CoDAS · 2013
Considering responsivity: a proposal for pragmatic analysis in autism spectrum.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Miilher Liliane Perroud, Fernandes Fernanda Dreux Miranda
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the pragmatic profile referring to the communicative initiatives and the bi-dimensional profile involving the aspects of initiative and responsivity. It also aimed to analyze the most common types of responses presented by the studied individuals.
METHODS: Thirty recorded samples of interaction between speech-language therapist and children with autism spectrum disorders (mean age: 9 years and 6 months) sessions were analyzed. The samples were transcribed and data analyzed about number of communicative acts, occupation of the communicative space, use of communicative means (verbal, vocal and gestural) and total number of participations (initiatives and responses). The responses were qualified as "non-answer", "adequate answer", "inadequate answer" and "pragmatically inappropriate answer".
RESULTS: Significant differences in the comparison of the numbers of initiatives and total participations and of occupation of communicative space and total number of communicative acts. There was also a significant difference in the number of "adequate answers".
CONCLUSION: Results show the need to consider the bi-dimensional communicative profile and qualify the answers in order to determine the child's communication abilities.
METHODS: Thirty recorded samples of interaction between speech-language therapist and children with autism spectrum disorders (mean age: 9 years and 6 months) sessions were analyzed. The samples were transcribed and data analyzed about number of communicative acts, occupation of the communicative space, use of communicative means (verbal, vocal and gestural) and total number of participations (initiatives and responses). The responses were qualified as "non-answer", "adequate answer", "inadequate answer" and "pragmatically inappropriate answer".
RESULTS: Significant differences in the comparison of the numbers of initiatives and total participations and of occupation of communicative space and total number of communicative acts. There was also a significant difference in the number of "adequate answers".
CONCLUSION: Results show the need to consider the bi-dimensional communicative profile and qualify the answers in order to determine the child's communication abilities.