LANGUAGE LEARNING DEFFERENCES 05’
PRE - AND POST - PUBIC MENTALLY RETARDED
{NDWEDUALS

Thesis for the gegree of M. A.

MECHieAi‘é STATE wwaasm

BARBARA 3mm Rama %
1974

{ICE-1" If; Pfif
I Tim: .---I '
' in!

film-um‘ ._ _
" “3‘1“.

 

0"" .

I
I
we

ABSTRACT

LANGUAGE LEARNING DIFFERENCES OF PRE- AND
POST-PUBIC MENTALLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS

BY

Barbara Barrett Reckell

Lenneberg (1964,1967) hypothesized that the men—
tally retarded subject cannot benefit from speech and
language training, that manipulation of reinforcing con-
tingencies will not significantly assist in the develop-
ment of language, and that language learning will not
take place after the CA of 12 to 14 years due to physio-
logical limitations.

Research has indicated, however, that the language
of the retarded can be remediated in subjects with various
etiologies and at different mental age levels. Most often
the training associated with remediation has made use of
behavior modification principles. That language learning
in the mentally retarded is limited by age has not, how-
ever, been well documented by Lenneberg nor has it been
examined directly by others. The legislation of mandi-
tory special education for the adult mentally retarded
subject makes it imperative for the speech and language

clinician to know how practical it is to initiate or

Barbara Barrett Reckell

continue therapy with the mentally retarded individual at
various chronological age levels, especially those beyond
the CA of 12 to 14 years.

To test the hypothesis that post-pubic severely
mentally retarded subjects have a reduced capacity for
language learning, eight pre-pubic and eight post-pubic
subjects were selected from a population attending a day
training program. Each group was subdivided into a test
group and a control group of four subjects each. The test
groups were given five hours of training in a language
acquisition program. The control groups maintained their
regular schedule of activities.

Results of the investigation showed that 1) the
pre-pubic as well as the post-pubic severely mentally re-
tarded test groups showed increases in language behavior,
2) this increase occurred as a result of the modification
of reinforcing contingencies, 3) no significant amount of
difference was seen in the rate of increase in language
behavior between test groups and 4) the subjects had ex-
perienced growth in language from the pre-pubic through

the post-pubic years.

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Audiology and
Speech Sciences, College of Communication Arts, Michigan

State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Master of Arts degree.

WK

D1 ector o T esis

Guida ce Committee:

  
   

Chairman

\\\mc§-®c \\ §m\\.\

LANGUAGE LEARNING DIFFERENCES OF PRE- AND

POST-PUBIC MENTALLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS

BY

Barbara Barrett Reckell

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences

1974

9-.
.9“
Qg)
(9

This work would not have been possible without the

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

skills and dedication of its many contributors. It is to
them that I wish to express my appreciation.

My deep gratitude is extended to Daniel Beasley
for his patience, constant encouragement and generous
sharing of talent and knowledge during the preparation for
this study and the completion of the manuscript. I would
like to express my appreciation to Lynda L. Smith and
Donald Burke for their supportive interest in the work
represented herein.

My sincere appreciation is also extended to Fred
McGlone, Day Training Program Director at the Marvin Beek-
man Center, and his staff, Kathy Blyth, Kary Powers,
Lauren Shepherd, John Chylek, Elaine Grogan and the many
instructors who so generously gave their assistance; to
Myrtie Manning for her uplifting humor when it was needed
most; to Penny Trumble for her assistance in gathering
data; and especially to the students who served as sub-
jects for this study.

A special thank you to Kristine King for her tech-
nical assistance and interest in this study and especially

for her continuing friendship.

ii

I'd also like to express my appreciation to
Patricia Bainbridge and to Peter Smith, Chairman, Depart-
ment of Speech and Audiology, Northern Michigan University,
for giving me the opportunity to acquire the necessary
skills for working with the mentally retarded and the op-
portunity to practice these skills.

Finally, my gratitude to Russ and our children for
their unselfish love and understanding and their unceasing
encouragement over the years of my academic career and for

their patience while this manuscript was in preparation.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

Speech and Language Behavior of the

Mentally Retarded . . . . .
Specific Training Procedures . .
Language Programs . . . . .

The Modified Language Acquisition

Program . . . . . . . .
The "Critical Period" Theory . .
Statement of the Problem . . .

II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . .

Subjects . . . . . . . .

Materials . . . . . . . .

Design and Method of Presentation

III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . .

IV. DI

APPENDICES

LIST OF RE

SCUSSION . . . . . . . .

Evidence Against the "Critical Period"

Theory . . . . . . . .

Implications for Language Intervention

Implications for Future Research

FERENCES . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

vi

10
14
19
21
21
22
23
28
35
36
40
40
42

55

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Phase Structure of the MLAP . . . . . 15
2. Pre-test, Training, and Post-test Phase

Profile for Pre-Pubic and Post-pubic Test

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. Individual Pre-test and Post-test Scores

for all Subjects . . . . . . . . . 30
4. Summary of Group Data . . . . . . . 31

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
Pre-test and Post-test Percentage Scores
for Individual Test Subjects . . . . . 32
Pre-test and Post—test Percentages for
all Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Comparison of Pre-test and Post-test
Scores of Test Groups . . . . . . . 34

vi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Much of the research published in recent litera~
ture concerning the mentally retarded has been devoted to
the description of language and its development in indi-
viduals exhibiting problems associated with various etiolo-
gies and from various environments. Also prominent are
reports of training procedures designed to improve a va-
riety of language functions in groups or individuals ex-
hibiting a wide range of intellectual functioning and
mental ages. Associated with these training procedures
are descriptions of programs for the amelioration of the
language deficits of the mentally retarded which are being
devised and applied. Currently, investigators appear to
be attempting to answer the question, "Can the mentally
retarded by benefited by training?" To date, the results
have been optimistic, and thus, new methods in clinical
management are taking the place of the custodial care
previously provided for them.

An apparent increase in public awareness of the
needs and capabilities of the mentally retarded has in-

creased the demand for special education for the mentally

handicapped. The appearance of manditory special educa-

tion in some states raises the question, "How long can a

mentally retarded subject benefit from a training program?"
There has been a paucity of research which has

treated the chronological age of the mentally retarded in-

dividual as an independent variable.

Speech and Language

Behavior of the
Mentally Retarded

 

 

 

Articulation.--Schlanger and Gottsleben (1957)

 

studies the speech characteristics of 516 residents of

The Training School (Vineland, N.J.) (377 males, 139 fe-
males, i CA=28.9, 50:17.3, x MA=7.8, SD-3.0). The results
of the investigation revealed that 79 percent of the resi-
dents had some type of defective speech. Seventy-eight
percent had articulation disorders, 47 percent had voice
disorders, and stuttering was seen in 17 percent. Ninety-
five percent of those classified as "Mongoloid" (n=44),

84 percent of those classified as "Organic" (n-l89), and
80 percent classified as "Undifferentiated" (n=l37) were
found to be defective in articulation. Sixty-six percent
of those classified as "Familial" (n=64) were regarded as

having errors in articulation.

Language.--Karlin and Strazzulla (1952) describe

the language characteristics of 50 retarded children living

at home. The children were divided into three groups.
Eleven children with a CA range from 3-9 years to 14 years,
MA range of 6 months to 3 years, and an IQ range of 15 to
25 comprised the first group. The second group was made
up of 26 children who had a CA range of 3 years to 13-7
years, MA range of 1-3 years to 6 years and IQ range be-
tween 26 and 50. The third group were 13 children with
a CA range between 3-9 years and 14-1 years, MA range of
1-8 years to 7-11 years, and IQ range between 51 and 70.
Karlin and Strazzulla found that certain developmental
milestones namely sitting, walking, words, and sentences,
were positively correlated with increased intellectual
deficit, i.e., those subjects with the lowest MA were more
retarded in achieving the milestones than were those in
the middle group. The subjects in the middle group, in
turn, were more delayed in reaching the milestones than
were the highest functioning group. Several character-
istics of language noted by Karlin and Strazzulla were the
use of concrete language and the inability to deal with
abstractions, a tendency toward echolalia, irrelevancy
of ideas, preseveration, and glibness, particularly in the
older girls.

Graham and Graham (1971) studied the syntactic
characteristics in mentally retarded subjects with a CA

range of 10 to 18 years and an MA range of 3 to 10 years.

They determined that language facility for the mentally
retarded depended primarily on his MA.

Lozar, Wepman, and Hass (1972) compared lexical
usage of 27 institutionalized mental retardates from 5-6
to 14-6 years of age to that of nonretarded children.
Percentages of common words used by the retardates in a
language sample were compared with a similar measure for
the nonretarded children of the same CA and MA. The mean
number of lexical items used by the children showed very
little difference from the CA of 5 years to the CA of 13
years.

Beier, Starkweather and Lambert (1969) interviewed
30 residents at the Utah State Training School to deter-
mine their use of vocabulary. The subjects ranged in CA
from 11 to 24 years (2 CA=19) and had an IQ range of from
23 to 75 (X IQ=53). A 2700 word sample was collected from
each subject during the interview. This sample was an-
alyzed and compared to word samples collected from normal
subjects with CAs of 12 and 16 (Y CA=15, 7 IQ=lO3). Re-
sults showed that the mentally retarded subjects spoke
slower than the normals, used a greater number of "posi—
tive" words, often referred to "other" and used greater

numbers of "I," "me and "mine." Very little difference
was noted in the most frequently used words of the re-

tardates and the normals.

Mein (1961) examined the grammatical structures
of an institutionalized population of 40 mongoloids between
the ages of 10 and 30 years. One hundred words taken dur-
ing a conversational interview and 100 words the patients
used to describe a picture were analyzed and classified.
It was determined that with increasing mental level the
speech patterns matured in a manner similar to that of
normal children. Specifically, a reduction in the number
of nouns used and an increase in the other parts of speech
was observed. However, increases in language complexity
for the mentally retarded subjects were observed to occur
at a slower rate than for the normal population.

Using 80 patients from the same pOpulation as in
the previous study, Wolfensberger, Mein, and O'Connor
(1963) investigated core (communal) vocabulary and fringe
(individual) vocabulary. They found that, although the
number of core words increased with increasing MA and CA,
the percentage of core words in the entire vocabulary de-
creased, thereby indicating an increase in fringe vocabu-
lary. The authors reasoned that the core vocabulary of
infants was "probably close to 100 per cent and their
fringe vocabulary close to zero...with development, vocabu—

lary diversifies... (p. 41). Therefore, the percentage
of core vocabulary used by the subjects declined even

though the core vocabulary size increased.

Memory and learning.--Brown (1972) tested 12 insti-

 

tutionalized retardates with a CA range of 12-2 to 18-10
years (X CA=l6 years). She found that when presented a
short-term memory task the mentally retarded children
showed a recency effect similar to young normals. Ellis
and Munger (1966) also tested short-term memory in retard-
ates. The CA range for their subjects was 16 to 25 years
(X CA=20 years). Their subjects showed a primacy and re-
centy effect similar to normal four-year-olds.

Hagen and Raker (1971 in preparation, cited by
Hagen, 1971) found that the retarded child's performance
on a memory task improved when he was induced to employ
rehearsal strategies. They also found, however, that the
retarded child would not use such strategies unless pres-
sured to do so.

Prem, Logan, and Towle (1972) studied the effect
of pretraining on a rote learning task with a mentally re-
tarded pOpulation. Analysis of data indicated that the
mentally retarded subjects exhibited a pronounced deficit
in the early stages of a rote learning task and that pre—

training had no effect on performance.

Institutionalization.--The results of a series of

 

studies conducted by Lyle (1959, 1960, 1960. and 1961)
to determine the effects of institutionalization on the

retarded individual showed that: l) the development of

verbal intelligence is not enhanced by institutionalization,
2) language development is facilitated by a home environ-
ment, 3) the level of language development achieved by an
institutionalized subject is predetermined by the level

of language achieved prior to institutionalization and,

4) the language of the retarded child developes in the same
manner as that of the normal subject, but at a slower rate
with the greatest differences seen at the lower MA levels.
Schlanger (1954) found that the language of the institu-
tionalized mentally retarded subject was lower in output
and suggested that this was due to inadequate motivation
and stimulation for speech.

Specific Training
Procedures

 

 

Baer, Guess, and Sherman (1972) describe their
work with a ten-year old institutionalized severely re-
tarded girl. The child, who had exhibited "no linguistic
behavior" since the age of two, was taught to imitate vocal-
izations and to label and finally to produce grammatical
productions of plurals. In another study, Baer and Guess
(1973) employed differential reinforcement and imitation
procedures to teach four "severely retarded" children (CA
range from 11 to 16 years) to generate noun suffixes from
newly taught verbs.

Hagen and McManis (1972) attempted to increase the

ability for naming and describing in mental retardates.

Thirteen boys and seven girls enrolled in public school
classes for the educable mentally retarded (EMR) were
matched on the basis of a pretraining test (Experimental
group: X CA=9—5, Y MA=5-l, i IQ=64.7, Control group:

i CA=9—9, E MA=4-9, X IQ=66.4). Thirty pictured objects
and a taped description of each object were presented to
the experimental group. Training in naming and describing
objects was given over a 14 day period. The most signifi-
cant results were seen in a reduction of unacceptable re—
sponses and increases in formal description responses to
training items.

Bradley, Maurer and Hundziak (1966-1967) studied
the effectiveness of "milieu therapy" and language train-
ing with 30 institutionalized mentally retarded children
with an age range of 7 to 18 years. The Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) was used as a pre-test
and post-test measure, and the effects of training were
determined by performance on the ITPA. The experimental
group showed significant raw score increases on six of the
nine ITPA subtests. In addition, other IQ and language
measures showed significant increases when compared to
their own pre-tests.

Guess, Smith, and Ensminger (1971) studied the ef-
fectiveness of non-professionals teaching language skills

to 40 mentally retarded children with a CA range of 4 to

18 years. The subjects were divided into two groups, a
"high level" group (average MA=5) and a "low level" group
(average MA=2,75). The Peabody Language Development Kit
and specially written lessons were administered over an

18 month period. The ITPA was used for pre-test and post-
test purposes. Both groups increased their raw score on
the ITPA by 20 points and made "highly" significant in-
creases when their post-tests were compared with that of

their matched control groups.

Language Programs

 

Talkington and Hall (1970) applied a Matrix Lan-
guage program (Gotkin, 1967) to a group of 20 institution-
alized mongoloids with a mean CA of 24.2 (Y IQ=40.7). The
program was administered to groups of five subjects daily
for 20 days. When comparisons of pre—and post-tests of
the experimental group were made with those of a control
group (20 subjects with a x CA=24.5 and X IQ=39.1), the
significant gains were observed in language usage and
ability to process concepts. The authors felt that analy-
sis of these gains showed "that language and concept train-
ing with mongoloid subjects is both feasible and effective,
at least in the immediate sense" (p. 90).

Berger (1972) outlined a program for the atypical
deaf child. Nine deaf children ranging in age from 8 to

17 years who exhibited deviant behavior and little if any

10

language behavior received training for one and a half to
two years in individual and group sessions. 'Significant
improvement was seen in both areas for all subjects.

Several other programs have been designed to be
used in language training with the mentally retarded per-
son. Hallet, Sype, and Gates (1972) presented a language
based curriculum guide for the severely retarded child,
and Marshall and Hegrenes (1972) developed a therapy model
designed to be used with the cognitively disorganized
child. Miller and Yoder (1972) devised a method of teach-
ing syntax to the mentally retarded child. Other language
acquisition programs have been devised by Bricker (1972),
Richardson (1967), and Risley, Hart, and Doke (1972). Re-
cently, such a program has been devised in Michigan by
Kent, Klein, Falk, and Guenther (1972) and modified by
Rowland (1973). This modification of Kent's, gt_al.,
Language Acquisition Program (LAP) is known as the Modi-
fied Language Acquisition Program (MLAP).

The Modified Language
Acquisition Program

 

 

Kent, et_al., originally developed the Language
Acquisition Program for use with the nonverbal mentally
retarded, institutionalized child in the CA range of five
to twenty years. Rowland's modification of the program
incorporated the use of higher functioning mental retard-

ates as language trainers for lower functioning mental

ll

retardates. She also devised a language assessment form
to be used with the training program.

Table 1 shows the structure of the program as modi-
fied by Rowland. The assessment as devised by Rowland
(Appendix A) follows the structure of the program. In the
program, Phase I, the attending phase, requires that (a)
the subject be able to sit for at least 30 seconds without
restraint or prompting, (b) the subject sit 30 seconds
without exhibiting interfering behaviors, i.e., rocking,
kicking, or stereotypic hand or arm movements, (c) the
subject be able to obey the spoken command "Look at this,"
and (d) the subject make eye contact prior to each command
in (c) above.

In Phase II the subject is required to imitate
motor movements in response to a spoken command, "Do this,"
and the presentation of a visual stimulus of the motor
pattern to be imitated. Section (a) requires the imitation
of the movements necessary for hitting, lifting and re-
leasing, lifting and moving, and touching and pointing.
Section (b), motor imitation with body parts, requires
imitation of hand and arm movements, touching of visible
body parts, touching of body parts not visible and moving
body parts not visible.

Phase III, vocal imitation requires the subject
to imitate a vocal pattern following the command "Do this,

say ." The progression is from imitation of any sound

12

to imitation of the vowel sounds, imitation of one sylla-
ble words and fianlly imitation of two and three-word
phrases.

Ability to encode names of common objects, room
parts, body part, activities and objects not visible is
the requirement of Phase IV, the basic receptive phase.
Section (a) demands that the subject select an object
upon request from a display of eight common objects placed
before him following the command "Show me the ."

Four visible room parts are requested in the same manner
(section b) as well as four body parts (section c). To
complete section (d) the subject is required to perform
six activities named by the examiner. Section (e) demands
that the subject find eight different objects that have

been placed out of his View. The command "Go get the

is used.

Phase V, an expansion of Phase IV follows the same
format but requires that the subject give two objects,
identify objects and room part together, differentiate be-
tween his own body parts and those of a doll, and finally,
find two objects not visible. Carrier phrases are the
same as phase IV with the exception of section (b) in which
case the phrase is changed each time, demanding the under-

standing not only of object names and room parts but the

prepositions in and on as well, i.e., "Put the spoon

in the box" or "Put the baby on the chair."

13

Phase VI, naming objects, requires the subject to
vocally respond in an intelligible manner when asked, "What
is this?" The objects, body parts, room parts, and activi-
ties used in the previous phases are used as the stimulus
items. The final section (e), of this phase requires the
subject to name an object taken from his view but which he
has just seen.

The final phase, the expressive expansion phase,
is a measure of the subject's ability, in section (a), to
respond to the interrogative sentence "What do you want?"
The subject is shown the eight objects used previously
which are contained in a box. The box is then removed
from his sight and he is asked the question. His desire
for an object is implied by his responding with an ob-
ject name. Section (b) requires the subject to tell where
an object is when asked, "Where is the ?" Previously
used objects and room parts are used for this section.

The desirable responses are, i.e., "Baby on floor" or

"Spoon in box." However, responses, i.e., "There,"

"There ____" or there,‘ accompanied by a pointing
response are accepted. In Section (c) the subject

must give the appropriate vocal response "baby's" or
"mine" to the question "Whose (body part) is this?" when
a body part on the doll or the subject is pointed to by
the examiner. In Section (d) the subject is to ask the

examiner to perform an activity in response to the ques-

tion, "What do you want me to do?" The remaining section

14

requires that the child name an object that is missing
from three objects that he has just seen. The prescribed
manner of scoring the assessment is to mark each response
with one of the following: Correct (+), partially correct
or an approximation ((+)), incorrect response (-), or no
response (NR) or (0). One point is given for each correct
response. For a more complete description of the LAP or
the MLAP see Kent, et al., (1972) or Rowland (1973).

The "Critical Period"
Theory

 

The above studies or programs conducted by Baer,
Guess, and Sherman (1971), Baer and Guess (1973), Berger
(1972), Bradley, Maurer, and Hundziak (1966-1967), Marshall
and Hegrenes (1972), and others would indicate that posi-
tive results are affected by speech and language train-
ing with the mentally retarded. In some cases growth in
language is achieved beyond adolescence.

On the other hand, regarding the mentally retarded,
Lenneberg (1964) has stated "Since in these patients the
proper development of brain mechanisms for language is
arrested or severely slowed, there are no measures avail-
able for correction of symptoms (p. 160)." He suggested
that parents be counseled against "taking the patient from
one speedhtherapistto the next (p. 160)" as there is

little encouraging evidence to support the success of such

15

TABLE l.--Phase Structure of the MLAP.

 

I. Attending Phase
A. Sitting
B. Elimination of Incompatible Motor Responses
C. Looking at Objects
D. Pre-Trial Eye Contact
II. Motor Imitation Phase
A. With Objects
B. With Body Parts

111. Vocal Imitation Phase

A. Gross Vocal
B. Vowel
C. Word

D. Phrase
IV. Basic Receptive Phase (Understanding single words
that label)
A. Touching Objects
B. Pointing to Room Parts
C. Pointing to Body Parts
D. Performing Activities
E. Finding an Object (Not Visible)
V. Receptive Expansion Phase (Understanding combinations
of words that label)
A. Giving Trainer Two Objects

B. Placing Object on Room Part

16

Table l.--Continued.

 

C. Pointing to Body Parts (self and baby's)
D. Finding Two Objects (Not Visible)
VI. Basic Expressive Phase (Using single words to label)
A. Naming Objects
B. Naming Room Parts
C. Naming Body Parts
D. Naming Activities
E. Naming a Concealed Object
VII. Expressive Expansion Phase (Using combinations of
words to label)
A. Asking for an Object
B. Telling Where Object Is
C. Telling Whose Body Part is Pointed To
D. Telling Trainer to Perform an Activity

E. Naming a Missing Object

 

Objects: ball, baby doll, car, comb, hat, key, shOe, spoon.

Body Parts: eye, hair, nose, teeth.

Room Parts: box, chair, floor, table.

Objects used for imitation: peg board with hammer, doll,
supported vertical stick and ring, chair, hat, xylaphone,
bell, blocks,glass, spoon. -

Activities: eat, bounce ball, roll ball, jump, march, sit.

Other materials: doll with visible teeth.

Words: names of objects, names of room parts and body
parts used plus "gone" and "mine."

l7

therapy. He further stated that speech progress of the
mentally retarded was steady but markedly slower than that
of normals and that progress stabilizes:
early in the first half of the second decade
of life. Little further improvement of speech
habits can be expected beyond the level of achieve-
ment reached at age twelve to fourteen. This does
not preclude, however, the acquisition of some new
words or names (p. 160).
Lenneberg further asserted that:
His studies with deaf and retarded children
had shown that the stages of language development
could not be changed by any variation in deed or
environmental circumstances (Smith and Miller, 1966,
p. 270).
Lenneberg (1964) cited his own work (Lenneberg, Nichols,
and Rosenberger, 1964) and that of Goda and Griffith (1962)
to support these statements.
Lenneberg, Nichols, and Rosenberger (1964) studied
54 mongoloid children examined over a three year period.
The subjects were non-institutionalized and ranged in CA
from 6 months to 22 years. Data gathered from medical his-
tories, neurological examination, psychological testings,
tape recordings of spontaneous utterances, articulation
tests, and vocabulary assessments acquired over the three
year period were analyzed. The investigators noted some
degree of speech progress in all of the subjects, but
progress in language development was noted only in those
children younger than fourteen years of age. The authors

reported no theraputic procedures that may have been ad-

ministered during the time of the study.

18

Goda and Griffith (1962) studied 106 institution-
alized retardates with a CA range of 13 to 21 years with
a median age of 16. The subject's MA range was 6 to 13
years with a median of 9-5 years. The subject's IQ's
ranged from 45 to 84 with a median of 60. A single re-
sponse to each of 25 pictures was obtained from each sub-
ject. The recorded responses were scored for sentence
length, completeness and type. The articulation of 65
consonant elements was also tested. The findings were
derived from a comparison of results with a study by
Templin (1957) of language development in normal children.
Goda and Griffith's subjects fell at or near the CA of 7
group level of Templin's normals in mean number of articu-
lation errors and mean sentence length. No data is pro-
vided for individual age groups. The authors noted of
their results:

It proved possible to assign the sample an

age location on the scale of normal development
at roughly CA7. In light of the relatively small
changes observed following CA 7, particularly in
sentence usage measures, this finding does not
seem to indicate a sizable amount of retardation
in language (p. 497).

Lenneberg (1967) also uses his study (Lenneberg, et.
al., 1964) to parallel the language learning problems of
the aphasic child with the language learning problems of
the mentally retarded individual. He found that children

between 4 and 10 years of age who suffer a single hemis-

phere trauma after language has been acquired recovered

19

the facility of language completely. However, individuals
past the age of 18 had a greatly reduced possibility of
regaining total language function following such a trauma.
He, thus, compared his observation of mongoloid children
who showed no development in language beyond the age of
14 years with the aphasic children who displayed a reduced
capacity for language learning when the onset of symptoms
occurred after the age of 18 years.

Lenneberg (1967) suggested a "critical period" for
language learning to explain these findings.

The limiting factors postulated are cerebral

immaturity on the one end and termination of a state

of organizational plasticity linked with laterali-
zation of function at the other end (p. 176).

The "critical period,’ then, is limited by physical changes
in the brain which occur rapidly during the first two
years of life and are stabilized by adolescence.

Statement of the
Problem

 

Evidence from the literature to support Lenneberg's
generalization of language learning problems in aphasic
children to the language learning problems of the mentally
retarded individual cannot be found. Further, there is
little evicence in the literature to support or contradict
a "critical period" for language learning in the mentally
retarded. Most studies have been done with children under

age 15. Those studies with older retardates, group the

20

subjects according to MA or IQ rather than CA. It appears
that the CA of the mentally retarded as an independent

variable, as it pertains to language acquisition, has been
overlooked in research. Because of the broad implications
regarding education of the mentally retarded suggested by
a "critical period" of language learning, this study pro-
posed to determine if post-pubic mentally retarded persons
were indeed unable to increase the complexity of their

language behavior, as suggested by Lenneberg.

CHAPTER II

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Subjects

The subjects for this study were enrolled in a day
training program for children diagnosed as severely men—
tally retarded. To be placed in this program the individual
child must have an IQ::30. The subjects were divided into
two groups: a pre-pubic and a post-pubic group. The sub-
jects comprising the pre-public group had a CA less than
11 years. The subjects in the post-pubic group had a CA
greater than 16 years. Each group had a total of eight
subjects, four test subjects and four control subjects.
The selection of subjects for the test and control groups
were randomly determined.

The pre-pubic test group ranged in CA from 77
months to 127 months with a mean age of 104.75 months.
The pre—pubic control group ranged in CA from 83 months
to 119 months with a mean age of 104.5 months.

The CA range for the post—pubic test group was 217
months to 275 months with a mean age of 243.75 months.
The CA range for the post-public control group was 201

months to 273 months with a mean age of 237.25 months.

21

22

Excluded from the study were subjects with uncor-
rected visual or known auditory acuity deficits, severe
emotional disturbances, progressive diseases and subjects
whose mental retardation was known to have been acquired
after the perinatal period. One post-pubic test subject
and two pre-pubic control subjects were classified as hav-
ing Down's Syndrome. The other subjects were medically
unclassified.

Two subjects from the post—pubic test group were
receiving sedatives daily to control hyperactivity. One
of these subjects was also receiving an antihistimine to
control an allergy. The remaining two subjects from this
test group were receiving no medication. Three subjects
from the post-pubic control group were receiving anticon-
vulsants daily.

One subject from the pre-pubic test group received
anticonvulsants daily. The remainder of the test group
as well as the pre-pubic control group received no medica-

tion.

Materials

 

The Modified Language Acquisition Program (MLAP)
[as adapted by Rowland (1973) from the Language Acquisition
Program (LAP) for the retarded by Kent, et_al., 1972] and
the accompanying language assessment test were employed
for language training. The testing and training were ad—

ministered as prescribed with the exception of the scoring

23

of the assessment. Rowland specified that one point be
given for each correct response and no points be given for
any other response. For the purposes of the present study
half of a point was given for partially correct responses
or approximations in Sections III-c and -d, and V-a, -b,
and -d. For Section III-c, the vowel sound alone was con-
sidered an incorrect response. However, the vowel plus a
correct consonant in either the initial position or the
final position which was given in the correct order was
considered a partially correct response. Words having the
correct vowel and distorted consonants were also accepted
as partially correct. Section III—d required that one
word of a two word phrase be given to be partially correct,
and consonant distortions were acceptable in that word.
Sections V—a, -b, and -d, required one half of the re-
sponse to be correct, i.e., giving the examiner one of the
two objects requested, recognizing either the correct ob-
ject or the correct room part on which the object was to
be placed, or finding one of the two objects not visible.
Criteria set by Rowland for passing each section was 90
percent of the responses correct. A total of 383 points
were possible on the assessment.

Design and Method of
Presentation

 

 

The experimental design followed a pre-test, train-

ing, post-test format. All subjects were individually

24

administered a MLAP assessment pre-test. The test subjects
then received instruction in the MLAP program in the pre-
scribed manner. The control subjects received no special
training but followed their regular classroom instruction
throughout the training period. At the end of the train-
ing period all subjects were again administered the MLAP
assessment. All testing and training was carried out by
the experimenter, a speech therapist experienced in using
behavior modification principles with the mentally retarded
population, and familiar with concepts of the development
of speech and language.

Generally speaking, the basic principles of shap-
ing, prompting and fading, and differential reinforcement
were used. All subjects of the post-pubic group with one
exception received social reinforcement only. One subject
in the test group received a primary reinforcer. All sub-
jects from the pre—pubic group received food reinforcement
except one test subject, who was reinforced with a toy car.
All primary reinforcers were paired with social reinforcers.
During the administration of the assessment all responses,
correct, partially correct or incorrect, were reinforced
as prescribed. During the training portion of the program
a schedule of continuous reinforcement of correct or par-
tially correct responses was maintained.

The level at which each child began the MLAP was

determined by the number of correct responses he was able

25

to make in each phase of the assessment as prescribed by
the program. The levels failed on the pre-test by each
subject and the levels where training was begun are pre-
sented in Table 2. Upon mastering a section in the pro-
gram, the subject then proceeded to the subsequent section,
as defined by the MLAP.

Each test subject received individual training in
the program twenty minutes each day, three days a week for
five weeks, for a total of five hours. Assessment and
training was carried out in two rooms which were typically
used on a daily basis for speech therapy. (See Appendix B

for detailed description.)

26

Table 2.--Pre-test, Training, and Post-test Phase Profile
for Pre-pubic and Post-pubic Test Subjects.

 

 

 

 

 

Pre- Age in Phases Phases Phases
Pubic Years & Failed Training Showing
Subject' Months Pre-test Began Increase
*
8.8. 8-11 All areas II A,B I C,D
except II A,B
I A,B III B,C,D
IV A,B,D,E
V A,B,C,D
VI A
J.S. 9-0 All areas II A,B* I C,D
except
I A,B
D.S. 6-5 All areas II B II B
except III A,B,C
I A,B,C,D IV A,B,C,D,E
II A V C
J.Y. 10-7 All areas II A,B* I C,D
except II A,B

I A,B

 

Table 2.--Continued.

27

 

 

 

 

 

Post- Age in Phases Phases Phases
Pubic Years & Failed Training Showing
Subject Months Pre-test Began Increase
B.G. 18-1 III C,D III C,D III C,D
IV C IV C V A,B,C
V A,B,C,D V A,B,C VI A
VII B,C,D,E
E.P. 19 IV C,D,E IV C,D,E IV E
V B,C,D V A V A,B,C,D
VII A,B,C,D,E VI A,B
VII A,B,E
*
R.R. 22-11 All areas II A,B I C,D
except II B
I A,B III A
R.V. 21-3 II E II E II A,B
III B,C,D III B III B
IV D IV D V A,D
V A,D V A,D

VI A,B,C,D,E

VII A,B,C,D,E

 

*Training in Phase I C and D was incorporated with

later pahses by the experimenter rather than separately
as prescribed by Rowland.

 

(I , ~.
.I.. \
.. ,
..I . .
- .
.
.

' l
.
' ‘J
1 _ . .‘T ,1. (
' I
.

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

A pre-test and post—test percent correct score was
determined for each individual subject. A comparison of
scores was made of the within subjects scores, between
test and control groups within the separate age groups,
and finally between the two test groups. This data can
be found in Figures 1 through 3.

Table 3 presents the pre-test and post-test scores
and their differences for all subjects. Table 3 also
shows that the post-pubic test group showed an increase
in test scores from pre-test to post—test, with a range
of increase from three percent to 11 percent and a mean
increase of six percent. The post—pubic control group_
demonstrated a mean decrease between pre-test and post-
test of minus one percent with a range of score differ-
ences from minus five percent to less than one percent.

Table 3 also shows that the pre—pubic test group
showed an increase between pre-test and post-test scores
with a range of increase from two percent to 16 percent,
with a mean increase of seven percent. The pre-pubic

control group showed a mean increase of one percent with

28

29

a range of scores between minus two percent to six percent.
These results are summarized in Table 4.

Examination of Table 2 shows that all test subjects
except one made improvements in sections where direct train-
ing occurred. The exception, J.S. from the pre-pubic
group, displayed an increase in eye contact and looking
behavior, the training of which occurred under Phase II-a.
Further examination of Table 3 shows that the subject dis-
playing the greatest increase in the pre-pubic group, S.B.,
improved in the pre-vocal areas as well as the verbal
areas. Another subject, D.S., also showed increases in
the verbal area. All subjects showed increases in the
pre—verbal areas of attending or motor imitation. From
Table 3 we note that, generally speaking, the pre-pubic
test subjects with the highest initial scores made the
most increase, while those with the lowest initial scores
made the least increase.

In the post-public group all subjects showed in-
creases in understanding words or combinations of words
that label either visible or not visible as well as in-
creases in vocal imitation of vowels, words or phrases
with one exception, R.R. Subject R.R. had the smallest
initial score and made the smallest gains. However, this
subject made increases in the gross vocal imitation sec-

tion as well as the attending and motor imitation sections.

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3.-—Individual Pre-test and Post—test Scores for
All Subjects.
Age 1n Pre-test Post-test D
Year & % %
Month
Test . .
Subject Pre-pubic Group
S.B. 8-11 21.6 37.2 15.6
J.S. 9-0 l7 l9
D.S. 6-5 39.4 45.1 5.7
10-7 19 24
Control
Subject
J.B. 9-10 23.7 24.5 0.8
D.C. 6-11 23 23
E.K. 9-11 38 36 -2
K.P. 8-2 20 26 6
Test -
Subject Post pubic Group
18-1 69.1 72.8 3.7
.P. 19-0 69 80 ll
R.R. 22-11 35 38
R.V. 21-3 45.9 49.6 3.7
Control
Subject
T.M. 17-2 16.3 16.7 0.4
J.M. 22-5 53.6 53.1 -0.5
R.M. 16-9 72 67 -5
N.R. 22-9 81.2 80.4 -0.8

 

TABLE 4.-—Summary

31

of Group Data

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Mean
Mean Age Pre-test Post-test D

Pre-pubic Group
Test Subjects 104.5 mo. 24.2% 31.4% 7.1%
Control Subjects 104.75 mo. 26.3% 27.6% 1.3%

Post-pubic Group
Test Subjects 243.75 mo. 54.7% 60.2% 5.5%
Control Subjects 237.25 mo. 55.8% 54.4% -l.4%

 

OO
85

CO
76

TO
CO
CO
55

45
40
35
3 .
2 5

PERFORMANCE ON NLAP IN PERCENT CORRECT

20
IO
IO

32
PRE -TE8T X-——'N
POST -TEST H

‘0

/

*0

X\x

O X

)0 \o
\é:

0.8. 8.3. J.S. J! 8.0. ER R.V. R.R.
6-5 O-II O-O lO-7 IB-l lO-OZI-3 22-“

CA IN YEARS AND MONTHS

Figure l.--Pre—test and Post-test Percentage Scores for Indivi-

dual Test Subjects.

PR! arcs? D
POST mm

TEST CONT

////////////////////////////////////.
////////////////////////////////////////

 

7//////////////,

r- l/A
fl. //
TEST CONTROL

PRE-PUSIC

 

 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
SSSSSSSSSSSSSS

homo—coo hzuucum 2. .24! 80 mozgcomcum

7m
P.
m
P

34

fl Pow-Duane o—o
PRE-PUSIC x——x

504-
4o-~

4047
351.

:1 x/x
oL——-cr r— _—._

PRE' TEST POST' TEST

 

PERFORMANCE ON NLAP IN PERCENT CORRECT

 

Figure 3.--Comparison of Pre—test and Post-test Scores of
Test Groups.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

Examination of Table 2 shows the language level
of the test subjects to be severely depressed. Initially,
only one subject in the post-pubic group had a level of
vocal imitation high enough to pass the vocal imitation
phase of the MLAP assessment. The three other subjects
in this group displayed receptive language skills but not
imitative speech. None of the subjects in the pre-pubic
group were able to pass the MLAP assessment requirements
for imitative speech. Also, levels of receptive speech,
if present, were not great enough to pass the receptive
language requirement on the MLAP assessment.

However, a mean six percent increase in language
behavior was seen in the post-test scores of the post-
pubic group and a mean seven percent increase in language
behavior was seen in the post-test scores for the pre-
pubic group. These scores represent increased language
behavior in subjects exhibiting severely retarded language
behavior. No significant amount of difference was seen
in the rates of increase in language behavior between the

test groups, suggesting that a similar rate of learning

35

36

resulted within the two groups albeit at different lev-
els.

It can be seen in Figure 2 that there was a sig-
nificant amount of difference in the language of the pre-
pubic and post-pubic groups as measured by the MLAP
assessment device. Assuming that the MLAP was an adequate
measure of language in this situation it would appear that
the subject had experienced growth in language development
from the pre-pubic through the post-pubic years. Further
investigation with subjects whose ages fall between those
of the pre and post-pubic groups may suggest the ages at
which language, as it is measured by the MLAP, is acquired.

Evidence Against the
"Critical Period" Theory

 

 

Lenneberg (1967) suggested a "critical period" for
language learning which is physiologically determined by
"cerebral immaturity am: one end and termination of a
state of organizational plasticity...at the other end
(1967, p. 176)." He presented data from his studies with
aphasic children and mentally retarded individuals. He
then drew a comparison between the language learning be-
haviors of the two groups to support the theory for re-
duced capacity for language learning as a result of the
termination of the "critical period." That the comparison
between these groups may be invalid and that the theory

of a "critical period" may not be operational for the

37

mentally retarded is observed from the results of previous
research, the results of the present study, and the cate-

gorical differences between the aphasic child and the mon-
goloid individual.

That the language behavior of mentally retarded
subjects of any CA or IQ can be modified has been shown
by several investigators. Baer, Guess and Sherman (1972),
Baer and Guess (1973), Bradley, Maurer and Hundziak (1966-
1967), Guess, Smith and Ensminger (1971), and Berger (1972)
observed growth in dimensions of language behavior as the
result of theraputic techniques in severely and moderately
retarded children 18 years of age and under. Talkington
and Hall (1970) found language training "feasible and ef-
fective (p. 90)" as a result of their work with institu—
tionalized mongoloids (i CA=24.2, X IQ=40.7).

In the present study growth in language behavior
in subjects older than 18 years of age was equal to that
of pre-adolescent subjects. Interestingly, the only mon-
goloid test subject, l9-year—old E.P., gained 11.3 per-
cent from pre-test to post-test. This was second only to
subject S.B. of the pre-pubic group who achieved a 15.1
percent increase between pre-test and post-test. The
third highest percent of increase from either group was
5.7 percent. The results cited above are contrary to the

findings of Lenneberg, Nichols and Rosenberger (1964).

ll'llllll II I] ll- ‘ufllu 11.4.ln

I ll l.‘ulll[ I.‘ l [I l .III III. A

38

Lenneberg, et_al., found in their study of 54 mongoloids
ranging in age from six months to 22 years that language
behavior increased in all subjects below the age of 14
years, but not in those above that age. Lenneberg cites
Goda and Griffith (1962) to support the theory that in the
individual past the age of 14 years the "progress in lan-
guage learning comes to a standstill after maturity (Lenne-
berg, 1967, p. 155)." Goda and Griffith, however, do not
seem to support this theory. They found that their popu-
lation of mentally retarded subjects fell at or near the
CA of 7 years of Templin's (1957) normal subjects and ob—
served that little further growth in language behavior
occurred beyond the CA of 7. The conclusion appears war-
ranted, therefore, that much further growth in language
learning would not have been expected, simply because the
subjects in Lenneberg's study may have reached a plateau
in language maturity.

It is also possible that Lenneberg's subjects if
they had not reached language maturity may have acquired
what language they needed to function adequately in their
environment,which may have been limited by other variables
related to mental retardation. It appears that Lenneberg
may have assumed a need for growth in language behavior
in his subjects, when in fact such a "need" on the part

of the speaker/listener was not present.

39

That a question of the validity of a comparison
of language learning behaviors in aphasic children and
mongoloid subjects to support the "ciritcal period" theory
may arise is observed first, in the differing etiologies
of the two conditions. Mongolism is a manifestation of
a chromosomal irregularity probably present from incep-
tion. Aphasia, however, is an acquired condition, often
caused by trauma. Secondly, the condition of mongolism
as well as other classifications of mental retardation,
characteristically exhibit various degrees of general re-
tardation of intellectual functioning. General retarda-
tion, however, is not often found in children with normal
premorbid intellectual functioning who have acquired
aphasia. Thirdly, the mentally retarded subjects may have
various degrees of a number of concomitant conditions,
i.e., deficiencies in visual or auditory acuity or percep-
tion, motor handicaps, and social or environmental re-
strictions. These factors may not be operational in the
aphasic subject. Most important, however, is the possi-
bility suggested by Berry (1969) that in the aphasic
subject "disturbed and enfeebled potentials in the ailing
hemisphere interfere with the potentials of the minor
hemisphere and thus retard learning...(p. 43)." It would
thus appear difficult to compare the language learning be-
havior of the aphasic child to the language learning be-

havior of the mentally retarded individual.

40

Implications for
Language Intervention

 

 

Because of the small sample used in this study and
because the sample was not strictly controlled for etiology
the findings cannot be fairly generalized. Also, because
mentally retarded individuals were used in this study, the
results should not be generalized to normal individuals
or to subjects with acquired neural pathologies. However,
the amount of increased language ability obtained during
this brief training period suggests that language therapy
is of value to the mentally retarded subject, even for
those below the IQ of 30. That there was not a significant
amount of difference between the two test groups in pre-
test and post-test, indicates a potential ability for lan-
guage growth even in those subjects past the "critical
period" for language acquisition.

Implications for
Further Research

 

 

Further study with finer age classifications includ-
ing the ages between those of the pOpulations used in the
present study, study with greater numbers of subjects
within age groups, as well as longer training periods are
needed to make it possible to generalize language learn-
ing behaviors relative to age.

Because this study did not control for etiology

the question is raised, "Is there a learning difference

41

in various etiological categories of mental retardation
which are related to age?" This question should also be
investigated before generalizations regarding language
learning behavior of the mentally retarded are made.

It may also be advisable to use other test/train-
ing instruments. Specifically, testing instruments that
measure gestural expression, conceptual levels and semantic
intent while not placing too early an emphasis on oral
speech are advisable. Training instruments that incorpor-
ate non—oral means of communication would also be advis-
able.

The present study raises the question of the ap-
propriateness of various language acquisition programs

for populations differing in age or etiology.

APPENDICES

42

APPENDIX A

THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
TERMINAL MEASURES TO ACCOMPANY THE
MODIFIED LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

PROGRAM

43

THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM FINAL TESTS
TO ACCOMPANY THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE ACQUISITION PROGRAM*

 

 

 

Student Reinforcer:
Date A. Check one:
Token No Token
Examiner B. Check one or more and specify
Food: 1. solid
Test Purpose: Check One 2. soft
Initial Test 3’ drink
Follow—Up Final Test (l,2,3,4) _;Other: 1. toy
2. Other

GENERAL DIRECTIONS: The child's performance on each trial
is recorded in the blank following the
response as one of the following:

+ correct response
(+)- approximation

- incorrect response
NR no response

With the exception of the first two
parts in the Attending Phase (see the
description for those parts in the
testing manual) each correct response
is worth one point and all other re-
sponses are not worth any points or
franction of points.

SUMMARY OF SCORES: Number of possible points follow indi-
vidual part, and number of points
needed to pass are in parenthesis.
Total scores, enter them below, and
circle training area(s).

* MLAP was adapted from: Kent, L., Klein, D., Falk, A., and
Guenther, H., "A Language Acquisition Program for the Re-
tarded." In McLean, J. E. and Schiefelbush, R. L., (eds.)
Language Intervention with the Retarded: developing strate-
gies, Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press 1972; by
Martha S. Rowland, Michigan State University, Department

of Elementary and Special Education, 1972.

The MLAPFT are meant to be accompanied by the testing and
training procedures described in: A Modified Language
Acquisition Program for use by Attendants and Attendant-
Supervised Retarded Trainer-Student Pairs, Martha S. Row-
land, 1972.

 

 

 

 

 

44

lllll‘lllll'll'l'lfllllllll'lli‘ll.ll

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

45

Attending Phase
A. Sitting - 30

B. Elimination of ICMR - 30

C. Looking at objects

D. Pre-Trial Eye Contact — 5

Motor Imitation Phase
A. With Objects — 8
B. With Body Parts — 8

Vocal Imitation Phase

A. Gross Vocal - 3
B. Vowel — 12

C. Word - 36

D. Phrase - 20

Basic Receptive Phase
label).

(30)
(30)
( 5)
( 5)

- 5

llll

( 7)
( 7)

l l

( 3)
(ll)
(33)
(No passing score)

(Understanding single words that

A. Touching Objects - 16 (15)
B. Pointing to Room Parts - 8 __—'( 7)
C. Pointing to Body Parts - 8 ——_'( 7)
D. Performing Activities - 12 ::: (11)
E. Finding an Object - 16 ____(15)

(Not Visible)

Receptive Expansion Phase (Understanding combinations

of words that label).

A. Giving Trainer 2 Objects—10 ( 9)

B. Placing Object on Room ___
Part — 10 ( 9)

C. Pointing to Body Parts-l6 ::: (15)
(self and baby's)

D. Finding 2 Objects - 10 ( 9)

(Not Visible)

Basic Expressive Phase

(Using single words to label)

A. Naming Ojbects - l6 ___ (15)
B. Naming Room Parts - 8 ____( 7)
C. Naming Body Parts — 8 ____( 7)
D. Naming Activities - 12 ___ (11)
E. Naming a Concealed

Object - 16

(15)

Expressive Expansion Phase (Using combinations

of words to label)

A. Asking for an Object - 4 ' ( 4)

B. Telling Where Ojbect 18-16

C. Telling Whose Body
Pointed to - 16

D. Telling Trainer to
an Activity - 6

E. Naming a Missing Object—8

: (15)
Part is

__ (15)
Perform

__ ( 4)

____( 7)

46

SCORING SECTION PERFORMANCE

I.

Attending Phase

I—A Sitting Still: Note whether child sits without

 

prompts or receipts of reinforcers for 30 seconds.
If less than 30 seconds, note number of seconds
child sits: seconds

 

Elimination of Incompatible Motor Responses (Get-
ting rid of movements that interfere with train-
ing): Note whether child exhibits incompatible
motor behavior within the 30 second sitting
period; if so, note number of seconds child sits
with ICMR: Seconds

 

Description of any ICMR:

 

 

II.

Looking at Objects: Note whether child looks at
correct objects when trainer says, "Look at this,"
and points to the objects. Total

 

1. key spoon comb baby car

key spoon comb baby car

2
3. key spoon comb baby car
4 key spoon comb baby car
5

, key spoon comb baby car

Pre—Trial Eye Contact: Trainer presents initial
Inventory "CV again, delaying each trial slightly
(may wait 5 seconds giving each child an opportu-
nity to look at her before giving the command to
"Look at this." Note whether child looks at
trainer (without prompting) prior to each of the
5 "look at this" trials. Total

1. spoon comb kay baby car

spoon comb key baby car

 

2
3. spoon comb key baby car
4 spoon comb key baby car
5

spoon comb key baby car

Motor Imitation Phase: Trainer says, "Do this," and

 

presents the following imitative models for the child
to imitate.

47

II—A Imitation with Objects Total

 

Hammer a peg on a toy peg table
Point to a chair

Place a single ring on a supported
vertical stick

Point to a chair

Put a hat on one's head

Put a hat on one's head

Place a single ring on a supported
vertical stick

Hammer a peg on a toy peg table

II-B Imitation with Body Parts Total

 

CNUWDOJNH

CI) \l
o 0

Touch one's nose

Stick tongue out of mouth
Stick tongue out of mouth
Touch stomach with both hands
Touch one's nose

Put both arms straight out
horizontally at sides

Touch stomach with both hands
Put both arms straight out
horizontally at sides

III. Vocal Imitation Phase

 

IIIHTIGross Vocal Imitation: Trainer says, "Do this,

 

say 'ah'" presenting three times for the child

 

to imitate. Total

1. "Do this, say 'ah'“

2. "Do this, say 'ah'"

3. "Do this, say 'ah'"

III-B Vowel Imitation: Trainer say, "say 'ah'", pre-
senting each vowel for the child to imitate.
Total

1 /a/ 7. /i/
2. /i/ 8. /U/
3. /o/ 9. /o/
4. /i/ 10. /a/
5 /u/ 11. /o/
6. /a/ 12. /u/

4)
oo

III-C Word Imitation: Trainer says, "Say hat," pre-
senting each word for the child to imitate.

 

 

 

 

 

l hat l9. floor
2 gone 20. ball
3 floor 21. shoe
4. nose 22. nose
5. comb 23. hair
6 car 24. car
7 comb 25. gone
8 table 26. table
9. eye 27. baby
10. hat 28. teeth
11. spoon 29. key
12. shoe 30. ball
13. spoon 31. baby
14. chair 32. box
15. hair 33. eye
16. box 34. mine
17. chair 35. mine
18. key 36. teeth
III—D Phrase Imitation: Trainer says, "Say key and
comb,” presenting each phrase for the child to
imitate. Total
1 . Key and comb 11 , Baby ' 5 eye
2. Key on chair 12. Spoon baby
3. My hair 13. Baby floor
4. Baby floor 14. Key on chair
5. My hair 15. Baby's hair
6. Key and comb 16. My teeth
7. Hat and spoon 17, Baby's eye
8- Spoon baby 18. Baby's hair
9. Hat and spoon 19, My eye
10. My teeth 20, My eye

IV. Basic Receptive Phase (Understanding single words
that label)

IV-A Touching Objects: Trainer places objects on
table in front of child and within his reach
and says, "Show me the comb." Total

 

 

 

1. comb 9. hat
2. car 10. spoon
3. comb 11. baby
4. key 12. key
5. ball 13. shoe
6. ball 14. shoe
7. car 15. baby
8. spoon l6. hat

V.

IV-C

IV-E

49

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pointing to Room Parts: Trainer places a box

and chair in View of the child and says,

"Show me the floor." Total

1. floor 5. floor

2. box 6. chair

3. table 7. table

4. chair 8. box

Pointing to Body Parts: Trainer faces child

and says, "Show me (child's name) nose."
Total

1. nose 5. eye

2. eye 6. nose

3. teeth 7. hair

4. teeth 8. hair

Performing Activity: Trainer places a ball

and food on the table in front of the child.
Both trainer and child stand as trainer gives

each command. Note response to: Total

1. jump ___ 7. sit ____
2. sit ____ 8. jump ____
3. roll the ball ___ 9. eat

4. march ___ 10. bounce the ball “"
5. roll the ball 11. bounce the ball __‘
6. march ::: 12. eat ::::

Finding Objects — Not Visible: Objects are
placed behind the screen while the child watches.
Trainer says, "Go get the ball." Total

 

 

 

1. ball 9. hat
2. spoon 10. shoe
3. key 11. comb
4. baby 12. car
5. spoon 13. comb
6. key 14. car
7. baby 15. hat
8. ball 16. shoe

 

 

Receptive Expansion Phase (Understanding two words

 

that label)

V-A

 

Giving Trainer Two Objects: Trainer places
all objects on table and says, "Give me the
car and the baby." (Hold out both hands)
‘_" Total

1. car and baby 6. shoe and comb

2. spoon and hat 7. baby and ball

3. key and car 8. baby and shoe

4. key and car 9. shoe and spoon

5. car and Spoon 10. baby and comb

VI.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

V-B Placing Objects on Room Parts: Trainer places
all objects and the box on the table and says,
"Put the spoon in the box." Total
1. spoon in box 6. baby on table
2. car in box 7. key on chair
3. spoon on floor 8. baby in box
4. shoe in box 9. comb on floor
5. car on table _‘__ 10. car on chair
V-C Touching Body Parts (Self and Baby's): Trainer
places a doll in front of child and says, "Show
me the baby's teeth." Total
1. baby's teeth 9. baby's teeth
2. child's teeth 10. child's eye
3. child's teeth 11. baby's hair
4. child's hair 12. child's nose
5. child's hair 13. child's nose
6. baby's eye 14. child's eye
7. baby's hair 15. baby's nose
8. baby's eye 16. baby's nose
V-D Finding two Objects (Not Visible): Objects are
placed behind the screen while child watches.
Trainer says, "Go get the comb and the shoe."
Total
1. comb and shoe 6. baby and car
2. key and hat 7. baby and car
3. Hat and shoe 8. shoe and baby
4. hat and shoe 9. comb and hat
5. car and spoon 10. spoon and baby
Basic Expressive Phase (Using single words to label)
VI—A Naming Objects: Trainer says, "What is this?"
as each object is held up, one at a time.
Total
1. key 9. hat
2. baby 10. spoon
3. car 11. key
4. baby 12. ball
5. car 13 hat
6. shoe l4 comb
7. comb 15. spoon
8. ball 16. shoe
VI—B Naming Room Parts: Trainer notes the child's

response while pointing to various room parts
and says,

1.
2.
3
4

chai
box
chai
box

r

 

 

r

 

 

"What is this?"

5.
6.
7
8

flo
tab
tab
flo

or

Total

 

1e

 

1e

 

or

 

VII.

51

VI—C Naming Body Parts: Trainer notes child's re-
sponse as she points to his body parts and to
the child's body parts and says, "What is this?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total
1. teeth 5. eye
2. nose 6. hair
3 nose 7. teeth
4 eye 8. hair
VI-D Naming Activities: Trainer performs activity
and then says "What did I do?" Total
1. eat 7. roll the ball
2. sit 8. sit
3. roll the ball 9. march
4. bounce the ball 10. jump
5. jump 11. march
6. bounce the ball 12. eat

 

O

23"
p.
l-‘
D.-

VI-E Naming Concealed Objects: Trainer notes
response while showing object to child, placing
it in box, covering box, and saying, "What is

(D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the box?" Total
1. ball 9. hat

2. baby 10. spoon

3. car 11. key

4. baby 12. ball

5. car 13. comb

6. shoe 14. key

7. comb 15. spoon

8. shoe l6. hat

 

 

Expressive Expansion Phase (Using combinations of
words to label)

 

VII-A Asking for Objects: Trainer notes child's re-
sponse when he shows child box of eight objects,
then tips it away or put under the table, and

 

says, "What do you want?" Total
1. "What do you want?" 3. "What do you want?"
2. "What do you want?" 4. "What do you want?"

VII-B Telling where an object is: Trainer puts the
object on the room part as the child watches
and then notes the child's response when ask-

 

ing, "Where is the baby?" Total

1. baby on floor 9. ball on chair
2. spoon in box 10. key on table

3. comb on table 11. key in box

4. comb on chair 12. ball on floor
5. spoon on table 13. car on table

6. spoon in box 14. baby in box

7. car on floor 15. shoe in box

8. hat on floor 16. hat on table

52

VII-C Telling whose body part is pointed to: Trainer
points to body part on either the doll or the
child and notes whether the child correctly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

answers with either "baby's," "mine," etc.,
in response to the question, "Whose nose is
this?" TotaI""‘

l. baby's nose 9. baby's teeth

2. baby's teeth 10. child's eye

3. baby's hair 11. baby's hair

4. baby's nose l2. child's eye

5. baby's eye 13. child's eye

6. child's teeth 14. child's teeth

7. Ehild's nose 15. baby's eye

8. child's nose l6. child's hair

 

VII-D Telling Trainer to Perform an Activity: Trainer
notes child's response to the question, "What
do you want me to do?", performing each activ-
ity requested by the child after the question
Total

 

What do you want me to do?
What do you want me to do?
What do you want me to do?
What do you want me to do?
What do you want me to do?
What do you want me to do?

 

 

 

 

 

GUTQWNl-J

 

VII—E Naming Missing Objects: As the child watches
trainer places 3 objects in a box and removes
one out of his View and then notes whether
child names object missing from the group of
3 that he has just seen. Trainer asks, "What
is gone?" Total

 

spoon baby key
comb ball gag?
comb car baby
baby comb ball
key ball hat
car hat COED
hat spoon shoe
key baby Spoon

 

 

(DQCNU'IQUJNH

Comments:

APPENDIX B

TEST/TRAINING AREA DESCRIPTION

Appendix B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. 45‘0" >1
Mirror A
S l
' . Chan“
'______l
5‘.
0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-.,.._. 5 DOOR : 5*
A g
-' 4,
11
“I
0 3’
(E n
'n
E
\7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WPL'A'N'“

Scolc 'LXEIPO

 

54

LI ST OF REFERENCES

55

LI ST OF REFERENCES

Baer, D., Guess, D, Teaching productive noun suffixes to
severely retarded children. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 77, 498-505 (1973).

 

 

Baer, D., Guess, D., and Sherman, J., Adventures in simplis-
tic grammar, Language of the Mentally Retarded. J.
McLean, D. Yoder and R. Schiefelbush, Eds. Balti-
more: University Park Press (1972).

 

Beier, E., Starkweather, J., and Lambert, M., Vocabulary
usage of mentally retarded children. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 927-934 (1969).

 

Berger, 8., A clinical program for developing multimodal
language responses with atypical deal children,
J. McLean, D. Yoder, and R. Schiefelbush, Eds.
Language Intervention With the Retarded. Balti-
more: University Park Press (1972).

 

Berry, M., Language Disorders of Children: The Bases and
Diagnoses. New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts
(1969).

 

 

Blount, W., Language and the more severely retarded: A
review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
73, 21-29 (1968).

 

Bradley, 8., Maurer, R., and Hundziak M., A study of the
effectiveness of milieu therapy and language train-
ing for the mentally retarded. Exceptional Child-
ren, 33, 143-150 (196601967).

 

Bricker, W., A systematic Approach to Language Training in
R. Schiefelbush, Ed. Language of the Mentally Re-
tarded. Baltimore: University Park Press (1972).

 

Brown, A., A rehearsal deficit in retardates continuous
short-term memory: Keeping track of variables
that have few or many states. Psychonomic Science,
29, 373-375 (1972).

 

56

57

Butter, C., Neuropsychology: The Study of Brain and Be-
havior. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publish-
ing Company, Inc. (1969).

 

Butterfield, E., and Belmont, John., The role of verbal
processes in short-term memory in R. Schiefelbush,
Ed. Language of the Mentally Retarded. University
Park Press (1972).

 

Cleaver, H., and Schaub, P., A breakthrough to literacy.
Special Education, 61, 13-15 (1972).

 

Goda, S., and Griffith, B., Spoken language of adolescent
retardates and its relation to intelligence, age,
and anxiety. Child Development, 33, 489-498 (1962).

 

Gotkin, L., Manual for Matrix Games. Appleton-Century-
Crofts (1967).

 

Graham, J., and Graham, L., Language behavior of the mentally
retarded: Syntactic characteristics. American
Journal of Mental Deficiency, 75, 623-629 (1971).

 

Guess, D., Smith, J., and Ensminger, E., The role of non-
professional persons in teaching language skills
to mentally retarded children. Exceptional Child-
533, 37, 447-453 (1970).

 

Hagen, J., Some thoughts on how children learn to remember.
Human Development, 14, 262-271 (1971).

 

Hagen, D., and McManis, D., Training and transfer of word
definitions by retarded children. American Journal
of Mental Deficiency, 76, 594-601 (1972).

 

 

Hallet, P., Sype, M., and Gates, J., A language-based curri—
culum for the mentally retarded. Mental Retarda-
tion, 9, 9-12 (1971).

 

Karlin, I., and Strazzulla, M., Speech and language problems
of mentally deficient children. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 17, 286-294 (1952).

 

 

Kent, L., Klein, D., Falk, A., and Guenther, H., A language
Acquisition Program for the Retarded in J. McLean,
D. Yoder, and R. Schiefelbush, Eds. Language
Intervention with the Retarded. Baltimore: Uni-
versity Park Press (1972).

 

58

Kirk, S., Educating Exceptional Children. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company (1972).

 

Kolstoe, 0., Language training of low-grade mongoloid child-
ren. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 63,
17-30 (1958).

 

Lenneberg, E., Nichols, I., and Rosenberger, E., Primitive
stages of language development in mongolism. Dis-
orders of Communication Vol. XLII: Research FEE:
lications, A.R.N.M.D. Baltimore: Williams and
Wilkins (1964).

 

 

Lenneberg, E., Biological Foundations of Language, New
York: John Wilen and Sons, Inc., (1967).

 

Lenneberg, E., Harvard Educational Review, 34, 152-177
(1964).

 

Lillywhite, H., and Bradley, D., Communication Problems in
Mental Retardation: Diagnosis and Management.
Harper and Row Publishers (1969).

 

 

Lozar, B., Wepman, J., and Hass, W., Lexical usage of
mentally retarded and non mentally retarded child-
ren. American Journal of Mental Deficiencies, 76,
534-539 (1972).

 

Lyle, J., The effect of an institution environment upon the
verbal development of imbecile children. II.
Speech and language. Journal of Mental Deficiency
Research, 4, 1-13 (1960).

 

Lyle, J., Some factors affecting the speech development
of imbecile children in an institution. J. Child
Psychol Psychiat., 1, 121-129 (1960).

 

Lyle, J., The effect of an institution environment upon the
verbal development of imbecile children: III The
Brooklands residential family unit. Journal of
Mental Deficiency Research, 4, 14-23 (1960).

 

 

Lyle, J., Comparison of the language of normal and imbecile
children. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research,
5, 40-51 (1961).

 

Marshall, N., and Hegrenes, J., A communication Therapy
Model for congitively disorganized children, in
J. McLean, D. Yoder, and R. Schiefelbush Eds.,
Language Intervention with the Retarded, Balti-
more: University Park Press (1972).

 

59

Mein, R., A study of the oral vocabularies of severely sub-
normal patients, II. Grammatical analysis of
speech samples. Journal of Mental Deficiency Re-
search, 5, 534-539 (1961).

 

Miller, J., and Yoder, D., What we may know and what we can
do: Input toward a system. Language Intervention
with the Retarded, J. McLean, D. Yoder, and R.
Schiefelbush. Baltimore: University Park Press

 

 

(1972).
Prem, H., Logan, D., and Towle, M., The effect of warm-up
on rote learning performance. Exceptional Child-

 

ren, 38, 623-625 (1972).

Richardson, 5., Language training for mentally retarded
children in R. Schiefelbush, R. Copeland, and J.
Smith, Eds. Language and Mental Retardation:
Empirical and Conceptual Considerations. New York:
Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc. (1967).

 

 

Risley, T., Hart, B., and Doke, L., Operant language devel-
opment: The outline of a therapeutic technology
in R. Schiefelbusch, Ed., Language of the Mentally
Retarded. Baltimore: University Park Press (1972).

 

Rowland, M., A study of the use of higher functioning re-
tardates as language acquisition trainers of lower
functioning retardates in attendant supervised
training sessions on institutional wards. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan (1973).

Schlanger, B., Environmental influences on the verbal out-
put of mentally retarded children. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 19, 339-343 (1954).

 

 

Schlanger, B., and Gottsleben, R., Analysis of speech
defects among the institutionalized mentally re-
tarded. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
22, 98—103 (1957).

 

Smith, F., and Miller, G., Eds. The Genesis of Language:
A Psycholinguistic Apprach. Cambridge, Mass.,
M.I.T. Press (1966).

 

 

Spreen, 0., Language functions in mental retardation: A
review I. Language development, types of retarda-
tion, and Intelligence level. American Journal of
Mental Deficiency, 69, 482-494 (1965).

 

 

6O

Talkington, L., and Hall, 8., Matrix language program with
mongoloids. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
75, 88-91 (1970).

Templin, M., Certain Language Skills in Children, University
of Minn. Press (1957).

 

Wolfensberger, W., Mein, R., and O'Connor, N., A study of
the oral vocabularies of severely subnormal patients.
III. Core vocabulary, verbosity, and repetitious-
ness. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 7,
38-45 (1963).

Zisk, P., and Bialer, 1., Speech and Language Problems in
mongolism: A review of the literature. Journal
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 32, 228-241 (1967).

\IHHIHIIHIIIIHII”HUI"lltllllll)\IIHHHIlHIIHIIHI

 

31293 02842 902