Using a Peer Conflict Resolution Task to Assess Adolescent Syntactic Development

Literature Review:
Nippold, Marilyn A., Mansfield, Tracy C., Billow, Jesse L., Tomblin, J. Bruce Syntactic Development in Adolescents with a History of Language Impairments: A Follow-Up Investigation Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2008 0: 1058-0360_2008_08-0022

The researchers found that using a Peer Conflict Resolution (PCR) task to elicit a language sample for adolescent students was an effective naturalistic tool for evaluating syntactic development to supplement standardized assessment.

How it's done:
The SLP reads aloud the scenarios to the student. Then the student retells the scenario. If they left out pertinent details, misreported details, or changed the characters names, the SLP rereads the scenario and asks the student to try again. Then the SLP asks a series of questions. (Estimated time for 2 scenarios: 9 minutes)

Story A: “The Science Fair”
John’s* (Debbie’s) teacher assigned him (her) to work with three other boys
(girls) on a project for the science fair. The boys (girls) decided to build a model
airplane that could actually fly. All of the boys (girls) except one, a boy (girl)
named Bob (Melanie), worked hard on the project. Bob (Melanie) refused to do
anything and just let the others do all the work. This bothered John (Debbie) very
much.

Questions:
1. What is the main problem here?
2. Why is that a problem?
3. What is a good way for John (Debbie) to deal with Bob (Melanie)?
4. Why is that a good way for John (Debbie) to deal with Bob (Melanie)?
5. What do you think will happen if John (Debbie) does that?
6. How do you think they both will feel if John (Debbie) does that?

Story B: “The Fast-Food Restaurant”
Mike and Peter (Jane and Kathy) work at a fast-food restaurant together. It is
Mike’s (Jane’s) turn to work on the grill, which he (she) really likes to do, and it
is Peter’s (Kathy’s) turn to do the garbage. Peter (Kathy) says his (her) arm is
sore and asks Mike (Jane) to switch jobs with him (her), but Mike (Jane) doesn’t
want to lose his (her) chance on the grill.

Questions:
1. What is the main problem here?
2. Why is that a problem?
3. What is a good way for Mike (Jane) to deal with Peter (Kathy)?
4. Why is that a good way for Mike (Jane) to deal with Peter (Kathy)?
5. What do you think will happen if Mike (Jane) does that?
6. How do you think they both will feel if Mike (Jane) does that?

* Male names (John, Bob, Mike, Peter) were used with male participants, and
female names (Debbie, Melanie, Jane, Kathy) were used with female participants in an effort to increase each adolescent’s ability to relate to the main characters.

"After eliciting a language sample, transcribing it into T-units, and entering it into SALT, the SLP may wish to code the sample for the use of subordinate clauses, keeping in mind that Mean Length of T-unit, Clausal Density, and Nominal Clause Use were the variables on which the TLD group outperformed both the SLI and NLI groups on the PCR task. After analyzing the sample for syntactic complexity, it may be useful for the SLP to examine it more subjectively, evaluating the content of the adolescent’s responses to questions concerning the nature of the conflict, how it should be handled, and what the outcome might be. This type of qualitative analysis is important because young people with language impairments often have poor peer relationships. (Brinton & Fujiki, 1993;Brinton et al., 1998; Fujiki et al., 1996; Fujiki et al., 2001; Hart et al., 2004)."

Planning Intervention

When clients demonstrate deficits in complex syntax, SLPs often target those problems directly, employing activities such as asking the client to imitate the desired sentence types, to combine simple sentences into complex sentences, or to engage in sentence completion tasks in an effort to increase the overall length and complexity of the speaker’s utterances. While there is evidence that these types of intervention activities can be effective, the newly learned skills may not generalize to natural language production unless they are addressed in meaningful communicative contexts (Eisenberg, 2006; Paul, 2007). Thus, the SLP might consider focusing more attention on the content of what is being said and factors that might motivate a speaker to use complex syntax.

For example, it has been reported that children, adolescents, and adults use substantially greater syntactic complexity during expository discourse compared to conversational discourse, particularly when explaining something intricate and of high personal interest (Nippold, in press). This suggests that intervention for syntax should occur during activities where adolescents are encouraged to talk about complex topics that interest them. To be effective, language intervention with adolescents must be cognitively stimulating and relevant to their lives.

During adolescence, positive peer relationships are a major source of personal growth and emotional well being, offering friendship, support, and guidance as a young person makes the often bumpy journey from the protected world of childhood to the autonomy of adulthood (Schickedanz, Schickedanz, Forsyth, & Forsyth, 2001). Given the importance of peer relationships to adolescents’ social and emotional development, efforts to build their knowledge base in this domain may be an excellent context in which to address the use of complex syntax.