J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988 DOI 10.1007/s10803-008-0588-0
BRIEF REPORT
Brief Report: Narratives of Personal Events in Children with Autism and Developmental Language Disorders: Unshared Memories Sylvie Goldman
Published online: 30 May 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Narrative analysis of personal events provides an opportunity for identifying autism specific issues related to language and social impairments. Eight personal events were elicited from three groups of schoolage children: 14 high-functioning with Autism Spectrum Disorders (HFA), 12 non-autistic with developmental language disorders (DLD), and 12 typically developing matched for chronological age and non-verbal IQ. The coding focused on narrative format (constituents) and style (coherence). The analyses indicate basic knowledge of conventional narrative format in all groups but a consistent lack of high-point in HFA children’s stories interpreted as a consequence of their lack of social understanding of narrative. The results suggest novel interventions to foster autobiographical memory in HFA children which may assist in their selfawareness development.
This paper is based on a dissertation submitted by the author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree in Psychology at The Graduate Center of The City University of New York. Portions of this research were presented at a joint meeting of the Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders and the International Congress for the Study of Child Language. Madison, WI, in July 2002. S. Goldman Psychology Program, Graduate Center, The City Univeristy of New York, New York, NY, USA Present Address: S. Goldman (&) Saul R. Korey Department of Neurology and Rose F Kennedy Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Kennedy Center, room 807, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
123
Keywords Autism Language disorders Narratives Personal stories Schoolage children
Introduction Telling personal experiences poses unusual challenges for high-functioning children with autism (HFA) and may affect autobiographical memories (Hobson et al. 2006). Personal narratives are retellings of events that originate from children’s natural drive to share experiences. Learning scripted constructions of routinized events (e.g., birthday) represents a first step toward recounting events by specifying who does what, when, and to whom. Through joint linguistic interactions with adults (Nelson and Fivush 2004), preschool children learn to tell stories with a plot and to include core elements like beginning, middle, and end (Stein 1988). With the development of pragmatics, the conversational use of language, and the understanding of emotions, children transition from scripts to fictional stories and then to personal narratives (Hudson and Shapiro 1991). They learn to make their stories meaningful by organizing them around a high-point, the pivotal event that signals the reason for telling the story (Labov and Waletzky 1967). Therefore, narrative is conceptualized as a cognitive activity inseparable from its pragmatic and social dimensions. Personal narratives defined as the recount of personal experience focusing on points of interest usually unknown to the interlocutor have received relatively little attention in HFA children, whereas pragmatics essential for successful narratives, has been investigated (Ramberg et al. 1996). HFA children are less attuned to emotional cues and lack an understanding of the social role of narrative. Thus, they may not be aware of the information required to follow
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988
their stories resulting in impoverished personal narratives (Losh and Capps 2003; Young et al. 2005). Their limited ability to take into account others’ points-of-view (BaronCohen et al. 2000) may affect their stories (Bruner and Feldman 1994) and conversation about events (Capps et al. 1998). Yet their script knowledge about social situations appears similar to that of chronologically age-matched children with Down’s syndrome, but they express fewer empathic responses (Loveland and Tunali 1991) and more inappropriate discourse than typical non-verbally age matched children (Volden and Johnston 1999). Narrative studies of HFA and developmental language disorders (DLD) children report few differences in global structure, emphasizing instead failure to respond (Norbury and Bishop 2003). Children with HFA tend to use bizarre information (Loveland et al. 1990), describe facts rather than causal relationships, and are less likely to use the gist of the story to organize their narrative coherently (Diehl et al. 2006). Losh and Capps (2003) compared narratives of personal events with the ‘Frog Story’ narratives (Mayer 1969) in 28 schoolage HFA children and 22 typically developing (TD) peers matched on chronological age and verbal IQ. They found that HFA children had significant difficulty narrating personal experiences, which they interpreted as evidence of limited social and emotional understanding of events. This study analyses autobiographical narratives in schoolage children, which in contrast to Losh and Capps (2003), included control children with DLD to identify narrative issues specific to autism, not language inadequacies, and a sequence of increasingly emotional events to examine the effect of content on narrative structure. During conversation, narrators tend to apply less formal narrative markers (i.e., introduction, closing statements) and use a more dialogic style while listeners assume a more active role than during story-telling. Thus, given the characteristics of conversation and story-telling practices (Roth and Spekman 1986), the examiner initiated personal accounts through a conversation and then moved to personal narratives (e.g., ‘‘tell me a story about…’’). To examine how script knowledge may mask the dysfunctionality of HFA children’s narratives, three analyses were performed, one focused on initial responses to the examiner’s solicitation, the second on the presence of conventional elements (e.g., setting, resolution), and the third on narrative qualities (e.g., goal-directness, evaluation), including indicators of point-of-view (e.g., highpoint). The predictions were that HFA children would have more difficulty elaborating on past events and that their narratives would show specific characteristics compared to the two non-autistic groups (DLD, TD), whereas no significant difference would be found among the three groups on measures of conventional story elements.
1983
Method Participants Three groups matched on chronological age (mean age 11 years 2 months) and performance IQ included 14 HFA, 12 DLD, and 12 TD children (Table 1). At the time of recruitment (Rapin 1996) all children diagnosed with HFA had a NVIQ C 80 and fulfilled criteria for Autistic Disorder (AD) according to DSM III-R (American Psychological Association 1987) and the Wing Autistic Disorder Interview Checklist (WADIC; Wing 1996). These measures were readministered to confirm the AD diagnosis. Only children who spoke in full sentences and had documented scores on an extensive language battery were selected. Six HFA children were still in special schools and eight were in regular classes with remedial therapies. The 12 DLD children were identified so as to have deficient higher-order language skills, including discourse formulation and pragmatics (Rapin and Allen 1998), as documented by the referring professionals and by at least one SD discrepancy between Formulated Sentences of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF; Semel et al. 1989) and Pattern Analysis of the StanfordBinet. At preschool and schoolage, the DSM III-R/IV (American Psychological Association 1994) and WADIC had excluded AD and all fulfilled preschool study criteria for DLD: IQ C 80 and 1 SD below the mean length of utterances for age and 1 SD below the mean NVIQ score on Test of Early Language Development (Hresko et al. 1981). All had a history of language impairment requiring intervention, ten had reported language delay, five were in special schools, and seven in regular classes receiving therapies. The 12 TD children had scores of zero on the WADIC and no learning, language or social impairment. None of the participants was adopted.
Procedure and Tests Psychological Measures All children were tested by the author. The tests reported in Table 1 were selected for matching purposes and their relevance to narratives. Verbal and non-verbal IQ composite scores were obtained from two verbal and two non-verbal subtests of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-IV (Thorndike et al. 1986), Receptive vocabulary was assessed with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (PPVT; Dunn and Dunn 1981). Formulation and comprehension of language were assessed with three subtests from the CELF.
123
1984
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988
Table 1 Demographic and psychometric measures HFA mean (SD) (N = 14)
DLD mean (SD) (N = 12)
TD mean (SD) (N = 12)
Chronological age
11 years and 3 months
11 years and 6 months
10 years and 9 months
Age range
9 years and 6 months– 13 years
9 years and 10 months– 13 years and 4 months
9 years and 6 months– 13 years
Sex ratio (M/F)**
12/2
9/3
Caucasian/African American**
14/0
11/1
Total composite
100.4 (18.1)
Verbal IQ
106.1 (20.4)
Vocabulary Comprehension
F
p
Effect size (Cohen’s d) HFA/ DLD
HFA/ TD
DLD/ TD
Demographic* 5.02
ns
9/3
4.98
ns
10/2
3.12
ns
105.7 (14.7)
112.2 (8.3)
2.13
ns
0.32
0.84
0.54
111.5 (16)
119.2 (11.3)
2.01
ns
0.29
0.79
0.56
54.0 (8.6)
54.7 (6.7)
56.7 (5.6)
3.98
ns
0.09
0.87
0.32
51.4 (11.6)
55.9 (9.4)
61.2 (6.4)
6.37
.003a
0.43
1.05
0.66
95.3 (16.4)
99.1 (11.9)
102.7 (9.9)
1.02
ns
0.27
0.55
0.33
Stanford-Binet
Performance IQ
a
Copying
41.9 (5.0)
44.8 (4.1)
49.1 (7.0)
5.72
.001
0.63
1.18
0.75
Pattern Analysis
51.4 (8.9)
54.2 (7.1)
53 (4.7)
2.35
ns
0.35
0.22
0.20
106.3 (23.7)
102.2 (14.7)
108.9 (11.7)
1.228
ns
0.21
0.14
0.50
4.79 (1.97)
6.67 (2.06)
12.17 (3.43)
PPVT CELF Formulated sentences Listening to paragraphs Semantic relationships
7.14 (3.74) 10.79 (3.87)
9.42 (4.17) 12 (2.66)
11.83 (2.17) 11.92 (1.98)
28.65
.001a
0.93
2.64
1.94
5.87 1.06
b
0.58 0.36
1.53 0.36
0.73 0.03
.006 ns
* All children are from middle class families ** Tested by Chi-square a
ANOVA, p \ .05, HFA = DLD, HFA = TD, DLD = TD
b
ANOVA, p \ .05, HFA = DLD, HFA = TD, DLD = TD
Personal Events After an hour of testing, the examiner explained to the child how sharing personal memories is a way to get to know people better. The examiner initiated a conversation about familiar experiences, then encouraged the child to produce complete stories, using minimal prompts. Eight events ranging from neutral to emotional, and from ritualistic to unique experiences were presented in the following order, with occasional modifications to maintain the flow of conversation: (a) a visit to the hospital, (b) last weekend, (c) Halloween, (d) birthday, (e) first day at school, (f) happiest event, (g) saddest event, and (h) first memory. Children talked eagerly, although when their responses were limited to a single word or one to two sentences the examiner used prompts like ‘‘tell me more.’’ Coding and Data Analysis Narratives were audio-taped, transcribed and coded. Appendix 1 presents the codes for the children’s answers
123
before the examiner’s prompting. Appendices 2 and 3 present the categorical codes for conventional elements and narrative style. These categorical variables were compared among groups by Chi-square analysis. The author’s coding reliability was checked on a random 20% of the sample, coded by an experienced coder blind to diagnostic group and hypotheses which yielded a Kappa [ 0.85.
Results Psychological Assessment The three age-matched groups did not differ on overall IQ, VIQ, and PIQ (Table 1). However there was a consistent trend for TD children to score higher that HFA and to a lesser extent than DLD children. Relevant to this observation is that HFA and DLD children scored significantly lower than TD children on comprehension of common situations and on a task assessing sentence construction.
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988
1985
Narrative Assessment
narratives around these constituents. Analysis of stylistic markers showed consistently lower scores for HFA children who specifically lacked high-point and coherence (Table 2).
Narrative Format of Initial Answer Children’s initial responses were dichotomized into proper (code 1) versus defective format (codes 2–7). Chi-square analyses expressed in percentage showed significantly more proper narrative in TD (92.70%) and DLD (82.29%) children compared to HFA (66.96%); v2 (2, N = 38) = 21.87, p = \.001. DLD and TD scores did not differ, (1, N = 24) = 3.86, p = .052. Off-topic answers were only reported in HFA children. Conventional Narrative Elements For each of the eight topics, presence of conventional elements was tallied and frequencies were compared among the groups using Chi-square analysis (results not shown). Table 2 shows the results for the combined topics. HFA children’s stories differed from those of the nonautistic groups by significantly less persons and resolution elements. Overall, DLD children used less story elements than TD children except for person where they did not differ. Narrative Style All children demonstrated knowledge of narrative format; yet groups differed in their ability to organize coherent
Discussion The study identifies how narratives of HFA children differ from those of two groups of non-autistic cognitively competent schoolage children (DLD, TD) and points to similarities among the clinical groups (HFA, DLD). As predicted, HFA children produced fewer proper narratives and needed support to generate personal accounts. Analysis confirmed previous findings (Bishop and Adams 1989) and detected new particularities in HFA children’s narratives. Like in Trillingsgaard’s (1999) study, HFA and DLD children’s adequate script knowledge indicates that, despite their communication impairment, these cognitively competent children had learned narrative formats through years of story-telling. All children used few formal openings but situated their story in time. HFA and DLD children’s scores for major story constituents like action and obstacle were similar and lower than TD’s. However persons and resolution were notably missing in HFA children’s stories, which contributed to unclear renderings. Linked to their social unawareness, the narrative style coding brought out consistent lack of high-points in HFA
Table 2 Comparison (Chi-square) among groups for the presence of conventional elements and style Narrative elements
Groups % (raw) HFA N = 112 (14 subjects; eight events)
DLD N = 96 (12 subjects; eight events)
TD N = 96 (12 subjects; eight events)
Chi-square comparisons*
p-values
Effect size (Cramer’s V) HFA/DLD
HFA/TD
DLD/TD
0.02
0.06
0.04
0.16
0.35
0.20
Conventional Opening Place
5.3 (6)
6.2 (6)
8.3 (8)
31.2 (35)
46.8 (45)
66.6 (64)
ns HFA = DLD = TD
\.010
Time
34.8 (39)
46.8 (45)
73.9 (71)
HFA = DLD = TD
\.002
0.12
0.39
0.28
Person
37.5 (42)
61.4 (59)
79.1 (76)
HFA \ DLD = TD
\.011
0.24
0.42
0.19
Action Obstacle
66.0 (74) 24.1 (27)
78.1 (75) 35.4 (34)
82.2 (79) 47.9 (46)
HFA = DLD = TD HFA = DLD = TD
\.010 \.001
0.13 0.12
0.13 0.25
0.05 0.11
Resolution
16.9 (19)
28.1 (27)
39.5 (38)
HFA \ DLD \ TD
\.001
0.13
0.25
0.12
Ending
25.0 (28)
39.5 (38)
70.8 (68)
HFA = DLD = TD
\.001
0.15
0.46
0.31
Style Evaluation
8.90 (10)
22.9 (22)
45.8 (44)
HFA \ DLD \ TD
\.001
0.19
0.42
0.24
High point
9.80 (11)
47.9 (46)
71.8 (69)
HFA \ DLD = TD
\.002
0.42
0.64
0.24
Coherence
41.9 (47)
66.6 (64)
84.3 (81)
HFA \ DLD = TD
\.007
0.25
0.43
0.21
Goal
35.7 (40)
55.2 (53)
81.2 (78)
HFA \ DLD \ TD
\.007
0.20
0.45
0.28
Type
21.4 (24)
47.9 (46)
80.2 (77)
HFA \ DLD \ TD
\.001
0.28
0.59
0.34
* When overall chi-square among three groups p \ .05, then, paired comparisons are reported
123
1986
children’s stories. Many HFA children failed to specify goals and information necessary to follow their stories which often made these socially meaningless. Although HFA children had learned the mechanics of story-telling, they did not seem to understand why we tell stories. This finding highlights a narrative component requisite for successful story-telling and provides a clinical tool for distinguishing autistic from non-autistic children with similar language deficits. Losh and Capps (2003) also described HFA children’s deficient personal stories. The lack of a non-autistic language impaired group prevented them from examining language impairment as potential contributor. Inclusion of a DLD group in this study suggests that inadequate language does not preclude generating stories about oneself. If language impairment does not explain all the inadequacies of HFA children’s narratives, social deficits must be a factor. Essentially, Labov and Waletzky’s (1967) model, which proposes that personal narrative organization is linked to the structure of the dialogue between a narrator and a listener predicts that socially impaired HFA children will have difficulty telling personal events. Besides high-points, assessment needs to be sensitive to emotions and conversational practice for sharing information. When relating personal experiences, HFA children relied on lists of facts but few interpretations of behaviors as keys for making sense of events. This seems specific to autism rather than linguistic capacity since DLD children with higher-order language deficits shared communication impairments with HFA children (Rapin and Dunn 2003), but not their pervasive social deficits. A limitation of this study is the use of the WADIC to document autism and of discourse frequencies counts rather than ratio and specific errors. The small sample size given some differences in non-verbal IQ among groups is an issue. Nevertheless the study shows that quality more than format differentiates HFA children’s stories. Their narratives were comparable to most of DLD’s but were more severely deficient. They had more formulation difficulties in narrating emotional events (e.g., first day at school) and those not supported by a routine. Previously undocumented, the lack of high-points in HFA children stands out, together with the deviant understanding of the importance of sharing events. The result was a string of unconnected experiences rather than a meaningful autobiographical story. These findings suggest that children should be encouraged and taught to share their life experiences in meaningful ways to others. Acknowledgments The author thanks K. Nelson for her mentorship and the members of the dissertation committee, M. Dunn, J Glick, C. Daiute, and H. Tager-Flusberg for their comments and suggestions.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988 The author also thanks I. Rapin for her help in recruiting the children with autism and developmental language disorders, her careful editing and insightful remarks on earlier versions of this manuscript. The author thanks L. Dunckel for her participation in coding reliability. Finally the author expresses her gratitude to the children and their family for their generous participation.
Appendix 1 Format of Initial Answer 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Narrative format (organized sequences of multiples sentences) One sentence format (e.g., I have a party) One word format (no narrative, e.g., party) ‘‘I don’t know’’ answer Off-topic (inadequate answer, e.g., I hate my brother) Not applicable because the child did not experience the event Refusal
Appendix 2 Narrative Conventional Elements (Stein 1988) 0: 1:
Absence Presence –
Opening: Formal beginning (e.g., once upon a time, once there was a boy) Setting: Place, Time, Persons Action: Simple or complex activity undertaken by protagonists at beginning of story Obstacle: Event that complicates or interrupts the course of the initiating action and contributes to the story plot. Resolution: Part of the narrative that follows the evaluation which resolves the event. Ending: Final point
– – –
– –
Appendix 3 Narrative Style – Evaluation: Narrative clauses that reveal the attitude of the narrator towards the event and provide affective commentary on the event. 0: 1: 2:
No evaluation, flat rendering. Formulaic evaluation, e.g., ‘‘it’s great.’’ Evaluation concerns only physical environment, e.g., ‘‘this is the darkest cave.’’
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988
3:
Evaluation concerns elaborated people’s behavior or mental states, e.g., ‘‘I felt bad leaving her.’’
– Coherence: Property of the whole narrative that ensures the logical interconnecting of units. 0: 1:
Story violates the logical sequence of events Story follows a logical sequence (presence of causal markers).
– Goal directed: refers to a goal-directed sequence of events that are temporally and causally linked, e.g., ‘‘When I was a little girl, I really wanted to have a tool box for my birthday, I knew my dad wouldn’t buy it for me so I talked to my grandfather and told him what I really wanted, and the next day he got it for me, I was so happy.’’ 0: 1:
Story is constructed without a goal, no motive, descriptive only. Story is constructed around a goal, a motive.
– High-point: Climactic moment, usually followed by an evaluation 0: 1:
no high-point presence of a high-point
– Story type: 0:
1:
2:
Description only: refers to narratives containing no sequence structure, e.g., ‘‘it’s was an hotel we were in room 223’’. Or temporal descriptive sequence of actions, e.g., ‘‘She was the teacher, her name was Mrs. Smith, she had long hair, she always had a skirt.’’ Action only. refers to a list of actions that are chronologically rather than causally ordered e.g., ‘‘Once I went to the zoo to see the panda, I took the train and I ate a picnic, I visited the panda and I fed the elephants, and I came home.’’ Intentional: refers to temporal and causally linked sequences of events, e.g., ‘‘There was this party at school last year I really wanted to go to and I didn’t know how to ask my Mom, so for two weeks I did all she wanted me to do and was really good, then I talked to her about the party and she said I could go because I behaved so well.’’
References American Psychological Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, DSM III-R (3rd rev. edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. American Psychological Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, DSM IV (4th edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
1987 Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Cohen, D. J. (2000). Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bishop, D. V., & Adams, C. (1989). Conversational characteristics of children with semantic-pragmatic disorder. II: What features lead to a judgment of inappropriacy? British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 24, 241–263. doi:10.3109/ 13682828909019890. Bruner, J., & Feldman, C. (1994). Theories of mind and the problem of autism. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from autism (pp. 267–291). New York: Oxford University Press. Capps, L., Kehres, J., & Sigman, M. (1998). Conversational abilities among children with autism and children with developmental delays. Autism, 2,325–344. Diehl, J. J., Bennetto, L., & Young, E. C. (2006). Story recall and narrative coherence of high-functioning children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 87–102. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-9003-x. Dunn, L., & Dunn, I. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary testrevised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Hobson, R. P., Chidambi, G., Lee, A., & Meyer, J. (2006). Foundations for self-awareness: An exploration through autism. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 167–179. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.2006.00410.x. Hresko, W., Reid, D., & Hammill, D. (1981). The test of early language. Austin TX: Pro-Ed. Hudson, J., & Shapiro, R. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp. 12–44). Seattle: University of Washington Press. Losh, M., & Capps, L. (2003). Narrative ability in high-functioning children with autism or Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 239–251. doi:10.1023/ A:1024446215446. Loveland, K., McEvoy, R., & Tunali, B. (1990). Narrative story telling in autism and Down’s syndrome. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8, 9–23. Loveland, K., & Tunali, B. (1991). Social scripts for conversational interactions in autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 21, 177–186. doi:10.1007/ BF02284758. Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press. Nelson, K., & Fivush, R. (2004). The emergence of autobiographical memory: A social cultural developmental theory. Psychological Review, 111, 486–511. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.486. Norbury, C. F., & Bishop, D. V. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 287–313. doi:10.1080/136820310000108133. Ramberg, C., Ehlers, S., Nyden, A., Johansson, M., & Gillberg, C. (1996). Language and pragmatic functions in school-age children on the autism spectrum. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 31, 387–413. doi:10.3109/13682829609031329. Rapin, I. (1996). Preschool children with inadequate communication, developmental language disorder, autism, low IQ. London: Mac Keith. Rapin, I., & Allen, D. A. (1998). The semantic-pragmatic deficit disorder: Classification issues. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 33, 82–87. Rapin, I., & Dunn, M. (2003). Update on the language disorders of individuals on the autistic spectrum. Brain and Development, 25, 166–172. doi:10.1016/S0387-7604(02) 00191-2.
123
1988 Roth, F. P., & Spekman, N. J. (1986). Narrative discourse: Spontaneously generated stories of learning-disabled and normally achieving students. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 8–23. Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1989). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (3rd edn.). New York: The Psychological Corporation. Stein, N. L. (1988). The development of children’s storytelling skill. In M. B. Franklin & S. Barten (Eds.), Child language: A reader (pp. 282–279). New York: Oxford University. Thorndike, R. L., Hagel, E. P., & Satler, J. M. (1986). StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale (4th edn.). Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing Co. Trillingsgaard, A. (1999). The script model in relation to autism. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 8, 45–49. doi:10.1007/s007870050082.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:1982–1988 Volden, J., & Johnston, J. (1999). Cognitive scripts in autistic children and adolescents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 203–211. doi:10.1023/A:1023028021580. Wing, L. (1996). Wing autistic diagnostic interview checklist. In I. Rapin (Ed.), Preschool children with inadequate communication (Appendix). London: Mac Keith. Young, E. C., Diehl, J. J., Morris, D., Hyman, S. L., & Bennetto, L. (2005). The use of two language tests to identify pragmatic language problems in children with autism spectrum disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 62–72. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2005/006).
