Case Study of Child with Autism Essay

9277 Words Mar 18th, 2014 38 Pages
Section 1: Rationale and Strategy
I became increasingly interested in Autism since I had the opportunity to work alongside kids with Autism this summer. Seeing how their minds worked and how they processed information was astounding to me. Ever since this experience, I have fallen in love with children with Autism and I am always thriving to learn more about them. With this being said, I am looking to do my research on a child with Autism. I will be looking into the question how does Autism affect language development in children? Under this broad topic I will be specifically looking into why their pragmatic language is impaired. To find my information I will interview my child’s parents. I will do my own observations both in the home
…show more content…
207). According to Phillips and Volden, Language Quotients of “70-79 are interpreted as poor, and quotients below 70 are interpreted as very poor” (2010, p. 207). The cutoff score indicating a pragmatic impairment in the child was designated as 79 (Phillips, Volden, 2010, p. 207). The CCC-2 on the other hand derives two composite scores that are interpreted allowing for a greater variety of information to be processed and taken into account while interpreting whether or not a child with high functioning ASD has pragmatic issues or not. These two composite scores are the GCC that is expressed by a standard score “with a mean of 100 (SD = 15) and the SIDI (Phillips, Volden, 2010, p. 207). If a GCC score is less than 80, it indicated a communicative impairment: not a pragmatic impairment (Phillips, Volden, 2010, p. 207). On the other hand, a negative SIDI score represents a pragmatic issue. “If the SIDI score is -15 or below Bishop (2003) suggests that pragmatic language impairment is present regardless of the GCC score (Phillips, Volden, 2010, p. 207).
So what does all of this mean? It was shown that both tests can in fact show whether or not a child with high functioning ASD has an issue with pragmatics. But how valid are these tests? Both tests ended with different results. The TOPL test showed that “9 out of 16 students with ASD were pragmatically impaired” while the CCC-2 identified “13 out of the 16” (Phillips, Volden, 2010, p. 208). While it is

Related Documents