The Pragmatic Assessments in Children: A Narrative Review

Document Type : Review Articles

Authors

1 MSc Student in Speech/Language Sciences, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London Ontario, Canada

2 PhD Student in Speech Therapy, Department of Speech Therapy, University of Rehabilitation Sciences and Social Welfare, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: One of the important areas of language is pragmatics, which describes the correct use of language for social interaction. Since tests are tools for quantitation of speech and language abilities, they are needed in order to assess, screen, describe, diagnose, and treat various aspects of language. The aim of this study was to review the existing tests in the area of language pragmatics and collect data about their subtests, scoring, administration, age range, and finally their application in clinical and research contexts in children.Materials and Methods: In order to review the common tests of language pragmatics, an electronic search through Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar, and Ovid databases was done between the years 2000 to 2020. The keywords were “Pragmatics”, “Language”, “Means”, “Tests”, “Tools”, “Diagnosis”, “Measurement”, and “Evaluation”. The inclusion criteria were access to the full text of the article, and the article language (either English or Persian).Results: In this study, 18 tests and a checklist were reterived from 25 studies for further study. Among them, only four tests and one checklist were for sole assessment of pragmatics and 14 other tests were for assesing all aspects of language.Conclusion: Some tests have recently been used more commonly due to the specialization of their subtests. Reviewing language pragmatics tests shows that the Test of Pragmatic Language-Second Edition (TOPL-2) was the most acceptable test due to the assessment of comprehension-expression areas, standardization for healthy children or children with disorders, translation into several languages, and high psychometric characteristics; however, the use of multiple tests is recommended for a comprehensive and integrated assessment.

Keywords

Article Title [فارسی]

آزمون‌های کاربردشناسی زبان در کودکان: بررسی مروری روایی

Authors [فارسی]

  • بشری بهرامی 1
  • فاطمه فکار قراملکی 2

1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد علوم گفتار و زبان، گروه بهداشت و علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه وسترن اونتاریو، لندن اونتاریو، کانادا

2 دانشجوی دکتری گفتاردرمانی، گروه گفتاردرمانی، دانشگاه علوم توانبخشی و سلامت اجتماعی، تهران، ایران

Abstract [فارسی]

مقدمه: یکی از حیطه‌های مهم زبان، حیطه کاربردشناسی می‌باشد که استفاده درست از زبان برای تعامل اجتماعی را توصیف می‌کند. از آن‌جا که آزمون، ابزاری برای کمی کردن توانایی‌های گفتار و زبان به شمار می‌رود، می‌توان گفت که جهت ارزیابی، غربالگری، توصیف، تشخیص و درمان جنبه‌های مختلف زبان، به استفاده از آزمون نیاز است. پژوهش حاضر با هدف مروری بر آزمون‌های موجود در حیطه کاربردشناسی زبان و جمع‌آوری اطلاعات مربوط به خرده آزمون‌ها، نمره‌دهی، روش اجرا، رده سنی و در نهایت، کاربرد هر یک از این آزمون‌ها در عرصه‌های بالینی و پژوهشی در کودکان انجام شد.مواد و روش‌ها: به منظور مروری بر آزمون‌های متداول کاربردشناسی زبان، کلمات کلیدی «کاربردشناسی، زبان، وسیله، آزمون، ابزار، تشخیص، اندازه‌گیری و ارزیابی» در پایگاه‌های اطلاعاتی Web of Science، PubMed، Scopus، Medline، Google Scholar و Ovid طی سال‌های 2000 تا 2020 جستجو گردید. مقالات به دست آمده با استفاده از معیارهای ورود شامل دسترسی به متن کامل مقاله و انگلیسی یا فارسی بودن زبان مقاله مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.یافته‌ها: از 25 مقاله یافت شده در مطالعه حاضر، 18 آزمون و 1 چک‌لیست استخراج گردید که 4 مورد از آن‌ها مختص ارزیابی حیطه کاربردشناسی و 14 آزمون دیگر جهت ارزیابی کل حیطه‌های زبان بودند.نتیجه‎گیری: برخی از آزمون‌ها به دلیل تخصصی بودن خرده آزمون‌های آن، در سال‌های اخیر بیشتر مورد استفاده قرار گرفته‌اند. مرور آزمون‌های کاربردشناسی زبان نشان داد که آزمون Test of Pragmatic Language-2nd Edition (TOPL-2) به دلیل ارزیابی حیطه‌های درکی- بیانی، هنجاریابی برای کودکان سالم و مبتلا به اختلال، ترجمه به چندین زبان دنیا و ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی بالا، با مقبولیت بیشتری روبه‌رو بوده است، اما برای داشتن ارزیابی جامع، استفاده از آزمون‌های متعدد توصیه می‌شود

Keywords [فارسی]

  • آزمون
  • تعامل
  • کاربردشناسی
  • کودکان
  • ویژگی‌های روان‌سنجی
  1. Dewart H, Summers S. The pragmatics profile of everyday communication skills in children. Berkshire, UK: NFER-Nelson; 1995.
  2. Paatsch LE, Toe DM. A comparison of pragmatic abilities of children who are deaf or hard of hearing and their hearing peers. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 2014; 19(1): 1-19.
  3. Sobhani RD. A review on adult pragmatic assessments. Iran J Neurol 2014; 13(3): 113-8.
  4. Juergens AL. Assessing the pragmatic skills of adolescents with and without learning disabilities on a dramatization task [MSc Thesis]. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University; 1997.
  5. Botting N. Children's Communication Checklist (CCC) scores in 11-year-old children with communication impairments. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2004; 39(2): 215-27.
  6. Helland WA, Helland T. Emotional and behavioural needs in children with specific language impairment and in children with autism spectrum disorder: The importance of pragmatic language impairment. Res Dev Disabil 2017; 70: 33-9.
  7. Fekar-Gharamaleki F, Dardani N, Khoddami SM, Jalayi S. The speech prosody tests: A narrative review. J Res Rehabil Sci 2019; 15(1): 58-64.
  8. Hoffmann A, Martens MA, Fox R, Rabidoux P, Andridge R. Pragmatic language assessment in Williams syndrome: A comparison of the Test of Pragmatic Language-2 and the Children's Communication Checklist-2. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 22(2): 198-204.
  9. Phelps-Terasaki D. Test of Pragmatic Language: Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 1992.
  10. Phelps-Terasaki D. Test of Pragmatic Language: Examiner's manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2007.
  11. Bloom L, Lahey M. Language development and language disorders. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1978.
  12. O'Neill DK. Language Use Inventory for Young Children: An assessment of pragmatic language development. [Unpublished Document]. Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo; 2002.
  13. Loukusa S, Makinen L, Kuusikko-Gauffin S, Ebeling H, Leinonen E. Assessing social-pragmatic inferencing skills in children with autism spectrum disorder. J Commun Disord 2018; 73: 91-105.
  14. Alev G, Diken IH, Ardıç A, Diken Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Gilliam J. Adaptation and Examining psychometrical properties of Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory (PLSI) in Turkey. Elementary Education Online 2014; 13(1): 258-73.
  15. Brooks BL, Sherman EM, Iverson GL. Healthy children get low scores too: prevalence of low scores on the NEPSY-II in preschoolers, children, and adolescents. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2010; 25(3): 182-90.
  16. Ward-Lonergan JM, Liles BZ, Anderson AM. Listening comprehension and recall abilities in adolescents with language-learning disabilities and without disabilities for social studies lectures. J Commun Disord 1998; 31(1): 1-31.
  17. Zeberlein JC. Examination of the Accuracy of the Social Language Development Test for Identification of Social Language Impairments [Doctoral dissertation]. Oxford, OH: Miami University; 2014.
  18. Nelson N, Plante E, Helm-Estabrooks N, Hotz G. Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills™ (TILLS™). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.; 2016.
  19. Wong BY, Roadhouse A. The Test of Language Development (TOLD): A validation study. Learn Disabil Q 1978; 1(3): 48-61.
  20. Bowers L, Huisingh R, LoGiudice C. Tasks of problem solving; elementary. Austin, TX: LinguiSystems, Inc.; 2005.
  21. Rehfeld DM, Padgett RN. Test review: Comprehensive assessment of spoken language--second edition. J Psychoeduc Assess 2019; 37(4): 524-9.
  22. Newcomer P, Hammill DD. (2009). Pragmatic Language Observation Scale. Austin, TX: Hammill Institute on Disabilities.
  23. Santos TS, Fernandes F. Functional Communication Profile - Revised: objective description of children and adolescents of the autism spectrum. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia 2012; 17(4): 454-8.
  24. Kahjoogh MA, Pishyareh E, Gharamaleki FF, Mohammadi A, Someh AS, Jasemi S, et al. The Son-Rise Programme: An intervention to improve social interaction in children with autism spectrum disorder. Int J Ther Rehabil 2020; 27(5): 1-8.
  25. Wiig E. SEE®: Social Emotional Evaluation®. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications; 2008.
  26. Gresham F, Elliott SN. Social Skills Improvement System SSIS Rating Scales. Minneapolis, MN: NCS Pearson, Inc.; 2008.
  27. Overvliet GM, Besseling RM, van der Kruijs SJ, Vles JS, Backes WH, Hendriksen JG, et al. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals in Rolandic epilepsy, an assessment with CELF-4. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2013; 17(4): 390-6.
  28. Wiig E, Secord W. Test of Language Competence - Expanded Edition (TLC-Expanded). Psychological Corp; 1989.
  29. Sanger DD, Aspedon M, Hux K, Chapman A. Early referral of school-age children with language problems. Commun Disord Q 1995; 16(2): 3-9.
  30. Bishop DV. Development of the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC): A method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1998; 39(6): 879-91.
  31. Bishop D, Whitehouse A, Sharp M. Communication Checklist - Self Report (CC-SR). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2009.
  32. Bishop D. Pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In: Bishop DVM, Leonard LB, Editors. Speech and language impairments in children. Hove, UK: Psychology Press; 2000. p. 113-28.
  • Receive Date: 12 April 2020
  • Revise Date: 30 May 2022
  • Accept Date: 22 May 2022
  • First Publish Date: 22 May 2022