a quantification and analysis of verbal interaction
Post on 16-Oct-2021
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Portland State University Portland State University
PDXScholar PDXScholar
Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses
9-1-1969
A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction
between clinician and client in a public school between clinician and client in a public school
setting setting
Norma C McAleer Portland State University
Follow this and additional works at httpspdxscholarlibrarypdxeduopen_access_etds
Let us know how access to this document benefits you
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation McAleer Norma C A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting (1969) Dissertations and Theses Paper 263 httpsdoiorg1015760etd263
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible pdxscholarpdxedu
( b)
of Oftc] G middot1 J ~ ~
ejther of the two categories meier study It rmiddotl chmvn hmver that
there was a negative cormiddotrelat5 on bet1fl88rt t) jilKuni of vorbaJ) 3ation
of clinician and cHont11ght l)lit ~)f n1rt( Uni-5rm talkcJ rLOre
verbaltzation used by the cJillllCLns ~(Jth~il (10 (of Dctitive ~md
to bear little or no re13tJcIshi-J t-ich~ kinds of~ttMmiddotarC0f used by
the clinician Analysis of Iositiv6 flnc co)criptive utt8ran~es showed
a high posi tiv6 correlatjoll r~hile mcmiddotst )f tlid othEr eategories shc1middotwd
evidence of a moderate nega tLve lela t~l omhip
Further study wpounds suggo s tc1 foJ the f o1Jomiddotrl~lmiddot ~
(a) a survny (If the ctUferelitLechn 1 ques used by ~lirddtnS
(b) the effect of difforcmt t(~(rni qUI~ otl the amount of verblizatioll used bj ~-tl( cLLn~ci an and client
(c) the modificlt-tlon of (c coc+rr of th c1lent~ s responses by tho ~~l_l~ri~ (L lijterimC3S used by Ul(1
clinician
The present study may be of most value in i~GieltIng [ possible ll)~ns
(Iof constructing a profi le of the kinds ) UtterHllces u~(-d
clinician
INlWAClIm BETfJZi~ (IItUCIAN AND CIIENf
IN A PUBLIC SCHOOl SE1~ING
by
A th~~Dis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIE1WE in
SFtltfCH PATHOLOGY
rmiddotJo- - -rJPORnM~D snf 0 ~ bullbull 1
structiVI cd tIcLsm JC(tlg
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
( b)
of Oftc] G middot1 J ~ ~
ejther of the two categories meier study It rmiddotl chmvn hmver that
there was a negative cormiddotrelat5 on bet1fl88rt t) jilKuni of vorbaJ) 3ation
of clinician and cHont11ght l)lit ~)f n1rt( Uni-5rm talkcJ rLOre
verbaltzation used by the cJillllCLns ~(Jth~il (10 (of Dctitive ~md
to bear little or no re13tJcIshi-J t-ich~ kinds of~ttMmiddotarC0f used by
the clinician Analysis of Iositiv6 flnc co)criptive utt8ran~es showed
a high posi tiv6 correlatjoll r~hile mcmiddotst )f tlid othEr eategories shc1middotwd
evidence of a moderate nega tLve lela t~l omhip
Further study wpounds suggo s tc1 foJ the f o1Jomiddotrl~lmiddot ~
(a) a survny (If the ctUferelitLechn 1 ques used by ~lirddtnS
(b) the effect of difforcmt t(~(rni qUI~ otl the amount of verblizatioll used bj ~-tl( cLLn~ci an and client
(c) the modificlt-tlon of (c coc+rr of th c1lent~ s responses by tho ~~l_l~ri~ (L lijterimC3S used by Ul(1
clinician
The present study may be of most value in i~GieltIng [ possible ll)~ns
(Iof constructing a profi le of the kinds ) UtterHllces u~(-d
clinician
INlWAClIm BETfJZi~ (IItUCIAN AND CIIENf
IN A PUBLIC SCHOOl SE1~ING
by
A th~~Dis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIE1WE in
SFtltfCH PATHOLOGY
rmiddotJo- - -rJPORnM~D snf 0 ~ bullbull 1
structiVI cd tIcLsm JC(tlg
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
ejther of the two categories meier study It rmiddotl chmvn hmver that
there was a negative cormiddotrelat5 on bet1fl88rt t) jilKuni of vorbaJ) 3ation
of clinician and cHont11ght l)lit ~)f n1rt( Uni-5rm talkcJ rLOre
verbaltzation used by the cJillllCLns ~(Jth~il (10 (of Dctitive ~md
to bear little or no re13tJcIshi-J t-ich~ kinds of~ttMmiddotarC0f used by
the clinician Analysis of Iositiv6 flnc co)criptive utt8ran~es showed
a high posi tiv6 correlatjoll r~hile mcmiddotst )f tlid othEr eategories shc1middotwd
evidence of a moderate nega tLve lela t~l omhip
Further study wpounds suggo s tc1 foJ the f o1Jomiddotrl~lmiddot ~
(a) a survny (If the ctUferelitLechn 1 ques used by ~lirddtnS
(b) the effect of difforcmt t(~(rni qUI~ otl the amount of verblizatioll used bj ~-tl( cLLn~ci an and client
(c) the modificlt-tlon of (c coc+rr of th c1lent~ s responses by tho ~~l_l~ri~ (L lijterimC3S used by Ul(1
clinician
The present study may be of most value in i~GieltIng [ possible ll)~ns
(Iof constructing a profi le of the kinds ) UtterHllces u~(-d
clinician
INlWAClIm BETfJZi~ (IItUCIAN AND CIIENf
IN A PUBLIC SCHOOl SE1~ING
by
A th~~Dis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIE1WE in
SFtltfCH PATHOLOGY
rmiddotJo- - -rJPORnM~D snf 0 ~ bullbull 1
structiVI cd tIcLsm JC(tlg
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
INlWAClIm BETfJZi~ (IItUCIAN AND CIIENf
IN A PUBLIC SCHOOl SE1~ING
by
A th~~Dis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIE1WE in
SFtltfCH PATHOLOGY
rmiddotJo- - -rJPORnM~D snf 0 ~ bullbull 1
structiVI cd tIcLsm JC(tlg
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
structiVI cd tIcLsm JC(tlg
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
JABL-r m CONTENTS
ACKUolIFDG7IENTS bull iii
LIST 01i fABlES v
I INTRODUCTION 1
II HISroRY ANTl STATEJ-lENT OF IHE PROBLEH 3
Statement of the Problem 6
III PROCSDURES
Subjects bull 8
8
l()lJl~i~
)IV DISCUSSION lt
v CONCLUSIONS AND ~UNHARY bull 22
(O
27AFPEIDIX
il
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
1IST OF fABLES
TABIE PAGE
9
9
III Kinds of utterancos represented in aver~lge number
pel minute COfl 4
IV Rank order analysln of ltWLOunt of clinlcinns verb21lizatiun 13
V Rank order analysis of ltlfl01mt of cll entl llgtrbalization 14
used - t q bullbull 6 bullbullbullbull ~
VIII Hank order analysis of the number of negative lrtteranC8
used 18~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IX RanI order 8nalyrd ~ of tbe nUJiL~8r of descriptive uttarences
19
X Rank orti- cmslysis of ~~re l1JJ11bl1l of extramloUs utterances
bull 11 bull used 20
XI Rank differanrfJ ccrr~1ation bettn kInds of utterances 21
XII Profiles of clinidam iGtoa1iz3tions 23bull ~ bull bull bull ~ a ~ bull bull
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
INTRODUCTION
Prngr-ess and improyo1ientn in pny profos5ion come a bout ~S tb)
result of roseHrch and revision of contomporary tccJmiqm1s Speurolich
cliniciHns as profetHdonals m~1y fini it of value to do SOrl8 st~ock-takLUg
of what theY do in tharapy sessions By modifying thHir mm behwior
perhaps they in turn mw find it easier to modify tbe behevior of their
clients Clinicians have many acceptable methods thEt can be employed
in speech therapy sessions but thE methodf~ maYbe greatly rnodLfJed in
about the technique~ ~ methods imd skillH that thti cJinicljJl might conshy
sider but investigations about the amount of verbalization the clinician
might use in a typical ther~lpy sassion hAve baen sparse Verbal intershy
action is another aroa that has not been 8df~quately covered
The oLinicicm is largely ff(~e to use methods and techniques ihich
seem to him appropriate at the mO1ifmt fhese lay l(lquira varying amomt
of verbaltraUon f)l1 his part B1d some clin5cians rray tend to be l)cre
verbal than otherE ~gthus influpoundmcing the ClFlO-mt of time remainirli for
tho cHcnts to practice spe8ch fmmiddottherrnore the kinds (Jf utt~r1EeeS
cmiddotLients For lnstJi(s increBsJrlg trm mnount of p(l~itive llttsrance~
I i
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
posible that experlenctl may pIV nA~ an mpc-tant variabla irl
Ii 1
determining tho amount and klnd of vGrb~-li~3tiw used viith those
factors tn mind verbal interaction ir srIIlCch thoJapy -IH8 eonsidered c
valid subjoct for invcstIgation
middot1
I
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
CHAPlgi~ II
HISTOHY AUD STAlE~f1l OF THE PtWHLEM
Itow studies seem to have been made concerning verbal intEraction
16th special reference~l to speoch tharapy In lovimdrg the Jlterature
it has been found howevor that investigations haVG been made -tth
regard to analTbing the verbal tntoracticn in an intetVJel-7 situation
It would seem that the speech olinician in a sens is anal)gous to the
lnterviewer Chapple (l9h9) attempted to siandardize and therefore rnak0
objective the intervIew 2S a research instrumfmt He i1wt~nted the
Interaction Chronograph l-hich recorded graphicall the amount of time
used for ~LY audible v~lbalization It could be used like a very
elaborate eleetrtcal stopJatch II allowing an obserlTEH to Qultmtify with
a high degree of precisiorl the verbal interaction of two individuals
He found th~t
bull bull bull not only do different interviewers have different interaction patterns when behClving in their own characteristic mannr but that as a result of these interviewer differences different interaction patterns v1ere elicited from the same patient when seen by tHO djfferent hltervievrers
He slggested that analysis of the time variable during the interviHW
reflected personality and devised a method uSirlg the Interactio1 Chronshy
oepaph -heroby th~1 intorview could be standardized This method since
bas been reviewed by Matarazzo at a1 (19gt6) ~md further investigated
by Saslow and tIatarazzo (1958) Hesults of an experiment using the
standardized method with 20 patients and 2 inter-vimvera twuld indicate
that the intel~lctton variables reflect tho
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
-------------------------------------
dipoundferences of the t1-TO iXltervlmwIs
Goldlaan and Etsloy (192) dC3cribed hmv ttr(( c1Dctors influenced
the interaction patterns of the FlillO ten retients in different WtlJs
Thus depressed patlents talked lYtOI( with onE doctor than anothor while
these sarna doctors had OPP(lsite effects on t21katixe patints rho
anthor wondered if speech c1inilt~ians might have simDar offacts on
their clients
The content and amount of v(1rbaHzation by the clinician may have
a strong effect on the responses of tho client As Sklnner (197) puts
it Verbal behavior is behavior reinforced through tho mediation of
other persons tf following thir~ line of thonght) Kr~sner (1958) used a
storytelling technique to study the relationship betweEJn exanriner
behavilJr cues and patients verbal behavIor The lCSUltS indicated that
changes in a preselected ClHss of verbal behavior vt1ried as a function
of the systematlc appUcation of behavior cues by the examiner Kaufer
and McBrearty (1962) investigated the specific effect of minimal lntershy
viewor cues on verbal material obtained in cJinical intervieJE and found
that minimal so(ial reinforcement resulted in 1ncreasod communication on
those topics for which it is gi van
Rhodes Sharru)a and Fgolf (1968) have suggested that as clinieians
we should provide a clinical sJtuation in which language content is
manipulated subtly Eight subjocts participating in stuttering therapy
received verbal approval or disapproval follmrLnr the ElT1USsion of
cr-ltical lesponses about their stutterine behaviors Desirable language
was posLtjvcly reinforced Half of the subjects were informed which
kind of language was heinr reinforced whi1e half iJ~)In not Results
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
bull ouggestod that the use 01 sirrLLl~ rmiddotdn~middot()rGem~n t lliight be of vclu8 as a
clinical tool for othor spcGch dor-del8
Later Kcmfor (1955) Hlote (f the inCle3iEld lecognJtion by inter-
viewers of thAir owrJ cfipicity for IJystomatically uiasing tho rate
volume or content of patient pN1duetjons He suggested thflt trKi irtershy
vLower 8pproach verbal behavio~ noL Df an xpression of the i~teriever s
thought proeesses but a~ intcnacioncl bohavior vlhi(h can be SYSVWIshy
tically influenced by envIronmental variables SloMe and liacAula1
(1968) further substatltiated this thinking They wrote that approaehes
to understandil1v spefch and language must bo based upon an environmental
analysjs in ordGr~ to hava any diroct iml)lication for remedial workt- The
environment created and the pumiddott played b the clinician in a therapY
session hiuld appear to b~ important variablEls in the modification of
speech behav-i or
1owrer (1969) believes that the verbal statements used by cHnicians
as consequent events should be drastically reducede
Cliridamp1 sta tel18nts tend to be disruptive and often lead to the terminatton of connected 3peoch The time consumed in issuing vershybal statements competes mth the tima during -lhich the child should be re sponding bull
Pllot Studl8S at Ari7ona State Fniversity indicate that the number of
corxect Jcsponses is jllerense0 nearly 300 Vfr cent -lhen a visual display
system using a buzzcc and lights is used j nstead of verbal statell1~lnts
as consequent events in therapy ~osstons These studies seem to support
the theory that spel~ch clinicians engago in too mud verbalization
A study irvolvinv seven speech clinicins selected randomly in the
rnetropoli tan Pl)Emj x area -JaS lecently reported by Mowrer (1969) A
tape-rocoroir1 W3S aae f =YlP theTltfY se~3ic1Il of GClch clinician The
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
II I i I
6
veIbali2ations of both Lhe clinician end clientB WfHC then analyzed It
was determined that for ech uttetnT)~~11 the client produced tho cHnshy
ician prOa1lG6G lO bull~ Of tllH utterances prodwed by the eJieurolnts only
0S fOr cent ()ntainud the sound to be vlortced on ~ An analysis of the
kinds of verb~dizati0ns revealed that almost half of the elinician s
instructionJ tLme was spent in eliciting a sound 0) 1wrd usually an
echoic uttelance A relatively small amOtU1t of tir~e was spent in demonshy
stration cues listeninc activities and feedback Nearly one half of the
utterances were in no way related to correction of misarticulations
auditory training or speech correction in general The results seem to
indicate thet cllents are provj dod wi th extremely few opportunities tu
emit targot response~ d1lring therapy Inaddi tiol~ it would seem that much
irrelevant veurolrbaH~ation is pernntted Hcv8ver since the above study
involved a relatively smal1 allple lt would Boom amiss to make a
sweoping generali~ati on about B 11 clinicians based on these findings +
liurther researc~h Involving larger samples seems to be indicated
STATEHampNT Of THE PROBIJ~H
Thif author dealt ith only two general aspects of therapy sesstons
first tho mnount of time sfKmt by th) clinician and client in verbalizlshy
Lion and second the kind of verbalizations employed by the cltnician
TIrl~ inv8~ti~~i1ti()n did not intend to assess the effectiveness of
th3ra f(uttc tochniques AT at1empt vlaS made hOl-leVer to compare the
~jicentga f)f verbaliattona and the type of utterances made by
(C) Clinicjans having less than one year1s experience
(b) Clinicians haviTl_ 1-3 years expGrience
( c) Cli iiclans having mON than 3 y~~ars eXerience
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
c1inid rm tu th1 nount of vEtrbJjzt1on by til) client
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
~
Thlt subjects in thiJ ilWfStiglt1tton T16r~ nino cJjnJdans from tho
Portland~ Oregon Public Schools divi cLJd squaDt alt~c()Tding to the
following 1ihlElo groups
GtOUP r 1 clinicians having less than one year s experienco
GrOUlgt II ~ e linicians havine )~3 years of expe rience
Group III clinicians having more th-n 3 year experience
Six sassi ons conducted by each of these clinicien~ middot~orkJlg io a typL~ai
therapy situation were tap-8 recorded using a Craig Il2i2 reCOldEH
elementflrJ school students p~Jrticipating had been diagnosed us h-irg
pr1marily an articulation problem The number of student in 0(11
session ranged from 1 to 6 wi th thfi average cOl1l3is
varied if length frotn 15 minutes to 3h minutes 4 th the aver8~) lOj
sisting of 20 minutes
l~w clinicians the prlmary sublects for thi t(dy tnre eaC1
assigned A B aud C~ Group II D E 8nd F and Ch-oup III it H ltDd I
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
(I
are Hsted tn TableT
14EAN Pi~RCEHTAGES Of 1 lvl0UNT OF VEifJfLIUTTON jl~ SIX SESSIONS USING lvJEriTy HINUTES AS THE AVEHilGi= LimiddotNGTH
A B c D E G H I
- ---- ---------- --lt-----------~--- - ------------~- -- ----~ -- -~ -~------ -shy
r~Cltniciann bull Ii) lP 46 22 4[) 0 h 52J
~(jCJjents 35 )6 41 44 51 34 il 3ll 0
()SUonce 14 18 13 10 27 cl n 9J
- ~lirom tlla(6 H~iUlts lt group mean was deriyed -v1
TABLE II
tJfinieians 48 37 1tgt
C]j~(r-ts 37 43 3~
l(~legt l~ 20 1
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
10
used to count the number of uttences IrZlde by thr clinician these
being listed undltn four cmiddottqoJiGS ~
(a) positive good right th=ts fine that= what fie Uke to hear)
(b) negative (eg no tJIlt1tsViirg dOllt do that I didn1t like that) i
j
I(c) directive or descriptive (og saybullbull bull repeat~ l(Jok at
the picture any descliphion 0f placement of articubtore modelline of S0U11ds or -lords)
(d) neutral or extraneous (eg any rewlrks about events or objects haviJlg no rolntionsldp to the therapy session)
h13 rfu11ber of utterances per minute for each session was computed An I ewerage of utterances per rrlinute under the four categories was then
-I
~c~puted for the six c~ch clinicn
seen in Table III
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
I
11
Clinician
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
lAhIJ III
KINDS 0 uprceTlA JCI~S middotBEPRESI~N l1l IN AVF~PAGJ UilEH PK~ HINlJT[~
----------------~~bull------------ Positive Deseriptive Extraneous
tbull6 2 9h 12
1 Jt 6 6 2 8
23 3 71 12
4 5 7 lh
7 6 21 24
18 5 h3 20
50 3 119 4
9 10 54 5
20 7 79 9
-------- -_----shy
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
~1jtlJation bull
HeS1ll ~ndicated
that
groups tb~
these
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
c
l ~
~ l()~l t10n
J ) 65 j 60
() 56
53
6 39 47
c 6 39 47
D 4(
40
(~
34
Gronp J U~lG) 51
Gxoup rj~ (l~EJ )
tn p ~LJ)Group III
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
14
J-ANK ORDlR ANALYSIS OF AW1UYf IJ~ CTI1NlS I VERBALIZAIION
-------~---- ---- -----------~-----~--------------
Clients Hmk Cmtile Position T Score I ____-____________~ _ ____ __ _ _____ __ ____ ________ __~ ~__laquo
E 51 1 9h 65 D 44 2 83 60 G 4J~ 35 66 54 0 11 15 66 54 I 3~J 50 50 H )6 )( gtt 33 45 B 36 6S 33 45
3$ I shyA () 16 4J
F 3L 9 5 34
Av-_T Score ---shyGroup I (ABC) 46
Group II (mF) 53 GrYup III (GBI) 50
- ~--~--------___--_-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
15
client verbalize more thrll ijfHJ rhJHC]Bn Note thltit llt~ ranked 119 in amount
of clinician lrerbalizati ons and J tn aTlOunt of ltlient verbalIzations bull
Computation of the rank ilifferonce COrl311~ tion betw8Qn clients I al1d clinishy
dans t amount of verbaHzltltiol rasul1cd In a coefficient of - 20
Although a highar negatlvE GorrelaiL(fl rTLight hsVe boen antictpated the
amolmt of silence involved probably inrlueneEid the results to some extent
lIne rank difierence (~orrelation5 b~ltVTe(Jn the amounts of verbali7ashy
t10n and kinds of lltterancos employed by the clintcans can he seen in
Table VI
fABLE VI
HANK DIFFERW~Gg CORRIiIAlION 3ET~-EN AHOUNT OF VERBALIZATION AND KIDS OF UTTERANCES USED BY Immiddot CLINICIANS
---~-------------~-----Amml1t of Veurorb~lization Used By GUnicianB Clients -----__--shy
Positive
Negative - ol~ +07
+82 03
Extraneous +33
-------____----_-------------- shy
There llas a very high positive correlHt1on 82 between the amount of
verbalization used by the cUnician and the use of descriptive utterances
A moderate but pos1tie relatdonship was apparent between the amount
of verbaUzation and the llS of positive utterltmc0s 1-1hile an apparently
chance relationship existed hetween amount of verbalizrltion and negativo
uttorances A high regativc reJati(oUship -63 vms indicated between
the arnount of verbalizaiion a1d oxirmeous utterances The amount of
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
16 bull
utterances used by the clinlciaut rJllce all tr1l3 coofficients revealed
low positive correlations
When tho kinds of utterances ItEns submitted to rank order analysis
(see Tables VII VIII IX and X) j it tms found that Group I tended to be
more positive less negative and about averago in thE1 descriptive and
extraneous categories Group II tended to use more extraneous utterances
less positive and dFJscriptiv(l and about an ~verage alilolmt of negative
utteratlces Group III tended to use more negative and descriptive
utterances fewer extrculoous and an average amount of positive utterances
The author felt hovlever that examination of the individual results
proved to be more eilighteni ng
It was noted that there was a wide vllriation between the scoras of
the top-ranking clinidan and the lowest ranking clinician in bQih the
positiva and descrjptiYG categories Clinician G Nnked highlt3st in
both categories while clinician E ranked lovmst in both LTl the extr~meous
category E ranked highest vlhile G ranked lowest A further examl_uticn
of the tables showed that clinician G tended to use a greater anount
of positive and descriptive utterances vlhile using a lesser amount of
negati ve and extraneous ClInlcian E~ on the other hand used fewer
poai tivo and desm-ilttve utterances Hhile using more negative and
extraneous The Jflttern of kindn of utterances could be traced for
each clinici~n in a imilar manm~r
A rank difference correlBtion analysis betJeen different kinds
of utterances csn bE) seen tn Tnle XI
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
17
TABlf~ Ill
IlANK OBDER ANALYSIS J1 T-lt NtJr1BEFl Of PO3I~IVE U1TERANCES USED
------- --~--~--~--------------- Utterancss pH rrrlr~ Clinician Score Hank Conti1e T Score
--~-------- ---lt----~--------- - ----~-~-G SO 1 9h 66
D 47 2 83 60
A 46 3 72 56
B 44 4 61 53
C 23 5 50 50
I 20 6 39 48
F la 7 2H 45
H 9 8 17 hl
E 7 9 5 34
Av 1 score
GrOlip I 53
Group II 46
Group III 52
--_-shy
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
18
TABLE VIII
RANK ORDER AflALYSIS OF THE NUH~3~~R m HEGflTIrE UTTEHAlJCES USED
Clinician -----_-- f Score
H 10 1 66
I 2 83 60
B 66 55
66
D
E
44 49
44 u9 G 75 22
7 tgt 22 43
2 9 34
c
AIr T Score
Group I hh
Group II 1
Group In 56
-----___----- ----_ _----__------shy
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
19
RANK ORDEH ANALYSIS O~ fBI lIUiIlEJ OF DESCHIPTIVbi Urr[rh~RiCES USED
----~ --------~------~-----------------shyUtterances p~~r tIi n bull
Clinician Score Hank Ckmtileurol T Score
G 119 1 94 66
A 9h 2 83 60
I 79 3 n 56
D 77 h 61 53
c 71 )r 50 50
B 62 6 39 48
H 5h 28 45
fI b3 8 17 41
E 21 9 5 34
Pv T Score
Group I 53
Group II 43
Group III 56
---shy
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
-----------------------------------------------------
20
RANK ORDEIt ANAlYSIS OF j~flE NUHIfiH Or EXTRAiEOliS UTTERANCES USED
Clinician Score Hank Centile T Score
E 2J J 91~ 66
F 20 _ 2 83 60
D
A
14
12
3
4 C~
72
55
56
52
C 12 45 55 52
I 9 6 39 1+8
B
H
8
5
7
8
28
bull 1 I
16
hl
4 9 5 34
Avbull T Score _----Grollp I 50
Group II 61
vroup III 41
----------shy __-_------
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
21
lABLE XI
RAN1 nIFFERl~l~CIlt~ GOlR~LATION BrflmiddotlK~N KINDS OF UTTlRANCES
---- --------------~----~--~--- -- -------------shyKinds of Uttergnces Correlation
------- -~-------------------------------- shyPositive and Nefiiti v( bull 61
Positive and DHSCri ptivs middottgtB3
rositive and Extraneous -J()
Negative and Descriptive -0 Negativo and ExtrancOU3 -10
Descriptive and ZXtraneous -0
--------
A high positive correlation could be 58en betvieen posltive and descripti vo
utterances while all other categories except negative and extraneous
showed a madera te negati YO relationship Only a chance relationship
existed between negative and extraneolls
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
I
i
CHAPlER V
CONCLTJSJONS AND SUMI1ARY
In this investigation it seems thc~t experlence did not influence
stgnificantly the amount of Y6brlization used by tho eli nidan jr speech
th-)rapy rrhere dtd appear however to be a tend~ncy for the more expershy
ienced clinicians to talk more than the less expeltenced In every
instance but one all the subjects talked more than tho students even
though the amount of silence varied It would appear that in the one
lnstance where results differed considerably from the others (subject E) $
some other variable may have been preserli Perhapfi tlll type of
technique used did not require much v(lrbalizcltion on the part of the
subject Since varlous techniques Were used by the different 5ubjeets
ranging from a game-oriented type of technique to Ii behwior modification
program the techniques used should be a variable worthy of further study
It was apparent that the more verbal the clinician the more
positive and descriptive and the less negative and extraneous utterances
she used Yet tho kinds of utterances used did not appear to have
much relatlonship to the amount of verbalization produced by the students
If the goal for therapy would be to have the chUdren tilk more it
seems the clinician should talk less It seems hcwevcr that not only
the quantity of the eJients responses but the content of his responses
would need to be taken into con11deration in any evaluation of tho
clinician r S use of ce14 tain kinds of utterances A iUlth3r study of tht3
i I
I I I
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
23
kino of respon~es seem~ to be jndi CJlC-i i
Siner grouping tho (~linj CiFnB rfs~u1ted in H much too eenoralized I imp18Sslon of the k~_nds of utterances USOl) it middotwuld be (if more value
i
to use Tables I and III to construct a profilt3 for each clinician
indivld1Ull1y These profiles can be seon in lltlblc XII Such a profile
could be valuable in furthe~ imrestieations
TABLE XII
PROJil1~ OJ CLINICIANS I VEHBilLIZATIONS I
ABC D E F G H I-_ -__--------___-------___----__--_bull_--bull_----------shyAmount of verbalizatiltm
per session 1 22 h) 50 47 52
Amount of client verbalization per session 35 36 hl W~ 51 3L 41 36 39
Silence per session 14 18 13 10 27 21 9 17~ 9
Positive utterances per minute 46 Ilb 23 47 1 18 50 9 20
Negative utterances per minute 2 ~6 3 5 6 5 3 10 7
DescdptLve uttershyances per mlnute 94 62 (1 77 21 h3 119 54 79
Extraneous uttorshy~ ~ances por minuts 12 8 12 14 2h 20 c 9
- ------~-- --~--- - --------~----shy
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
24
For in~tance cllrlidr1 G rank(1d high in both th pcsHiil~ and descripshy
tivs categnries and rl~ltivell loW tn tbe negcdimiddot) and extraneous
~ltltegortes Clinician It on the other hand rJrk3drLigh in the neguUve
ano 3xt~raneous catef~middotljefz and r31at1veJy lov jn th~ positive and desshy
criptive Depending on our crica6a as to the desirabillty of using
eertaln kinds of language we could make an evaluatmiddotion concerning each
elinician Clinician G tanned to use 111h (~i~tLve and dflfCriptive
language wtth few negative or extrHriOW~ Y(~mif~ in her therapy appr(1i1ch
Clinicim B tended 10 be more negative and to lISe more extraneous
utterDnl~cr- while using relpoundtiwIly fetr Dositive and descriptive utterc1nces
Percllt1ps this kincl i~f evaluation lllig--lt lx~ useful in suggeurosting ways cf
fIlodifying cli~ican verbal behavi m~ 1d possjhly tmproving the qua liimiddoty
A study was m8d~~ of nintl clinicians jn a public school setting
Six therapy sessions of each clinician were tapemiddot-recorded and analyed
10 determine it experi6ncB were an important varinble in the amount of
YElrb~lization used by the clinicians and clients An assessment was
Ttlt1ce lfJO of the importance of this varlable jn the kjnds of utterances
used by the cHnicians
It ~as iound th~It oxrerience was not a significant vlrlable in
either of the two ~ategoTieuros under stndy It was showa )wiilrer that
there 13S a mgative emrelation between the amountmiddot of v8tbnJliltion of
(~linician and client Eight jut of rrine cl1ntcians talkcd Ori thaI the
cl1lnts ~ high correlation uas noted botHE1(m the 3lOunt of vcrbali7ation
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
25
used by the clinicians and the(- IJse of posjtlve Inltl descriptive
or no reLationship to the kinds ~lt~ lliteri1nce uS~ld by tho clinlcian
Analysis of positive and cescriptjV8 utterance showed a high positive
correlation tvhile l11Qst of tho )tfsr clt~iegorieuros showed evidence of a
moderote negDtil6 relationship
(a) a ~urvey of tho different techniques used by clinjcians
(b) the effect of different techrdQuen on the amount of verbalizaUon used by both clinician and client
(c) the modification of the contant of the clients responses by the kinds of utterances used by the clinician
Ibn present study may be of most vfllue in indicating a possible means of
constr11ctine fl profi 10 of the kinds of uttfJranees used by each clinician
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
i ~~
CI1APPLE E) liThe InterPocUon Chronograph lts evolution and present application Et~el 25 295-307 (1949)
GOLDtAN H and EISLER 1lt If Indivjc1ual differencer bet1oJeentntershyviewers and their offElct on interviewee IS conversational be havior 1I
~ ient Sc ge 66o() 7J (1952)
GU1LltORD J lilndamental Statistics tn Psychology and Education 55l~S5~ New YorkTmiddot1~cGraw-Hifi--c1950)--middot-----middot---
KANlltER F in DIXON) T (Ed) Verbal behavior and General BehavIor _~~orx 254-290 Englewood Cllffs-PrentJceHall---cJ2(8)
KANFER FI and McBREARIY J Minimal social reidorcement and intershy
view contant 11 _~ Clinical Psyc~ology 18 210-215 (1962)
KRASNER 1 A techniquo for invesUgating the relationship between the behavior cues of the examiner- and tho v8rba1 behavior of the p-ltient 1t L C()n~uJ~_sycholoEY 22 364-366 (1958)
JI~TARAZZO J et al lIThe Interaction Chroncgraph as an instrument for objective measurement of interaction patterns during intershyviews fI J Psychclpoundf~ 4h 347-357 (1956)
mrttER D Modificati~n of Speech Behavior~ Ide~~ Strategies_ fo~ Students Arizona State University (19691
RHODES R SHA~1ES G and EGOLF D lIAn investigation of the verbal condi tioning of language themes in therapeutic interviews with stutterers II Paper presented to ASHA Convention Denver 195B
SASLOT G and MATAHAZZO J itA rechnique for Studying Changes in Interview Behavior U of Oregon -1ec1ica 1 School Resaarch paJXjr 1958
SKINNER B Verbal Behavior Ch 1 New York Appleton-Century-Crofts(1957) - _--
SLOANr~ H and f1ACAULAY B) operaYlt Proced1L~gt21 Remrldjal ~_~_ch and Languag~ Training Ch I Boston Hou~hton ~1iff)jn lT9tgtU)
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
TRANSCRIPT OF S~SSlCJN ) - SEXE1ENT 2 (CLINICIAN G)
D T Look at me and say sleep1i
c Sleep D
T Lets get it to the front D
sleeplt
c Sleep D
T Try it agajn
C Sleep D
T again
C Sleep p D
1 bull Good Again
c Sleep p D
T good Right dmm the front D
CampT Sleep p E
T Very good Iiive tallies
C Sneezy was sleepy p
T Good talktng ~fnat was
c Sneezy 13S sleepy D
T Who vIas sleepy
C Sneezy D
T roll me about Sneezy
C He was sleepy
D D Hake yoJ
--sound Mflke r-our liS II sound bull
D Here we are
E D All right Say IISneezy was sleepy II
D tell me ngain
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
T D
Lets hav~ sleepy again
c Sleepy p l- 1)
T Good Five tallies Say L y
urlC D
T lnurl
c I nur II
D T Itnurse ll
C lnlllse D
1 bull Say nur
C nur P D D
T Right latch me rll
C Itrlt D
T IInur II
C IInur Ii
D D T Again nuI
c nur D
T nurse
C nurse P D
T Good ta1king bull nurse
c nursell D
T nurse II
c IInurse II
D T r
C r D
T Try nur
c nur
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
I
29 n
T Again nurn D
T amp C Hurl D
T amp C lNur P D
fro Good lhat-= ten talli(s NOtl I ~)ant Kim to say IIS110W1I
C Snow D
T Two times
c Snow SnOH p D
T Good Again
C Snow P D
T Good Again
C Snow N D
T Dont try to go too fflst Snow
C Snow TI D
1 bull Its a hard one Snowy
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
THANSCRIP1 01 SlSSIOH 2 - SFriNBNT Il2 (C1INICIAI H)
D D T No thats what youre doint for mt) hat s the first thing you
D start to do ilhat would you like to say when I say 1t11
C Uul N D
T No but before that noise what would you say
D T Hake an leI your way_
c II lit P D D OK She wants to do it her W[~y It sounds right doesnt it It
D sounds right for you to rr1ke it your old way but weve learnEld a
D D new nOise in~tead IOUva got to m3ke the new not8e fut your
D D D D tongue up there - shy 111 Up there Open your mouth Steven Dontt
N D D you dare bite my finged Hight there Put your tongue up No
D D tUrn on your voice 111
c lit D D D
111T Down here 1
C H111
D T 111
c 111 N D D
T No vTha t did he do nobbio Could you see what he did
C He svlallowed it Swallowed it D D
T He put his tongue down Hml hold your tongue up on the roof of your 1)D E
mouth til All right Hobbio make an 1 for fTX3
C 1
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
I
31 D I IE
T Excuse me Steven make an 11111 for m
DD f All right nO-i put your tongue to the f r-cnt 1
DND T Hold it up there dont let it come cmn IIlll
111C ND Do itDon I t you dara )Jilt that tongue go downT Hold it up the re bull
D D agatn 1
D II ID NoW were going to go Hr bullbullbull and were going to stickT All right II
I
I Itlall on the end of it ii
- fallc rl I ID
T Again
I I
n - alt i c N E D
I ra IIT No All right
II rail I I
c E D
T OOrl You do it
c liraII lira It
p i I
T Perfect I
C rail DDD T raIl Somsthing happenod to the r ll
bull Sgtlallowed again
c Itra II
ND T No Ir i i
altC Itr shy I D D
I
T No Keep it together DonI let it separate I
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
TRANSCRTPt Or SESHON fn - SECH1Bbrl 2 (CImrCUN I)
K D T Jeff~ you werent here the othor dZiY 1etc do your Ja la In
C La la 19 P D
T Goodt Can you ihink of something that bas that sound ill jt
C Little D P
T Litt1Iq Good
c Nancy D N D
T Nancy No our tongue go~s up on that But it j sn t t n 1 11 Its It nit bull E D
OK Lets take a picture $ and see if we can rind something that has D
our sound N(m Don Don and Hod aIt~ just goil1g to tell something D
about the picture and Nicky -wll me lihat i haplJsnine in the picture N D E D
here--not now--but when itls your turn OK Theres one~ E D
Lets see if I-1e can find one for Paula That is a goose D D ]) D
Goose This is a target l tnler~ do you hear the 11 in D
ItlXmcilll -- at the beginTling the middle or the end
C The end p D
T Right Heres another one Sfle if you can figure out Hhere the l D D
is there Nicky give H18 )rCltH smmd Rernembfn~ Uua sound when we D
want somebody to be quiet lShl
D I) D T Back wIth your tongue my back vli th your tongue and lift up_
C sh D D
T Bring your tongue back Gdng your tongue ay biiHk
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
c Shlf p
Poitive
D DG8criptlv9 or DirectJve
E ExtraneOUH or neutral
of JI~Il 11111 ~ ~1ffrshybullhi bullbullf J II plt I~ORTLM~D ~Jii
- A quantification and analysis of verbal interaction between clinician and client in a public school setting
-
- Let us know how access to this document benefits you
- Recommended Citation
-
- tmp1373061244pdfG5aKH
-
top related