12 / 64
122
JCPSLP
Volume 17, Number 3 2015
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
of M-SLI’s utterances. In terms of some of the subtypes
of OT utterances, “comprehension monitoring” accounted
for 18.4% of all of M-ASD’s utterances, and 1.1% of all of
M-SLI’s utterances. Both M-ASD and M-SLI used a similar
proportion of OT utterances in the form of “praise” (8.2%
and 8.0% of all of their utterances, respectively).
Discussion
In this study we explored the characteristics of naturalistic
mother–child interactions during SR when a child had been
diagnosed with ASD or with SLI. Across the entire
interaction, M-ASD used more OT utterances compared to
EC utterances. OT utterances were defined as praise,
comprehension monitoring, and referring to images. This is
evident, for example, when she pointed to a picture during
the SR and explained “…bursting into flames. See, all the
bush here is on fire and the trees have burst into flames”. In
contrast, M-SLI demonstrated a clear preference for EC
utterances which pertained to providing the correct word,
sounding out (e.g., “Stay-di-um, stadium”), and
encouraging correction (e.g., “No, not ‘tried’, say it again”).
With regard to subtypes, M-ASD appeared to focus
more on OT utterances in the subtype of “comprehension
monitoring” compared to M-SLI. Previous research
suggests that some children with ASD experience particular
difficulties with reading comprehension (Arciuli, Stevens, et
al., 2013; El Zein et al., 2014; Nation et al., 2006). Although
C-ASD scored above average during standardised testing,
he appeared to exhibit a relative weakness with reading
comprehension in terms of reading the book we selected
for the current study. This was reflected in the proportion
of comprehension monitoring utterances used by his
mother in their interaction. By contrast, M-SLI had a
higher proportion of EC utterances in the subcategory of
“providing the correct word” compared to M-ASD. Previous
research suggests that some children with SLI experience
particular difficulties with reading accuracy (Catts et al.,
2008; McArthur et al., 2000). Although C-SLI scored above
average during standardised testing, he appeared to exhibit
a relative weakness with reading accuracy in terms of
reading the book we selected for the current study. This
was reflected in the proportion of “providing the correct
word” utterances used by his mother in their interaction.
There are several limitations to consider when interpreting
the results, and considering directions for future research.
It may be that SR interactions vary across sessions. Hence,
it would be interesting to further investigate SR in these
populations across multiple interactions. Also, there is some
arrangement. Participants were instructed to read as they
would normally at home. A video camera was set up on a
tripod stand, and the researcher sat out of view as the
interaction was video-recorded for 5 minutes. Both children
were presented with an unfamiliar book supplied by the
researcher –
Volcanoes and Other Natural Disasters
(Griffey,
1998). This non-fiction book contained written passages
and colour photos depicting types of natural disasters (e.g.,
bushfires). Published by DK Readers, this book is classified
as a Level 4, aimed at children 8–10 years of age (Dorling
Kindersley, 2015). Text readability analysis confirmed that
this text would be read comfortably by children reading at
the level of typically developing 13–14 year olds (Readability
Test Tool; Simpson, 2009–2014).
Results
Word-level accuracy measures were calculated as the
number of words read correctly during the SR divided by
the total number of words that were read. C-ASD read 86%
of words correctly, and C-SLI read 76% of words correctly.
This confirms that the children were reading a book of an
appropriate level. Moreover, both children appeared to be
engaged in the SR interaction as they were initiating the
reading, and appeared to be quite responsive to their
mothers’ questions and comments. A recent study
suggested that initiation and responsiveness are key
indicators of a child’s engagement in book reading (Colmar,
2014).
For the purposes of this study, we were solely interested
in the mothers’ utterances. Drawing on previous research
by Arciuli, Villar, et al. (2013) we explored two main types
of utterances used by the mothers in their interactions:
error correction (EC) or other (OT). An EC utterance was
defined as correcting the child’s reading error or dysfluency.
Remaining utterances were classified as OT, and were
defined as praise, comprehension monitoring, and referring
to images. Reliability measures on classifying these
utterances were conducted by an independent rater on
20% of the data and resulted in 100% agreement. Table
3 outlines the definitions and examples of the types of EC
and OT utterances.
Across the entire SR interaction which contained 49
utterances by M-ASD, 46.9% were EC, and 53.1% were
OT. Across the entire interaction which contained 88
utterances by M-SLI, 87.5% were EC, and 12.5% were
OT. In terms of some of the subtypes of EC utterances, the
data indicated that “providing the correct word” accounted
for 28.6% of all of M-ASD’s utterances, and 51.1% of all
Table 3. Definition and examples of types of EC and OT utterances
Type of utterance
Definition
Examples from data
EC Providing correct word
Mother verbalises correct pronunciation of word in an
anticipatory or correctional style
“Volunteers”
Sounding out
Mother encourages child to sound out word either
independently or in unison
“Eu-ca-lyp-tus”
Encouraging correction
Mother questions child to determine if he is correct
“Does that sound right?”
OT Praise
Mother gives child positive verbal contingencies
“Good boy”
Referring to images
Mother draws child’s attention to pictures/illustrations
“Look, what’s this? (points to picture)”
Comprehension monitoring
Mother questions child on content
“Tell me, what did you just read here?”
Note.
EC = error correction, OT = other.