Clinical Assessment of Communication Disorders: The Validity and Reliability Study of the Turkish Version of the "Communication Skills Checklist-2 (IBKL-2)"

Abstract

Objective: Evaluation of pragmatic language skills is very important in determining language and speech disorders. Considering the limitedness of the evaluation tools on this subject in our country, it was thought that it would be appropriate to adapt a tool that is frequently used by many countries. The aim of this study is to create the Turkish version of the "Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2)" tool, which was developed by Bishop (2003), and to perform the validity and reliability study. The name of the Turkish version of the tool has been determined as Communication Skills Checklist – 2.
Materials and Methods: The sample of the study consists of 1115 children aged 4-15 who are educated in seventeen institutions (6 kindergartens, 4 primary schools, 4 secondary schools and 3 special education and rehabilitation centers) affiliated to the Ministry of National Education in Ankara province Çankaya and Mamak districts. The adaptation study of the test was carried out by taking into account the international test adaptation principles developed in the test adaptation and translation process in the APA, AERA and NCME Measurement Standards in Education and Psychology (1999). The entire sample was included in the validity and reliability study of the instrument. In order to determine the reliability of the tool, internal consistency Cronbach alpha reliability analysis and test-retest method were applied. The validity of the tool was tested using construct validity methods.
Results: As a result of the analyzes, it was found that the 10-factor structure of the scale was acceptable according to the CFA results of IBK-2, and the model fit indices were at a good level (χ2/sd=2.00, RMSEA=0.054, SRMR=0.065, NNFI=0.95, CFI=0.96). Differential validity analyzes revealed that there were significant differences in IBKL-2 scores between normally developing children and children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Conclusion: It has been concluded that the tool is suitable for Turkish language and culture, has good reliability and sufficient validity, and is a suitable tool for evaluating the communication skills of children whose primary language is Turkish.

Keywords

• Pragmatic language development
• communicative language skills
• communication skills checklist
• pragmatic language disorder

İletişim Bozukluklarının Klinik Olarak Değerlendirilmesi: “İletişim Becerileri Kontrol Listesi-2 (İBKL-2)”nin Türkçe Versiyonunun Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Dil ve konuşma bozukluklarının belirlenmesinde pragmatik dil becerilerinin değerlendirilmesi oldukça önemlidir. Ülkemizde bu konuya ilişkin değerlendirme araçlarının sınırlılığı dikkate alınarak öncelikle birçok ülke tarafından sıklıkla kullanılan bir aracın uyarlanmasının uygun olacağı düşünülmüştür. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Bishop (2003) tarafından İngilizce versiyonu geliştirilen “Children’s Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2)” aracının Türkçe versiyonunu oluşturmak ve geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmasını gerçekleştirmektir. Aracın Türkçe versiyonunun ismi İletişim Becerileri Kontrol Listesi – 2 olarak belirlenmiştir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmanın örneklemi Ankara ili Çankaya ve Mamak ilçelerinde bulunan Milli Eğitim Bakanlığına bağlı on yedi kurumda (6 ana okul, 4 ilkokul, 4 ortaokul ve 3 özel eğitim ve rehabilitasyon merkezi) eğitim gören 4-15 yaş grubu 1115 çocuktan oluşmaktadır. Testin uyarlama çalışması, APA, AERA ve NCME Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme Standartları’nda (1999) test uyarlama ve çeviri sürecinde geliştirilen uluslararası test uyarlama ilkeleri dikkate alınarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tüm örneklem aracın geçerlik, güvenirlik çalışmasına dâhil edilmiştir. Aracın güvenirliğini belirlemek amacıyla iç tutarlılık Cronbach alfa güvenirlik analizi ile test tekrar test yöntemi uygulanmıştır. Aracın geçerliliği ise yapı geçerliliği yöntemleri kullanılarak test edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Analizlerin sonucunda İBKL-2’nin DFA sonuçlarına göre ölçeğin 10 faktörlü yapısının kabul edilebilir olduğu, model uyum indekslerinin iyi düzeyde olduğu (χ2/sd=2.00, RMSEA=0.054, SRMR=0.065, NNFI=0.95, CFI=0.96) bulunmuştur. Ayırt edici geçerlilik analizleri ise normal gelişim gösteren ve Otizm Spektrum Bozukluğu olan çocuklar arasında İBKL-2 puanları arasında anlamlı farklılıklar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.
Sonuç: Aracın Türk dili ve kültürüne uygun, iyi düzeyde güvenirlik ve yeterli düzeyde geçerlilik gösterdiği, birincil dili Türkçe olan çocukların iletişim becerilerini değerlendirmek için kullanıma uygun bir araç olduğu sonucu elde edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Pragmatik dil gelişimi
• iletişimsel dil becerileri
• iletişim becerileri kontrol listesi
• pragmatik dil bozukluğu

References

1. Adams, C. (2002a). Practitioner Review: The assessment of language pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 973-987. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00226
2. Adams, C. (2002b). Conversational behaviour of children with Asperger syndrome and conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(5), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00056
3. Adams, C. (2015). Social communication development and disorders. D. Hwa-Froelich, D (Ed.) Assessment and intervention for children with pragmatic language impairment. (pp. 141-170) içinde. Psychology Press Ltd.
4. Adams, C., Cooke, R., Crutchley, A. , Hesketh, A. ve Reeves, D. (2001). Assessment of comprehension and expression 6-11 (ACE 6-11). NFER-Nelson.
5. Adams, C., Green, J., Gilchrist, A. ve Cox, A. (2002). Conversational behaviour of children with Asperger syndrome and conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43(5), 679–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00056
6. Adams, C., Baxendale, J., Lloyd, J. ve Aldred, C. (2005). Pragmatic language impairment: Case studies of social and pragmatic language therapy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(3), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659005ct290oa
7. Aktaş, B. ve Çifci-Tekinarslan, İ. (2021). Pragmatik Dil Testi-2 (PDT-2) Türkçeye uyarlanması. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(3), 848-862. https://dx.doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2021.21.64908-907266
8. Albright, J. J. ve Park H. M. (2009). Confirmatory Factor Analysis Using Amos, LISREL, Mplus, and SAS/STAT CALIS. Bloomington: University Information Technology Services Center for Statistical and Mathematical Computing Indiana University Press.

9. Alev, G. (2011). Pragmatik Dil Becerileri Envanteri'nin Türkçe standardizasyon çalışması. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
10. Asal, D. (2021). Türkçe konuşan 5-8 yaş arası kekemeliği olan çocukların pragmatik dil becerilerinin Araştırılması. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
11. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1999). Washington. American Educational Research Association.
12. Amerikan Psikiyatri Birliği. (2014). Ruhsal bozuklukların tanısal ve sayımsal el kitabı (5. baskı) (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders) (E. Köroğlu, Çev. ed.). Hekimler Yayın Birliği. (Orijinal kitabın yayın tarihi 2013).
13. American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (n.d.). Communication Disorders. Retrieved from https://www.asha.org/practice-portal/clinical-topics/social-communication-disorder/
14. Baykul, Y. (2010). Eğitimde ve psikolojide ölçme: Klasik test teorisi ve uygulaması. (2. Baskı). Pegem A Akademi.
15. Bishop, D. V. M. (1998). Development of the Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC): A method for assessing qualitative aspects of communicative impairment in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00388
16. Bishop, D. V. M. (2000). pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In Leonard, L. B. ve Bishop, D. V. M. (Eds.), Speech and Language Impairments in Children: Causes, Characteristics, Intervention and Outcome. (pp. 99–113). Hove: Psychology Press.
17. Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). The Children’s Communication Checklist- Second Edition CCC-2 Manual. London: Harcourt Assessment.
18. Bishop, D. V. M. ve Adams, C. (1989). Conversational characteristics of children with semantic-pragmatic disorder. II. What features lead to a judgement of inappropriacy? British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 24, 241-63. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682828909019890
19. Bishop, D. V. M. ve Rosenbloom, L. (1987). Classification of childhood language disorders. In Yule, W. ve Rutter, M. (Ed.), Language development and disorders. (pp. 16-41). Mac Keith Press, Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications Ltd.
20. Botting, N. (2002). Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments. Child Language Teaching ve Therapy, 18(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265659002ct224oa.
21. Botting, N. ve Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Autism, primary pragmatic difficulties, and specific language impairment: Can we distinguish them using psycholinguistic markers? Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 45(8), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012162203000963
22. Botting, N. ve Conti-Ramsden, G. (1999). Pragmatic language impairment without Autism: The children in question. Autism 3 (4), 371-96. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1362361399003004005
23. Brenne, E. ve Rimehaug, T. (2019). Pragmatic language impairment general and specific associations to mental health symptom dimensions in a child psychiatric sample. Scandinavian Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology, 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.21307/sjcapp-2019-001
24. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2020). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı istatistik, araştırma deseni SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum. (12. Baskı). Pegem Akademi.
25. Cardillo, R., Garcia, R. B., Mammarella, I. C. ve Cornoldi, C. (2018). Pragmatics of language and theory of mind in children with dyslexia with associated language difficulties or nonverbal learning disabilities. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 7(3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2017.1297946
26. Diken, Ö. (2014). Pragmatic language skills of children with developmental disabilities: A descriptive and relational study in Turkey. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 55, 109-122. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.14689/ejer.2014.55.7
27. Düver, E. (2006). 5-7 yaş grubu normal gelişim gösteren ve özel gereksinimi olan çocukların dil kullanım (pragmatik) becerilerinin karşılaştırılması. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
28. Etlan, E. ve Acarlar, F. (2021). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerde pragmatik dil ile okuduğunu anlama arasındaki ilişki. Gaziantep Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 5 (1) , 66-84. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/guebd/issue/64742/947582
29. Ferrara, M., Camia, M., Cecere, V., Villata, V., Vivenzio, N., Scorza, M. ve Padovani, R. (2020). Language and pragmatics across neurodevelopmental disorders: an ınvestigation using the ıtalian version of CCC-2. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04358-6
30. Geurts, H. M., Verte, S., Oosterlaan, J., Roeyers, H., Hartman, C. A. ve Mulder, E. J. (2004). Can the children's communication checklist differentiate between children with autism, children with ADHD, and normal controls? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 1437-1453. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00326.x
31. Griffiths, C. C. B. (2007). Pragmatic abilities in adults with and without dyslexia: A pilot study. Dyslexia, 13(4), 276-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.333
32. Hambleton, R. K. ve Patsula, L. (1999) Increasing the validity of adapted tests: Myths to be avoided and guidelines for improving test adaptation practices, Applied Testing Technology Journal, 1(1), 1-30. http://www.jattjournal.com/index.php/atp/article/view/48345
33. Helland, W. A., Biringer, E., Helland, T. ve Heimann, M. (2009). The usability of a Norwegian adaptation of the Children's Communication Checklist Second Edition (CCC-2) in differentiating between language impaired and non-language impaired 6- to 12-year-olds. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(3), 287-292. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00718.x
34. Helland, W. A. ve Heiman, M. (2007). Assessment of pragmatic language impairment in children referred to psychiatric services: a pilot study of the Children’s Communication Checklist in a Norwegian sample. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 32, 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14015430600712056
35. Hewitt, L. (2000). Assessing communicative intents: A situated pragmatics approach. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21, 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-13199
36. Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental Review, 26 (1), 55-88. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
37. Hoff, E. ve Tian, C. (2005) Socioeconomic status and cultural influences on language. Journal of Communication Disorders. 38 (4), 271-278. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2005.02.003
38. Hoffmann, A., Martens, M. A., Fox, R., Rabidoux P. ve Andridge, R. (2013). Pragmatic Language Assessment in Williams Syndrome: A Comparison of the Test of Pragmatic Language -2 and the Children's Communication Checklist-2. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22 (2), 198-204. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0131)
39. Im-Bolter, N. ve Cohen, N. J. (2007). Language impairment and psychiatric comorbidities. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 54(3), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2007.02.008
40. Ketelaars, M.B., Cuperus, J.M., Daal, J.V. ve Jansonius, K. (2009). Screening for pragmatic language impairment: the potential of The Children’s Communication Checklist. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 952–960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.01.006
41. Kıyak, E. Ü. ve Diken, Ö. (2018). Zihinsel yetersizliği olan ilkokul kaynaştırma öğrencilerinin pragmatik dil becerileri. İlköğretim Online, 17(1), 239-254. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2018.413760
42. Laws, G. ve Bishop, D. V. M. (2004). Pragmatic Language impairment and social deficits in williams syndrome: a comparison with Down's syndrome and specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820310001615797
43. Lee, M., Bush, L., Martin, G.E., Barstein, J., Maltman, N., Klusek, J. ve Losh, M. (2017). A Multi-Method Investigation of Pragmatic Development in Individuals With Down Syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122(4), 289–309. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-122.4.289
44. Letts, C. ve Leinonen, E. (2001). Comprehension of inferential meaning in language-impaired and language normal children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 307– 328. https://doi.org/10.1080/13682820110045829
45. Lieven, E., Pine, J. ve Barnes, H. D. (1992). Individual differences in early vocabulary development: Redefining the referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language, 19, 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900011429
46. Mandy, W., Wang, A., Lee, I. ve Skuse, D. (2017). Evaluating social (pragmatic) communication disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 58 (10), 1166-1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12785
47. Martin, G., Bush, L., Klusek, J., Patel, S. ve Losh, M. (2018). A Multimethod Analysis of Pragmatic Skills in Children and Adolescents With Fragile X Syndrome, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Down Syndrome. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 61 (12), 3023-3037. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0008
48. Norbury, C.F. (2013). Practitioner Review: Social (pragmatic) communication disorder conceptualization, evidence and clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,55(3), 204-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12154
49. Norbury, C. F. ve Bishop, D. V. M. (2003). Narrative skills of children with communication impairments. International Journal of Language ve Communication Disorders, 38(3), 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/136820310000108133
50. Owens, R. (2016). Language development. An introduction. (9. Baskı). Needham Heeights:MA: Allyn ve Bacon.
51. Phelps-Terasaki, D. ve Phelps-Gunn, T. (2007). TOPL-2: Test of Pragmatic Language. Pro-Ed.
52. Prutting, C. A. ve Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech ve Hearing Disorders, 52(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5202.105
53. Rapin, I. ve Allen, A. (1983). Developmental language disorders: Norological considerations. In Kirk, U. (Ed.), Neuropsychology of Language, Reading and Spelling. (pp. 155-184). London: Academic Press.
54. Seçkin Yılmaz, Ş. ve Şemşedinovska, B. (2020). Öğrenme güçlüğü olan ve olmayan öğrencilerin pragmatik dil becerilerinin incelenmesi. Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3 (3) 335-355. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/dkyad/issue/59228/782045
55. Smith, E., Naess, K. ve Jarrold, C. (2017). Assessing pragmatic communication in children with Down syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders. 68, 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.06.003
56. Stein A., Menti A. ve Rosemberg C.R. (2021). Socioeconomic status differences in the linguistic environment: a study with Spanish-speaking populations in Argentina. Early Years. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2021.1904383
57. Şencan, H. (2005). Sosyal ve davranışsal ölçümlerde güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik. (1. Baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.
58. Şimşek, Ö.F. (2007). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş: Temel ilkeler ve LISREL uygulamaları. (1. Baskı). Ekinoks Yayınları.
59. Temel F., Ekici K.B. ve İmir, M. (2018). Dil Gelişimi. N. Aral ve F. Temel (Edt.) içinde. Çocuk Gelişimi. (1. Baskı). Hedef Yayıncılık.
60. Tezel, D. (2015). Erken çocuklukta günlük iletişim becerilerinin pragmatik profillerinin değerlendirilmesi. [Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Trakya Üniversitesi]. YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
61. Torre Carril, A. ve Pérez-Pereira, M., (2019). Pragmatic abilities in children with ASD, ADHD, Down syndrome and typical development through the Galician version of the CCC-2. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 39 (3), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlfa.2019.03.003
62. Wiig, E. ve Secord, W. (1989) Test of Language Competence: Technical manual (9780158955605): Books.