A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE SCORES OF. NORMAL CHILDREN ON THE RECEPTIVE- EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED AND THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE Thesis for the Degree Of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GLORIA M. ANDERSON ‘ 1977 , _ - \ A A l\ ‘ Michigan State University ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE SCORES OF NORMAL CHILDREN ON THE RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT FOR THE VIsgALLY IMPAIRED AND THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE BY Gloria M. Anderson A number of developmental and language assessment instruments and techniques for children have been suggested since the 19603. These tests have been used with normal children as well as with the handicapped. Specifically, the population of the visually handicapped has been found to be a heterogeneous group for whom it has been most difficult to design and standardize a language test. However, selected subtests of existing tests have been used when appropriate. It was the purpose of this investigation to compare the performance scores of normal preschool children on the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired (RELA) and the Zimmerman Preschool Language Scale (PLS). The RELA is a proposed language assessment pro- cedure specifically designed to measure the receptive and expressive language abilities of the visually handicapped Gloria M. Anderson child. The Preschool Language Scale (Zimmerman, Evatt, & Steiner, 1969) is an evaluation instrument used to detect language strengths and deficiencies, primarily in normal children. Subjects were ninety normal preschool children, aged three to five years. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was administered as a screening device to document age-appropriate receptive language development. The subjects were tested individually by the same examiner. Standard test procedures were followed, and scoring was completed by the examiner. Six experimental questions were studied: (1) Is there a correlation between the per- formance scores of normal three, four and five year olds on the BELA and the Egg? (2) Is there a significant dif- ference between BELA and EE§ scores for normal three, four and five year olds? (3) Is there a correlation between the Auditory Comprehension scores on the PLS and the Receptive Language scores on the EELA for normal three, four and five year olds? (4) Is there a significant difference between the Receptive Language/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? (5) IS there a correlation between the Verbal Ability scores and the gas and the Expressive Language scores on the BELA for normal three, four and five year old children? (6) Is there a significant difference between the Expressive Language/Verbal Ability mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? Gloria M. Anderson Results indicated a correlation between the RELA and EE§ for the total population as well as the age sub- groups. The two tests did result in a significant dif- ference for the group as well as the three and four year old subgroups. However, there was no significant differ- ence between the RELA and the §E§ for the five year olds. In addition, the paired categories of Receptive/Auditory Comprehension and Expressive/Verbal Ability did correlate for the group as well as the subgroups. For the five year old subjects, the paired category of Receptive/Auditory Comprehension also did not differ significantly. The results are discussed with reference to the literature of the visually handicapped (Lowenfeld, 1971; Withrow, 1969). Diagnostic implications for the use of the RELA were broad as they relate the use of such a measure for the normal population. 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. \ L» / Thesis Committee: ‘ Z&€27i/g2462:¢1L// Arnalgb/ Director 'Lyhda G'lzz/W Ph. D. Leo V. Deal, Ph. D. AREA... MW Debra Osborn, MA. A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE SCORES OF NORMAL CHILDREN ON THE RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT FOR THE VISUALLY IMPAIRED AND THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE BY .. . Q. a J\\ Gloria M. Anderson 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 1977 Sn he ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many thanks to Jean Waldo for a concept; Annette Smith for a personal belief and faith; Linda Gillum for her guidance and time. Special thanks to my dear friend Sherry Martin for her assistance and perspective. And most of all, to Stephen my husband, without whom I would not have been able to begin or finish. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . Subjects . . . . . . . Test Materials . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Data . III 0 “SULTS . . C . O O O O O O O 0 Performance Score Correlation on RELA and Egg . . . . . . . . . . Performance Score Significance Between RELA and Egg . . . . . . Performance Score Correlation with Chronological Age . . . . . Significance of Performance Scores Between Subject Groups . . . . . Iv. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 General Discussion . . . . . . . . RELA and PLS as Test Strategies fo r Normal Children . . . . . . RELA as a Test Strategy for the Visually Handicapped . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research . iii Page vi 11 11 ll 13 14 l6 16 17 21 23 27 27 29 31 34 37 MAXFIELD-BUCHHOLTZ COMMUNICATION ITEMS DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE APPENDICES A. B. SCALE . C. D. E. RAW DATA . F. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . LETTER TO PARENTS iv RECORDING FORMS AND SCORE SHEET DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT Page 38 40 46 51 58 6O Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page Pearson's Correlation Coefficient for performance scores on the Receptive- Expressive Language Assessment and the Preschool Language Scale . . . . . . . . . 18 Mean scores and standard deviation distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Subjects as a Group, N = 90. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9 Mean scores and standard deviation distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Langugge Assessmentgfér Three Year Old Subjects, N = 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Mean scores and standard deviation distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Four Year Old Subjects, N = 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Mean scores and standard deviation distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive ganguage Assessment for Five Year Old Subjects, N = 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 't' values for paired mean scores on the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment . 22 Pearson's Correlation Coefficient for the chronological age in months with language scores on the ggeschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . 24 One Way Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . 26 V CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Review of the Literature Many traditional assessment techniques for young children have appeared in the literature since the 19603 such as the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, (Bayley, 1969); Denver Developmental Screening Test, (Frankenburg & Dodds, 1967); Peabogy Picture Vocabulary Test, (Dunn, 1965); Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, (Kirk, McCarthy, & Kirk, 1968); and the Vineland Social Maturity §EElEI (Doll, 1965). All of these tests have been used with normal children as well as with physically, visually, and otherwise health handicapped children. In particular, the visually handicapped child tra- ditionally has been a heterogeneous and difficult popula- tion for which to design and standardize specific testing measures (Hecht, 1975). Subtests of existing tests have been utilized when age appropriate and when the visual condition permits a measurement of motor development, communication, self-help skills, cognitive and adaptive behavior (Bell, 1975). The most widely used and accepted assessment for the visually handicapped child is the eve f0] 8 I in g ch 19 ch Ra 19 Ga Social Maturity Scale for Blind Preschool Children (Maxfield & Buchholz, 1957). The Maxfield-Buchholz scale is an adaptation of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale which measures skills in the areas of self-help, locomotion, socialization and communication. The communication items of the Maxfield-Buchholz scale are the only existing evaluative measures designed and standardized specifically for the visually handicapped preschool population (Siegel & Broen, 1976). A description of these items can be found in Appendix A. Testing Considerations for the Visually Handicapped The visually handicapped child and the sighted child develop speech and language similarly (Lowenfeld, 1971; Gallagher, 1975). However, the visually handicapped child differs from his sighted peer as a sensory depri- vation alters his system for gathering information (Piaget, 1954; 1974; Haupt, 1964; Higgins, 1973; Rogow, 1975; Gallagher, 1975; Gotts, 1975; and Withrow, 1976). The importance of language development as part of the total development of the visually handicapped child has 'been demonstrated in the literature (Wessell, 1964; Rogow, 1972; 1973; 1975). The apparent lack of an adequate assessment tool suggests the further exploration of lan- guage development in an assessment strategy for these children. the the 19 an 9a re CO Unlike the sighted baby, the blind infant displays few spontaneous facial movements or vocalizations and does not maintain eye contact (Lowenfeld, 1971). Lowenfeld further states that none of the cues by which a seeing baby initiates contact with the mother are evident in the blind at rest nor are they visually stimulated by objects in the environment. To grasp, to explore or to crawl toward any object is not usually done by this Child unless the object makes a sound. Sound is the only clue to let the blind infant know that "things" exist in the environ- ment (Lowenfeld, 1971). Harley (1963) stressed that a blind child's reality is limited because of visual limitations. The other sen- sory modalities, such as haptic exploration and auditory awareness, must be fully developed in order for the blind child to attain realistic information about the world of objects from tactile data (Rogow, 1975). For example, it is known that the blind child learns to gauge distance (mapping) by direction and by variation in sound (Halliday, 1976). In the same manner, the child's ability to perceive and to conceive of the world are similar to learning to ‘gauge distance, to organize his experiences and code them. The communication of the blind child is limited until he is given the meanings necessary to comprehend relationships and make associations in a wide context of concrete, abstract and social meaning (Cutsforth, 1951; 1a. NO 0: 1966). Recently, the emphasis has been placed on the importance of the thoughts, underlying meanings, and intentions as being significant in the development of language (Brown, 1973), rather than its structure. Normal Language Development of the Normal Child Current researchers in normal child language acquisition, such as Bloom (1973), Brown (1973), and Cromer (1976), suggest that the child from infancy appears to be attempting to communicate meanings. Various aspects of normal language development have been studied with regard to situational cues, linguistic context, and parental interpretations to form some idea of what the child appears to be trying to communicate (Berko, 1958); Mecham, 1959; Brown, 1964; Menyuk, 1964). Brown (1973) specifically analyses the expression of meaning in his studies of three children. He found that in the earliest stage of language acquisition, language is not defined by age but by a mean utterance length. Bloom (1970; 1973) presents language comprehension evidence which illustrates the usage of concept possession before the usage of grammatical inflection proper for its linguistic expression. It is from this study that Bloom presents her syntactic development of negation and the three basic types of negation: nonexistence, rejection, and denial. The acquisition of concepts of time affect the ability to express new meanings. As in Brown's study, Bloom illustrated that the acquisition of time concepts, showed several different types of cognitions appearing to emerge at about the same age. Cromer (1976) states that what is developing is not a number of separate ideas but rather a new structure of the mind or a new set of cogni— tive operations that allow the emergence of these concepts. Piaget (1954i 1974) states that the child's per- ceptions, images, memories, and concepts are the data by which the young Child uses experiences within the environ- ment to construct a composite of reality. Language facili— tates the expression of one's ideas and understanding those of others (O'Brien, 1976). Language is " . . . an instru- ment of thought based on the child's sensory schemes and actions" (Higgins, 1973). Piaget's theories are based on longitudinal, coherent developmental stages where each stage is a prerequisite for those which follow (Piaget, 1974). According to Piaget, the child represents the world to himself through his interactions with the environ- ment during the first eighteen months to two years of life. This stage is called the period of sensorimotor intelli- gence. The Piagetian view of language builds on the cognitive abilities which arise in the sensorimotor period. Between twelve and eighteen months, comprehension and receptive abilities, such as following simple directions upon request, increases. The ability to label and express needs is used independently to control his environment (Bloom, 1976). As the child approaches the end of the sensorimotor stage, he realizes that he is an active per- son distinct from the objects he acts upon. This allows for a differentiation between himself and others resulting in the need for communication (Piaget, 1954; 1974). By age three, most children have learned to combine words. ‘Sentence construction ranges from agent-~object to agent--action or action--object. When the child becomes competent in utilizing three word constructs, there follows a period of expansion with adjectives and adverbs (Bloom, 1973). Moving into the intuitive phase of the preopera- tional stage of development, the normal four and five year old child with normal hearing and vision has unlocked the meaning of language. Their world of reality is extensive, providing them with sufficient data to use past tense, to compare, to seek answers to questions, to classify, to comprehend relationships, to use number concepts, to be proficient at the sensorimotor stage and to begin to organize thoughts and experiences at the preoperational ’level (O'Brien, 1976; Bloom, 1976; Piaget, 1974). Language Development of the Visually Handicapped For the visually handicapped child to relate to experiences meaningfully, to comprehend, to interpret and to respond (like the normal child), there are requisite skills necessary to interpret the experience within their linguistic system. Halliday (1976) has found that a visually handicapped child's development of expressive vocabulary depends on his ability in handling materials (haptic exploration), his ability to listen and attend to the environmental cues, and his ability to retain and attach information to objects or situations. Parnicky (1976) indicates that the early stimulation provided by parents to their blind children is of particular importance in the development of speech and language. He states that like all language developing infants, the visually handi- capped children vocalize and imitate the speech patterns and the language of their parents. However, in comparison to the sighted children who can see as well as hear the environment, the parent of the visually handicapped must provide certain opportunities for their infant to associate the experience, object or action to the spoken symbol of language. This orientation to language minimizes the focus on structure, syntax and transformation and emphasizes language acquisition and cognition in relation to the ”variables of experience, stimulation and motivation (O'Brien, 1976). No sensory modality is as complete as vision for richness in detail (Rogow, 1975). Neither the haptic nor the auditory modality becomes as dominant for the blind stu Ian VET. due Of da' Ga Of individual as vision is dominant for the sighted (Parnicky, 1976). Therefore, the blind or visually handicapped child needs, when possible, every experience to be in the richest form through sounds, smells, tastes and opportunities to touch and explore. If it is known that the blind child learns in the manner as suggested by Carolan (1973), Haupt (1964), Lowenfeld (1971), and Withrow (1976), should not the child be assessed in terms of what he/she brings cognitively and linguistically to the experience? Anderson and Smith (1975) in an unpublished pilot study suggested that the visually handicapped child's language skills cannot be measured adequately by the con- ventional and accepted assessments of their sighted peers due to the reliance placed on visual cuing. The alteration of awareness by haptic experience, an accepted accommo- dation for the visually handicapped (Cutsforth, 1966; Gallagher, 1975; Haupt, 1964), should be used in assessment of language as an evaluative strategy. Statement of the Problem If the receptive and expressive language develop- ment of the visually handicapped is to be assessed accu- rately, a universal test which accommodates their sensory deficit is needed. A language scale for the visually handicapped, such as the Rgpg, modified from the Egg, an existing preschool language assessment,:measures the sen- sory information, (e.g., haptic, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory) assimilated by the child. and may give a more accurate assessment of his/her language skills. It is the purpose of this study to examine the correlation between the scores attained on the Preschool Langgage Scale (Zimmerman, Steiner & Evatt, 1969) and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired of normal, sighted children, ages three, four and five years. Both the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Languege Assessment are diagnostic instruments designed to evaluate the verbal and expressive language skills of children; however, the latter is speci- fically designed for the visually handicapped child. The following questions are posed to consider the correlation between the language measures of the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired: 1. Is there a correlation between the performance scores of normal three, four and five year olds on the RELA and the PLS? 2. Is there a significant difference between RELA and PLS scores for normal three, four and five year olds? 3. Is there a correlation between the Auditory Comprehension scores on the PLS and the Receptive Language scores on the RELA f3? normal three, four and five year olds? 4. Is there a significant difference between the Receptive Language/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? 5. Is there a correlation between the Verbal Ability scores on the PLS and the Expressive Language in this 1. 10 scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year old children? Is there a significant difference between the Expressive Language/Verbal Ability mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? The following null hypotheses were to be examined study: There is no correlation between the performance scores of normal three, four and five year old children on the RELA and the PLS. There is no significant difference between the RELA and PLS scores for normal three, four and * — . five year old children. There is no correlation between the Auditory Comprehension scores on the Egg and the Receptive Language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year old children. There is no significant difference between the Receptive Language/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children. There is no correlation between the Verbal Ability scores on the Egg and the Expressive Language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year old children. There is no Significant difference between the Expressive Language/Verbal Ability mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children. CHAPTER TWO EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Subjects Ninety preschool children served as subjects in this investigation. They were distributed thirty to a group of three year olds (mean age 21g), four year olds (mean age g:g), and five year olds (mean age §:§). The subjects were enrolled in various preschool programs in Lansing, Michigan. The children were reported to have normal hearing and vision with no known handicapping conditions as determined by preschool teachers and records. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test was used to determine age-appropriate receptive language development. Test Materials Test materials for this investigation included the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn, 1965), Preschool .Language Scale (Zimmerman, Steiner & Evatt, 1969), and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired (Anderson & Smith, 1975). The Preschool Language gggle evaluates auditory comprehension and verbal ability within the construct of normal language development. The scale consists of a series of age—graded auditory ll 12 comprehension and verbal language tasks. The task items were given an age placement on the basis of age levels suggested by previously recognized developmental scales (Zimmerman et al., 1969). There were forty items with four tasks at each level for both test sections which are distributed equally across the ten age levels (from eighteen months to seven years). These items are outlined in Appendix B. The Preschool Language Scale consists of the following materials: 1 Preschool Language Scale Manual 1 Preschool Language Scale Picture Book 12 One-inch colored blocks 1 Small piece of coarse sandpaper. 1 Set of coins; quarter, dime, nickel, penny 1 Watch with sweep second hand The Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired is a scale designed to evaluate the receptive (auditory comprehension) and expressive (verbal ability) language of the visually handicapped child. The Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment was modeled after and follows a similar to that design of the Preschool Language Scale with accommodations in the test stimuli to replace visual cues. There were seventy-two receptive scale items and eighty-eight expressive items distributed across six age levels (from infancy to five years). These items are outlined in Appendix C. The Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment consists of the following materials: l3 1 Manual for administration of the Receptive- Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired (Experimental Form I) 1 Protocol booklet (Experimental Form III) 1 Test Kit (Experimental Form II) Procedure In the initial session of approximately ten minutes, each child was administered the Peabody Picture Vocabularnyest to determine age-appropriate receptive language. If the Child's mental age and receptive language age, as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, was within normal limits, the Child was accepted for testing. During the second session, approximately thirty minutes in length, the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment were introduced and administered. A description of these test items may be found in Appendix B and C. The gggg was designed to measure language age performance from Level 1, a pre- syntatic language stage, to Level 6, which corresponds with the developmental age of six years. The Egg measures language age performance from ages one and one-half years to seven years. The ngg and the Egg_were administered following all standard instructions. To allow for per- formance score comparisons, subjects were administered the age seven items on the Egg. However, Auditory Comprehen- sion, Verbal Ability and Language Age were computed at the six year level and month credits beyond that level were 14 not considered for this study. This was done in order to relate the gggg and egg scores within corresponding ranges. All of the testing and scoring was carried out by a single examiner to minimize tester variability. At each nursery setting, a quiet designated area was made available for testing, and each subject was assessed individually. The child was seated at a table across from the examiner. There was no prompting or cuing for unfamiliar scale items nor were observers present during the sessions. Verbal and social reinforcement such as . . . "good listening. I like how you are listening and telling me about . . . " was used throughout the testing intermittently and when appropriate. Analysis of the Data Standard scoring procedures for the Egg and the §gg§_were followed. Language age (in months) scores were obtained in six test categories: EE§ Auditory Comprehen- sion, Egg Verbal Ability, Egg Language Age, gggg Recep- tive, §§p§ Expressive, and gggg_Language Age in each of the three subject test groups. Raw scores for three, four and five year old subjects may be found in Appendix E. The language scores were compared using Pearson's Corre- lation Coefficient. §gg§.Receptive/ggg Auditory Compre- hension; §gg§_Expressive/ng_Verbal Ability; and gggg Language Age/Egg Language Age scores were paired in this correlation for all ninety subjects as a group. These 15 paired scores were also correlated using language age scores of each of the three test age groups. Twelve correlation coefficients were derived. Mean language scores were obtained in the six test categories. Mean scores were paired as in the Pearson's correlation for all ninety subjects as a group. These paired scores were also analyzed using mean language scores of each of the three test age groups. The resulting data was analyzed using a two tailed 't' test to determine the level of significant difference between these mean scores. Twelve 't' values were derived to be considered significant at the .001 level. Each subject's chronological age was compared to their language age score in the six test categories using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient. Finally, a one way analysis of variance was computed from the data to deter- mine the significant difference between test group levels for all six categories. Duncan's Multiple Range test p = .05 level provided tabular values for 'F' test ratios. CHAPTER THREE RESULTS The results of this investigation will be dis- cussed in four sections. In the first section, correlation of the paired language scores will be examined for group subject results and for each of the three subject age groups. Results are discussed with respect to hypotheses (l), (3), and (5). In the second section, significant differences between the paired mean language age scores will be examined for group subject results and for each of the three subject age groups. Results are with respect to hypotheses (2), (4), and (6). In section three, correla- tion of the language age scores with the chronological age of the total subject group and the three subject age groups will be examined. Finally, in section four, subject test group differences will be discussed with respect to the six language age test categories. The rawdata for the present experiment are found in Appendix E. Performance Score Correlation on RELA and PLS The six language test categories--Receptive, Expressive, and Language Age from the RELA and Auditory 16 l7 Comprehension, Verbal Ability, Language Age from the Eggf-were paired to examine between test correlation for the subjects as a group and specifically in each of the three subject age groups. Correlations for 'r' values may be found in Table 1. Each is significant for p at the .001 level (r = .3414, df = 88). Such levels of significance indicate support for the hypothesis that there is a high degree of relatedness in the performance scores of normal three, four and five year old children on the ngg and EE§ Language Age categories. Significant 'r' values also indi- cate support for the hypotheses that there is a high degree of relatedness between paired test categories Receptive/ Auditory Comprehension and Expressive/Verbal languages ages. The ggpa and the Egg then appear to be related in measuring language development. Performance Score Significance Between RELA and PLS The six language test categories: Receptive, Expressive, Language Age from the ggpa and Auditory Com- prehension, Verbal Ability, Language Age from the gage-were also paired to examine whether differences in scores between tests for the subjects as a group and specifically between subjects in each of the three test age groups were significant. Mean subject scores and the standard devi- ations from the mean for the group may be found in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. Using this data, "t" values were 18 vdhm. N H«« «awn. A He «has. ease. make. “WWW we” same. came. boom. mmww we” mmmm. seas. swam. Ommmm mom comm. meme. mmmm. «omsmuw .u. .H. .H. Hoe. N a mad momsmcmq\mma ommsmsmq muflawnd Hmnuo> coflmcmsmumeou anouwosd muomnnsm mqm\mqmm \m>wmmmumxm \m>wummomm .mamom Ommsmmeq Hoonomoum on» use ucmammmmmd Omonmcmq m>ammmumxmum>wumuomm Or» so mmuoom mocmEH0muom How mucmflowmmooo aceumamuuoo m.comummmuu.a manna Table 2.--Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Subjects as a Group, N = 90. Mean Deviation RELA Receptive 63.5 10.7 RELA Expressive 63.8 9.3 RELA Language Age 63.9 9.7 PLS Auditory Comprehension 59.8 12.0 PLS Verbal Ability 58.5 12.1 PLS Language Age 59.4 11.8 Table 3.—-Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Three Year OldISubjects, N = 30. Mean Deviation RELA Receptive 52.5 11.5 RELA Expressive 54.6 10.1 RELA Language Age 53.8 10.3 PLS Auditory Comprehension 47.0 10.2 PLS Verbal Ability 45.3 8.6 PLS Language Age 46.4 9.2 Table 4.--Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Distribution for the Preschool Language_Scale and the Receptive-Expressive Langpage Assessment for Four Year Old Subjects, N = 30. Mean Deviation RELA Receptive 67.2 4.5 RELA Expressive 66.6 4.2 RELA Language Age 67.3 4.0 PLS Auditory Comprehension 62.7 7.0 PLS Verbal Ability 61.6 7.5 PLS Language Age 62.4 6.6 Table 5.--Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Distribution for the Preschool Language Scale and the geceptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Five Year OldSfibjects, N = 30. Mean Deviation RELA Receptive 71.0 1.3 RELA Expressive 70.4 2.1 RELA Language Age 70.7 1.4 PLS Auditory Comprehension 69.8 3.4 PLS Verbal Ability 68.7 4.7 PLS Language Age 69.3 3.8 21 computed. These values are presented in Table 6. 't' values for the group in all paired categories are signi- ficant at p = .001 level. 't' values in the three year old Receptive/Auditory Comprehension category are significant at the p = .01 level and significant at the p = .001 level for the remaining two categories. 't' values for four year old subjects are significant at p = .001 level for each paired category, while 't' values for five year old subjects are n93 significant for Receptive/Auditory Comprehension or Language Age/Language Age paired categories. However, 't' value for Expressive/Verbal Ability is significant at p = .01 level for five year olds. Such levels of signifi- cance indicate support for the hypothesis that scores on the gggg_are significantly different from scores on the Egg for the group. Three and four year old scores on the paired categories are also significantly different between the §§g§_and EE§° However, five year old scores are generally n92 significantly different thus not rejecting the null hypothesis. Given the direction of the raw scores on each test category (see Appendix E), normal three and four year olds score significantly higher on the §§§a than on the E£§ whereas normal five year old's ngg scores are not increased significantly over PLS scores. Performance chge Correlation with Chronological Age Each test subject's age was computed and correlated with his/her language age on each of the six test 22 ucmowuflaoflm uoz«. omv.m u O .HO. N a. .«He.~ .mm.~ E.Ho.~ O>mm mom mn.m mm.e em.v usww New nm.m ~o.n «ma.m mmumw “mm mm.n mm.> ma.m omswuw .u. .u. .u. see. A a mod momsmcmq\mm< momsmcmq huHHwnd Hmnum> scamgwnmumeou muoufipsm muomnnsm mamxaamm \m>ammoumxm \m>flumoowm .ucmEMmmmm¢ wmmsmcmq m>ammoumwmnm>wummomm Gnu cam mamom mmmsmsmq HoosOmmum we» so mouoom new: confine MOM mOsHm> .u.IT.m OHQMB 23 categories. These 'r' values for the group of subjects may be found in Table 7. Each 'r' value is displayed at its specific significance level (r = .3568). This indicates that subject scores follow a developmental progression increasing from three to four to five year olds with a proportionate increase in the age appropriate language score. Taken by individual ages, however, the disparity between chronological age and language age score is more striking. For three year olds, EE§ category scores are closely related to chronological age at the p levels indicated. Three year old scores on the Rgg§_categories do not appear to highly relate chronological age to language age. For four year olds in all six test cate- gories, chronological age is related to language age but not at highly predictable p levels on either theggg or §§pa test categories. For five year olds in all six test categories, chronological age is related to language age. Since individual subject age group scores are distributed in developmental progression, the Group 'r' coefficient thus shows a correlation between chronological age and test category language age scores. A hypothesis for this disparity will be discussed. gignificance of Performance Scores Between Subject Groups The above results suggest that normal three, four and five year old language scores on the PLS categories correlate with and differ from normal three, four and five 24 mmmm. N H mmmm. mama. meow. moan. mmoh. mmon. Hoe. H a sec. N a Loo. N a goo. N a Hoe. N a sec. N m .H. .H. a“. .H. .H. .H— Omd mmmsmsmq muflflwnd Hmnum> COHMMMMMHMWOU mod mmmsmsmq m>flmmmumxm m>Hummomm mam mum mqmv «4mm 5mm 3mm .om N z .msouw m mm muomwnsm How ucmsmmmmmd mmmsmgmq m>wmmmumxm To>wumoomm may use mamom mmwsmsmq Hoosommum man so mmuoom mmmsmsmq Cues mausoz SH mod HMOHmoaosouno How mugmwowmmmoo SOHHMHOHHOU m.somummmau.n manna 25 year old paired categories on the gggg. Table 8 shows the data used to compute a one way analysis of variance to determine significant difference between the subject popu- lation age groups. 'f' ratios are shown to be significant at an 'f' probability of p = .000. Three year old scores differed significantly from four year old scores which differ significantly from five year old scores in all six test categories. A Duncan Multiple range post hoc test (p = .05 level) was applied to the means to identify age groups that might differ significantly from all other groups. Results showed that no age group differed more significantly from the others at the p = .05 level. This may be a result of individual variation rather than age 0 26 m.oo u m ems mmmsmcmq T «A m>wmmmumxm T mxm O>Hummomm T 0mm mum mmwsmgmq I «A speaena Hannm> I a> sowmcmnmumeoo muouaosm I Ode oHH~.~o mmm¢.~som so .mmuo segues Hams mo< ooo. oom.om mmm~.oom~ sooo.oosv N .mmuo ammsumm an aqaqmm mams.ae , soos.o~om so .mmuw :Aauez new» use ooo. ~oo.oe oooo.ovo~ oooo.mooo N .mmuo ammzumm an mxmaqmm ooso.~m soo~.omme so .mmuo segues use» «me ooo. osm.em HHHo.Heo~ -~o.moom s .mmuo ammzumm sn ommaqmm sosa.oo mmmm.aoae so .mmue :Aaufls “new mom ooo. oo~.oo mmma.omae soo~.~Hmo m .mmuo cmmsuom sh «swam mmo~.Hm sooa.omeo so .mmuo agape: Hams woe ooo. mao.eo osso.mome omma.oaoo m .mmuo :OOSuOm an 4>mqm ooo~.mm mmms.oooo so .mmuo :AauAE new» moa ooo. ~eo.os mmmo.oooe sooo.aoao s .mmue ammzumm an oamqm . mmumsvm mwumsvm nous .e. chums .o. new: we saw as m Ammanmflum> .usmfimmmmm< Ommsmsmq o>wmmmumxm I0>Humoomm use mamom mmmsbcmq Hoonommum Ham mocmwum> mo OAOMHmsd was Osoln.m OHQMB CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION General Discussion The purpose of this investigation was to compare the performance scores of normal preschool children on the Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired and the Preschool Language Scale to determine whether the RELA, a modified language scale from the PLS, correlated with the PLS. The following questions were suggested for investigation: 1. Is there a correlation between the performance scores of normal three, four and five year old children on the RELA and the PLS? Is there a significant difference between RELA and PLS scores for normal three, four and five year oIds? Is there a correlation between Auditory Compre- hension scores on the Egg and the Receptive language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year olds? Is there a significant difference between the Receptive/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three, four and five year olds? Is there a correlation between the Verbal Ability scores on the Egg and the Expressive language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year old children? 27 28 6. Is there a significant difference between the Expressive/Verbal Ability mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? The results of this study support the hypotheses stated. The results indicated a high correlation between the performance scores of normal three, four and five year olds on the gggg and the Egg. This suggests that as a group and within subgroups, normal children generally performed on both tests in an age-predictable manner. The gggg seems to be a valid adaptation of the Egg measuring similar language skills. §§g§_raw scores were signifi- cantly higher for group scores and for three and four year old subgroups, but not for the five year old subgroup. The findings of this study indicate that five year olds ’perform the same on both tests in all areas. The distri- bution of performance scores with respect to chronological age for the group (n = 90) and within the subgroups is a linear progression as would be expected with regard for normal language development. The three year old subjects perform more within their expected developmental age range demonstrating few four year old language skills, whereas scores for the four year old subjects extend widely across all test categories. The five year old group was highly concentrated within the expected sixty to seventy-one month age range. Between the test categories-~Expressive/ Verbal Ability, and Receptive/Auditory Comprehension-- scores correlated for group and subgroup performance. 29 There was a significant difference between these test categories for the group as well as three and four year old subjects. The five year old subjects did not demon- strate a significant difference for the Receptive/Auditory Comprehension paired category nor for the Language Age/ Language Age paired category. Five year old differences were significant only for the Expressive/Verbal Ability category at the p = .01 level. The RELA and PLS as Test Strategies for NormalPChildren Both the Egg; and the Egg follow a normal sequen- tial development of language in the test items. Performe- ance scores, then, on both tests are distributed in a pro- gressive linear manner from three to four to five year old age groups. The Egg collapses the third dimension into pictorial representations, whereas the gggg is three dimen- sional throughout the test design. The presentation differences between the two test's items may cause a discrepancy between the chronological age of the subjects and their language scores. The three year old subjects were able to manipulate the materials and score higher on the gggg. At this age level, this may be the result of the fact that this popu- lation is still more psychomotor and sensorimotor oriented even though they are in a preoperational stage of develop- ment according to Piaget (1974). Their cognitive ability 30 is not as complex as that of four or five year olds. Even though the three year old subjects scored on the ggg_as their chronological age would suggest, they scored signifi- cantly higher on the gage. This difference in scoring between the testing instruments may reflect the quality of materials, availability to manipulate, more sensory infor- mation, (haptic, olfactory, gustatory, auditory, visual) and the difference in which the materials are presented. It is shown by the 'r' values (Table 1) that scoring high on the Egg items found correspondingly high scores on items of the gggg. However, the significance of higher scores on the §gg§_within this study may be directly related to the manner of item presentation. This is possibly one explanation for the finding that chronological age does not correlate with language ages in the test categories. While group scores give some predictability, these differ- ences may also be related to the homogeneity of the groups and the effects of the preschool language experience. The current emphasis on the development of lis- tening and verbal skills as well as problem solving skills seems to provide the four year old children with skills not necessarily possessed by the majority of four year old Children when the Egg was designed (1969). This trend of early pre—academic training seems to be extending the level of performance in the broad area of language more rapidly than the PLS is designed to measure. 31 The four year old subject skills extend from the thirty-sixth to the seventy-first month range. This illu- strates their developmental period where it is sometimes necessary to deal with the sensory input in order to prob- ,lem solve. The five year olds as a group, as indicated by Piaget (1974), are at a developmentally higher level of the pre-operational stage where sensory integration has taken place and more complex cognition affects their performance. The additional sensory information for this subgroup on the §§g§_test items is not needed to process information accurately. The additional sensory information is secon- dary now in importance to the acquired cognitive skills. Hence, the gggg_may not be as advantageous as an evaluation scale for this age group as for the other less sensory integrated subgroups. The RELA as a Test Strategy for the Visually Handicapped The 3g 5 may be able to evaluate the language development of the visually handicapped utilizing the alteration of visual test items. Based on the reality of the item presentation, language skills are measured whether elicited by two dimensional visual cues or the three dimensional object relationships. The results of this study with normal preschool children suggest that language of the visually handicapped may not only be measured using the RELA; but if they were able to perform the visual type 32 items of the Egg, their scores would not only be related but would also reflect the same acquisition of language development skills. Further study on the §gg§_may show it to be a useful test for the visually handicapped population. One consideration for the visually handicapped child prior to testing is the involvement that the child has had with the environment. If the child has not had the vast experiences as suggested by Parnicky (1976) as lan- guage learning takes place, the gage may indicate areas in which language developmental delay may occur. The §§p§ would indicate the child's cognitive and linguistic skills as compared to his sighted peers but also indicate areas that need attention in order for further language develop- ment to take place. Not to recognize objects, sounds, smells or tastes in the environment presents crucial clinical implications with regard to the development of more complex cognitive skills. The gggg_seems to provide the visually handicapped with the use of other sensory opportunities to process information during the testing procedure even though none of these are as rich as the visual (Rogow, 1975). When a visually handicapped child does not utilize modes of haptic, olfactory, gustatory or auditory exploration or awareness, this can indicate the lack of opportunities the child has had. Possibly, pro- cessing is done by parents; therefore, a reliance on others is established. If normal children progress through stages 33 and if it is known that the visually handicapped develop as their sighted peers, then the implications to skip stages because of a dependence on significant others has a direct relationship towards the further development of abstract reasoning and problem solving skills. Successful completion/acquisition of higher cognitive skills at the operational level are requisite on the development of sensorimotor, psychomotor and pre-operational skills. Based on the findings of this study, the ggpa can be used as an evaluative instrument to determine the language development of normal preschool children and may also be used as a diagnostic instrument to indicate areas which need further remediation. Due to the maximum oppor- tunity to manipulate the test materials, normal preschool children may perform more closely to their true language age. Further research may show that the gggg may be used to compare the language development of the visually handi- capped with that of their sighted peers. CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It was the purpose of this investigation to compare the performance scores attained on the gggg and the §E§ of normal, sighted children ages three, four and five years. The nggiis a proposed language assessment tool specifi- cally designed to measure the receptive and expressive language abilities of a visually handicapped population. The Preschool Language Scale (Zimmerman, Evatt, Steiner, 1969) is an evaluation instrument used to detect language strengths and deficiencies in primarily normal children. Subjects were ninety normal children, aged 3-0 to 5-11 years, with no known handicapping conditions. All subjects were administered the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test as a screening device to document age appropriate receptive language development. The Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for the Visually Impaired and the Preschool Language Scale were also administered to the test popula- tion. Six experimental questions were asked: 1. Is there a correlation between the performance scores of normal three, four and five year olds on the RELA and the PLS? \ 34 35 Is there a significant difference between RELA and PLS scores for normal three, four and five year olds? Is there a correlation between the Auditory Compre- hension scores on the Egg and the Receptive Language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year olds? Is there a significant difference between the Receptive Language/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? Is there a correlation between the Verbal Ability scores on the Egg and the Expressive Language scores on the RELA for normal three, four and five year old children? Is there a significant difference between the Expressive Language/Verbal Ability mean scores for normal three, four and five year old children? The salient results of this investigation may be summarized as follows: 1. There is a correlation between the RELA and egg language performance scores for normal three, four and five year old children as a group and within specific age groups. A significant difference between the performance of normal three and four year olds was evidenced between the RELA and PLS. Normal five year old Children did not perform significantly different between the RELA and PLS though their scores did correlate. The paired categories of Receptive/Auditory Com- prehension correlated for group as well as sub- group language scores. There was a significant difference between the Receptive/Auditory Comprehension mean scores for normal three and four year olds but not for five year old children. The paired categories of Expressive/Verbal Ability correlated for group as well as subgroup language scores. 10. 36 There was a significant difference between Expressive/Verbal Ability mean scores for the group and normal three, four and five year old children. Language age scores on the RELA and PLS correlated for the group, three, four and five year old children. The Language Age paired categories were significant for the group, three and four year olds but not for five year olds. Chronological age correlation with Language age results correlated only for group test situations. The results of this investigation are in general agreement with previous literature, in as much as accommo- dation is an acceptable procedure when dealing with the visually handicapped population. Where developmentally age and skill appropriate the additional sensory informa- tion contributed to the performance scores. At the higher level of development, the additional sensory information did not affect the performance. The following conclusions appear warranted: The RELA as a modified language scale measures language development of preschool children. The accommodations that are part of the RELA design do not appear to interfere with the correlation of the RELA and the PLS. Children who are developmentally at a lower level within the pre-operational stage of development score higher on the RELA than on the PLS utilizing the additional sensory input. A developmental distribution of scores was followed on both the Egg_and RELA for this experimental group. The significant differences between groups was uniform. 37 Implications for Further Research In the past, there has not been available a compre- hensive test to evaluate the language of the visually handicapped preschool population. This low incidence population has recently received attention within the literature as requiring sensory accommodation. This con- cept was the basis of the development of the Receptive— Expressive Language Assessment by Anderson & Smith (1975). This study is the first examination of the §§g§_with respect to an existing language scale. Normal children's performance scores were compared in order to determine the validity of the ggpa as a language measure. The results appear to indicate that the ggg§_measures language, receptive and expressive, with a high degree of accuracy for normal children. There is a need for further research to determine the use of this instrument with the visually handicapped. Additional research is also indicated in comparing visually handicapped scores on the Benn with an age matched population of sighted children on the PLS. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MAXFIELD-BUCHHOLZ COMMUNICATION ITEMS APPENDIX A MAXFIELD-BUCHHOLZ COMMUNICATION ITEMS Description of the Communication Items on the Social Maturity Scale for Blind Preschool Children: Maxfield- BuchhoIz Scale. Year 0 - I (16)* Inhibits simple acts upon familiar commands (15) "Talks,” imitates speech patterns Year I - II (23) Makes positive response to simple command or request (32) Says two or more words which have definite mean- ing for the child (37) Indicates needs or desires Year II - III (44) Uses names of familiar objects (51) Talks in short sentences ~~—_—-—-—-———-_———‘—__——-_—‘_— Year III - IV (61) Relates experiences (64) Uses pronouns, "1,“ "Me," "you," with some under- standing (66) Uses past tense and plural forms correctly 38 39 Year IV - V (81) Asks questions about meaning of words, how things work and what they are for (83) Tells a long familiar story of at least two or three episodes, possibly with some change in detail *The number in parenthesis refers to Maxfield- Buchholz scale number. APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE APPENDIX B DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESCHOOL LANGUAGE SCALE Auditory Comprehension Age Level Auditory Comprehension 1 year 6 months 2 years 2 years 6 months Recognizes doll parts to indicate SELF-CONCEPT STRUCTURE. Follows directions to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF DISTINCTIVES. Looks attentively to indicate FREEDOM FROM DISTRACTABILITY. UNDERSTANDS QUESTIONS Recognizes doll parts to indicate SELF-CONCEPT STRUCTURE. Follows directions to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF DISTINCTIVES. Identifies pictures to indicate LABELING RECOGNITION. Discriminates pictures to indicate DIFFERENTIAL CLASSIFICATION. Understands the concept of the number egg to indicate QUANTITATIVE COMPREHENSION. Compares size to indicate SIZE CONSERVATION. Understands use to indicate ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECT EXPERIENCE. Follows simple commands to indicate OPERATIONAL CORRESPONDENCE. 40 41 Age Level Auditory Comprehension 3 years 1. Recognizes action to indicate ACTIVITY SENTENCING DISCRIMINATION. 2. Distinguishes prepositions to indicate PREPOSITIONAL DICTINCTIVES. 3. Understands use to indicate ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECT EXPERIENCE. 4. Distinguishes parts to indicate DIFFERENTIAL PART-WHOLE CLASSIFI- CATION. 3 years 6 months 1. Recognizes time to indicate TEMPORAL ORDERING. 2. Compares size to indicate SIZE CONSERVATION. 3. Matches sets to indicate OPERATIONAL CORRESPONDENCE. 4. Groups objects to indicate CLASSIFICATION INTEGRATION. 4 years 1. Recognizes colors to indicate COLOR RECOGNITION. 2. Distinguishes prepositions to indicate PREPOSITIONAL DISTINCTIVES. 3. Differentiates texture to indicate TACTILE COMPREHENSION. 4. Understands use II to indicate CONCEPT ACQUISITION. 4 years 6 months 1. Recognizes colors to indicate COLOR RECOGNITION. 2. Touches thumbs to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF. 3. Understands the concept of the number three to indicate QUANTITATIVE COMPREHENSION. 4. Understands use II to indicate CONCEPT ACQUISITION. 42 Age Level Auditory Comprehension 5 years 1. Comprehends right to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF. 2. Taps rhythm to indicate ATTENTIVE AUDITORY IMITATION. 3. Distinguishes weight differences to indicate CONSERVATION OF SIZE. 4. Knows body parts to indicate SELF CONCEPT. 6 years 1. Comprehends directional commands to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF. 2. Counts blocks to indicate CONCEPT OF QUANTITY. 3. Distinguishes animal parts to indicate CLASSIFICATION CONCEPT. 4. Adds numbers up to five to indicate ABSTRACT COMPUTATION. 7 years 1. Comprehends directional commands to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF. 2. Counting taps to indicate AUDITORY ACUITY. 3. Coin values to indicate CONCEPT OF QUANTITY. 4. Adds and subtracts numbers up to ten to indicate OPERATIONAL CORRESPONDENCE. Age Level 43 Verbal Ability Verbal Ability 1 year 6 months 2 years 2 years 6 months 3 years Uses ten words to indicate VERBAL FLUENCY. Names one picture to indicate AVAILABLE VOCABULARY FOR LABELING. Asks for simple needs to indicate VERBAL NEED COMMUNICATION. Echoes or imitates to indicate VERBAL IMITATION. Combines words to indicate EARLY GRAMMATICAL SENTENCING. Names objects in environment to indicate CONCRETE OBJECT LABELING. Uses pronouns to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF SELF. Refers to self by name to indicate SELF CONCEPT. Repeats two digits to indicate ATTENTIVE VERBAL IMITATION. Names objects in environment to indicate CONCRETE OBJECT LABELING. Sentence repetition to indicate MEANINGFUL IMITATION. Pronounces sounds correctly to indicate CONSONANT ARTICULATION. Repeats three digits to indicate ATTENTIVE VERBAL IMITATION. Uses plurals to indicate QUANTITATIVE VERBALIZATION. Comprehends physical needs to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCRETE EXPERIENCE. Gives full name to indicate SELF CONCEPT. 44 Age Level Verbal Ability 3 years 6 months 4 years 4 years 6 months 5 years Converses in sentences to indicate ELEMENTARY ADULT SENTENCING. Counts to three to indicate CONVERSATION OF NUMBERS. Comprehends physical needs to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCRETE EXPERIENCE. Pronounces sound correctly to indicate CONSONANT ARTICULATION. Repeats sentences to indicate MEANINGFUL IMITATION. Knows opposites to indicate TRANSDUCIVE THINKING. Comprehends physical needs to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF CONCRETE EXPERIENCE. Counts to ten to indicate NUMERICAL UNIT SERIATION. Repeats four digits to indicate ATTENTIVE VERBAL IMITATION. Knows opposites to indicate TRANSDUCIVE THINKING. Comprehends senses to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF EXPERIENCE. Comprehends remote events to indicate ANALYSIS OF EXPERIENCE. Knows coins to indicate LABELING AVAILABILITY. Names animals to indicate CLASS INTEGRATION AVAILABILITY. Comprehends senses to indicate DIFFERENTIATION OF EXPERIENCE. Pronounces sound correctly (III) to indicate CONSONANT ARTICULATION. 45 _ .———.—-. '. Age Level Verbal Ability 6 years 1. Repeats four digits to indicate ATTENTIVE VERBAL IMITATION. 2. Names animals to indicate CLASS INTEGRATION AVAILABILITY. 3. Knows morning vs. afternoon to indicate TEMPORAL ORDERING DIFFER- ENTIATION. 4. Pronounces sound correctly (IV) to indicate CONSONANT ARTICULATION. 7 years 1. Repeats five digits to indicate ATTENTIVE VERBAL IMITATION. 2. Sentence building to indicate FORMAL ADULT SENTENCING. 3. Knows address to indicate SELF CONCEPT. 4. Pronounces sentences correctly to indicate SENTENCE ARTICULATION. APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C DESCRIPTION OF RECEPTIVE-EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT Receptive Level Receptive I l.-5. Sound response behavior 6. Responds to inhibiting word 0-12 months 7. Comes when called 8. Follows directions II Gives object on request Identifies one body part Identifies common objects Auditorily attends to song on cassette tape 5. Differentiation between 'you' and ImeI 6. Responds to quantitative task 7. Auditory recognition of objects 8. Appropriately demonstrates actions 12-18 months ebb-3N!“ O O 0 III 1. Identifies five objects 2. Points to three body parts 18 months-2 years 3. Demonstrates understanding of simple questions by gesture or verbal response 4. Follows directions 5. Carries out instructions which demonstrate understanding of the prepositions: on, into, out of, up and down 46 47 Level Receptive IV 1. Responds to quantitative task 2. Object discrimination 2-3 years 3. Follows instructions which demon- strate understanding of: inside, beside, behind, in front of, and under V 1. Responds to qualitative task 2. Discriminates between activity and 3-4 years its sequence 3. Classification VI 1. Child demonstrates by the use of syntactical agreement the concepts 4-5 years of past and future 2. Follows instructions which demon- strate understanding of: between, behind, above and toward 3. Gives opposites for selected words 4. Comprehension of numbers two and three 5 Composition Understands function 48 Expressive Level Expressive I 1. Variation in tone, inflection or rhythm of voice 0-12 months 2. Smiles, coos, laughs in play situation 3. Vocalizes in protest in order to regain an object 4. Imitates vocal sounds 5. Babbles 6. Vocabulary list 7. Child imitates with gesture II 1. Observable jargon and varied vocal inflection during free play 12-18 months 2. Intelligible words during play 3. Vocal response to rhythm and music on cassette tape 4. Verbalizes social responses 5. Vocabulary list 6. Child verbalizes immediate experi- ences when engaged in play 7. Incorporation of two word phrases into spontaneous speech 8. Verbalizes needs 9. Echoes or imitates two different words III 1. Responds to "What is your name?" 2. Uses two to three word combinations 18 months-2 years when describing action 3. Child names objects from environ— ment Pronoun usage Names foods Elicitation of body parts Memory for sentences I \lO‘U‘lub 0.. 49 Level Expressive IV 1. Understands function 2. Digit span I 2-3 years 3. Names environmental sounds 4. Memory for sentences II 5. Describes textures 6. Incorporation of three to four word phrases into spontaneous speech . Incorporates plurals in responses . Elicitation of body parts Names articles of clothing Now“ 0 V Comprehends and finds reasons I Digit span II Sex discrimination Synthesis of function Names objects 3-4 years UIObUJNH VI Comprehends and finds reasons II Defines words in terms of function Describe items Memory for sentences III . Digit span III Comprehension of number four 4-5 years GWBWNH O O 50 Amqmmv OHM umma uucmfimmmmmm How mamwnmumz umsfiemxm up new: On 0» T Hansen .x noon umoo mcmuufle magma mucmmuoocs swarm mROOm mmOHU "mswnuoao mo moaofluum .m AmmmHm no money mmmam Ono .« noumz .: umummn one aunt hon .m Ocean .m mflxooo .m season .0 Games .0 Hmesm ommmsum anus“ .n umouoomu was» muummmmo .m “Oswemxm an COHHQQSm we on mEOuH Awe mxooHn HHx neon Ame mumocaaso Hx damn Amv mxooHp x moan loo muoocaaso xH mamas I each Ame mxooHn HHH> mama Ouummmmu OHOAAH a oAn T goods HH> axooHn Owns» mamzoo H> mauumu msoomm > hex T mOHnHme 03» I souusn T xon xooan .suoHozmm3 .mummmcuoou >H nuoHonmm3 can mmom nEoo .nmsunsuoou .mmmam HHH coomm .xuom .Omwsx mamas .RAOM .Hamn HH memes 03» 002m .soomm .050 H mumam mmso OBM mmumam mUOOfimo swoon APPENDIX D RECORDING FORMS AND SCORE SHEETS Aooa.x ¢w\¢4v ucmfiuoso mmmsmsmq Hocflamxm «\x«> + use Ova Hmowmoaosonno ammo no mean mmd Ommsmcsq mumcnuuwm mfimz woos x «O\a>o uaomuo masses ucmwuoso mos suaaena Hanum> xa ma ma ma xa ma ma ma ma ma xxxxxxxxxx tmmmmm mEOUH muse» s muse» m musmh m muse» we muse» e whom» mm muse» m muse» mm mums» m muse» ma emd “boa uaomuo mango: x m0\o mfimmmm mmoum DZfl mimom UZHQmOUMm ummmm whoom mfldom HUGDGZ¢A QOOmUmmmm Q NHDZWmmd c0flmcmnmumeoo mwouwosm 51 52 .e .v .e .v .v .v .v .v .v .v .MIIIII omllll .MIIII .MIIII oMII .MIII oMIlll oMIlIII .Ml oMl .NII .mll .NII .mll .NII. .NII .NII .NII .NTIT .mTI. All All .HII .Hl .all All .HII All All All g H883 Huang g H3»? Savage 2885 S0334 my a; mums».s Owe mumom.m Mme mums» m Nam endow m\a e Omfl mummm,v mmfl .fil .VIIIII 0V1. o¢llll o?! OVI o¢| owl oVullll. onlll. .MIII .MNIII oMlll .MIII oMIITI. .MIIIIII oMIIII. oMII-lu oMllll .Ml .NIII .Nllll oNllll oNIIII .NII oNllll oNlll .Nullll .anl .Nl .HII All All All. .HII .HII .HII All All All «my 338% 88:5 Emma HESS Sausage ASAP, 333% Tammy g mummN.m\H m amt mumoNTm mud mHOONTN\H N 0mg mummN N mam mumwm «\H H Owe swam mcaouoomm aflflUw MU¢DUZ¢A AOOflUmflmm u O52 53 N HH Emom AdfizfiZHmmmxm Aooa x ¢U\€Av Adm + Hmv ucmwuoso mmwsmcmq mmd momsmamq HogwEsxm mod Hmowmoaocounu mummsuuwm umma wo sumo wamz Aooa x ¢U\qmv Aooa x ¢U\Amv ucmwuoso ucmwuoso mom mmmsmcmq O>wmmmumxm was mmssmcmq m>wummomm .08 ms. x .m HO>Oq .06 m. x Annemamlmv .m Hm>mq .02 ms. x .m Hm>mq .OE m.H x Amumommuev .m Hm>mq .05 m. x .v HO>OA .OE ~.H x Annamaeumv .e HO>OA .oE o.H x .m am>mq .oe o.H x Amum0>mumv .m HO>OA .OE ~.H x .m Hm>mq .oE o.H x Amwmwmmuav .N Hm>wq .OE N.H x .H Hm>mq .OE o.~ x Amummwalov .a Hm>mq uflomuo ommmwm uwcwuo oommmm Hm>mq mnucoz mEOuH mango: mamuH mom em>Hmmmmmxme Rm>HammUmm« umwmw muoom .4.q.m.m 54 0.“ 0H I .n A ll .5 III I .ml .mvl .5 .ml .0 I a“ I no a” om cm I no I .mll .oll .m I .o .o .o .n .s 6 II .n .II .6 .s .o .n .3 0 mm o” 00 no I omhI owl o I o . am so on I an I O I ON-I I I .M II Me I .A .IT .3' .3' .ml .ol .6 II o m 0 0mm 00 ONI on I o I on I .MWIII .Q.III . III. .n.lll .U .s¢ .v .mv so I AmNI cm omv to a cm on .oITI .nIl .HTIT . ll ..nII. .nll .NTII . LI. .NTIT ”H x 0H 0..” ow.“ 0-H OH OH m>wnmonmxm 0>Hmmowmxm O>wmmmumxm 0>Hmmoumxu O>flmmmumxm O>wmmoumxm I .m I 00" .n .0 0mm om CO I O“ I I In I On I I .w .n .0 .mm .s O” I .mMI OnI On I .mI I 00 .3 Cum .0 On 00 so on CNN .0 on 0mm 00 om cam on on saw 0 on 00 I so I so I OMNI o I OMI ommI on I onI on I IQI o I ONI OFI .mv .MH .mH .Ma .H .H .0 O>wumoomm o>flummoom O>Humwoom O>fiumoomm o>wumoomm O>Hummomm o HO>OA m Hw>wa v Hw>wq m Hw>wq N Hm>mq a Hm>mq swam mgavuooem EZHSmmmmmd HUfiDUZflA W>Hmmmmmxmlm>HBmm0mm u 052 APPENDIX E RAW DATA APPENDIX E RAW DATA mango: CH mmd mmwsmsoq «gum mnucoz CH m>flmmwumxm «gum mango: CH m>fiummomm 44mm mango: cw mom wvmsmcmq mam mango: ca suaaana Hmnum> mam mnucoz Ca .meoo snouaosm mam mnunoz.cw B>mm Scum mod Hmucoz mango: CH mad HmowmoHosounO xmm nomnnsm cHo Hams manna 3-0 to 3—11 with x age of 3-5 (41 mo.) 55 56 mango: Ca 0mm momsmcmq 44mm mnucoz cw mbamwmumxm mqmm mango: as m>eummomm some mango: so 0mm mmmsmsmq mam mango: cw sueaena Hanum> mam mango: CH .QEOU muouwosc mam mnucoz CH B>mm scum mom amuse: mnuco: aw mod HMOflmoHOCOHzU xmm uwnEdz uomnnsm 0H0 “new usom 4-0 to 4-11 with x age of 4-6 (54 mo.) 16 14 57 mCuCoz CH mad wmmsmCmq 44mm mCuCoz CH O>Hmmmumxm «Hum mCuCoz CH O>Hummoom «Hmm mCuCoz CH $64 Tomsmcmq mam mango: CH suHHHnC Hanum> mam mCuCoz CH .QEOO muouHCCC mam mCuCoz CH B>mm Scum mod Hmquz mCuCoz CH omfl HCOHmoHOCouCU xmm Awnssz somHnsm CH0 new» OSHA 5-0 to 5-11 with x age of 5-5 (65 mo.) APPENDIX F LETTER TO PARENTS APPENDIX F LETTER TO PARENTS Michigan State University Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences Graduate Division Dear Parents, My name is Gloria M. Anderson and I am a Speech Therapist for Ingham Intermediate School District. At this time, I am completing my Master of Arts in Speech Pathology at Michigan State University. For the past two and one half years, I have been developing a language assessment scale for visually handicapped children. Presently, I will be attempting to establish the validity of the scale as my thesis requirement which has been approved by my thesis committee, and the Committee for the use of Human Subjects in Research (MSU Department of Speech Pathology). To establish the validity, a comparison is needed between the actual test scores of the language scale for the visually handicapped and the normal preschool language scale from which it is modeled. At this time, I would like to give both assessments to normal, sighted preschool aged children. I will be con- ducting my research project at Community Nursery summer term and would like your permission for your child to participate. From past experiences with the administration of these assessments, children generally enjoy their participation. The language scales are designed as activ- ities that are fun to do. The testing procedure would be as follows: (1) The Peabody Picture Vocabularnyest (Dunn, 1965) would be given to each child by a certified Speech Pathologist from the Ingham Intermediate School District. The speech pathologist in this case will be either Sherry Martin or myself depending on availability. 58 59 (2) Each child selected to participate in the study would be given the Preschool Language Scale (Zimmerman, Evatt, Steiner, 1969) and the * Receptive-Expregeive Language Assessment (Anderson, Smith, 1975). The total time necessary to com- plete the tasks will vary from ten to thirty minutes depending on the age and attention of the child. These voluntary sessions will average approximately fifteen minutes. The session will be conducted individually, by me at the center in a quiet area. (3) The only information needed about your Child is the first name, last initial and birthdate. If you are willing to allow your child to partici- pate in this study, please complete this form and return it to the Community Nursery office. I will forward a copy of the general findings of the study to each participating family regardless of whether your child is still enrolled in the center. Individual results will be kept confi- dential, anonymous, and will be used only in the validation process. If you have any questions about the project, please phone me at 332-4836 any evening. Sincerely, Gloria M. Anderson Masters Candidate in Speech Pathology *A short narrative describing each asseSsment is attached. The assessments will be available at your center to examine while I am conducting the study. I, parent of, your name child's name agree to the administration of the Peabodnyicture Vocabulary Test, geceptive-Expressive Language Assessment, ana the Preschool Language Scale at the Community Nursery during the week Ofk , 1977. "I understand that I will receive a copy of the general results of the study within a reasonable time after the study is completed. I further understand that if I should move from my present location, it is my respon- sibility to inform the investigator of my address change." Parent's Signature BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alder, H. L., & Roessler, E. B. Introduction to Proba~ bilityyand Statistics. San Franci§Co: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1968. Anderson, G. M., & Smith, A. Receptive-Expressive Language Assessment for Visually Handicapped PreschoOI’ChiIHren. Unpublished Study, Copyright Ingham Intermediate School District, Lansing, MI, 1975. Bell, V. H. An Educator's Approach to Assessing Preschool Visually Handicapped Children. Education of the Visually Handicapped VII(3), OctdBér 1975. Berko, J. The Child's Learning of English Morphology. Word. New York: Linguistic Circle, pp. 150-177, I958. Bloom, L. Language_Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970. Bloom, L. Language Development Review. In F. D. Horowitz (ed.), Child Develo ment Research. Chicago, IL: University of CHicago Press, I976. Bloom, L. One Word at a ggme: The Use of Single Word Utterances BéfOre Syntax. Le Hague: Mouton, 1973. Brown, R. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Brown, R., & Bellugi, U. Three Processes in the Child's Acquisition of Syntax. Harvard Educational Review 34:133-151, 1964. Carolan, R. H. Sensory Stimulation: Two Papers. The New Outlook, pp. 119-130, March 1973. Chase, J. B. Developmental Assessment of Handicapped Infants and Young Children: With Special Attention to the Visually Impaired. The New Outlook for the Blind 69(8): 341-349, October 1975. 60 61 Cromer, R. The Cognitive Hypothesis of Language Acqui- sition and Its Implications for Child Language Deficiency. Normal and Deficient Child Langnage. Baltimore, MD: University Pafk Press, 1976. Cutsforth, T. D. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Tactual and Visual Perception. Research Bulletin 12:23-47, 1966. Cutsforth, T. D. The Blind in School and Society. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1951. Dunn, L. M. PeabodyPicture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 1965. Gallagher, J. The Application of Child Development Research to Exceptional Children. Reston, Virginia: Council for Exceptional Children, 1975. Gotts, E. A., & Pearson, N. Caregiver--Infan£fiCommuni- cation Develqpment: Implications fer Training Personnel in the ggucation of the Severely Hangie capped. Austin, TX: University of_Texas, 1975. Halliday, D., & Kurzhas, I. W. StimulatingEnvirpnments for Children Who are Visually Impaired. Spring- field, IL: Charles C. Thomas Pub., 1976. Harley, R. K. Verbalism Among Blind Children: An_Investi- gation and Analysig. New York: American Foundation far the Blind, 1963. Haupt, C. Improving Blind Children's Perceptions. New Outlook 58:172-173, 1964. Hecht, P. Assessment and Specific Concerns of the Severely Visually Impaired Student: Final Report of the Institute, Michigan School for the Blind, Lansing, MI: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, June, 1975. Higgins, L. Classification in CongenitallyBgind: An Examination of Inhelder and PiageETs Theor . New Yofk: AmeriCan Foundation for the Blind, 1973. Lowenfeld, B. Our Blind Children: Growing and Learning‘ with Them. Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas, Pub., 1971. Maxfield, K. E., & Buchholz, S. A. A Social MaturiEnycale for Blind Children. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1957. 62 Mecham, M. J. Verbal Language Develgpment Scale. Spring- field, IL: Educational Test Bureau, 1959. Menyuk, P. Syntactic Rules Used by Children from Pre- school through First Grade. Child Development 35:533-546, 1964. O'Brien, R. Alive...Aware...A Person: A Developmental Model-Tbr Early ChildhOodTServices. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools, 1976. Parnicky, J. J. Using Audiovisual Media with Blind Learners. Language, Materials and Curriculum Management for the Handicapped Learner. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub., 1976. Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1954. Piaget, J. The Language and ThoughtL of the Child. New York: New American Library, December 1974. Rogow, S. Language Acquisition and the Blind Retarded Child. Education of the Visually Handicapped, pp. 36-40, May 1972. Rogow, S. Perceptual Organization in Blind Children. The New Outlook, pp. 226-233, May 1975. Rogow, S. Speech DevelOpment and the Blind Multi- Impaired Child. Education of the VisuallyyHandi- capped, pp. 100—109, December 1973. Siegel, G. M., & Broen, P. A. Language Assessment. In L. L. Lloyd (ed. ), COmmunication Assessment and Intervention Strate ies. BaItimore,J MD: Univer— sity Park Press, 19 6. S.P.S.S. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 6000 Update Manual Version 5.5, Vogelback Com- puting Center: Northwestern University, October, 1973. Tuckman, B. W. ConductingE Educational Research. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanoviéh, I972. Wessell, M. H. A Language Development Program for a Blind Language Disordered Preschool Girl: A Case Report. Journal of Speech and Hearin ng Disorders 34(3): 267-274, 1964. 63 Withrow, F. G., & Nygren, C. J. Language, Materials and Curriculum Management_£or the Handicapped Learner. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Pub.,91969. Zimmerman, I. S.; Steiner, V. G.; & Evatt, R. L. Preschool Lan uage Scale. Columbus, OH: C. E. Merrill Pub., 9 . "'iflifixmxjflflflfiufifiguiflfiflififiufigmfi{Mi ES