JCPSLP Vol 17 No 3 2015

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 Mother encourages child to sound out word either independently or in unison

“Volunteers”

Sounding out

“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.

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

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

122

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 3 2015

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology