Measuring Pragmatic Language in Speakers With Autism Spectrum Disorders: Comparing the Children’s Communication Checklist—2 and the Test of Pragmatic Language
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2), a parent report instrument, with the Test of Pragmatic Language (TOPL), a test administered to the child, on the ability to identify pragmatic language impairment in speakers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who had age-appropriate structural language skills. METHOD: Sixteen rigorously diagnosed children with ASD were matched to 16 typically developing children on age, nonverbal IQ, and structural language skill. Both groups were given the TOPL, and their parents completed the CCC-2. RESULTS: The CCC-2 identified 13 of the 16 children with ASD as pragmatically impaired, while the TOPL identified only 9. Neither test identified any of the children in the control group as having pragmatic language impairment. CONCLUSIONS: In these children with ASD, who displayed age-appropriate structural language skills, the CCC-2 identified pragmatic language impairment better than the TOPL. Clinically, this can be useful in documenting the presence of language dysfunction when traditional standardized language assessments would not reveal communication problems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it