Examining Social Pragmatic Communication: Evidence from ...
Transcript of Examining Social Pragmatic Communication: Evidence from ...
Western Michigan University Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU
Honors Theses Lee Honors College
4-20-2018
Examining Social Pragmatic Communication: Evidence from Examining Social Pragmatic Communication: Evidence from
Parent and Professional Questionnaires Parent and Professional Questionnaires
Katelyn Adams Western Michigan University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses
Part of the Speech and Hearing Science Commons, and the Speech Pathology and Audiology
Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Adams, Katelyn, "Examining Social Pragmatic Communication: Evidence from Parent and Professional Questionnaires" (2018). Honors Theses. 2939. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/honors_theses/2939
This Honors Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Lee Honors College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Running Head: EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 1
Examining Social Pragmatic Communication:
Evidence from Parent and Professional Questionnaires
Katelyn Adams
Western Michigan University
Yvette D. Hyter, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, Committee Chair
Cary Cekola, M.A., CCC-SLP, Committee Member
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 2
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………..…………………………………..3
Review of Literature………………………………………………………………..……..4
Social Communication……………………………………………………..……...4
Social Pragmatic Communication Difficulties……………………………………6
Assessment Tools………………………………………………………………….7
Assessment of Pragmatic Language and Social Communication………………..11
Assessment Tools Facilitating Intervention Targets……………………………..13
Methods………………………………………………………………………………..…14
Participants…………………………………………………...…………………..14
Instruments…………………………………………………...…………………..15
Procedures………………………………………………………………………..15
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………..16
Results……..……………………………………………………………………………..18
Participant Demographics……………………………………..…………………18
Research Question One………………………………………..…………………21
Research Question Two…………………………………………………….……29
Research Question Three…………………………………………………...……30
Summary…………………………………………………………………………31
Discussion and Conclusion………………………………………………………………32
References………………………………………………………………………………..36
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………43
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 3
Abstract
Hyter (2007) defined pragmatics as “daily interactions among groups of people
with varying worldviews, each influenced by a history of social practices” (p.131).
People use aspects of pragmatics in their everyday life depending on the context of their
current social situation. For example, one’s pragmatic language could differ in a day from
talking with a boss at work to having a conversation with a friend on the phone. These
variations in conversational processes result in the assessment of pragmatics being a
difficult task.
In this honors thesis, I examined results from Dr. Yvette Hyter’s assessment
battery, the Assessment of Pragmatic Language and Social Communication (APLSC,
Hyter & Applegate, 2012). I specifically investigated the results of the caregiver and
professional questionnaires/checklists from the battery, and data from classroom
observation forms, or COF, of typically developing children’s pragmatic language. The
checklist and COF examine topics such as communicative functions, perspective taking,
and communicative effectiveness (Hyter, 2017).
The goal of this research study is to respond to the following research questions:
1. Based on an examination of responses by caregivers and teachers on the
questionnaires, and the SLP using the COF, how does the APLSC characterize the
social pragmatic communication skills of young typically developing children?
2. How do the results from the caregiver and the professional questionnaires differ
on ratings of the occurrence of a child’s social pragmatic communication
behavior?
3. Can the results of the battery be used to guide intervention?
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 4
Review of Literature
The overlying topic of this thesis is pragmatics and social communication.
Pragmatics is the ability to carry out communication goals effectively in social situations
(Hyter, 2017). Pragmatics includes social, emotional, and communicative components in
a person’s language (Adams, Baxendale, Lloyd, & Aldredge, 2005). More importantly
“Pragmatics includes comprehension and production of communicative functions or
intentions, organization and management of various forms of discourse, and
sociolinguistic skills” (Adams 2002; Bates 1976; Clark 2004; Cummings 2005, 2009,
2015; Landa 2005; Roth and Spekman 1984a; Hyter, 2017, p. 494).
Social Communication
Pragmatics is an aspect of social communication (Coggins, Timler, & Oslwang,
2007). Social communication is made up of pragmatics, social cognition, executive
functions, and affect regulation (Hyter, 2017). Hyter and Sloane (2013) state that in the
model they created, working memory holds together the different areas of pragmatic
language, social cognition, executive functions, and affective states (Hyter, 2012). Social
communication is what allows a person to function and make sense of social situations. It
allows someone to interpret what their communicative partner is doing and how they
should appropriately respond, both verbally and nonverbally (Hyter, 2017).
Both pragmatics and social communication deal with interactions taking place
between people and the context in which this interaction takes place (Cummings 2015;
Hyter 2007; Levinson 1983; Perkins 2007; Rivers, Hyter, & DeJarnette, 2012).
Swineford, Thurm, Baird, Wetherby, and Swedo (2014) state that people with pragmatic
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 5
language impairments often have difficulties in social communication. Most commonly
the two terms are used together as social pragmatic communication in order to encompass
both aspects.
All people use social pragmatic communication throughout their day. Social
pragmatic communication is especially important for relationships with others (Hyter,
2007). Relationships with others are crucial for one to have a good quality of life. Social
pragmatic communication skills also allow a person to carry on a conversation with
different types of people in different contexts (Hyter, 2007).
In order to have clear and understandable social pragmatic communication, a
person must have certain skills. These specific skills are communication skills (i.e.,
paralinguistic and extralinguistic skills), language skills (i.e., speech acts/communicative
functions, discourse genre comprehension and management skills, metapragmatic skills,
syntax, and semantics), social cognition (i.e., social and emotional knowledge,
intersubjectivity/joint attention/joint reference, theory of mind, emotional regulation,
emotional and cognitive perspective taking, and presupposition), cognitive skills (i.e.,
executive functions, affect regulation, and working memory), and sociolinguistic skills
(i.e., linguistic perspective taking, code switching, register switching, group membership,
power relationships, and knowledge of contextual requirements) (Hyter, 2017). If,
however, someone does not have the aforementioned skills then they may have difficulty
with social pragmatic communication
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 6
Social Pragmatic Communication Difficulties
Swineford et al. explains that someone with social pragmatic communication
difficulties may have deficits in social language, adjusting communication for the
context, abiding to social rules of conversation, understanding jokes, idioms, and other
nonliteral language, and interpreting nonverbal cues (Swineford et al., 2014). These
situations may result if a person does not have the necessary skills for effective social
pragmatic communication.
More specific populations who often experience difficulties with pragmatic
language are “…children diagnosed with autism, Asperger’s syndrome, fetal alcohol
spectrum disorders, or with a history of maltreatment, but difficulty in this area also can
occur for children who do not have specific developmental disabilities” (Hyter, 2007, p.
128). There is also a Diagnostics and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition
(DSM-5) diagnosis for someone who struggles specifically with social pragmatic
communication. Social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD) is a new diagnostic
category in the DSM-5 under the Communication Disorders in the Neurodevelopmental
Disorder section (Swineford et al., 2014). “SCD is defined by a primary deficit in the
social use of nonverbal and verbal communication” (Swineford et al. 2014, p. 1).
In order to determine if a child may have the DSM-5 diagnosis of Social
(pragmatic) Communication Disorder, the child must be assessed in the area of social
pragmatic communication. Assessment tools can help determine if the child’s social
communication skills are “typical” or “non-typical”.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 7
Assessment Tools
A variety of tools assess some part or area of pragmatics because pragmatics in
whole is challenging to assess (Hyter, 2017). Checklists and observation profiles are just
one type of tool that assesses multiple areas of pragmatics. These tools are typically easy
for the professional (Hyter, 2017). They generally provide information about whether
there is or is not evidence of effective pragmatic behavior and how often these behaviors
occur (Hyter, 2017). Most importantly, these results can also help guide intervention for a
child (Hyter, 2017). Some assessment tools in the form of checklists and observation
profiles that currently exist are provided in Table 1.
Table 1: Checklist and Observation Profiles
Checklist and Observation Profile Name Areas of Pragmatics Assessed
Pragmatic Protocol (Prutting and Kirchner,
1987)
Communicative intentions
Discourse Skills Checklist (Bedrosian,
1985)
Conversational discourse
Systematic Observation of Communicative
Interaction (Damico, 1985)
Conversational discourse
Pragmatics Profile of Everyday
Communication Skills in Children (Dewart
and Summers, 1988; 1995)
Communicative intentions and
conversational discourse
Social Interacting Coding System (Rice,
Sell, and Hadley, 1990)
Communicative intentions
Communication and Symbolic Behavior
Scales (Wetherby and Prizant, 1993)
Communicative intentions
Parent Report Rating Scale (Girolametto,
1997)
Conversational discourse
Children’s Communication Checklist
(Bishop, 1998) and Children’s
Communication Checklist-2 (Bishop,
2006)
Speech, language content and form,
discourse, scripted language, context,
nonverbal communication, social
relations, and interests
Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory Conversational discourse,
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 8
(Gilliam and Miller, 2006) presupposition, narrative and expository
skills
Language Use Inventory (O’Neill, 2007) Communication with gestures and/or
words and use of longer sentences
Targeted Observation of Pragmatics in
Children’s Conversation (Adams, Gaile,
Lockton, and Freed, 2011)
Conversational discourse
Pragmatics Observational Measure
(Cordier, Munro, Wilkes-Gillan, Speyer,
and Pearce, 2014)
Communicative intentions, social
emotional attunement, and executive
functions
Adapted from Hyter, 2017.
Some shortcomings of the tools above are that the results from the Pragmatic
Protocol are reported as appropriate or inappropriate, rather than a range of behaviors and
results do not take culture into consideration. The Systematic Observation of
Communicative Interaction require subjective input from the examiner and
Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales takes a long amount of time to administer
and score, which can both be problematic for the examiner and the person being assessed.
The Parent Report Rating Scale “…focuses only on one dimension of communication,
initiations, and responses” (Hyter, 2017, p. 501). The Social Interacting Coding System
has no opportunity to record child’s individual utterances, specific behaviors, or over how
much time the interaction occurs (Rice et al., 1990).
Inference, presupposition, cohesion, coherence, social cognition, and working
memory are all aspects of pragmatics that narratives can assess. Discourse analysis tools
can use narratives to elicit some of these behaviors. However, since discourse is only one
aspect of pragmatic and social communication, the following tools do not fully assess
social pragmatic communication. Some discourse analysis assessments that are more
widely used today are provided in Table 2.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 9
Table 2: Discourse Analysis Procedures
Discourse Analysis Procedure Name Method Used (series of picture,
wordless picture book, script story,
or single picture)
Renfrew Bus Story (Cowley and
Glasgow, 1997)
Series of pictures
Strong Narrative Assessment Procedure
(Strong, 1998)
Wordless picture book
Test of Narrative Language (Gillman and
Pearson, 2004)
Script story, series of pictures, and
wordless picture book
Index of Narrative Microstructure
(Justice, Bowles, Kaderavek, Ukrainetz,
Eisenberg, and Gillam, 2006)
Single picture
Narrative Language Measures (Petersen
and Spencer, 2010)
Wordless picture book
Narrative Scoring Scheme (Heilmann,
Miller, Nockerts, and Dunaway, 2010)
Wordless picture book
Adapted from Hyter, 2017
Theory of mind is another skill that supports pragmatic skills in children (Hyter,
2012; Hyter and Sloane, 2013; Westby and Robinson, 2014). Theory of mind relates to a
person’s ability to use mentalization regarding their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs as well
as other’s thoughts, feelings, and beliefs (Hyter, 2017). One standardized theory of mind
assessment tool that currently exists is Theory of Mind Inventory (Hutchins, Bonazinga,
Prelock, & Taylor, 2008; Hutchins, Prelock, & Bonazinga, 2012; Lerner, Hutchins, &
Prelock, 2011). This inventory can assess theory of mind, which is a skill that supports
pragmatics. However, one shortcoming regarding this theory of mind assessment is that it
requires the parent to theorize about thoughts that the child may be having (Hyter, 2017).
This can cause issues if the parent thinks or theorizes something that might not actually
be happening.
Rarely are there assessment tools that analyze strictly social pragmatic
communication. Many existing assessment instruments include some type of component
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 10
or subtest that analyzes one or more aspects of social pragmatic communication. Often
these tools can provide some type of information about the child’s social pragmatic
communication to help suggest whether or not there may be some type of concern. Some
individualized administered, standardized, norm-reference assessment tools with a
component regarding social pragmatic communication that currently exist are provided in
Table 3.
Table 3: Individualized, Standardized, Norm-referenced Assessment Tools
Assessment Measure Name Description of Assessment
Test of Language Competence-Expanded
(Wiig and Secord, 1989)
Subtests examine for delay in
linguistic competence and in the use
of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic
language strategies.
Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken
Language (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999)
Battery of individually administered
tests with two subtests that analyze the
child’s ability to understand non-
literal interpretations and engage in
contextually appropriate conversation.
Diagnostic Evaluation of Language
Variation (Seymour, Roeper, deVilliers,
J., and deVilliers, P., 2005)
“Subtest requires taking others’
perspectives, telling a narrative, and
explaining a character’s actions based
on the character’s mental state
represented in a picture” (Hyter,
2017).
Test of Pragmatic Language-2 (Phelps-
Terasaki and Phelps-Gunn, 2007)
Standardized, norm-referenced
instrument that focuses on seven
components and makes judgments
about the child’s perspective taking
skills.
Preschool Language Scales-5
(Zimmerman, Steiner, and Pond, 2011)
“Items assess the child’s ability to
infer communicative intentions and to
attribute false belief to others” (Hyter,
2017).
Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals-5 (Wiig, Semel, and
“Pragmatics Profile Checklist is
provided for the examiner to complete
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 11
Secord, 2013) with input from caregivers and other
related professionals associated with
the child. Pragmatics Activity
Checklist is used to rate verbal and
non-verbal behaviors in relationship to
social interaction” (Hyter, 2017).
Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment
(Peña, Gutierrez-Clellen, Iglesias,
Goldstein, and Bedore, 2014)
An assessment tool used in bi-lingual
children to test their speech and
language ability. One activity allows
the examiner to interact with the child
and infer about their language use.
Test of Integrated Language and Literacy
Skills (Nelson, Plante, Helm-Estabrooks,
and Hotz, 2016)
“Subtest assesses examinees’ ability to
understand social situations and
construct a response to a situation by
explaining what another person might
say in the circumstances shown in a
picture” (Hyter, 2017).
Adapted from Hyter, 2017.
Each of the assessment tools above (in all four categories) does seem to address
some aspects of social pragmatic language. They all contain some shortcomings and this
limitation may be partly due to the fact that pragmatics and social communication are
challenging areas to assess. “Pragmatics and social communication are contextually
situated and culturally bound, making them difficult to assess adequately through discrete
point testing measures” (Adams 2002; Hyter 2007; Norbury 2014; Hyter, 2017, p. 510).
Hyter (2017) states that more assessments are needed that focus on pragmatic language as
a whole rather than one or two areas.
Assessment of Pragmatic Language and Social Communication
Though there are many assessment tools, they each lack something that does not
allow them to fully or properly assess pragmatics and social communication. In other
words, we do not have a “perfect” tool to assess pragmatics that accounts for both
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 12
contextual and cultural differences. Most of the tools do not take culture into
consideration and compare results to monolingual European American ethnicity (Hyter
2017; Petersen 2011). One context that a child may be interacting in and one type of
culture (ex. European American) is not going to completely represent the social
pragmatic communication in all children and therefore an assessment tool should not be
based only on those variables. We must “…consider additional contextual factors such as
personal and environmental influences on pragmatics, social communication, and
language use” (Block & Cameron 2002; Howe 2008; Trosborg 2010; World Health
Organization 2002; Hyter, 2017, p. 496).
In 2017 Hyter stated that, “We need assessment measure that are designed to
incorporate information from a range of perspectives and contexts” (p. 517). From that
premise, Hyter and Applegate developed an assessment tool for pragmatic language and
social communication in 2012 called the Assessment of Pragmatic Language and Social
Communication (APLSC).
The APLSC currently consists of four parts used to assess a child’s social
pragmatic communication from multiple viewpoints. A child’s social pragmatic
communication is analyzed from a parent/caregiver, professional (teacher, counselors,
psychologists, social worker, etc.), speech-language pathologist, and in certain cases the
child’s view of their communication. The APLSC adds value from having multiple
responders from a variety of contexts. Through the analysis of data from this tool I will
determine how caregivers and teachers describe social pragmatic behavior of young
children and how SLPs, using the COF, characterize young children’s social pragmatic
skills as they are observed in a typical preschool context.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 13
Assessment Tools Facilitating Intervention Targets
It is important for some assessment tools, whether it be an articulation, voice, or
pragmatic assessment to guide intervention for the child. This goal is a particular
characteristic of a criterion-referenced measure. Criterion-referenced measures “are
useful for describing the knowledge and skills (as well as strengths and challenges) that a
child has with respect to a particular ability” (Bond, 1996; Petersen, Gillam, S., &
Gillam, R., 2008, p. 116). Once an SLP knows the child’s skills and challenges pertaining
to the ability they can create intervention to work on those specific abilities. Based on if
the child is characterized as, “typical” or “non-typical”, the SLP can then guide the
intervention for the child. Specifically, this study will determine if data provided by the
APLSC will be able to be used to guide intervention regarding different areas of
pragmatic social communication such as, abiding by social rules of conversation,
understanding jokes, idioms, and other nonliteral language, or interpreting nonverbal
cues.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 14
Methods
This study focuses on examining the retrospective data of parent, teacher and SLP
responses on three questionnaires that are part of the APLSC. This chapter will focus on
the participants, instruments, procedures and analyses used for the study.
Participants
Three groups were participants of the study examining the Assessment of
Pragmatic Language and Social Communication. The first group were parents/caregivers
who have had at least one month of interaction and/or familiarity with a child between
the age of three and 6;11 years. The second group were professionals who have had at
least one month of interaction with the same mentioned child. These professionals were
not speech-language pathologists, but rather had roles such as classroom teachers,
counselors, social workers, and psychologists. The third group of participants were
speech-language pathologists who observed the same child and completed the Preschool
Classroom Observation Form (COF).
The children that were reported on by caregivers, professionals and SLPs were
three-seven years old. They were all enrolled in a preschool program, such as Head Start.
All children were also classified to be typically developing compared to their peers.
Typical development was determined by a language questionnaire completed by both the
caregivers and the professionals. If a parent or teacher expressed concern about a child’s
ability to communicate, that questionnaire was flagged as potentially focusing on a child
that was not typically developing, and was therefore, removed from the study.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 15
Instruments
The APLSC battery is comprised of four different assessments - caregiver report,
professional report, preschool classroom observation form, and child self-report. For this
thesis, only the caregiver report, professional report, and preschool classroom observation
forms were analyzed.
The caregiver report consists of 30 questions and five additional questions in a
language questionnaire. It was estimated to take the parent/caregiver 10 minutes to
complete the report. The professional report consists of 35 questions for children whose
caregivers provided consent to participate in the study. The professional also answered
five questions from a language questionnaire for each child. The estimated time dedicated
by the teacher was 10 minutes per child.
The classroom observation form consists of 35 proposed observable items for the
SLP to look for as the child engaged in typical preschool classroom activities. The SLP
observed the child for 15 minutes in two different contexts while the child was socially
interacting with a peer or adult. The SLP also completed three-four simulated activities
(e.g., a narrative retell) with the child depending on their age.
Procedures
Western Michigan University’s Human Subject Institutional Review Board
(HSIRB) gave approval to gather the data used in this thesis as project number 13-03-21.
The HSIRB letter of approval can be found in appendix A.
The procedure for the caregivers was to answer questions on the caregiver report
regarding their child’s holistic social pragmatic language as well as a language
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 16
questionnaire. The parents were asked to sign a form giving consent to their child’s
teacher to also participate in the study.
The professional’s procedure for their questionnaire includes answering questions
regarding children’s holistic social pragmatic language as well as a language
questionnaire. It was anticipated that if a child had particular strengths or challenges in
social pragmatic language, it would be identified through the parent and teacher
questionnaires. For the purposes of this study, if a parent or teacher expressed concern
about the child’s language abilities, that child was removed from the study.
The procedure for the SLP to gather data for the COF was to observe the child for
15 minutes in two different contexts, while the child engages in social interactions with
peer or adult and to simulate selected activities. The instructions for the COF instructed
the SLP to observe the child for five seconds, record any activity mentioned in the form,
then observe the child for five more seconds, record any activity, and repeat this process
until 15 minutes were up. The SLP was then instructed to complete the simulated
activities with the child after observing the child for two different fifteen-minute
intervals. The simulated activities included sense making (e.g., determining if the child
could make sense of [explain] his/her own experiences) and narrative retelling.
Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) was used to analyze data for
this study. Descriptive statistics were used to answer the first research question, “Based
on an examination of responses by caregivers and teachers on the questionnaires, and the
SLP using the COF, how does the APLSC characterize the pragmatic and social
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 17
communication skills of young typically developing children?” Such statistics included
frequency counts, means, and standard deviations. For the second research question,
“How do the results from the caregiver and the professional questionnaires differ on
ratings of the occurrence of a child’s pragmatic social communication behavior?” paired
t-tests were used to examine the differences between parent and teacher responses for the
same child on each question in common (n = 30) on the caregiver and professional
reports. Cross comparisons of gender and age were also computed.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 18
Results
This chapter focuses on the results yielded from the analysis of the data collected.
Data were examined to answer the three research questions. Before responding to the
research questions, demographics of the participants are presented.
Participant Demographics
The retrospective data set contained 22 participants. Some respondents, both
caregivers (n = 6) and professionals (n = 9), indicated on the language questionnaire that
they had concerns about their child’s language even though the child did not have a
formal diagnosis. As a result, data provided by 16 (73%) caregivers and by 13 (59%)
professionals were analyzed for this study. Regarding the classroom observation form, 12
children (55%) were analyzed due to caregivers and professionals (n=10) expressing
concerns. The demographic data are explained in more detail below.
Demographics of Caregiver Reports.
Although specific demographic data are provided in Table 4, the majority of
children for whom caregivers provided data were male (56.3%), five years of age
(68.8%) with an average age of 4.69 years old, and European American (75%). Mothers
were the main respondents with 14 (87.5%) of them. The majority of caregiver
respondents had a high school education (56.3%), made less than $25,000 per year
(50.0%), and had two children living in the home (31.3%), with a mean of 2.67 children.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 19
Table 4. Caregiver Demographics
Demographic Category Number of Children
(%)
Gender Males 9 (56.3%)
Females 7 (43.8%)
Age 4-years-old 5 (31.2%)
5-years-old 11 (68.7%)
Race/Ethnicity European American 12 (75%)
Latino 1 (6.3%)
Biracial 2 (12.6%)
Type of Respondent Mother 14 (87.5%)
Father 1 (6.3%)
Other Caregiver 1 (6.3%)
Education Level Less than High School 1 (6.3%)
High School 9 (56.2%)
Some college 4 (25%)
Bachelor’s Degree 1 (6.3%)
Professional Degree 1 (6.3%)
Income Less than $25000 8 (50.0%)
Between $25,000 and $60,000 7 (43.8%)
Between $60,000 and $100,000 1 (6.3%)
Number of Children Living
in the Home
One child 2 (12.6%)
Two children 5 (31.2%)
Three children 4 (25%)
Four children 4 (25%)
No response 1 (6.3%)
Total number of Caregiver Reports = 16 (72.7%)
Demographics of Professional Reports.
Specific demographic data from the Professional Reports are provided in Table 5.
The majority of children for whom professionals provided data were male (53.8%), five
years of age (61.5%) with an average age of 4.62 years old, and European American
(84.6%). Special education teachers (n = 3 or 23.1%) were the main respondents.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 20
Table 5: Professional Demographics
Demographic category Number of children
(%)
Gender Males 7 (53.8%)
Females 6 (46.2%)
Age 4-years-old 5 (38.5%)
5-years-old 8 (61.5%)
Race/Ethnicity European American 11 (84.6%)
Biracial 2 (15.4%)
Type of Respondent Special Education Teacher 3 (23.1%)
No response 10 (76.9%)
Total number of Professional Reports = 13 (59.1%)
Demographics of Classroom Observation Form (COF).
Table 6 contains demographic data from the COF. The majority of children for
whom SLPs provided data were male (58.3%), five years of age (58.3%), and European
American (83.3%).
Table 6: COF Demographics
Demographic category Number of children
(%)
Gender Males 7 (58.3%)
Females 5 (41.7%)
Age 4-years-old 5 (41.7%)
5-years-old 7 (58.3%)
Race/Ethnicity European American 10 (83.3%)
Biracial 2 (16.7%)
Total number of COF Reports = 12 (54.5%)
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 21
Research Question One
The first research question focused on how the APLSC characterized the
pragmatic and social communication skills of young typically developing children. This
question was answered by calculating the frequencies of responses provided by
caregivers, professionals, and speech-language pathologists. These results are
summarized below and provided in Tables 7 – 18.
Caregiver Reports.
The caregivers used the APLSC Caregiver Report to characterize young preschool
age children as primarily using words to engage in interactions with adults and peers,
often getting their point across to their communicative partner the first time, and hardly
ever communicating only with gestures and sounds, as presented in Table 7.
Table 7: Interaction Patterns
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Interacting with adults Hardly ever 68.8%
Interacting with peers Almost always 68.8%
Communicating with
gestures and/or sounds
Hardly ever 50.0%
Communicating with
words
Almost always 87.5%
Getting message across on
first attempt
Often 43.8%
The caregivers characterized young preschool age children as primarily asking
questions, requesting for actions, and being responsive. Young preschoolers characterized
as only occasionally protesting events and actions. These data are presented in Table 8.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 22
Table 8: Communicative Functions
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Asking for actions Almost always 87.5%
Asking questions Almost always 100.0%
Responding Almost always 62.5%
Playing with peers Almost always 75.0%
Directing play Almost always 75.0%
Objecting Occasionally 37.5%
In the area of discourse management, caregivers used the APLSC Caregiver
Report to characterize young preschool age children as primarily starting conversations
with adults and being an active conversationalist in those conversation, but not often
dominating conversations, as presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Discourse
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Starting conversation with
peers
Almost always 62.5%
Starting conversation with
adults
Almost always 68.8%
Commenting
appropriately
Almost always 62.5%
Being an active
conversationalist
Almost always 68.8%
Dominating conversation Not often 56.3%
The caregivers characterized young preschool age children’s social cognitive
skills as primarily talking about their own feelings and explaining their actions in
conversation, as presented in Table 10.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 23
Table 10: Social Cognition
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Talking about feelings
regarding themselves
Almost always 62.5%
Talking about feeling
regarding others
Almost always 56.3%
Showing comfort Almost always 43.8%
Speaking for toy Almost always 56.3%
Explaining actions Almost always 68.8%
Regarding executive functions, caregivers characterized young preschool age
children as primarily calming their self in an upsetting or stressful situation. Caregivers
had also characterized them as hardly ever commenting negatively about themselves
when in a conversation, as presented in Table 11.
Table 11: Executive Functions
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Commenting negatively
about self
Hardly ever 43.8%
Commenting negatively
about others
Hardly ever, not often, and
occasionally
25.0% each
Responding negatively to
new things
Hardly ever 56.3%
Flexible Occasionally and often 31.3% each
Calming self Almost always 37.5%
The caregivers used the APLSC Caregiver Report to characterize young preschool
age children’s engagement as primarily pretending to play and pretending to be different
characters while playing, as presented in Table 12.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 24
Table 12: Engagement
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Pretending to be different
characters
Almost always 62.5%
Engaging in physical
fights
Hardly ever and occasionally 37.5% each
Other responding
positively
Almost always 50.0%
Pretending to play Almost always 81.3%
Professional Questionnaire.
The professionals used the APLSC Caregiver Report to characterize young
preschool age children as primarily using words to engage in interactions with adults and
peers, and often getting their point across to their communicative partner the first time, as
presented in Table 13.
Table 13: Interaction Patterns
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Interacting with adults Occasionally and not often 46.2% each
Interacting with peers Often 53.8%
Communicating with
gestures and/or sounds
Occasionally 61.5%
Communicating with
words
Almost always 92.3%
Getting message across on
first attempt
Almost always 53.8%
The professionals characterized young preschool age children as often asking
questions, responding when asked a question, and playing with peers. Young
preschoolers characterized as only occasionally asking for actions and directing play.
These data are presented in Table 14.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 25
Table 14: Communicative Functions
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Asking for actions Occasionally 38.5%
Asking questions Often 38.5%
Responding Often 69.2%
Playing with peers Often 69.2%
Directing play Occasionally 53.8%
Objecting Not observed 46.2%
In the area of discourse management, professionals used the APLSC Professional
Report to characterize young preschool age children as often starting conversations with
peers, commenting appropriately, and being an active conversationalist in those
conversations, but not often dominating conversations with adults or peers, as presented
in Table 15.
Table 15: Discourse
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Starting conversation with
peers
Often 53.8%
Starting conversation with
adults
Occasionally and often 30.8%
Commenting
appropriately
Often 69.2%
Being an active
conversationalist
Often 53.8%
Taking over conversation
with peer
Not often 53.8%
Taking over conversation Not often 38.5%
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 26
The professionals characterized young preschool age children’s social cognitive
skills as often explaining their actions in conversation and pretending to play, as
presented in Table 16.
Table 16: Social Cognition
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Talking about feelings
regarding themselves
Occasionally 38.5%
Talking about feeling
regarding others
Not observed 38.5%
Showing comfort Not observed 53.8%
Speaking for toy Occasionally 61.5%
Stops interacting with
peers when they are upset
Occasionally 53.8%
Explaining actions Often 61.5%
Pretending to play Often 69.2%
Making predictions Not observed 69.2%
Regarding executive functions, professionals characterized young preschool age
children as often being flexible in situations. Caregivers had also characterized them as
occasionally calming their self in an upsetting or stressful situation, as presented in Table
17.
Table 17: Executive Functions
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Commenting negatively
about self
Not observed 61.5%
Commenting negatively
about others
Not observed 61.5%
Responding negatively to
new things
Not observed 76.9%
Flexible Often 69.2%
Calming self Occasionally 46.2%
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 27
The professionals used the APLSC Caregiver Report to characterize young
preschool age children’s engagement as primarily pretending to play, pretending to be
different characters while playing, and initiating the play with peers, as presented in
Table 18.
Table 18: Engagement
Activity Most Identified Frequency % of children
Pretending to be different
characters
Often 69.2%
Peers seeking out this
child to play
Often 46.2%
Initiating play with peers Often 46.2%
Engaging in physical
fights
Not observed 61.5%
Other responding
positively
Often 61.5%
Classroom Observation Form.
The classroom observation form is used to characterize pragmatic and social
communication skills differently than the caregiver and professional questionnaires. The
data from COF represent the percentage of children who completed a selected activity at
least once in a 15-minute interval of an interaction with peer and/or adult. Also provided
in Table 19 is the average number of times a child completed an activity within the time
frame.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 28
Table 19: Behaviors Observed by the SLP and Noted on the Classroom Observation
Form
Activity % of children
observed to
complete the activity
Average number
of times activity
was completed
Communicating with words 100.0% 5.33
Using words to get attention 100.0% 4.50
Asking questions 100.0% 2.83
Responding 100.0% 3.50
Cooperating with peers 100.0% 3.92
Interacting with adults 91.7% 2.91
Interacting with peers 91.7% 4.67
Communicating effectively 91.7% 5.36
Requesting actions 91.7% 1.82
Directing play 75.0% 2.56
Making appropriate comments 75.0% 2.50
Participating actively in conversation 75.0% 2.45
Using actions or sounds to get attention 66.7% 1.56
Starting conversation with peers 66.7% 2.30
Attending to both toy and peer while
playing
58.3% 2.22
Starting conversation with adults 50.0% 1.43
Communicating with gestures and/or
sounds
41.7% 1.43
Providing information 41.7% 1.86
Following conversation 41.7% 1.50
Flexible 33.3% 1.00
Peers seeking out this child to play 33.3% 1.00
Taking over conversation with peer 25.0% 0.83
Showing comfort 8.3% 0.33
Pretending to be different characters 8.3% 0.22
Also, a portion of the classroom observation form was to have the SLP simulate
certain activities with the child. In Table 20 are the simulated activities and the
percentage of children who were observed, who were not observed, and who had no
opportunity to be observed completing these activities.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 29
Table 20: Simulated Activities for Classroom Observation Form
Simulated
Activity
% of children
observed
completing activity
% of children not
observed
completing the
activity
% of children with
no opportunity to
be observed
Elaborate on play 75.0% 0.0% 25.0%
Retell story 58.3% 16.7% 25.0%
Identify feelings 66.7% 8.3% 25.0%
Identify thoughts 0.0% 0.0% 41.7%
Research Question Two
The second research question focused on examining the differences between
caregivers’ and professionals’ ratings of the occurrence of a child’s pragmatic social
communication behavior. In order to answer this question, a paired t-test was computed.
Only significant differences at the .05 level or higher are noted in Table 21. Caregivers
and professional rated statistically significant differences on 46.7% of the 30 items in
common on the reports.
Table 21: Comparison of Caregiver and Professional Ratings
Behavior Caregiver
mean rating
(n=16)
Professional
mean rating
(n=13)
p-value Effect size
(Cohen’s d)
Interacting with
adults
4.44 (0.964) 3.38 (0.650) 0.000 1.640
Communicating
with gestures
and/or sounds
3.81 (1.471) 2.77 (1.166) 0.032 0.714
Asking for actions 4.81 (0.544) 3.54 (1.330) 0.011 0.962
Asking questions 5.00 (0.000) 3.15 (1.908) 0.009 Could not be
computed
Playing with peers 4.69 (0.602) 4.15 (0.555) 0.026 0.745
Directing play 4.63 (0.806) 3.54 (0.967) 0.012 0.880
Objecting 3.19 (1.276) 1.00 (1.155) 0.001 1.367
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 30
Taking over
conversation
4.19 (0.655) 2.54 (1.050) 0.004 1.052
Talking about
feeling regarding
others
4.19 (1.109) 2.31 (2.057) 0.021 0.803
Showing comfort 4.13 (1.025) 1.31 (1.653) 0.000 1.505
Commenting
negatively about
self
1.63 (1.258) 0.69 (1.032) 0.003 1.122
Commenting
negatively about
others
2.06 (1.389) 1.00 (1.581) 0.012 0.898
Responding
negatively to new
things
1.56 (1.315) 0.23 (0.439) 0.005 1.093
Calming self 3.75 (1.238) 2.23 (1.481) 0.018 0.803
The effect size measures the magnitude of the differences between the variable or
behaviors (Fields, 2013). According to Cohen (1992) a small effect is 0.2, a medium
effect is 0.5 and a large effect is 0.8. The social pragmatic communication variables have
a large effect size for all variables. Each item has large effect sizes meaning they have
large statistically significant differences in the ratings.
Research Question Three
The third and final research question relates to whether the results of the APLSC
can be used to guide intervention. Since the reports from the APLSC are criterion-
referenced tools one of their goals is to guide intervention. The tools assess real activities
from the child’s daily life in multiple contexts. The reports from the APLSC measure the
child on some predetermined criteria in relationship his/her own behavior rather than
other peers. Also, “criterion-reference measures represent the extent to which a child
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 31
performs a task irrespective of how other children perform on the same task” (Linn &
Gronlund, 2000; Petersen, Gillam, S., & Gillam, R., 2008, p. 116).
From these reports, if a child presents difficulty with tasks under a certain domain
such as discourse management, then the SLP will know to target or incorporate that skill
area during intervention. One benefit to these reports is that the activities are divided into
different domains so that it is easier to understand specific areas to target. Also the SLP
could pick up activities needed for intervention based on the questions in the reports or
the classroom observation form.
Summary
In summary, the results answer the three questions proposed at the beginning of
the study. The caregiver report, professional report, and classroom observation form
characterize the typically developing preschool child as performing a percentage of the
above pragmatic social communication activities throughout their day in different
contexts. The caregivers and professionals rated the children differently on 14 (46.6%) of
the 30 pragmatic social communication behaviors. Further discussion on why this
difference might have existed is presented in the next chapter.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 32
Discussion and Conclusion
In this chapter the results of the study, implications of the results, study
limitations, and future research will be discussed. The results of the study tell us that it is
reasonable to expect a typically developing child between the ages of four and five to
interact with peers, communicate with words, ask for actions, ask questions, respond,
play with peers, direct play, start conversation with peers and adults, comment
appropriately, be an active conversationalist, talk about feelings regarding themselves and
others, show comfort, give voice to a toy, explain actions, calm self, pretend to be
different characters, have others respond positively about them, and pretend to play
according to caregivers of the children. According to professionals, it is reasonable to
expect a typically developing preschool age child to communicate with words and get
message across on the first attempt.
Also, the results indicate that typically developing children of four or five years of
age will often get their message across on first attempt, object to new activities, dominate
conversation, and be flexible according to the caregivers. The results indicate that
typically developing children of four or five years of age will often interact with adults
and peers, communicate with gestures and/or sounds, ask for actions, ask questions,
respond, play with peers, direct play, start conversation with peers and adults, comment
appropriately, be an active conversationalist, talk about feelings regarding themselves,
speak for toy, stop interacting with peer when they are upset, explain actions, pretend to
play, be flexible, calm self, pretend to be different characters, is sought out by peers to be
played with, initiate play with peers, and others respond positively about this child
according to the professionals.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 33
Children in this age range will be less likely to interact with adults, communicate
with gestures and/or sounds, comment negatively about themselves, comment negatively
about others, respond negatively to new things, and engage in physical fights according
to the caregivers. Typically developing children ages four to five years old will be less
likely to take over conversation with peer or in general according to the professionals.
Additionally, the results showed discrepancies between the ratings of caregivers
and professionals. Caregivers often rated the child higher than did professionals. One
reason for this discrepancy could be due to different expectations in various contexts. For
example, the caregiver may see more social pragmatic behaviors in the home than the
professional is able to observe within a classroom context. There may be just more
opportunities at home for the child to engage in social pragmatic interactions. Another
study comparing parent and teacher’s reports from the Children’s Communication
Checklist also found that “disagreements between raters may in part reflect the fact that
communicative abilities are context dependent” (Bishop & Baird, 2001, p. 815).
The main limitation with this study is the small pool of participants. The original
number of participants (n = 22) was reduced even more by removing the cases where
caregivers or professionals expressed concerns about the child’s language skills. This
small sample reduces that ability to make assumptions about how the APLSC
characterizes typical children. The large effect sizes need to be considered with
caution, because the sample size was small, and better estimates of significant
differences can be obtained with larger sample sizes. Small populations affect how
closely the sample effect size matches that of the general population (Fields, 2013 p.
81).
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 34
Another limitation to this study is missing data on the COF. Small percentages of
children were observed completing social pragmatic behaviors in the COF. This small
percentage was mainly because data was missing rather than the behaviors not being
observed. Another final limitation to the study is that the characteristics of typically
developing children was not compared with those with non-typical social pragmatic
communication abilities to determine if there is truly a difference between these profiles
according to the APLSC.
Question one and three in the caregiver and professional is problematic in that the
respondents could have misinterpreted them. For example, question three focuses on
whether the child primarily uses gestures and sounds; however, the question does not
clarify that we are interested in whether gestures and sounds are used rather than words.
Future research should include gathering data on more typically developing
children using the APLSC. Second, the typically developing children assessed with the
APLSC should be comprised of more cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity. Third,
concurrent validity for the APLSC needs to be completed. A possible assessment tool to
serve as a concurrent validity measure may be the pragmatic checklist associated with the
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5). Finally, it is important to
determine of the APLSC is able to differentiate the social pragmatic communication
skills of typically developing children from those with non-typical social pragmatic
communication abilities, such as children with autism, histories of maltreatment, or
FASD. Preliminary data collected by Hyter, Vogindroukas, Chelas, Paparizos,
Kirvrakidou & Kaloudi (2017) using the APLSC showed that there were statistically
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 35
significant differences in social pragmatic skills between typically developing children
and children with autism in Greece.
In conclusion, social pragmatic communication is one of the most difficult aspects
of language to assess. It is not only difficult to assess, but difficult to assess properly
considering contextual and cultural variations. Through this study, it is shown that the
APLSC takes input from multiple contexts and the child’s cultural background. It is also
shown that the APLSC can characterize a typically developing child as completing select
pragmatic and social communication behaviors within the domains of communicative
interactions, communication function, discourse management, social cognition, executive
functions, and interpersonal engagement throughout their day. Differences in ratings
between caregivers and professionals and the probable reasons for those differences were
also discussed. Finally, it was determined that the results of the APLSC caregiver and
professional questionnaires can help guide intervention for a child whom may need it.
Social pragmatic communication makes a huge impact throughout everyone’s daily lives,
especially children’s lives, and we need to make sure we are assessing this area to its full
potential.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 36
References
Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(8), 973-987.
Adams, C., Baxendale, J., Lloyd, J., & Aldredge, C. (2005). Pragmatic language
impairment: Case studies of social and pragmatic therapy. Child Language
Teaching and Therapy, 21(3), 227-250.
Adams, C., Gaile, J., Lockton, E., & Freed, J. (2011) TOPICCAL applications: Assessing
children’s conversation skills: Turning a research instrument into a clinical
profile. Speech and Language Therapy in Practice, Spring 7-9.
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context. New York: Academic.
Bedrosian, J. (1985). An approach to developing conversational competence. In D. N.
Ripich & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.). School discourse problems (pp. 231-255). San
Diego: College Hill Press.
Bishop, D. V. (1998). Development of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC): A
method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in
children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(6), 879-891.
Bishop, D. V. M. (2006). The children’s communication checklist-2. San Antonio:
Psychological Corporation.
Bishop, D. V. M., & Naird, G. (2001). Parent and teacher report of pragmatic aspects of
communication: use of the Children’s Communication Checklist in a clinical
setting. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 43, 809-818.
Block, D., & Cameron, D. (2002). Introduction. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.),
Globalization and language teaching (pp.1-10). London: Routledge.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 37
Bond, L. A. (1996). Norm- and criterion-referenced testing. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evalu-ation, 5(2).
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive assessment of spoken language (CASL).
Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.
Carter, J. A., Lees, J. A., Murira, G. M., Gona, J., Neville, B. G. R., & Newton, C. J. R.
C. (2005). Issues in the development of cross-cultural assessments of speech and
language fro children. International Journal of Language and Communication
Disorders, 40(4), 385-401.
Clark, E. (2004). Pragmatics and language acquisition. In L. R. Horn & G. L. Ward
(Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 562-577). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Coggins, T., Timler, G. R., & Olswang, L.B. (2007). A state of double jeopardy: Impact
of prenatal alcohol exposure and adverse environments on the social
communicative abilities of school-age children with fetal alcohol spectrum
disorder. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 117-127.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155 – 159.
Cordier, R., Munro, N., Wilkes-Gillan, S., Speyer, R., & Pearce, W. M. (2014).
Reliability and validty of ther Pragmatics Observational Measure (POM): A new
observational measure of pragmatic language for children. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 35(7), 1588-1598.
Cowley, J., & Glasgow, C. (1997). The Renfrew bus story. Centreville: The Centreville
School.
Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics: A multidisciplinary perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 38
Cummings, L. (2009). Clinical pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummings, L. (2015). Pragmatic and discourse disorders: A workbook. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Damico, J. S. (1985). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language
assessment. In C. S. Simon (Ed.). Communication skills and classroom success:
Assessment and therapy methodologies for language and learning disabled
students (pp. 165-204). San Diego: College Hill Press.
DeJarnette, G., Rivers, K. O., & Hyter, Y. D. (2015). Ways of examining speech acts in
young African-American children: Considering inside-out and outside-in
approaches. Topics in Language Disorders, 35(1), 61-75.
Dewart, H., & Summers, S. (1988). The pragmatics profile of early communication skills.
Windsor: NFER-NELSON.
Dewart, H., & Summers, S. (1995). The pragmatics profile of early communication skills
in children. Revised edition. http://complexneeds.org.uk/modules/Module-2.4-
Assessment-monitoring-and-
evaluation/All/downloads/m08p080c/the_pragmatics_profile.pdf
Fields, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publishing
Gilliam, J. E., & Miller, L. (2006). Pragmatic language skills inventory. Austin: Pro Ed.
Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. (2004). Test of narrative language. Austin:Pro-Ed.
Girolamtto, L. (1997). Development of a parent report measure for profiling the
conversational skills of preschool children. American Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 6(4), 25-33.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 39
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). Properties of the
narrative scoring scheme using narrative retells in young school-age children.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(2), 154-166.
Howe, T. J. (2008). The ICF contextual factors related to speech-language pathology.
International Journal Of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(1-2), 27-37.
Hyter, Y. D. (2007). Pragmatic language assessment: A pragmatics-as-social practice
model. Topics in Language Disorders, 27(2), 128-145.
Hyter, Y. D. (2012). Complex trauma and prenatal alchol exposure: Clinical
implications. American Speech, Language, Hearing Association SI G-16:
Perspectives in School Based Issues, 13(2), 32-42.
Hyter, Y. (2017). Pragmatic Assessment and Intervention in Children. In Cummings, L.
(Ed.), Research in Clinical Pragmatics (pp. 493-526). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing
Hyter, Y. D. & Applegate, E. B. (2012). The Assessment of Pragmatic Language and
Social Communication (APLSC). Unpublished Beta research version. Kalamazoo,
MI: Western Michigan University
Hyter, Y. D., & Sloane, M. (2013). Model of social (pragmatic) communication.
Unpublished document. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Hyter, Y., Vogindroukas, I., Chelas, E., Paparizos, K., Kirvrakidou, E., & Kaloudi, V.
(2017). Differentiating Autism from Typical Development” Preliminary Findings
of Greek Versions of a Pragmatic Language and Social Communication
Questionnaire. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 69, 20-26.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 40
Justice, L., Bowles, R. P., Kaderavek, J. N., Ukrainetz, T. A., Eisenberg, S. L., &
Gillam, R. B. (2006). The index of narrative macrostructure: Aclinical tool for
analyzing school-age children’s narrative performances. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 15(2), 177-191.
Landa, R. J. (2005). Assessment of social communication skills in preschoolers. Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11(3), 247-252.
Lerner, M. D., Hutchins, T. L., & Prelock, P. A. (2011). Brief report: Preliminary
evaluation of the Theory of Mind Inventory and its relationship to measures of
social skills. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(4), 512-517.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linn, R. L., & Gronlund, N. E. (2000). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
Nelson, N. W., Plante, E., Helm-Estabrooks, N., & Hotz, G. (2016). Test of Integrated
Language and Literacy Skills. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co..
Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (1997). Test of language development-primary (3rd
ed.). Austin: Pro-Ed.
Norbury, C. F. (2014). Practitioner review: Social (pragmatic) communication disorder
conceptualization, evidence, and clinical implications. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(3), 204-216.
O’Neill, D. K. (2007). The language use inventory for young children: A parent-report
measure of pragmatic language development for 18 to 47-month-old children.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(1), 214-228.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 41
Peña, E. D., Gutierrez-Clellen, V., Iglesias, A., Goldstein, B., & Bedore, L. (2014).
Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment. San Rafael: AR-Clinical Publications.
Perkins, M. (2007). Pragmatic impairment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Petersen, D. B. (2011). A systematic review of narrative-based language intervention
with children who have language impairment. Communication Disorders
Quarterly, 32(4), 207-220.
Petersen, D. B., Gillam, S. L., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Emerging Procedures in Narrative
Assessment: The Index of Narrative Complexity. Topics in Language Disorders,
28(2), 115-130.
Petersen, D. B., & Spencer, T. (2010). The narrative language measures. Laramie:
Language Dynamic Group.
Phelps-Terasaki, D., & Phelps-Gunn, T. (2007). Test of pragmatic language (2nd ed.).
Austin: Pro-Ed.
Prutting, C., & Kirchner, D. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of
language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52(2), 105-119.
Rice, M. L., Sell, M. A., & Hadley, P. A. (1990). The social interactive coding system
(SICS): On-line, clinically relevant descriptive tool. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 21(1), 2-14.
Rivers, K. O., Hyter, Y. D., & DeJarnette, G. (2012). Parsing pragmatics. The ASHA
Leader, 17(13), 14-17.
Roth, F., & Spekman N. (1984a). Assessing the pragmatic abilities of children: Part I.
Organizational framework and assessment parameters. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders, 49(1), 2-11.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 42
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T. W., deVilliers, J., & deVilliers, P. A. (2005). Diagnostic
Evaluation of Language Variation- Norm-Referenced. San Antonio: Pearson.
Strong, C. (1998). The Strong narrative assessment procedure. Eau Claire: Thinking
Publications.
Swineford, L. B., Thurm, A., Baird, G., Wetherby, A. M., & Swedo, S. (2014). Social
(pragmatic) communication disorder: a research review of this new DSM-5
diagnostic category. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 6(41), 1-8.
Trosborg, A. (2010). Introduction. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics Across Languages
and Cultures (pp. 1-42). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Westby, C. E., & Robinson, L. (2014). A developmental perspective for promoting theory
of mind. Topics in Language Disorders, 34(4), 362-382.
Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1989). Test of Language Competence (Expanded ed.). San
Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals. (CELF-5) (5th ed.). San Antonio: Pearson
Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (1993). Communication and symbolic behavior scales-
Normal edition. Chicago: Applied Symbolix.
World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning,
disability and heath: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/training/icfbeginnersguide.pdf
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2011). Preschool Language Scales (5th
ed.). San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
EXAMINING SOCIAL PRAGMATIC COMMUNICATION 43
Appendix A