Samuelsson et al. (2005)

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

KEY:

CCC = Children’s Communication Checklist

NA = not applicable

P = participant/patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

WNL = within normal limits

 

SOURCE: Samuelsson, C., Nettelbladt, U., & Löfqvist, A. (2005). On the relationship between prosody and pragmatic ability in Swedish children with language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, 279-304.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: October 15, 2014

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: D (The highest possible grade for this investigation was D+ because it involved case studies.)

POPULATION: Specific Language Impairment (Swedish), Prosodic problem (Swedish); Child

 

PURPOSE: To explore the relationship between prosody and pragmatics in Swedish children diagnosed with language impairment.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • There may not always be direct linkages between children’s performance on formal tests of prosody, acoustic measures of prosody, and perceptual measures of prosody.
  • The academic backgrounds of professionals who are analyzing prosody may affect their judgments.
  • Although neither participant (P) exhibited prosodic problems at the word or phrase level, both experienced trouble at the discourse level.
  • The investigators labeled the discourse level prosodic problems as ‘pervasive’ because they were observed in spontaneous speech at both assessments for each of the Ps. (Assessments were separated by 2 ½ to 3 years.)
  • Although both Ps overall performance on a measure of pragmatics was above cut off for problems, the Ps clearly did have some pragmatic problems.
  • The investigators suggest that in these Ps the prosodic problems noted by the analyzers/judges (i.e., researchers in logopedics and phoneticians) were secondary to pragmatic problems.
  • The aspects of prosody that was a challenge for one or both of the Ps

– intonation

– intonation –terminal contour

– stress

– loudness

– monotony

  • The results of formal testing of prosody at the word and phrase level were not consistent with the results of perceptual ratings of spontaneous samples.

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Case Study
  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Not applicable (NA)

 

  1. Was the participants’ communication status concealed?
  2. from participants? No
  3. from assessment administrators? No
  4. from data analyzers? No

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 2
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? NA, this was a case study
  • # of groups: NA
  • List names of groups: NA
  • # of participants in each group: NA

                                                                                

  1. The following variables were described:
  • age: P1 = 6-6 and 9-0; P2 = 6-1 and 9-9 (There were 2 data collection points 2 ½ to 3+ years apart.)
  • gender: P1 = f; P2 = m
  • pre-, peri-, post-natal history: both Ps within normal limits (WNL)
  • hearing during early childhood: WNL for both Ps
  • familial history of language impairment: none for both Ps
  • early milestones: WNL for both Ps
  • motor skills: mild problem (P1)
  • perception skills: mild problem (P1)
  • attention/concentration skills: mild problem (P1)
  • pre investigation language skills:

– P1 @ 6-6: WNL phonology, grammar, oral motor; slightly below age level-language comprehension

– P1 @ 9-0: WNL language comprehension; time delay in answering questions (conversation, standardized testing) and some intelligibility problems (peer and teacher report)

– P2 @ 6-1: WNL language comprehension, oral motor skills, grammar; severe impairment in phonology

– P2 @ 9-9: very mild phonological problem, ½ hours of speech-language therapy per week

  • educational level of clients: attends mainstream school with 4 hours per day of special education small group instruction (P1); attends mainstream school but repeated Grade1 (P2), receives ½ hour of speech therapy a week

 

  1. Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes
  • disorder type: (Prosodic impairment at the discourse level
  • other (list): see item #4b

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?
  2. Subject (Classification) Groups? No
  3. Experimental Conditions? No
  4. Criterion/Descriptive Conditions?Yes
  • The investigators measured and classified P’s

– pragmatic abilities and

– prosodic abilities

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. Dependent measures:
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)
  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using an instrument measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level
  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses
  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually
  1. Dependent measures that are subjective:
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)
  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using a test measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level
  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

 

  1. The dependent/ outcome measure that is objective:
  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

 

  1. Interobserver for analyzers? Yes
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)

   – P1: no statistical analysis but raw data for parent and teacher ratings are provided

– P2: no statistical analysis but raw data for parent and teacher ratings are provided

  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

     – P1: correlation (Cronbach’s alpha) between logopedic and phonetician ratings of prosody was 0.34 (not significant)

– P2: correlation (Cronbach’s alpha) between logopedic and phonetician ratings of prosody was 0.95 (significant)

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? No _

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for investigators? Not Applicable
  1. Description of design:
  • This investigation involved 2 case studies.
  • The investigators administered the measures when the Ps were about 6 years of age and 9 years of age.
  • The measures included:

– The Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC). The evaluators were the parents and teachers. It is not clear when CCC was administered to P1; it was administered at 9-9 for P2.

– A formal prosodic assessment measuring prosody at the word, phrase, and discourse levels. Testing procedures involve answering questions, completing sentences, imitating modeled target, narrating, and conversing.

– Judges rated portions of the narrating and conversing on 20 speech production variables, most of which were prosodic in nature. The judges were 5 researchers in logopedics (5) and phoneticians (7).

– The judges also made comments on each examiner’s ability adapt his/her prosody to the P.

– The timing of the judgments was not clear,

– Acoustic analyses of parameters judged to be of perceptual concern were undertaken. Timing of the analyses wass not clear.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing? NA

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? NA
  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • Dependent Measure #1: To describe pragmatic ability using the Swedish version of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC)

– P1: The parents rated P as having language/communication problems as well as having problems with initiation and coherence.

– P2: Overall, P2’s parents and teachers rated his language/communication and pragmatics as WNL. However, 2 subtests (stereotyped conversation, and use of context) were below the cut-off score.

  • Dependent Measure #2: To describe prosody using a testing instrument measuring prosody at the word, phrase and discourse level

– P1 @ 6-6: Overall, she did well.

– P1 @ 9-0: Overall, she did well.

– P2 @ 6-0: Overall he did well, he only had trouble with the following subtests:

  • tonal word accents
  • verbal particle versus prepositional phrase
  • discourse level prosody

– P2 @ 9-9: He only had trouble with discourse level prosody.

  • Dependent Measure #3: To describe prosody problems using acoustic analyses

– P1: She exhibited excessive vocal fry (see below) which precluded additional measurement.

– P2: Acoustic analysis verified atypical stereotyped prosodic exaggerations at the ends of phrases.

  • Dependent Measure #4: To describe prosody and pragmatic problems perceptually

– P1: She had trouble with the following parameters:

  • vocal fry
  • monotony
  • stereotyped intonation patterns
  • investigators also performed a maze analysis and found P1 produced an excessive number of mazes.

– P2: He had trouble with the following parameters:

  • loudness variation
  • stress pattern
  • stereotyped intonation patterns (including terminal contour/turn-endings)
  • “childishness”
  • “dialectical specificity”
  • investigators described his speech as “precocious.”
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: