scholarly journals Establishing a relationship between semantic clustering and language performance

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (S6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raelynn Mae de la Cruz ◽  
Sharlene L Jeffers ◽  
Justin B Miller ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Language Performance ◽  
Semantic Clustering

Pragmatic Language Performance of Children Adopted Internationally

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 501-514
Author(s):  
Deborah A. Hwa-Froelich ◽  
Hisako Matsuo
Keyword(s):  
Social Communication ◽  
False Belief ◽  
Pragmatic Language ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Emotion Identification ◽  
False Belief Understanding ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
Pragmatic Communication ◽  
Eastern European Countries

Purpose Pragmatic language is important for social communication across all settings. Children adopted internationally (CAI) may be at risk of poorer pragmatic language because of adverse early care, delayed adopted language development, and less ability to inhibit. The purpose of this study was to compare pragmatic language performance of CAI from Asian and Eastern European countries with a nonadopted group of children who were of the same age and from similar socioeconomic backgrounds as well as explore the relationship among emotion identification, false belief understanding, and inhibition variables with pragmatic language performance. Method Using a quasi-experimental design, 35 four-year-old CAI (20 Asian, 15 Eastern European) and 33 children who were not adopted were included in this study. The children's pragmatic language, general language, and social communication (emotion identification of facial expressions, false belief understanding, inhibition) were measured. Comparisons by region of origin and adoption experience were completed. We conducted split-half correlation analyses and entered significant correlation variables into simple and backward regression models. Results Pragmatic language performance differed by adoption experience. The adopted and nonadopted groups demonstrated different correlation patterns. Language performance explained most of the pragmatic language variance. Discussion Because CAI perform less well than their nonadopted peers on pragmatic communication measures and different variables are related to their pragmatic performance, speech-language pathologists may need to adapt assessment and intervention practices for this population.

The Link Between Verbal Short-Term Memory and Anomia Treatment Gains

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 1039-1052
Author(s):  
Reva M. Zimmerman ◽  
JoAnn P. Silkes ◽  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Irene Minkina
Keyword(s):  
Short Term Memory ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Linear Regression Models ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Term Memory ◽  
Treatment Gains ◽  
Post Hoc

Purpose A significant relationship between verbal short-term memory (STM) and language performance in people with aphasia has been found across studies. However, very few studies have examined the predictive value of verbal STM in treatment outcomes. This study aims to determine if verbal STM can be used as a predictor of treatment success. Method Retrospective data from 25 people with aphasia in a larger randomized controlled trial of phonomotor treatment were analyzed. Digit and word spans from immediately pretreatment were run in multiple linear regression models to determine whether they predict magnitude of change from pre- to posttreatment and follow-up naming accuracy. Pretreatment, immediately posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment digit and word span scores were compared to determine if they changed following a novel treatment approach. Results Verbal STM, as measured by digit and word spans, did not predict magnitude of change in naming accuracy from pre- to posttreatment nor from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment. Furthermore, digit and word spans did not change from pre- to posttreatment or from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment in the overall analysis. A post hoc analysis revealed that only the less impaired group showed significant changes in word span scores from pretreatment to 3 months posttreatment. Discussion The results suggest that digit and word spans do not predict treatment gains. In a less severe subsample of participants, digit and word span scores can change following phonomotor treatment; however, the overall results suggest that span scores may not change significantly. The implications of these findings are discussed within the broader purview of theoretical and empirical associations between aphasic language and verbal STM processing.

Treatment for Progressive Impairments of Language

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Henry
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Treatment ◽  
Primary Progressive Aphasia ◽  
Sentence Production ◽  
Lexical Retrieval ◽  
Functional Communication ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Communication Techniques ◽  
Primary Object ◽  
Behavioral Treatments ◽  
Treatment Research

Abstract Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a relatively new diagnostic entity, for which few behavioral treatments have been investigated. Recent work has helped to clarify the nature of distinct PPA variants, including a nonfluent variant (NFV-PPA), a logopenic variant (LV-PPA), and a semantic variant (SV-PPA). This paper reviews treatment research to date in each subtype of PPA, including restitutive, augmentative, and functional approaches. The evidence suggests that restitutive behavioral treatment can result in improved or stabilized language performance within treated domains. Specifically, sentence production and lexical retrieval have been addressed in NFV-PPA, whereas lexical retrieval has been the primary object of treatment in LV and SV-PPA. Use of augmentative communication techniques, as well as implementation of functional communication approaches, also may result in improved communication skills in individuals with PPA. The ideal treatment approach may be one that combines restitutive, augmentative, and functional approaches to treatment, in order to maximize residual cognitive-linguistic skills in patients. Additional research is warranted to determine which modes of treatment are most beneficial in each type of PPA at various stages of severity.

When language performance goes awry.

1981 ◽  
Vol 26 (10) ◽  
pp. 755-756
Author(s):  
William E. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Language Performance

Semantic Clustering: Relationship to Executive Measures Within a TBI Sample

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather G. Belanger ◽  
Rodney D. Vanderploeg ◽  
Patricia Taylor-Cooke ◽  
Veronica Clement
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Clustering

You’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Linguistic complexity and instruction in SLA

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick De Graaff
Keyword(s):  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Teaching Practice ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Linguistic Complexity ◽  
Language Pedagogy ◽  
Instructed Second Language Acquisition ◽  
The One

In this epilogue, I take a teaching practice and teacher education perspective on complexity in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. I take the stance that it is essential to understand if and how linguistic complexity relates to learning challenges, what the implications are for language pedagogy, and how this challenges the role of the teacher. Research shows that differences in task complexity may lead to differences in linguistic complexity in language learners’ speech or writing. Different tasks (e.g. descriptive vs narrative) and different modes (oral vs written) may lead to different types and levels of complexity in language use. On the one hand, this is a challenge for language assessment, as complexity in language performance may be affected by task characteristics. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for language teaching: using a diversity of tasks, modes and text types may evoke and stretch lexically and syntactically complex language use. I maintain that it is essential for teachers to understand that it is at least as important to aim for development in complexity as it is to aim for development in accuracy. Namely, that ‘errors’ in language learning are part of the deal: complex tasks lead to complex language use, including lexical and syntactical errors, but they are a necessary prerequisite for language development.

Revisiting rating scale development for rater-mediated language performance assessments: Modelling construct and contextual choices made by scale developers

2021 ◽  
pp. 026553222199405
Author(s):  
Ute Knoch ◽  
Bart Deygers ◽  
Apichat Khamboonruang
Keyword(s):  
Scale Development ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Performance Assessments ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Scale Development And Validation ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Development And Validation ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Different Sources

Rating scale development in the field of language assessment is often considered in dichotomous ways: It is assumed to be guided either by expert intuition or by drawing on performance data. Even though quite a few authors have argued that rating scale development is rarely so easily classifiable, this dyadic view has dominated language testing research for over a decade. In this paper we refine the dominant model of rating scale development by drawing on a corpus of 36 studies identified in a systematic review. We present a model showing the different sources of scale construct in the corpus. In the discussion, we argue that rating scale designers, just like test developers more broadly, need to start by determining the purpose of the test, the relevant policies that guide test development and score use, and the intended score use when considering the design choices available to them. These include considering the impact of such sources on the generalizability of the scores, the precision of the post-test predictions that can be made about test takers’ future performances and scoring reliability. The most important contributions of the model are that it gives rating scale developers a framework to consider prior to starting scale development and validation activities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document