The use of context in pragmatic language comprehension in normally developing children and children with Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism:an application of relevance theory

Abstract This research explored, within the framework of relevance theory, how normally developing 3- to 9-year-old children and two age groups (age 7–9 and age 10–12) of children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism (AS/HFA) and their 7- to 9-year-old control group used context when answering questions and giving explanations for their correct answers. The children were asked questions targeting the pragmatic processes of reference assignments, enrichments, routines, implicatures and feelings. They were also asked to explain their correct answers to routine, implicature and feeling questions to elicit understanding about their awareness of how they had derived the answers from the context. In normally developing children the largest increase in correct answers occurred between the ages of 3 and 4 in all question types except feeling questions, where rapid development continued until age 5. After that development progressed more gradually until the age of 8 when the children performed near the ceiling level in all of these question types. Giving explanations for correct answers developed gradually between the ages of 3 and 9, indicating that becoming aware of the information used in inferencing has a longer developmental timeframe. Children's incorrect answers and explanations showed that, as children develop, their answering strategies become more sophisticated as they increasingly utilise context in different ways. Children with AS/HFA were able to answer all the question types. However, compared to the control group, the younger AS/HFA group did less well when answering contextually demanding questions, and the performance of the older AS/HFA group fell in between the younger AS/HFA group and the control group. Both AS/HFA groups had difficulties when giving explanations for their correct answers, showing difficulty in articulating explicitly how they had used context in arriving at the correct answer. Incorrect answers and explanations indicated that, usually, all the children tried to utilise contextual information, although the attempt failed somehow. For children with AS/HFA it was more typical to continue with their answer after first giving a correct answer or explanation, which then led to an irrelevant answer, suggesting that these children had difficulties with stopping processing at the relevant point.Tiivistelmä Tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin, kuinka normaalisti kehittyneet 3–9-vuotiaat lapset ja kaksi ikäryhmää lapsia (7–9-vuotiaat ja 10–12-vuotiaat), joilla on Aspergerin oireyhtymä tai hyvätasoinen autismi (AS/HFA) ja heidän 7–9-vuotiaista koostuva kontrolliryhmänsä, käyttivät kontekstia vastatessaan kysymyksiin ja perustellessaan oikeita vastauksiaan. Tutkimus tehtiin relevanssiteorian viitekehyksessä. Lapsilta kysyttiin pragmaattista prosessointia vaativia kysymyksiä, jotka arvioivat viittausten, epätäydellisten lauseiden, rutiinien, implikatuurien ja tunnetilojen ymmärtämistä. Lisäksi heidän tuli perustella oikeat vastaukset rutiini-, implikatuuri- ja tunnekysymyksiin, jotta nähtiin, olivatko lapset tietoisia, kuinka he olivat johtaneet vastauksensa kontekstista. Normaalisti kehittyneillä lapsilla oikeiden vastausten määrä lisääntyi nopeasti 3. ja 4. ikävuoden välillä kaikissa kysymystyypeissä. Tunnekysymyksiin vastaamisessa tämä nopean kehityksen kausi jatkui 5. ikävuoteen saakka. Tämän jälkeen kehitys jatkui hitaampana 8 vuoden ikään saakka, jolloin lapset suoriutuivat lähes kaikista kysymyksistä kaikissa eri kysymystyypeissä. Perustelujen antaminen oikeisiin vastauksiin kehittyi asteittain 3. ja 9. ikävuoden välillä, mikä kertoi, että vastauksessa käytetyn informaation tiedostamisen kehittyminen tapahtui pitemmällä aikavälillä. Lasten virheelliset vastaukset ja perustelut osoittivat, että iän lisääntyessä lasten vastausstrategiat muuttuivat kehittyneemmiksi ja he hyödynsivät kontekstia monin eri tavoin. Lapset, joilla oli AS/HFA, osasivat vastata kaikkiin esitettyihin kysymystyyppeihin. Kuitenkin nuorempi AS/HFA-ryhmä suoriutui kontrolliryhmää heikommin ja vanhemman AS/HFA-ryhmän suoriutuminen sijoittui nuoremman ikäryhmän ja kontrolliryhmän suoriutumisen puoliväliin. Molemmilla AS/HFA-ryhmillä esiintyi vaikeuksia oikeiden vastausten perustelussa, mikä kertoi vaikeudesta ilmaista, kuinka he olivat käyttäneet kontekstia oikeaan vastaukseen pääsemiseksi. Virheelliset vastaukset ja perustelut osoittivat, että yleensä kaikki lapset pyrkivät kontekstin hyödyntämiseen vaikka epäonnistuivatkin siinä. Lapsille, joilla oli AS/HFA, oli tyypillisempää jatkaa vastaamista vielä oikean vastauksen tai perustelun antamisen jälkeen, mikä lopulta johti aiheesta syrjähtämiseen. Tämä kertoi vaikeudesta lopettaa prosessointi relevantissa kohdassa

Pragma-testi:menetelmä sosiaalisen ja pragmaattisen kielen ymmärtämisen arviointiin 4–8-vuotiaille lapsille

Tiivistelmä Sosiaalisen ja pragmaattisen kielen ymmärtämisen taitoja tarvitaan, kun lapsen on tulkittava sanojen taakse kätkeytyviä merkityksiä tai puhujan aikomuksia. Pragma-testillä (Loukusa, 2019) voidaan arvioida tilannesidonnaisten ilmausten merkitysten ymmärtämistä sekä toisen henkilön aikomusten, uskomusten ja tunnetilojen tulkinnan taitoja. Pragma-testi on tarkoitettu 4–8-vuotiaille lapsille, joilla epäillään olevan vaikeutta sosiaalisessa tai pragmaattisessa kielen ymmärtämisessä. Testi sisältää 39 kysymystä, jotka jakautuvat eri osa-alueisiin prosessointivaatimustensa mukaisesti. Lisäksi testissä on varsinaisten kysymysten lisäksi 13 perustelukysymystä, jotka esitetään lapselle, mikäli hän on vastannut oikein tiettyihin kysymyksiin. Lapsen testitulosta voidaan tulkita ikäryhmittäin laadittujen viitearvojen pohjalta sekä analysoimalla laadullisesti lapsen antamia virheellisiä vastauksia

Autismikirjo ja suomalainen kielen, kommunikaation ja vuorovaikutuksen tutkimus

Abstrakti Autismikirjo-teemanumeron esipuh

Tyypillisesti kehittyneiden lasten ja lasten, joilla on kielellinen erityisvaikeus tai autismikirjon häiriö, suoriutuminen Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI) -kerrontatestissä

Tiivistelmä Tässä tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin 4–8-vuotiaiden (N = 171) tyypillisesti kehittyneiden lasten suoriutumista Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI) -kerrontatestissä. Lisäksi tutkittiin testin kykyä erotella lapset, joilla on kielellinen erityisvaikeus (N = 19) tai autismikirjon häiriö (N = 16) ikään ja sukupuoleen kaltaistetuista verrokkilapsista. Kertomuksista analysoitiin tarinan sisällön määrä kertomuskielioppikategorioiden mukaisesti arvioituna ja tuotettujen sanojen kokonaismäärä. Tulosten perusteella voidaan todeta, että sisällön ilmentäminen ja tuotettujen sanojen kokonaismäärä kehittyivät iän myötä. Erityisesti ENNI-testi näyttäisi erottelevan 4–5- ja 5–6-vuotiaat tyypillisesti kehittyneet lapset toisistaan ja vanhemmista ikäryhmistä. Sukupuolten välisiä eroja kerrontataidoissa ei havaittu. Ne lapset, joilla on kielellinen erityisvaikeus tai autismikirjon häiriö, suoriutuivat verrokkilapsiaan heikommin tarinan sisällön ilmentämisessä. Kielihäiriöisten lasten kertomukset olivat lisäksi verrokkilasten tarinoita lyhempiä. Koska suomalaislasten kerrontataitojen arvioimiseen on käytettävissä varsin niukasti tutkittuja menetelmiä, ENNI-testi voi tuoda tarvittavan lisän paikkaamaan tätä puutetta. Viitearvojen käytössä tulee kuitenkin olla varovainen, koska suuri vaihtelu on kerronnalle tyypillistä.Abstract Performance of typically developing children, children with specific language impairment, and children with autism spectrum disorder in the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI) This study investigated the performance of four- to eight-year-old (N=171) typically developing children in the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI). In addition, 19 children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 16 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their control children participated in order to determine the discriminatory validity of the ENNI. Narratives were analyzed for the amount of information produced (story grammar score, SG) and total number of words (TNW). Results show a developmental trend both in SG and in TNW. In particular, the ENNI seems to differentiate four- and five-year-olds and five- and six-year-olds from each other as well as from older age groups. No differences between girls and boys were detected. Children with SLI and children with ASD showed poorer narrative abilities than their control children. The narratives of children with SLI contained less information and were also shorter than those of typically developing children. For children with ASD, significant differences compared to control children were only seen in SG. Since there are only a few narrative assessment methods available in Finnish, the use of the ENNI might be recommended for analyzing children’s narrative skills. However, care should be taken in interpreting the normative values, since high heterogeneity is typical for narration

Communication abilities in children with hearing loss:views of parents and daycare professionals

Abstract Introduction: Today, children with hearing loss (HL) are diagnosed and fitted with hearing devices at an early age. However, HL may still influence their communicative development. Thus, we need up-to-date research on how children perform in their everyday environments, such as at home or daycare. This study provides an overview of the communication abilities of early-diagnosed children with HL reported by parents and daycare professionals. The first aim of the study is to compare the results of children with bilateral hearing aids (BiHAs) or bilateral cochlear implants (BiCIs) with those of children with normal hearing (NH) and with each other. The second aim of the study is to compare the views of the two respondents, parents and the daycare professionals. In addition, the effects of gender and nonverbal intelligence quotient (IQ) on the responses are explored. Methods: The participants, aged 4;0–6;9, were 25 children with BiHAs, 29 children with BiCIs, and 64 children with NH. The Finnish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) was used to assess the communication skills of the participants. Results: Group and nonverbal IQ had a significant effect on the General Communication Composite (GCC) score. Both groups of children with HL had poorer GCC scores than the children with NH, apart from the respondent. The BiHA-group had significantly lower scores than the NH-group on Speech, Syntax, Semantics, and Coherence subscales. The BiCI-group had significantly lower scores than the NH-group across all subscales of the CCC-2. The parents rated the participants significantly higher than the daycare professionals in Speech and Social Relations. In contrast, the daycare professionals rated the participants higher than the parents in Coherence, Inappropriate Initiation, Stereotyped Language, and Use of Context. Furthermore, gender influenced Coherence, Nonverbal Communication, Social Relations, and Interests, for which the girls performed better than the boys. The nonverbal IQ had an effect on Syntax, Semantics, and Use of Context, for which higher nonverbal IQ was associated with better performance. Conclusions: On average the children with HL had poorer communication skills than the children with NH. Pragmatic difficulties were more common in the BiCI-group than in the BiHA-group. The respondents were not completely unanimous, which may be because of the different demands of different environments

Assessing social-pragmatic inferencing skills in children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract By utilizing the Pragma test this study investigated how sixteen five- to ten-year-old children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and sixteen typically developing (TD) children comprehended contextually challenging scenarios demanding 1) contextual inference with theory of mind (ToM), 2) contextual inference without ToM, 3) relevant use of language, 4) recognition of feelings, and 5) understanding false beliefs. The study also compared children’s ability to explain their own correct answers. In addition, this study evaluated the sensitivity of three different methods for discriminating the children with ASD from the TD children: 1) the Pragma test, 2) the Social Interaction Deviance Composite (SIDC) of Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2), and 3) the Theory of Mind subtest of the Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment, Second edition (NEPSY-II). The results showed that children with ASD differed from TD children in questions demanding context utilization. However, the demand of mind-reading in utterance interpretation increased the difference between groups. Compared to TD children, children with ASD had more difficulties in explaining how they had used context to arrive at the correct answer. The discrimination power for detecting children with ASD from TD children was excellent in the Pragma test, good in the SIDC CCC-2 and fair in the Theory of Mind subtest of NEPSY-II. This study showed that by using contextually sensitive materials, such as the Pragma test, it is possible to detect the social-pragmatic inferencing difficulties of high-functioning children with ASD in structured test situations and not only in real-life situations or by using parental reports

Social-pragmatic contextual comprehension in Italian preschool and school-aged children:a study using the Pragma test

Abstract Efficient communication requires the interplay of linguistic, cognitive and social skills, including the ability to make contextual inferences and to understand others’ intentions and emotions. The capacity to effectively use language in specific contexts (i.e., pragmatic ability) develops with age, and an assessment of this ability is important for understanding both typical and atypical development. The Pragma test was originally developed and validated on Finnish children to assess social-pragmatic comprehension. The present study utilizes a slightly adapted version of the Pragma test, translated into Italian, and presents the results of the test given to 110 typically developing Italian children (4–8 years of age). The Italian version of the Pragma test shows content and concurrent validity, interrater reliability, and internal consistency, and it proves to be sensitive in detecting an age-dependent pattern of performance, across pre-school and school age children, in the pragmatic parameters investigated. The present study has ramifications for clinical contexts, as data for typical pragmatic development enables identification of strengths and weaknesses in the pragmatic performance in clinical populations. Finally, the results indicate that the Pragma test is relevant to both Finnish and Italian cultural contexts, thus providing the opportunity to make cross-cultural comparisons