Partner Influences on the Social Pretend Play of Children With Language Impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study examined the social pretend play and conversational behaviors of children with language impairment (LI) in dyadic interactions with peers. METHOD: The participants (aged 4;3 [years;months] to 6;2) were 3 boys with LI and 4 with typical language development (LN). In this multiple embedded case study, hypotheses regarding the sophistication of verbal interaction and social pretend play were developed and tested with respect to two cases. Each case consisted of five interactions-four involving a child with LI in dyadic play with peers (2 LI, 2 LN), and the last involving the 2 LN peers. The dyad types for each case were LI, mixed, and LN. Within each case, LI dyads were expected to perform less well than mixed dyads, who were, in turn, expected to perform less well than the LN dyad on measures of verbal interaction and social pretend play. Also, greater conversational success was expected in social pretend play than in other forms of play for all dyads. RESULTS: For both cases, the results for verbal sophistication generally conformed to expectations for the dyad types. In contrast, social pretend play behaviors were inconsistent with expectations across dyads and cases. In all dyads, social pretend play yielded greater conversational success than other forms of play. The quality of play varied as a function of partner characteristics, such as responsiveness, theme knowledge, verbal skill, and adaptability. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians are cautioned to ensure that evaluations of play in children with LI encompass multiple aspects of both play and conversation, as well as observation of children with multiple partners. Likewise, in planning interventions, it may be important to address both play and verbal behaviors and to incorporate opportunities for interaction with multiple partners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".