{"title":"The Pragmatic Assessments in Children: A Narrative Review","authors":"Boshra Bahrami, Fatemeh Fekar-Gharamaleki","doi":"10.22122/JRRS.V0I0.3526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: One of the important areas of language is pragmatics, which describes the correct use of language for social interaction. Since tests are tools for quantitation of speech and language abilities, they are needed in order to assess, screen, describe, diagnose, and treat various aspects of language. The aim of this study was to review the existing tests in the area of language pragmatics and collect data about their subtests, scoring, administration, age range, and finally their application in clinical and research contexts in children. Materials and Methods: In order to review the common tests of language pragmatics, an electronic search through Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar, and Ovid databases was done between the years 2000 to 2020. The keywords were “Pragmatics”, “Language”, “Means”, “Tests”, “Tools”, “Diagnosis”, “Measurement”, and “Evaluation”. The inclusion criteria were access to the full text of the article, and the article language (either English or Persian). Results: In this study, 18 tests and a checklist were reterived from 25 studies for further study. Among them, only four tests and one checklist were for sole assessment of pragmatics and 14 other tests were for assesing all aspects of language. Conclusion: Some tests have recently been used more commonly due to the specialization of their subtests. Reviewing language pragmatics tests shows that the Test of Pragmatic Language-Second Edition ( TOPL-2) was the most acceptable test due to the assessment of comprehension-expression areas, standardization for healthy children or children with disorders, translation into several languages, and high psychometric characteristics; however, the use of multiple tests is recommended for a comprehensive and integrated assessment.","PeriodicalId":289923,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22122/JRRS.V0I0.3526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Introduction: One of the important areas of language is pragmatics, which describes the correct use of language for social interaction. Since tests are tools for quantitation of speech and language abilities, they are needed in order to assess, screen, describe, diagnose, and treat various aspects of language. The aim of this study was to review the existing tests in the area of language pragmatics and collect data about their subtests, scoring, administration, age range, and finally their application in clinical and research contexts in children. Materials and Methods: In order to review the common tests of language pragmatics, an electronic search through Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, Google Scholar, and Ovid databases was done between the years 2000 to 2020. The keywords were “Pragmatics”, “Language”, “Means”, “Tests”, “Tools”, “Diagnosis”, “Measurement”, and “Evaluation”. The inclusion criteria were access to the full text of the article, and the article language (either English or Persian). Results: In this study, 18 tests and a checklist were reterived from 25 studies for further study. Among them, only four tests and one checklist were for sole assessment of pragmatics and 14 other tests were for assesing all aspects of language. Conclusion: Some tests have recently been used more commonly due to the specialization of their subtests. Reviewing language pragmatics tests shows that the Test of Pragmatic Language-Second Edition ( TOPL-2) was the most acceptable test due to the assessment of comprehension-expression areas, standardization for healthy children or children with disorders, translation into several languages, and high psychometric characteristics; however, the use of multiple tests is recommended for a comprehensive and integrated assessment.
语用学是语言的一个重要领域,它描述了在社会交往中语言的正确使用。由于测试是言语和语言能力量化的工具,因此需要测试来评估、筛选、描述、诊断和治疗语言的各个方面。本研究的目的是回顾语言语用学领域的现有测试,并收集其子测试,评分,管理,年龄范围的数据,并最终在临床和研究背景下在儿童中的应用。材料和方法:为了回顾语言语用学的常用测试,在2000年至2020年期间,通过Web of Science、PubMed、Scopus、Medline、谷歌Scholar和Ovid数据库进行了电子检索。关键词是“语用学”、“语言”、“手段”、“测试”、“工具”、“诊断”、“测量”和“评价”。纳入标准是文章全文的访问权限和文章语言(英语或波斯语)。结果:本研究从25项研究中检索到18项试验和一份检查表供进一步研究。其中,仅4项测试和1项检查表是对语用的单一评估,其他14项测试是对语言的所有方面进行评估。结论:由于子测试的专门化,一些测试最近被更普遍地使用。回顾语言语用学测试表明,由于对理解表达领域的评估,对健康儿童或障碍儿童的标准化,翻译成多种语言,以及高心理测量特征,语用学测试第二版(TOPL-2)是最被接受的测试;然而,建议使用多种测试来进行全面和综合的评估。