Pilot study

A small pilot study was conducted in order to collect materials which met the needs of the Conversation Situation. Non-disabled children were involved in the pilot study as, from previous research (eg. Harris, 1982; Lightet al, 1985b), it was hypothesised that children with physical disabilities use a restricted range of communicative functions. Children aged two to three years were selected as it has been shown that at this age non-disabled children are able to use a full range of communicative functions (Wetherby et al, 1988) and functions not observed were unlikely to be absent due to pragmatic development.

A small number of children were informally observed at home with their mothers, and the functions of communication elicited in play with different types of toys were recorded. From these observations a set of toys that seemed to elicit a broad range of communication functions was selected. The materials chosen were a wordless book and a large opaque box with a firm lid containing a sheet of small stickers, a small musical spinning top and a box of Duplo^ people, a car and caravan.

Ten children (six girls, four boys) aged between two years and two years eight months were recruited to the pilot study via an informal network of friends. All children attended toddler groups run by Social Services and none had developmental difficulties as diagnosed by Clinical Medical Officers. Seven of the children were singletons, having no siblings, two children had one younger sibling each and one child had an elder sibling. Two mothers had completed university degrees, three mothers had received advanced work training or completed 'A Levels, and five mothers had left school after their 'O' Levels/GCSEs.

For the purposes of the pilot study each child attended a 45-60 minute session at their local community clinic. During the sessions the children were screened for receptive language difficulties using the Reynell Developmental Language Scales (RDLS) (Reynell & Huntley, 1985). The mean standard score achieved was 0.69 (range -0.7 to 2.1). Following the completion of the RDLS, each child and their mother were videotaped playing with the set of selected toys for up to sixteen minutes.

The range of communication functions used by the mothers and the children was examined from repeated viewing of the video recordings. The functions used by the mothers and their children are shown in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

For Tables 2 and 3

RJA= request for joint attention ROA= request for object/action RCN= request for clarification

neutral

PI= provision of information PCREP= provision of clarification

repetition ES= expression of self

RI= request for information

RCC= request for clarification confirmation RCS= request for clarification

specific

CD= confirmation/denial

PCREV=provision of clarification revision

AK= acknowledgement

Table 2 Functions of communication used by mothers in the pilot study Act M l M 2 M3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7 M 8 M9 MIO RJA + + + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- RI + + + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- ROA + + + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- RCC + + - 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- RCN - 4- + - - - 4- - - 4- RCS - - + - - - _4- - PI + + + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- PC REP - - + - - 4- - - - 4- REV - - - 4- - - - - CD + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- ES + + 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- AK + + 4- 4- 4- + 4- 4- 4- 4-

Table 3 Functions of communication used by children in the pilot study

A c t C l C 2 C 3 € 4 C 5 C 6 C 7 C 8 C 9 € 1 0 R J A 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- R I 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- R O A 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- R C C - - 4- 4- 4- - - - R C N - - 4- 4- - - 4- - - - R C S - - - - P I 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- P C R E P - 4- 4- - - - 4- - 4- 4- R E V - - 4- - - - 4- - - - C D 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- ES 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- AK 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4- 4-

From first glance at the tables above it would appear that the selected materials were unsuccessful in eliciting a full range of communication functions from the mothers and children in the pilot study. However, on closer inspection it is noted that the unelicited functions fall into the categories of requests for clarification and provision of clarification, which have more than one type. Table 2 shows that with the exception of Mother 6, mothers requested clarification of their children's messages, and that each mother seemed to use one or two types of request for clarification, the most common being a request for confirmation. In these requests the listener repeats all or part of the message to check that they have heard correctly. For example, a mother may ask "You want the caravan?" when a child has pointed to the toy. These requests for confirmation by the mothers may account for five out of the ten pilot children failing to produce provisions of clarification, either as repetitions or revisions. When presented with a request for confirmation, with its implication of "is this what you said?", it is appropriate to answer either yes or no, rather than to repeat or revise one's original utterance. Inspection of the transcripts showed that the pilot children responded with confirmations or denials to these requests. Neutral requests for clarification (for example, "What did you say?. Pardon?") and specific requests for clarification (for example, "You want which one?") prompt speakers to repeat their message or to give their message in a different way (revision). The tables above also show that the children of the mothers who did use these types of requests produced provisions of clarification, either as repetitions or revisions.

The type of request for clarification used by the mothers may be attributable to several factors, not least being the conversation taking place in a room with few distractions which may have led to few neutral and specific requests being made. Both partners should

have been able to hear and see each other clearly and neutral requests, which signal a general lack of understanding or that the listener has not heard the message, may not have been warranted. In addition, mothers and children were most often attending to the same small set of toys that could probably have been indicated clearly by the non-disabled children, accounting for the few specific requests for clarification by mothers. Little is known about why parents choose individual types of request for clarification in conversation with their children. For example, why listeners request specific repetition of one part of an utterance when they are not one hundred percent certain they have heard correctly, rather than requesting confirmation of what they think they have heard. Therefore, it was considered that the choice of individual types of requests for clarification was not an issue in the pilot study, rather the presence of the generic function request for clarification.

Table 3 also shows that only four of the ten children requested clarification themselves. This may be due to situation: the rooms in which the children were observed were quiet and quite small and so the children may have heard their mothers clearly and have had no need to use this particular function. It was observed that the children who did request clarification were those who became absorbed in their play and may not have been attending fully to what their mothers were saying.

As the materials did seem to allow both communication partners to use the full range of communication functions these materials were selected for the Conversation Situation. It was observed that the functions used by the children and their mothers during ten minutes of play with the selected toys were the same as those used in play with the same objects

for longer periods, and a ten minute sample was chosen for the study

For the main study a bag containing toy people with magnetic bases and magnetic blocks with wheels for making cars and animals replaced the box of Duplo used in the pilot study The substitution was made so that the children with motor impairments would have more chance of being able to put the toys together and move them in play in a similar way to the non-disabled children handling the Duplo, and so that the toys could appeal to the older children who were from a wide age range in the main study Both groups of toys enabled the children and their mothers to engage in imaginary play. Two wordless books were chosen which were suitable for children of different developmental ages (See Figure 3 for photograph of the materials.)