View of children's word-finding difficulties: disciplinary influences.

ASHA monographs Pub Date : 1993-12-01
P A Prelock, R O Lupella
{"title":"View of children's word-finding difficulties: disciplinary influences.","authors":"P A Prelock,&nbsp;R O Lupella","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A consensus was not found among the participants regarding those characteristics that constituted a WFP and how word finding was different from or related to word retrieval problems, some forms of \"dysfluency,\" and \"language processing\" difficulties. The lack of consistency was seen both within and across disciplines. Instances where there was consistent agreement among members of a discipline must be interpreted cautiously because a relatively small number of participants was involved in the interviews. Further, the results should not be generalized to an assessment of all children with WFPs, because only three children were viewed by the professionals. The findings do suggest, however, dimensions along which problems in interpreting WFPs may occur. The analysis of the clinician interviews and videotape viewing of the three language-impaired children have specific implications for clinicians when diagnosing WFPs in children. First, differences in the clinicians' knowledge of a what word finding is, how it is manifested, what relationship it has to other skills, and how it should be assessed was evident. Such differences in understanding WFPs in children have been described in the literature (Gardner, 1974; German, 1983, 1984; Kail & Leonard, 1986; Lewis & Kass, 1982; Nippold, 1992; Oldfield & Winfield, 1964; Snyder & Godley, 1992). Second, the clinicians frequently made diagnostic assumptions when they admittedly were unsure of their conceptual framework and that of their colleagues. The impact of these assumptions was seen in the clinicians' general lack of agreement in the identification of actual instances of WFPs and in their rankings of those tasks believed to be most helpful in making a diagnosis of a WFP.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)</p>","PeriodicalId":76888,"journal":{"name":"ASHA monographs","volume":" 30","pages":"41-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ASHA monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A consensus was not found among the participants regarding those characteristics that constituted a WFP and how word finding was different from or related to word retrieval problems, some forms of "dysfluency," and "language processing" difficulties. The lack of consistency was seen both within and across disciplines. Instances where there was consistent agreement among members of a discipline must be interpreted cautiously because a relatively small number of participants was involved in the interviews. Further, the results should not be generalized to an assessment of all children with WFPs, because only three children were viewed by the professionals. The findings do suggest, however, dimensions along which problems in interpreting WFPs may occur. The analysis of the clinician interviews and videotape viewing of the three language-impaired children have specific implications for clinicians when diagnosing WFPs in children. First, differences in the clinicians' knowledge of a what word finding is, how it is manifested, what relationship it has to other skills, and how it should be assessed was evident. Such differences in understanding WFPs in children have been described in the literature (Gardner, 1974; German, 1983, 1984; Kail & Leonard, 1986; Lewis & Kass, 1982; Nippold, 1992; Oldfield & Winfield, 1964; Snyder & Godley, 1992). Second, the clinicians frequently made diagnostic assumptions when they admittedly were unsure of their conceptual framework and that of their colleagues. The impact of these assumptions was seen in the clinicians' general lack of agreement in the identification of actual instances of WFPs and in their rankings of those tasks believed to be most helpful in making a diagnosis of a WFP.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

儿童认字困难的观点:纪律的影响。
对于构成世界粮食计划署的那些特征,以及单词查找与单词检索问题、某些形式的“不流利”和“语言处理”困难之间的区别或联系,与会者没有达成共识。在学科内部和学科之间都可以看到缺乏一致性。在一个学科的成员之间有一致意见的情况下,必须谨慎解释,因为参与访谈的参与者相对较少。此外,结果不应推广到对所有患粮食计划署的儿童的评价,因为专业人员只观察了三个儿童。然而,研究结果确实指出了在解释粮食计划署时可能出现问题的一些方面。对三名语言障碍儿童的临床访谈和录像的分析对临床医生诊断语言障碍儿童有特殊的意义。首先,临床医生对单词发现是什么、它是如何表现出来的、它与其他技能有什么关系、以及它应该如何评估的知识的差异是显而易见的。在对儿童wfp的理解上的这种差异已经在文献中有所描述(Gardner, 1974;德语,1983年,1984年;Kail & Leonard, 1986;Lewis & Kass, 1982;Nippold, 1992;Oldfield & Winfield, 1964;Snyder & Godley, 1992)。第二,当临床医生承认他们对自己和同事的概念框架不确定时,他们经常做出诊断假设。这些假设的影响体现在临床医生在确定世界粮食计划署的实际情况方面普遍缺乏共识,以及他们对那些被认为对世界粮食计划署诊断最有帮助的任务的排名。(摘要删节250字)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信