METHODS: Twenty-five typically developing children and 25 children with Down syndrome aged between 12 and 36 months were involved in this study. They were recruited from an early intervention center and various kindergartens from the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Their play skills were assessed using the Symbolic Play Test Second Edition, and information about their vocabulary was obtained through the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories that was filled out by their parents.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the vocabulary and symbolic play scores of children with Down syndrome compared with typically developing children. There was also a positive correlation between symbolic play scores and receptive and expressive vocabulary scores for both groups of children.
CONCLUSION: When providing intervention, speech-language pathologists need to promote the development of symbolic play in addition to language, given the association between the two. They should also look into introducing an augmentative and alternative communication system to the children who demonstrate age-appropriate symbolic play skills but have trouble with symbolic language production.
Methods: The participants were 381 Malay students (188 male; 193 female), aged 10-12 years old, with a mean age of 10.94 (SD = 0.81). The original version of the TTM was translated into the Malay language using forward and backward translation. Certain phrases were adapted based on the local culture and vocabulary suitable for primary school students.
Results: The final measurement models and their fit indices were: processes of change (CFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.925, SRMR = 0.040, RMSEA = 0.030); decisional balance (CFI = 0.897, TLI = 0.864, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.038); and self-efficacy (CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.915, SRMR = 0.042, RMSEA = 0.032).
Conclusion: Care must be taken when using the TTM with children, as it has been prevalently validated with adults. The final version of the TTM questionnaire for Malay primary school children had 24 items for process of changes, 13 items for self-efficacy and 10 items for decisional balance.
METHOD: In 1995, using a language rating scale constructed by the authors, six standardized patients evaluated the English-language proficiencies of 127 second-year medical student undergraduates enrolled at the University of Adelaide, Australia, many of whom were from a non-English speaking background.
RESULTS: An earlier standardized test (Screening Test for Adolescent Language) had identified approximately one third of the students as potentially experiencing difficulties in using English in their training. Students so identified were rated lower than were their peers by the standardized patients.
CONCLUSION: The study proved useful both in identifying aspects of speech that can be reasonably rated by standardized patients and also in identifying students who might benefit from language interventions. Replication studies with the new instrument are required to further establish its reliability, validity, and generalizability across different student cohorts.