educational setting and provide a bridge between the child/family and the audiologist in the clinic setting as well as other service providers. Audiologists also provide services as teachers, consultants, researchers, and administrators.

The position paper also states at the end in the document (page 32) on who adopted the position statement by naming joint committee members (and please note the bolded words).

Joint committee member organizations that adopt this statement include (in alphabetical order): the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the American Academy of Audiology, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the Council on Education of the Deaf (see individual organizations listed above), and the Directors of Speech and Hearing Programs in State Health and Welfare Agencies.

What's interesting is to see that members of this joint committee include the Council on Education of the Deaf, and Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
with names like:

Beth S. Benedict, PhD
Galluadet University
Washington, DC

Bobbie Scoggins, EdD
Sioux Falls, SD

Judy Harrison, MA (AG Bell Staff)
Washington DC
Recognize Bobbie Scoggins? She is the president of NAD. And you have a representive of Gallaudet University that adopted the position paper as well along with a representative from AG Bell on the role of audiologists.

I think the audiologists' role seem to be well defined here as seen in the position paper along with some broad defining roles added to it. I think the CAA has a legitimate concern over the revised August 20th AB2072 bill from that of the August 17th bill which they accepted seeing how their role as audiologists was compromised in this most recent AB2072 bill revision. There should be some flexibility to what an audiologist can do along what it cannot do rather than assuring that they be completely constrained.

Now, I've read Marla's Musings seeing how she seemed have twisted some words regarding CAA, the Mendoza letter and the audiologist's role. Some responses had no real bearing on the role of audiologists since for infant hearing screening they help ensure early intervention through referrals to early intervention specialists, including access to ASL. Regardless, I think this will get addressed soon enough.

18 comments:

Linda said...

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association is a different organization from the California Academy of Audiology, with its own set of state organizations, just as the American Academy of Audiology has its own state organizaions..

In the 1st half of 2010, the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association spent $29692 (to lobbying firm Robert Powell & Company) lobbying in favor of AB 2072, and is still listed in support of the bill in the 8/20/2010 version, as can be seen at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_cfa_20100824_113053_sen_floor.html

In contrast, The California Academy of Audiology paid its own lobbyist, Sacramento Advocates' own Barry Brokaw, $24,000 in the first half of this year, and is the only lobbying group of the Auditory Industrial Complex to have reversed its position on AB 2072.

Of course, it is the option schools, such as out-of-state Spectrum Center Schools-Educational Services of America in TN, paying out $42,000 to lobbyist Esperanza Ross to lobby specifically for the bill, that probably SHOULD be raising the eyebrows, but Mike is busy trying to confuse the issue again, so FACTS like that have a difficult time seeing the light of day.

Perhaps Mike is increasing his hit count by having to correct so many mistakes?

- Linda

Mike said...

Linda,

Let me ask you something. Was the CAA one of the sponsors of that bill? Were they equally informed of the upcoming bill when it was first introduced as you were, the CDNIAS, CAD, etc?

Anonymous said...

These $2 yellow shirts can't read!

Linda said...

Hi Mike,

That is a good question. I do not see either CDNIAS or CAA as being aware of the bill at first...

More, it seems that it was started by a "California Coalition", and things seemed to go from there.

According to the list provided by Rene A. Bayardo – Legislative Director, Tony Mendoza’s office, the California Coalition originally sponsoring AB 2072 consisted of:

CCHAT (Children’s Center for Hearing and Talking) – Sacramento

ECHO Horizon School – Culver City

Jean Weingarten Peninsula Oral School – Redwood City

John Tracy Clinic – Los Angeles
San Francisco Auditory Oral School – San Francisco

Oralingua School for the Hearing Impaired – Whittier

--------------------
It seems that all the others came later on in the process. If I find anything more on this, I'll let you know, because it WOULD be interesting to know just how the various pushes affecting the final bill grew...

The California Coalition's Executive Director is Elisa Roche, the Executive Director of the Oralingua Option school. Its lobbyist firms include Stuart & Associates, The Senator's Firm, and, through a hand-off from The Senator's Firm, Esperanza Ross, the same firm representing that Tennessee option school's interests.

Anybody can check this stuff out by doing their own search homework on: http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/

With good questions, following the money, and keeping an eye out for the various sources of bias... Maybe we can unsnarl this mess and get the babies some language!

- Linda

Linda said...

Looks like all the supporters and opponents were fully in place the first time they are mentioned in Leginfo, on 4/19:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_cfa_20100419_093929_asm_comm.html

So sometime between the original California Coalition's starting the whole thing, the rest of the gang got on board.

So far, no finer time resolution found than that.

Mike said...

Ok. Linda.

Now, about the lobbyists for CAA and CSHA can you show us that these lobbyists were hired specifically for this AB2072 bill? As opposed to having lobbyists available year round?

Linda said...

Mike,

You can do this for yourself. For example, try searching the following PDF file for "2072":

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1506257&amendid=0

I take your point that both the CAA and the CSHA have their Lobbyists on retainer, so have long had the money to legislate our ears and what languages we're required to speak for QUITE a while now. ;-)

You think that Deaf people have that kind of "chump change" sitting around to bias laws?

Follow the money... They TARGETTED AB 2072 in their funding.

- Linda

Linda said...

Or search for "2072" in:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1478522&amendid=0

to see that the money DID go to lobby AB 2072; AJR 31; Commission on Teacher Credentialing - Special Ed Credential Regs

-------
So the money went not only to lobby for AB 2072, it went to lobby in favor of the Joint Resolution to ask the Federal Government to please fund IDEA.

Yeah, that's how controversial AJR 31 is that it needed lobbying efforts. See: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_31_bill_20100628_chaptered.html and let me know if YOU read this any differently.

Looks to me that your method of looking at what ELSE they "support" DOES merit further attention, however, because the personality of the lobbying effort is better indicated by where these funded interests intersect...

Mike's on a truth campaign, too, Patti! ;-)

- Linda

Linda said...

AB 2072 was introduced into the Assembly on 2/18/10

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2072_bill_20100218_introduced.html

Ella let us know about AB 2072 in her vlog on April 4th:

"Californians, OPPOSE AB 2072!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSDV194yePk

Does anybody know of any earlier mentions? Please share!

Also, the California Coalition started lobbying on this issue about 6-9 months before the bill had a designation. See:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1316504&session=2009&view=activity

...for the Oralingua-led branch of California Coalition lobbying effort, and:

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Lobbying/Employers/Detail.aspx?id=1327495&session=2009&view=activity

...for the more recently-added CChat-Sac-based lobbying effort.

Note, too, that BOTH these efforts are FOCUSED on AB 2072 and the agencies related to the implementation of that bill.

Closer to something true now...

- Linda

Anonymous said...

what is so terrible about lobbying? it's legal. companies have a financial stake in legislation that benefits their businesses. nothing wrong with that either. Capitalism is legal. Linda seems to be saying that deaf people are losing out because they're poor. that's not how it works. Foundations that promote ASL, deaf culture, bi-lingual education, etc., shouldn't look to deaf people for their funding. they should be looking to major corporations as donors.

But back to the main idea of this blog - the roles of audiologists. it behooves the ASL-speaking deaf community to collaborate with audiologists and other EHDI specialists in the effort to fully inform one another of what is available.

Valhallian said...

anon, you are absolutely right about lobbying being legal, but it also unfortunately leads to, ahhh i cant think of the right word at this time so I will call it corruption for now. It is not only done at the legislative level but at most parts of the the government. For example, I would imagine pharmaceutical companies use lobbyists to get drugs that they know do not work approved, which has likely happened, they only want it approved cuz they spent millions of dollars on it and the want to recoup that funding. Lobbying is something that Obama would love to get rid of.

But mind you, there are good types or lobbying as well as bad type of lobbying. You have probably heard crazy stories that the government has wasted money on, such as 5,000 dollar toilets, and that is usually a result of lobbying as well. Just cuz lobbying is legal, it still doesn't make it right every time.

I agree with your points on capitalism and all that, but I also draw the line at where companies pay lobbyist for the benefit of their business, but it also screws over a lot of people in the long run. I'd be ok with it if it were a win-win situation for the most part.

Mike said...

Val, about the toilet seat. That's not true. That's an exaggeration based on an apocryphal story. It wasn't $5,000. It was priced at $640. And it wasn't a toilet but the seat itself. Molded fiberglass cover for toilets on military transport plantes. Designed to keep the poo and pee inside the toilet during turbulent flights or during evasive manuevers.

As for Obama wanting to do away with lobbyists is as sane as him believing in Santa Claus.

In the last 12 months, the Obama administration had hired at least 45 former lobbyists to policymaking jobs, including five Cabinet slots. A former lobbyist for the Swiss Bankers Association is the general counsel at the IRS, and a former Goldman lobbyist is chief of staff at the Treasury Department. Monsanto's former chief lobbyist is the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods. When Obama got rid of his ethics czar this summer, he transferred White House transparency duties to former lobbyist Bob Bauer.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama_s-war-on-lobbyists-was-just-a-lot-of-hot-air-509228-100924929.html#ixzz0yuNU2j58

Carry on. Just wanted to ensure some facts here first.

Valhallian said...

yea Im quite familiar with the story of obama hiring lobbyists when he said during his campaign that he wouldn't. and you're right about the $640 toilet seat and it wasn't $5,000, i was just trying to name an example. But since you have sufficiently explained the reasons for the $640 seat (which I still think is too much) but given your ability to explain things and since we are on the topic of toilets, I would love to hear your explanation on the National Park Service's $797,400 outhouse ;) heh

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: "it behooves the ASL-speaking deaf community to collaborate with audiologists and other EHDI specialists in the effort to fully inform one another of what is available."

That point was made repeatedly by AB 2072 supporters to OpposeAB2072 leaders.

An OpposeAB2072 leader would later denounce all supporters of AB 2072 as "audist collaborators!"

A common theme with regard to "Deaf" organizations:

a) they are "powerless"

b) they are "unheard"

c) they have no money

d) they get mad when people talk about Monopoly money

e) poor leadership

f) etc.

They refuse to change, or to collaborate.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein

Mike said...

Val, the outhouse story I read before. A total waste of resource. Pun intended.

Anonymous @9:18 AM,

They are allowing their own baggage to hold them down. And make excuses along the way. This is not how organizations work or behave in moving forward. Instead they allow the past be their ball and chain.

Anonymous said...

Shocked that Beth Benedict is a AGB member cuz she comes from all deaf family, her mom Debbie Sonnenstrahl art history prof at Gally, her bro Sam Sonnenstrahl prexy of GUAA, her father Al Sonnenstrahl at TDI. No surprise about Scoggins cuz she's oral all her life like many oral NAD officers. Why Beth with AGB??? Well, some people can fool me.

Mike said...

Anony,

No. Beth is NOT with AGB. Read again. She is with Gallaudet Univ.

Candy said...

In addition to being a professor at Gallaudet, Beth Benedict is also the president of American Society for Deaf Children and they have been involved with deaf babies/children issues such as EHDI.