osha presentation 1 - oregon speech-language hearing ......osha presentation 1 ron gillam, phd, and...
Post on 29-May-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 1
RonGillam,PhD,andSandiGillam,PhDUtahStateUniversity
AssessmentofNarrativesinSchool-ageChildren
Disclosure
• RonGillamreceivesroyaltiesfromthesaleoftheTestofNarrativeLanguage- 2,whichisdistributedbyPro-Ed.
Today’sPresentation
1.Summarizekeyissuesinmeasuringnarrativecomprehensionandnarrativeproduction2.Explainthedifferencesbetweenanorm-referencedtestofnarration(TNL-2)andanarrativeprogressmonitoringtool(MISL)
a.Purposesb.Methodsc.Reliabilityandvalidityd.Useofscores
3. Clinicalapplications
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 2
StoryExample(ChildwithDLD)
(Umumtheleaf)theleavesiscomingout.Thinkitwasfun(becausebecause)becauseshejustneedtowanttoplayleaf.Andthenshejumpintheleaf.And(they)shewastrashX.Andthensheplayinthe>(Aagirl)agirldon'tknowthatshewanttogotothe(um)leafs.Andthen(andthenandthen)the(trees)treescoming.Andthenshejumping.Andthenshewillgetitalittledown.
What is Narration?nType of discourse involving orderly accounts of
real or imagined eventsnCoherent sequences of utterances with a
common themenCharacters, actions, complications, resolutionsnActions occur in temporal ordernCausal relationships between characters and actionsnCharacterʼs responses, reactions, feelings, thoughts
OverviewofNarration
• Whatarethecomponentpartsofanarrative?• Macrostructure(storygrammar+causalframework)
• Episodestructureandcomplexity• Microstructure
• Languageusedtoconveytheinformationinthestory• Cohesion• SentenceComplexity
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 3
Macrostructure
• AgentsCharacter
• Time&PlaceSetting
• TakeOffInitiatingEvent
• FeelingsInternalResponse
• ThoughtsPlan
• ActionsAttempts
• LandingConsequence
Episode structure Some robbers entered the Chicago Bank &
Trust. They demanded money and started shooting their guns in the air. Wonder Woman happened to be driving by when she heard shots coming from the bank. She knew the people inside needed her help. She decided to change into her Wonder Woman suit and get over there. She climbed up the back wall of the bank and went into an upstairs window. Once she got into the bank, the robbers started shooting at her.
She used her magic arm bracelets to knock away the robbersʼ bullets. Then she used her magic lasso to round them up until the police came. The police came and took the robbers to jail. The bank employees were grateful to Wonder Woman for saving their lives. Once again, Wonder Woman saved the day and showed that crime does not pay.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 4
Analysis of Rocket BoyRocket Boy lived in the year 2550 on the planet Zigvol. As he was flying to school one day, his rocket pack started to sputter. Rocket Boy was scared because he didnʼt want to be late for school. He thought, Iʼd better check the pluger hose. He reached back and found the problem - a hole in the pluger hose. Rocket Boy took some gum out of his mouth and covered the hole in the hose. His rocket pack roared to life. Luckily, he made it to school just before the bell rang. Rocket Boy was relieved. He thought, “Thatʼs why my parents always say to check the hoses on my rocket pack every day.” From that day on, he checked his pack carefully before he went anywhere.
Episode ComplexitynDescriptive Sequence – description with no
actionsnAction Sequence - chronology of actionsnIncomplete Episode - IE, A, or C missingnBasic Episode - IE, A, CnComplex Episode - multiple P, IE, or A with a
complicationnEmbedded Episode - multiple episodes
n(often C of 1 is the IE of 2)
Episodic Developmentn3 - 4, Descriptions - Setting/characters n4 - 5, Action Sequence - string of actionsn5, Basic Episode
nInitiating Event, Attempt(s), Consequencen6, Complete Episode
nInternal responses, Plans, Reactions, and Endings begin to appear
n7 - , Complex Episodes and Multiple Episode Stories
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 5
Story1
There’salotofkidsandparentsatthebeach.They’retryingtofindseashells.Andthey’regettingwet.
Story2
SoonceuponatimetherewereallofthesemenandtheywereonabikeraceinCacheVilosa.Andsotheydecidedtogetontheirbikesandwaitforthesignaltodropdownforthem.Sothat’swhattheydid.Sotheygotontheirbikesandstartedracingdowntheroadtrack.Andthat’smyverybeststory.
Story3OnceuponatimetherewasaboynamedRylanandhewasinahelicopterintheafternoontime.Hedecidedtojumpinhisbestbluehelicopterandgotinitandflewawayintothesky.Sothat’swhathedid.Hewasgoingtoflyinthehelicopteruntilitwaslunchtime.Butuhoh,hishelicopterfuelgaugesaidthathisgaswasabouttogetdeadsohedecidedtolandatahelicoptergasstation.Sothat’swhathedid.Helandedatahelicoptergasstation.Hegotgasandwentbackintohishelicopter.Hewenttohishouse,atelunch,andhadbiscuitsandgravyforlunch.Hefeltpleasedthathewasfinallyfull.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 6
Microstructureofliteratelanguage
•Complexsentences• Coordinatedconjunctions
• FANBOYS(for,and,nor,but,or,yet,so)• Subordinating(adverbialconjunctions)
• Beforeshestolethecandy,shemadesurenobodywaslooking.• YouhavetosnowboardfastdownthehillifyouwanttocatchAlex.
• Infinitives• Irantolookatthebeautifulsunset.• Iwantyoutocomewithmetoseethatsunset.
Morecomplexsentences
•ClausalComplements• Iknewshewouldn’teatdinnerwithhimaftertheargument.
•RelativeClauses• Subjective:Theboywhotoldonyoudoesn’thavemanyfriends.
• Objective:Isawtheboywhotoldonyou.
Microstructure
• Literatelanguage• Elaboratednounphrases
• Themean,oldgoat…• Adverbs
• When,after,if,since• Metalinguisticverbs
• Said,screamed,yelled,hollered,whispered• Metacognitiveverbs
• Thought,decided,wanted,planned
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 7
Microstructure
• Linguisticmarkersfortransitionsandelaboration• Temporal– first,next,before,after,when,while• Causal– because,since,so• Wordsthatindicateacomparison– also,but,however,aswellas• Adverbs– quickly,luckily,warmly
• Linguisticmarkersformentalandcommunicativefunctions• Mental– thought,wondered,worried,hoped• Communicative– said,yelled,whispered,told,
NarrativeComprehension• ConstructionIntegrationModel(Kintsch,2004,2013)
• Constructatextbase – literalrepresentationofwhatthetextsays
• Microstructure- Linksbetweenwordsinsentences• Macrostructure– hierarchical(temporalandcausal)relationshipsbetweenkeyelementsofthestory
• Integration– forasituationmodel(interpretationofwhatthetextmeans)
• Textbase +backgroundknowledgeinLTM• Requiresinferences
• Local– connectionsamongconcepts(temporalandcausal)• Global– linksbetweencharacters,initiatingevents,internalresponses,plans,actions,consequences,andreactions
Narrativeabilitypredicts• Orallanguageskillsingeneral(Bishop&Edmunson,1987;Fazio,Naremore &Connell,1996)
• Languagecomprehension(Bishop&Adams,1992;Gillam,Fargo&Robertson,2009)
• Reading(Cook&O’Brien,2014;Lapp,Flood&Farman,1989;Vandewalle etal.,2012;Zuckeretal.,2013)
• Readingcomprehension(Barton-Husey,Sevcik &Romski,2017)
• Writing(Bain,Bailet &Moats,1991;Koustsoftas &Gray,2012;Montague,1990;Scott&Windsor,2000)
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 8
Cultural Differences
nContexts for social usenContent
nMoral codenConcern with authoritynAutonomy and self-determinationnAggressionnEmotional expressiveness
nStructurenSimilar propositions, different arrangement
Children with Language Impairments
nMacrostructure LevelnGreater variability across contextsnIncomplete references to characters and story contexts
(Garnet, 1986)nFewer story grammar propositions related to character
plans, actions, complications, and reactions (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1992; Gillam & Johnston, 1992; Klecan-Aker & Kelty, 1990; Paul et al., 1996)
nLower holistic scores (McFadden & Gillam, 1996)
ChildrenwithLanguageImpairments
nMicrostructureLevelnRestrictedvocabulary(Garnet,1986;Greenhalgh&Strong,2001)
nFewercomplexsentences(Dollaghan&Campbell,1992;Gillam&Johnston,1992;Rileyetal.,2004)
nMoregrammaticalerrors(Gillam&Johnston,1992;Liles,Duffy,Merritt,&Purcell,1995;Scott&Windsor,2000;Rileyetal.,2004)
nFewerorproblematiccohesiveties(Boudreau&Chapman,2000;Pauletal.,1996;Strong&Shaver,1991)
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 9
PurposesofAssessmentTOOL PURPOSE
• Norm-referencedTests Determineextenttowhichachilddiffersfromsame-agepeersAssistswithdiagnosis
• DevelopmentalScales• Interviews/Questionnaires• Criterion-ReferencedProcedures
Establishbaselinefunction
• BehaviouralObservations• FunctionalAssessments• Curriculum-BasedAssessments
Identifygoalsforintervention
• ProgressMonitoringTools Proximalmeasuresofchangesthatarerelatedtotreatment
It is not valid to use tools for purposes for which they were not designed (e.g., standardized tests should not be used for monitoring treatment)
Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Elsevier.
Norm-referencedAssessment
TestofNarrativeLanguage- 2
Norm-referencedtestsofnarration
• RenfrewBusStory(Cowley&Glasgow,1994)• Expression,Reception&RecallofNarrationInstrument(ERRNI–Bishop,2004)
• EdmontonNarrativeNormsInstrument(ENNI– Schneider,Dube’&Howard,2004)
• TestofNarrativeLanguage– 2(TNL-2– Gillam&Pearson,2018)
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 10
RenfrewBusStory
• 3;0– 6;11• Retellastoryfromapicturebook• Informationscore(amountofinformationincludedfromoriginalstory)
• MLU(meanof5longestutterances)• Complexityscore(numberofsentencescontainingrelativeorsubordinateclauses)
Expression,Reception&RecallofNarrationInstrument(ERRNI)• 4– adult• TellandthenretelltheFishStoryortheBeachStorywithpicturecues• Measures:
• StoryContentRecalled• GrammaticalComplexity• Comprehension• Forgetting
EdmontonNarrativeNormsInstrumenthttp://www.rehabresearch.ualberta.ca/enni/• 4;0– 9;11• Generatestoriesfrompictures(2storysetsof3storieseach)• Scores
• StoryGrammar• FirstMentions• Languagesamplemeasures:MLCU,SyntacticComplexityIndex,No.ofWords,No.DifferentWords
• Normsfor2measureson377childrenfromEdmonton,Alberta,Canada
• AvailableinFrench
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 11
Storyinformation
score
MLCU SentenceComplexity
RBS– ENNI .08 .18 .07
RBS– TNL .34* .03 .19
TNL– ENNI .37* .39* .51**
Test of Narrative Language-2• Ages 4-15• Components of Language -
Language Use• Formats:
• Script-like story• Personal narratives (sequence
pictures)• Fictional narratives (single
picture of a scene)• Modality:
• Comprehension & Production
• No transcription - scored while listening to audiotape
• Test-retest reliability• Comprehension score - 85• Production score - 82• Total Score (combined) - 93
Comprehension: Script-like narratives
• McDonalds Story• examiner tells a script-like
story • unsolved problem at the
end • respond to literal and
inferential questions• solve problem
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 12
LiteralQuestions
• Text:OnTuesday,LisaandRaymondraninandthrewtheirbackpacksonthefloor
• Question:Whatdayoftheweekwasit?
InferentialQuestionsLisafinallymadeuphermind.Shetoldtheclerk,“I’llhavechickennuggets,aCoke,andanicecreamcone.”Lisa’smompaidtheclerkandwenttositdown.Whenshelookedup,Lisawasstandingtherewithabigbrownstaindownthefrontofhershirtandskirt.Lisastartedcryingandsaid,“LookwhatIdid!”
Local:WhatdidLisaorder?Elaborative:WhatkindoficecreamconedidLisaorder?Explanatory(causal):WhywasLisacrying?Predictive:HowwillLisa’smomgetthestainout?
Production: Script-like narrative• Child retells the McDonalds Story• Scored for
• Content• Setting, Motivating events, Actions, Consequences
• Temporal and Causal Conjunctions• Grammaticality• Dialogue• Coherence• Complexity
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 13
Comprehension: Personal Narrative
• Shipwreck• Sequence of 5 pictures • Examiner reads a story
– 1 episode• Child answers literal
and inferential questions about the story
Production: Personal Narrative
• Late for School• Sequence of 5 pictures about
a boy who is late for school.• Child creates a story.• Elaborative Inference required
Comprehension: Fictional Narrative
• Dragon Story• Fantasy picture (single scene)
about a dinosaur in a cave.• Examiner tells a complex story• Child answers literal and
inferential questions
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 14
Production: Fictional Narrative
• Aliens story• Fantasy picture with Alien
family.• Child creates story
Chapter2:Standardizedassessmentofnarrativeproficiency
ReliabilityTable5.6SummaryofTNL-2ReliabilityRelativetoThreeTypesofReliability(Decimals
Omitted)
Typeofreliabilitycoefficient
TNL-2values Coefficientalpha Test-retest Scorer
Comprehension 81 85 99
Production 87 82 99
NarrativeLanguageAbility 90 93 99
SourcesoftesterroraContent
heterogeneityTime
samplingInterscorerdifferences
Note.aThese sourcesoferrorvariancearefromPsychologicalTesting(7thed.,p.101),byA.AnastasiandS.Urbina,1997,UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
ContentValidityComprehension Production
Microstructure Literalquestions GrammaticalityandSentenceComplexity
Macrostructure Gap-fillingInferentialQuestions
StoryElements,Completeness,and
Complexity
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 15
ConstructValiditySample
1 2 3 4
Cattsetal(2015) Kim etal.(2014) Pearceetal.(2014)Montgomeryetal.(2015)
LanguageMeasures
GlobalLanguageScore .51(a) .56(b)
SentenceIm itation .53(c) .65(b) .51(c)
SentenceComprehension .57(b) .53(d)
ReceptiveVocabulary .64(e) .51(f) .61(g)
ExpressiveVocabulary .49(h)
ReadingMeasures
LetterNaming .32(i) .40( j)
ReadingComprehension .49(k) .46(d)
TOSREC .46
TOWRESightWordEfficiency .35
CognitiveMeasures
WorkingMemory .54(d) .50(l)NonwordRepetitionTest .319 .38 .305
RAN -.268(m) -.17(m)
Attention .37(n) .37(o)
ConstructValidityCorrelationCoefficientsBetweenTNL-2andMLU,NDW,NSS
(DecimalsOmitted)
TNL-2Values
SALTScores Study NComprehension
SubtestProductionSubtest
NarrativeLanguageAbility
Composite
MeanLengthUtterance 1 142 47* 49* 53*NumberofDifferentWords 1 142 38 57* 54*
NarrativeScoringSystem 1 142 47* 70** 66**
Average 44* 59* 58*
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 16
ConstructValidity:ComprehensionProduction
ConstructValidity:DevelopmentalSensitivity
TNL-2Subtest
Agein Comprehension Production
years n M (SD) M (SD)4 125 11 (07) 15 (09)5 147 18 (07) 23 (10)6 125 22 (08) 30 (12)7 138 28 (08) 38 (12)8 119 31 (07) 43 (12)9 112 31 (07) 47 (11)10 132 35 (05) 52 (10)11 135 35 (05) 52 (09)12-13 176 35 (05) 54 (10)14-15 101 36 (05) 54 (10)
Averagecorrelation .69 .71
Construct Validity: Diagnostic AccuracySensitivity - accuracy at diagnosing disorderSpecificity - accuracy at diagnosing non-disorder
+ Disorder - Disorder+ Disorder
- Disorder
Reference Standard
Index
ca b
d
Sensitivity = a/(a+c) = ____Specificity = d/(b+d) = ____
Sensitivity Specificity
Positive Predictive
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 17
ConstructValidity:DiagnosticAccuracy
CutoffIndexScore SD
PercentileRank
SensitivityIndex
SpecificityIndex
70 -2 2 .14 1.082 -1.2 12 .43 1.085 -1 16 .55 .9890 -0.7 25 .78 .9592 -0.5 30 .92 .92
SchoolDiagnosis
LLD non-LLD Total
TNL-2
LLD 47a 21b 68
non-LLD 4c 236d 240
Total 51 257 308Note.Sensitivityindex=47/51=.92;specificityindex=236/257=.92;classificationaccuracy=47+236/308=.92
aTruepositive; bFalsepositives; cFalseNegatives; TrueNegatives.
Normreferencedtestsofnarration• Shouldmeasurecomprehensionandproduction• Comprehensionitemsshouldincludebothliteralandinferentialquestions
• Inferences:text-connecting,gap-filling• predictive,explanatory(causal),elaborative(associative)
• Scorebothmacrostructureandmicrostructureelements• Reliability– item,test-retest,scorer• Validity– content,construct(developmental,diagnosticaccuracy)
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 18
ClinicalApplications
DelphistudyBishopetal,2016
nConsensus-buildingmethodn59expertsratedstatementsnComparisonofratingsnRe-ratestatements
nPredominantlyUKnAustralia,Canada,Ireland,NewZealand,USA
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 19
Diagnosticcriterian Performance<81(-1.25SD)onaGlobalLanguageTest
n CELF-5,CASL,TOLD-P
nObservations– childat-riskfordisvalueinimportantconversational/academicsettings
n Interviews– levelofconcernamongparentsandteachers
EpidemiologicalStudies
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 20
nParticipantsn7,019childrennAge5nIowaandWesternIllinois
Epi-SLIMultivariateAssessmentSystem
n2ormoreComposites:-1.25SD(81)nOverallscore:-1.11SD(83)
Receptive Expressive Composite
Vocabulary TOLD:PPictureIdentification
TOLD:POralVocabulary
VocabularyComposite
Grammar TOLD:PGrammaticUnderstanding
TOLD:PGrammaticCompletionandSentenceImitation
GrammarComposite
Narration NarrativeComprehension
NarrativeRecall NarrativeComposite
ReceptiveComposite
ExpressiveComposite
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 21
GillamstudiesReceptive Expressive Composite
Vocabulary CREVT- Receptive CREVT- Expressive CREVT– Composite(z-score)
Grammar CASL– SentenceComprehension,GrammaticalityJudgment
CASL– SyntaxConstruction,GrammaticalMorphemes
AverageZscore
Narration TNL -Comprehension
TNL- Production TNL – NarrativeLanguageAbilityIndex
Averagez-score Averagez-score
ZScoreTransformations
n(Score– Mean)/StandardDeviationnDeviationQuotient(M=100,SD=15)
n (83– 100)/15=-17/15=-1.13n (81– 100)/15=-19/15=-1.26
nScaledScore(M=10,SD=3)n (7– 10)/3=-3/3=-1.0n (6– 10)/3=-4/3=-1.33
Summary:LanguageImpairmentPhenotype
nUnusualdifficultiesunderstandingorusinglanguagen Don’tusenonverbalIQasexclusionarycriterianMorelikelytonormalizeinpreschoolersthanschool-agechildrennCo-occurswithotherproblems– motorskills,literacy,mathematics,socialization,behavior,informationprocessingskills
n Ispersistentafterage5(about70%ofchildrendiagnosedatage5stillhavelanguagedeficitsat19)
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 22
Atypical Narrative Discourse Abilities
nHome cultures may value different types of narratives than the ones used in school.
nChildren may have less experiences listening to and telling stories or with elaborative language.
nChildren may be poor language learners
Differentiating Language Difference fromLanguage Disorder (Laing & Kamhi, 2003)
nStandardized tests are nearly useless for differential diagnosis when culture or experience is an issue.nLinguistic and Content BiasnRepresentation of Minorities in Normative Samples
nObservation may not readily reveal whether problems are related to lack of experience or lack of language learning abilities.
n“Watch and See?”nProcessing dependent measures (NWR, CLPT) or interactive
assessment procedures such as dynamic assessment may be useful.
Pretest– Posttest
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 23
ProgressMonitoring
MonitoringIndicatorsofScholarlyLanguage(MISL)
ComprehensiveProgressMonitoringTool
• MonitoringIndicatorsofScholarlyLanguage(MISL)
• Spontaneouslygeneratednarrativeselicitedfromasinglepicture.
• Designedtomeasuregrowthinmacrostructure(character,setting,initiatingevent,internalresponse,attempts,consequence,internalresponse)andmicrostructure(coordinatingandsubordinatingconjunctions,adverbs,mental/linguisticverbs,elaboratednounphrases).
• Easytoscore
TranscribethestoryintoC-unitsListenforpausesandsentenceendingintonation(risingpitchonquestionsorfallingpitchonstatements)ascluesforutteranceboundaries.
Segmentintoutterancesthatcontainanindependentclauseplusitsmodifiers.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 24
C-unitscanbeincompleteForexample:nThedogaskedhim,“Where'sthecat?”n“Overthere."n"Oh,okay.”
C-unitscanbesingleclauseutterancesForexamplenJohnwantedthatball.nSusanwantedittoo.
CoordinatingConjunctionsnIfasubjectisstatedorrestatedafterthecoordinatingconjunctionsegmenttheutterancejustbeforetheconjunctionnJohnwasyelling.AndSusanwaslaughingathim.
nIfnosubjectisstatedafterthecoordinatingconjunction,donotsegmenttheutterancesuntilthenextmainclauseappearsnSusanwaslaughingandcryingatthesametime.Johncouldnʼtunderstandthat.
AC-unitcancontainanynumberofdependentclauses.
nSubordinatingconjunction- Mydogjumpedonherbecause shewantedto.
nAdverbialclause- Mydogjumpedonherrightaftershecamein.
nClausalcomplement- Shethought,Idon'tevenlikedogs.
nRelativeclause- Thedogthatmybrotherfound jumpeduponmyfriend.
nInfinitives- Mydoglikestojump uponpeople.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 25
TrysegmentingthisstoryintoC-units
WhenJenniferwas8yearsoldhermomhelpedherbuildashipforaschoolprojectwhenJenniferwastakingittoschoolshedroppeditinamudpuddlehershipwasbrokenanddirtyJenniferwasverysadandshestartedcryingthenshesaidtoherselfcryingwonʼthelpIʼmgoingtofixmyshipatschoolwhenshegottoherclassroomshecleanedoffthemudandtapedtheboatbacktogetherwhenherteachercameovershewassurprisedtoseeadirtyhalf-brokenshipthatwasheldtogetherwithtapeJenniferexplainedwhathadhappenedJenniferʼsteachersaidyoudeserveanAfortryingyourbesttosolveaproblemthatmadeJenniferveryhappy.
Story1
There’salotofkidsandparentsatthebeach.They’retryingtofindseashells.Andthey’regettingwet.
Story2
SoonceuponatimetherewereallofthesemenandtheywereonabikeraceinCacheVilosa.Andsotheydecidedtogetontheirbikesandwaitforthesignaltodropdownforthem.Sothat’swhattheydid.Sotheygotontheirbikesandstartedracingdowntheroadtrack.Andthat’smyverybeststory.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 26
Story3OnceuponatimetherewasaboynamedRylan.Andhewasinahelicopterintheafternoontime.Hedecidedtojumpinhisbestbluehelicopterandgotinitandflewawayinto thesky.Sothat’swhathedid.Hewasgoingtoflyinthehelicopteruntilitwaslunchtime.Butuhoh,hishelicopterfuelgaugesaidthathisgaswasabouttogetdead.Sohedecidedtolandatahelicoptergasstation.Sothat’swhathedid.Helandedatahelicoptergasstation.Hegotgasandwentbackintohishelicopter.Hewenttohishouse,atelunch,andhadbiscuitsandgravyforlunch.Hefeltpleasedthathewasfinallyfull.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 27
Wenevergivecreditforelementsthatarenotstatedexplicitly.TheMISListiedtoourintervention.Weteachtheelementsthataretested.
Ifyougivecreditforwhatyouthinkthechildmeant,thereisnowaytodocumentprogresswhenthechildactuallystateswhats/hemeans.
ReliabilityandValidity
• Reliability• InternalConsistency:Cronbach’salpha- .79• Inter-rater:95%
• Validity• ConstructValidity
• MacrostructureandMicrostructuredimensions• ConfirmatoryFactorAnalysis
• overallmodelfit:χ2(df =53)=81.27,p =.008,χ2/df ratio=1.53;CFI=.99;TLI=.98;• RMSEA=.06;andtheaverageWRMR=.82.
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 28
Story1
nThere’salotofkidsandparentsatthebeach.nThey’retryingtofindseashells.nAndthey’regettingwet.
Macrostructure0 1 2 3
Character
Setting
InitiatingEvent
InternalResponse
Plan
Attempt
Consequence
Reaction
Microstructure0 1 2 3
Coordinating
Subordinating
Mental
Linguistic
Adverbs
ENP
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 29
Story2
SoonceuponatimetherewereallofthesemenandtheywereonabikeraceinCacheVilosa.Andsotheydecidedtogetontheirbikesandwaitforthesignaltodropdownforthem.Sothat’swhattheydid.Sotheygotontheirbikesandstartedracingdowntheroadtrack.Andthat’smyverybeststory.
Macrostructure0 1 2 3
Character
Setting
InitiatingEvent
InternalResponse
Plan
Attempt
Consequence
Reaction
Microstructure0 1 2 3
Coordinating
Subordinating
Mental
Linguistic
Adverbs
ENP
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 30
Story3OnceuponatimetherewasaboynamedRylan.Andhewasinahelicopterintheafternoontime.Hedecidedtojumpinhisbestbluehelicopterandgotinitandflewawayintothesky.Sothat’swhathedid.Hewasgoingtoflyinthehelicopteruntilitwaslunchtime.Butuhoh,hishelicopterfuelgaugesaidthathisgaswasabouttogetdead.Sohedecidedtolandatahelicoptergasstation.Sothat’swhathedid.Helandedatahelicoptergasstation.Hegotgasandwentbackintohishelicopter.Hewenttohishouse,atelunch,andhadbiscuitsandgravyforlunch.Hefeltpleasedthathewasfinallyfull.
Macrostructure0 1 2 3
Character
Setting
InitiatingEvent
InternalResponse
Plan
Attempt
Consequence
Reaction
Microstructure0 1 2 3
Coordinating
Subordinating
Mental
Linguistic
Adverbs
ENP
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 31
Story4
Thekidiswake/ing up.Hehadtohurryforhegetlate.Hetie/edhisshoe/sbutitbrake.Hehadtogetinschoolbus.Butit/'stoolate.CHerantoit.CButnouse.CWhenhewalk/ed teacherisverymadathim.CThat/'sbecausehegotlate.CYepthebellring/3s.CButhe/'stoolate.CToolate.
Macrostructure0 1 2 3
Character
Setting
InitiatingEvent
InternalResponse
Plan
Attempt
Consequence
Reaction
Microstructure0 1 2 3
Coordinating
Subordinating
Mental
Linguistic
Adverbs
ENP
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 32
Story5• CMaxandBobwereatthefoothillsandtheyhavetwohorsesfortheirride.• CAndthenonenightawolf(was)wasnearbyandtheywerescaredbecausethehorsesweretheirride.
• CTheirplanisto(get,Imean)guardthehorses.• CThefirstthingtheydotheyguardthehorses.• CSecondtheylookoutforthewolfthenthewolfwasrunningtothehorsesbutthenbothofthemscaredthewolfandthewolfrantotherockymountains.
• CNowMaxandBobwerecalmbecausenowthewolfisnotgonna gettheirhorsesagain.
• CTheend.
Macrostructure0 1 2 3
Character JoeJoeyObwee
Setting Backyard Duringtheday,Lastnight,Thatday
InitiatingEvent Playinginmud Mombroughtbreakfastanddiscoveredkidshadmudalloverthem
Theydecidedtogotakeabath
InternalResponse Momsurprised(relatestotheirhavingmudonthem)
Plan Thoughtthey’dgofrommuddiesttonotmuddiestPlan,2st IE
Decidedthey’dhitthefaucet(Planin2nd episode)
Attempt Saidtheyhadtotakebath
Waterwasn’trunning/hitthefaucet
Consequence Theydecidedtogotakeabath
Gotclean
Reaction Happytheygotabath
Microstructure0 1 2 3
Coordinating Then,and
then
and but or
Subordinating what Before
Mental
Linguistic said like
Adverbs before so Allofa
sudden
before
ENP Hisfriend
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 33
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 34
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 35
Summary•Keyissuesinmeasuringnarrativecomprehensionandproduction
Comprehension Production
Microstructure
Macrostructure
RonandSandiGillam 10/2/18
OSHApresentation 36
Norm-referencedvs.ProgressMonitoring
•Purpose•Methods•Reliability•Validity•Clinicaldecisions
Examples•TNL– 2
•Content•Constructs•Psychometrics
•MISL•Content•Constructs•Psychometrics
top related