Objective: A social pragmatic communication disorder is one of the primary characteristics of children with autism. Although several measures of pragmatics and social communication exist, many are not comprehensive, do not examine the quality of interactions across contexts and interlocutors, and cannot be easily administered and interpreted. The aim of this article is to report on preliminary data collected using the Greek version of comprehensive social communication and pragmatic language questionnaires completed by parents and teachers interacting with young children in different contexts. Methods: A Greek translation of the social communication and pragmatic language questionnaires was administered to parents and teachers of 31 children diagnosed with autism and of 51 typically developing children aged 3.0–6.0 years. Analysis and Results: The performance on the Greek versions of the social communication and pragmatic language questionnaires of typically developing children was compared with the performance of the children with autism using a series of independent t tests. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and performances on the measure. Preliminary results showed that significant differences with moderate effect sizes were found between groups on 63% of the 30 test items. Conclusions: The performance of children on questionnaires may lead to the development of easily administered and interpretable assessments for differentiating children with pragmatics and social communication impairments, such as children with autism, from typically developing children.

Keywords:
Pragmatics, Social communication, Autism, Assessment
1.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, ed 5. Washington, APA, 2013.
2.
Adams C: Practitioner review: the assessment of language pragmatics. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002; 43: 973–987.
3.
Bates E: Language and Context. New York, Academic Press, 1976.
4.
Prutting C, Kirchner D: A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. J Speech Hear Disord 1987; 52: 105–119.
5.
Adams C: Social communication intervention for school-age children. Rationale and description. Semin Speech Lang 2005; 26: 181–188.
6.
Hart K, Fujiki M, Brinton B, Hart C: The relationship between social behavior and severity of language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 45: 700–714.
7.
Huang Y: Pragmatics, ed 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015.
8.
Hyter YD: Pragmatic language assessment: a pragmatics-as-social practice model. Top Lang Disord 2007; 27: 128–145.
9.
Hyter YD: Complex trauma and prenatal alcohol exposure: clinical implications. American Speech, Language, Hearing Association SIG 16. Perspect School Based Issues 2012; 13: 32–42.
10.
Timler GR: Social communication: a framework for assessment and intervention. ASHA Leader 2008; 13: 10–13.
11.
Cordier R, Munro N, Wilkes S, Docking K: The pragmatic language abilities of children with ADHD following a play-based intervention involving peer-to-peer interactions. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 2013; 5: 429–440.
12.
Cummings L: Pragmatic and Discourse Disorders: a Workbook. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015.
13.
Green BC, Johnson KA, Bretherton L: Pragmatic language difficulties in children with hyperactivity and attention problems: an integrated review. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2014; 49: 15–29.
14.
Norbury CF: Practioner review: social (pragmatic) communication disorder conceptualization, evidence and clinical implications. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2014; 55: 204–216.
15.
Perkins M: Pragmatic Impairment. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.
16.
Hyter YD: Pragmatic assessment and intervention in children; in Cummings L (ed): Research in Clinical Pragmatics: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology. Cham, Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp 493–526.
17.
Cordier R, Munro N, Wilkes-Gillan S, Speyer R, Pearce WM: Reliability and validity of the Pragmatics Observational Measure (POM): a new observational measure of pragmatic language for children. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 25: 1588–1598.
18.
Rivers KO, Hyter YD, DeJarnette G: Parsing pragmatics. The ASHA Leader 2012; 17: 14–17.
19.
Phelps-Terasaki D, Phelps-Gunn T: Test of Pragmatic Language, ed 2. Austin, Pro-Ed, 2007.
20.
Carrow-Woolfolk E: Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL). Circle Pines, American Guidance Service, 1999.
21.
Seymour HN, Roeper T, deVilliers JG: DELV-NR (Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation) Norm-Referenced Test. San Antonio, The Psychological Corporation, 2003.
22.
Zimmerman IL, Steiner VG, Pond RE: PLS-5: Preschool Language Scales. San Antonio, Pearson, 2011.
23.
Peña ED, Gutierrez-Clellen V, Iglesias A, Goldstein B, Bedore L: Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment. San Rafael, Clinical Publications, 2014.
24.
Nelson NW, Plante E, Helm-Estabrooks N, Hotz G: Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills. Baltimore, Brookes Publishing Co, 2016.
25.
Prutting CA, Kirchner DM: A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. J Speech Hear Disord 1987; 52: 105–119.
26.
Bedrosian J: An approach to developing conversational competence; in Ripich DN, Spinelli FM (eds): School Discourse Problems. San Diego, College Hill Press, 1985, pp 231–255.
27.
Damico JS: Clinical discourse analysis: a functional approach to language assessment; in Simon CS (ed): Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment and Therapy Methodologies for Language and Learning Disabled Students. San Diego, College Hill Press, 1985, pp 165–204.
28.
Dewart H, Summers S: The pragmatics profile of everyday communication skills in children, revised, 1995. http://complexneeds.org.uk/modules/Module-2.4-Assessment-monitoring-and-evaluation/All/downloads/m08p080c/the_pragmatics_profile.pdf (accessed March 20, 2017).
29.
Rice ML, Sell MA, Hadley PA: The social interactive coding system (SICS): on-line, clinically relevant descriptive tool. Lang Speech Hear Services Schools 1990; 21: 2–14.
30.
Girolametto L: Development of a parent report measure for profiling the conversational skills of preschool children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997; 6: 25–33.
31.
Adams C, Gaile J, Lockton E, Freed J: TOPICCAL applications: assessing children’s conversational skills: turning a research instrument into a clinical profile. Speech Lang Ther Pract 2011; 3: 7–9.
32.
Cordier R, Munro N, Wilkes-Gillan S, Speyer R, Pearce WM: Reliability and validity of the Pragmatics Observational Measure (POM): a new observational measure of pragmatic language for children. Res Dev Disabil 2014; 35: 1588–1598.
33.
Wetherby A, Prizant B: Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Profile. Baltimore, Paul H Brookes Publishing Co, 2001.
34.
Bishop DVM: The Children’s Communication Checklist-2. San Antonio, Psychological Corporation, 2006.
35.
Gilliam JE, Miller L: Pragmatic Language Skills Inventory. Austin, Pro-Ed, 2006.
36.
O’Neill DK: The language use inventory for young children: a parent-report measure of pragmatic language development for 18 to 47-month-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006; 50: 214–228.
37.
Bloom L, Tinker E: The intentionality model and language acquisition: engagement, effort and the essential tension in development. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 2001; 66: 1–91.
38.
Peña ED: Lost in translation: methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Dev 2007; 78: 1255–1264.
39.
Hyter YD, Vogindoukas I, Fernandes F: Children with ASD: comparing parent and teacher responses on a social pragmatic communication questionnaire (poster). Am Speech Lang Hear Assoc, submitted, 2017.
40.
Rubin A, Babbie ER: Research Methods for Social Work, ed 7. Belmont, Brooks/Cole, 2011.
41.
Fey M: Language Intervention with Young Children. Austin, Pro-Ed, 1986.
42.
Nijs S, Maes B: Social peer interactions in persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: a literature review. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil 2014; 49: 153–165.
43.
Yuill N, Strieth S, Roake C, Aspden R, Todd B: Brief report: designing a playground for children with autism spectrum disorders – effects of playful peer interactions. J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 17: 1192–1196.
44.
Gerber S: A developmental perspective on language assessment and intervention for children on the autistic spectrum. Top Lang Disord 2003; 23: 74–94.
45.
Casenhiser DM, Binns A, McGill F, Morderer O, Shanker SG: Measuring and supporting language function in children with autism: evidence from a randomized control trial of a social-interaction-based therapy. J Autism Dev Disord 2015; 45: 846–857.
46.
Dennis M, Lazenby A, Lockyer L: Inferential language in high-functioning children with autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2001; 31: 47–54.
47.
Tager-Flusberg H, Anderson M: The development of contingent discourse ability in autistic children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1991; 32: 1123–1134.
48.
Grice HP: Logic and conversation; in Cole P, Morgan J (eds): Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts. New York, Academic Press, 1975, pp 183–198.
49.
Bishop DVM, Norbury CF: Executive functions in children with communication impairments, in relation to autistic symptomatology I: generativity. Autism 2005; 9: 7–27.
50.
McCloskey G, Perkins LA, Van Divner B: Assessment and Intervention for Executive Function Difficulties. New York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2009.
51.
Hwa-Froelich D, Kasambira D, Moleski A: Communication functions of African American Head Start children. Commun Disord Q 2007; 28: 77–91.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.