Department of Psychonomics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009 Sep-Oct;44(5):549-74. doi: 10.1080/13682820802243344.
A number of disorders are associated with pragmatic difficulties. Instruments that can make subdivisions within the larger construct of pragmatics could be important tools for disentangling profiles of pragmatic difficulty in different disorders. The deficits underlying the observed pragmatic difficulties may be different for different disorders.
To study the construct validity of a pragmatic language questionnaire.
METHOD & PROCEDURES: The construct of pragmatics is studied by applying exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis to the parent version of the Dutch Children's Communication Checklist (CCC; Bishop 1998 ). Parent ratings of 1589 typically developing children and 481 children with a clinical diagnosis were collected. Four different factor models derived from the original CCC scales and five different factor models based on EFA were compared with each other. The models were cross-validated.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The EFA-derived models were substantively different from the originally proposed CCC factor structure. EFA models gave a slightly better fit than the models based on the original CCC scales, though neither provided a good fit to the parent data. Coherence seemed to be part of language form and not of pragmatics, which is in line with the adaptation of the CCC, the CCC-2 (Bishop 2003 ). Most pragmatic items clustered together in one factor and these pragmatic items also clustered with items related to social relationships and specific interests.
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The nine scales of the original CCC do not reflect the underlying factor structure. Therefore, scale composition may be improved on and scores on subscale level need to be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, in interpreting the CCC profiles, the overall measure might be more informative than the postulated subscales as more information is needed to determine which constructs the suggested subscales are actually measuring.
许多障碍与语用困难有关。能够对语用学这一更大结构进行细分的工具可能是在不同障碍中梳理语用困难特征的重要工具。不同障碍中观察到的语用困难的潜在缺陷可能不同。
研究语用语言问卷的结构效度。
通过对荷兰儿童沟通检查表(CCC)的家长版本(Bishop 1998)进行探索性因素分析(EFA)和验证性因素分析来研究语用学的结构。收集了 1589 名典型发育儿童和 481 名有临床诊断的儿童的家长评分。比较了来自原始 CCC 量表的四个不同因子模型和基于 EFA 的五个不同因子模型。对模型进行了交叉验证。
EFA 衍生模型与最初提出的 CCC 因子结构在实质上有所不同。EFA 模型比基于原始 CCC 量表的模型更符合数据,尽管它们都没有很好地拟合家长数据。一致性似乎是语言形式的一部分,而不是语用学的一部分,这与 CCC 的改编一致,即 CCC-2(Bishop 2003)。大多数语用项目聚集在一个因子中,这些语用项目也与与社会关系和特定兴趣相关的项目聚集在一起。
原始 CCC 的九个量表并不反映潜在的因子结构。因此,需要改进量表组成,谨慎解释子量表水平的分数。因此,在解释 CCC 特征时,整体测量可能比假设的子量表更具信息量,因为需要更多的信息来确定建议的子量表实际上在测量哪些结构。