Validation of the Conversation Participation Rating Scale

Background: Speech-language pathologists frequently use norm-referenced pragmatic language tests to identify children’s pragmatic deficits (Adams, 2002). Clinical and research reports reveal that a) Some children achieve standard scores within the normal range even though parents and teachers have significant concerns about children’s pragmatic skills (Volden & Phillips, 2010); and b) Standard scores do not yield sufficient description of children’s skills for determination of intervention goals, activities, and progress (Paul, 2009). We are developing the Conversation Participation Rating Scale (CPRS), a self-report measure of conversation participation for school-aged children, ages 8 to 16 years, to address some of these limitations. 

The conceptual roots for the development of the CPRS originate from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF; World Health Organization, 2001).  The ICF provides a taxonomy that describes human functioning and restrictions. Participation is a major component of the taxonomy and reflects the nature and extent of an individual’s involvement in life situations including how others facilitate the individual’s participation (or nonparticipation). An important “life situation” for school-age children is conversation. Within the ICF framework, participation includes children’s perception of their own words and actions in conversations as well as perceptions of peers’ words and actions towards them. Children’s parents have some knowledge about children’s participation in conversations with peers (particularly during the preschool years); however, peer interactions among school-age students become more covert and complex over time. Older children’s self-report of peer interactions may be more valid than parent reports (Crick, Casas, & Nelson, 2002).

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to present initial psychometric analyses of the CPRS.  Children’s performance on the CPRS will be compared to parent report measures of children’s social language skills and children’s performance on two norm-referenced language measures.

Methods: The pilot version of the CPRS has utilized item response theory and Rasch analysis (Linacre, 1991). A pool of 119 statements reflecting conversation skills and situations (e.g., “I greet other students”; “Other students greet me, “I know how to join a group of students”) was developed from review of the extant literature, existing measures, and family interviews. CPRS items are read to child participants and the participant selects one of six frequency-based responses ranging from never to always. In addition to the CPRS, the study protocol includes administration of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test-Second Edition (Kaufmann & Kaufmann, 2004), the Test of Pragmatic Language-2 (Phelps-Terasaki & Phelps-Gunn, 2007) and the Social Language Development Test (Bowers, Huisingh & LoGiudice, 2008; 2010). Participants complete a second self-report measure, the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS; Gresham & Elliott, 2008).  Parents complete the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (Bishop, 2003) and the parent version of the SSIS.

 Results: Data collection is still in progress. To date, we have recruited 14 participants with autism spectrum disorders and 24 control participants.

 Conclusions: Rasch analysis will be used to discuss child trait level, item difficulty and best fit items.  The relationship among CPRS performance, parent report measures, and child test measures will be discussed.