The Experts below are selected from a list of 318 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Amy M Wetherby - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
performance of south african children on the communication and Symbolic Behavior scales developmental profile csbs dp
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2016Co-Authors: Nola J Chambers, Sheri T Stronach, Amy M WetherbyAbstract:Background Substantial development in social communication skills occurs in the first two years of life. Growth should be evident in sharing emotion and eye gaze; rate of communication, communicating for a variety of functions; using gestures, sounds and words; understanding language, and using functional and pretend actions with objects in play. A delay in these early social communication skills may be the first sign of a developmental delay in young children in nearly all categories of disabilities—including specific language impairment, autism spectrum disorder, HIV/AIDS, lack of environmental stimulation or institutionalization, and global developmental delays—and early detection of these delays is critical for enrolment in appropriate early intervention services. Aims No standardized tests of early social communication skills exist for very young children in South Africa (SA). An existing evaluation tool that has the potential to be culturally fair for children from cultural backgrounds different to the standardization group is the Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales—Developmental Profile (CSBS DP). This study aimed to document the performance of a group of English-speaking SA children ranging in age from 12 to 24 months on the CSBS DP and to compare this performance with the original standardization sample. Methods & Procedures Sixty-seven English-speaking SA children from a range of cultural and linguistic backgrounds were assessed on the CSBS DP Behaviour Sample. Group scores were compared with the original standardization sample using inferential statistics. Outcomes & Results The results provide preliminary support for the suitability and validity of the face-to-face Behaviour Sample as a measure of early social communication skills in this sample of English-speaking SA children from a range of cultural groups between 12 and 24 months of age. Conclusions & Implications While further research in the SA population is needed, these findings are a first step towards validating a culturally appropriate measure for early detection of social communication delays in a sample of SA toddlers.
-
Early indicators of autism spectrum disorders in the second year of life
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2004Co-Authors: Amy M Wetherby, H. Dickinson, J Cleary, J Woods, L Allen, C. LordAbstract:Three groups of 18 children were selected for this study, one group with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), one group with developmental delays in which ASD was ruled out (DD), and one group with typical development (TD), from a pool of 3026 children who were screened with the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP, Wetherby & Prizant. 2002) Infant-Toddler Checklist under 24 months of age. The CSBS DP Behavior Sample was videotaped on selected children as a second-level evaluation during the second year of life. The Infant-Toddler Checklist had a sensitivity and specificity of 88.9% for this sample of children. Significant group differences were found on the Infant-Toddler Checklist and the Behavior Sample, however, these differences did not distinguish children with ASD and DD with high accuracy. The videotapes of the Behavior Sample were reanalyzed to identify red flags of ASD. Nine red flags differentiated children in the ASD group from both the DD and TD groups and four red flags differentiated children in the ASD Group from the TD group but not the DD group. These 13 red flags were found to discriminate the three groups with a correct classification rate of 94.4%.
-
validity and reliability of the communication and Symbolic Behavior scales developmental profile with very young children
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 2002Co-Authors: Amy M Wetherby, Lori Allen, Julie Cleary, Kary Kublin, Howard GoldsteinAbstract:Three studies were conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of the three measures of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP): (1) a one-page parent-...
-
csbs dp manual communication and Symbolic Behavior scales developmental profile
2002Co-Authors: Amy M Wetherby, Barry M PrizantAbstract:This helpful manual guide professionals through the process of administering, scoring, and interpreting the "Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP ), " an easy-to-use, norm-referenced screening and evaluation tool that measures the communicative competence of children with a functional communication age of 6 to 24 months and a chronological age of 6 months to 6 years. The manual includes: information on how and why "CSBS DP " was developed and refined detailed, step-by-step instructions on how to administer and score each part of "CSBS DP: " the "Infant-Toddler Checklist, " the "Caregiver Questionnaire, " and the "Behavior Sample" a chapter on the technical characteristics of "CSBS DP, " including standardization, reliability, and validity helpful tips on putting caregivers at ease and encouraging the most communication from very young children an extensive companion to the "CSBS DP " tutorial videotapes, including completed Behavior Samples for the six children shown and comments on the sampling and scoring decisions on the forms guidelines, case studies, and sample letters to parents that help professionals interpret and report the results of "CSBS DP " With the clear instructions in this manual reinforced by practical tips, charts, case studies, and scoring practice professionals will use "CSBS DP " accurately and confidently with the children and families they serve.Available separately or as part of the "CSBS DP Complete Kit" are the other materials required to conduct a "CSBS DP " assessment. This manual is part of "CSBS DP ," an easy-to-use, norm-referenced screening and evaluation tool that helps determine the communicative competence (use of eye gaze, gestures, sounds, words, understanding, and play) of young children. "CSBS DP" is an ideal starting point for IFSP planning and can be used as a guide to indicate areas that need further assessment. Learn more about the whole CSBS DP system. "
Howard Goldstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validity and reliability of the communication and Symbolic Behavior scales developmental profile with very young children
Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 2002Co-Authors: Amy M Wetherby, Lori Allen, Julie Cleary, Kary Kublin, Howard GoldsteinAbstract:Three studies were conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of the three measures of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP): (1) a one-page parent-...
Stefan Billinger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
distraction of Symbolic Behavior in regular classrooms
Frontiers in Psychology, 2012Co-Authors: Stefan BillingerAbstract:The purpose of the present study is to develop more precise methods to explore the interaction between contextual factors in teacher instructions in regular classroom settings and students’ abilities to use Symbolic information in the instruction. The ability to easily show Symbolic Behavior could be expected to influence student’s capacity to be active and participate. The present study examines distraction in students’ shifts from the use of “non-Symbolic” to “Symbolic” Behavior in regular classroom settings. The 53 students (29 boys and 24 girls), ages 11 to 13 years old, who participated in the study were from three classes in the same Swedish compulsory regular school. Based on their test performances in a previous study, 25 students (47%) were defined as showing Symbolic Behavior (Symbolic), and 28 students (53%) as not showing it (non-Symbolic). In the present study, new post training test trials with distractors were added. Students from both the Symbolic and non-Symbolic groups scored significantly fewer correct answers on the post-training test trials with distraction stimuli (p. < .05) than in post-training test trials without distraction. In the post-training test trials with competing arbitrary distractors, both groups were distracted significantly more than in the post-training test trials with competing non-arbitrary distractors (p. < .05). The results indicate that a relatively easily administered and socially acceptable procedure seems to give observational data about variations in students’ Symbolic Behavior in relation to contextual factors in regular classroom. The main conclusion to be drawn from the results is that the observational procedure used in this study seems to have a potential to be used to explore the interaction between contextual factors and more complex student Behavior such as cognition and the pragmatic use of language in regular classroom.
-
Symbolic Behavior in regular classrooms a specification of Symbolic and non Symbolic Behavior
Frontiers in Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Stefan Billinger, Torsten NorlanderAbstract:Students’ capabilities to use Symbolic information in classroom setting could be expected to influence their possibilities to be active and participating. The development of strategies for teachers to compensate for reduced capability need specific operational definition of Symbolic Behavior. Fifty-three students, aged 11 to 13 years old, 29 boys and 24 girls, from three classes in the same Swedish compulsory regular school participated in the current study. After a short training sequence 25 students (47%) were defined as showing Symbolic Behavior (Symbolic), and 28 students (53%) were not (non-Symbolic), based on their follow-up test performances. Symbolic and non-Symbolic differed significantly on post test performances (p. < .05). Surprisingly, non-Symbolic Behavior deteriorated their performance, while Symbolic enhanced their performance (p. < .05). The results indicate that the operational definition used in the present study may be useful in further studies relating the capability to show Symbolic Behavior and students’ activity and participation in classroom settings.
A. Zisman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ASE - Validating personal requirements by assisted Symbolic Behavior browsing
2004Co-Authors: R.j. Hall, A. ZismanAbstract:Risks and hazards abound for users of today's large scale distributed telecommunications and e-commerce systems. Service nodes are documented loosely and incompletely, omitting functional details that can violate stakeholder requirements and thwart high level goals. For example, it is not enough to know that a book finding service locates a book for no more than a set price; does the chosen book vendor use an acceptable delivery mode and service? Does it retain or abuse personal information? The OpenModel paradigm provides the basis for a solution: instead of interface information alone, each node publishes a Behavioral model of itself. However, large scale and multi-stakeholder systems rule out the use of traditional validation technologies, because state spaces are far too large and incompletely known to support concrete simulation, exhaustive search, or formal proof. Moreover, high level personal requirements like privacy, anonymity, and task success are impossible to formalize completely. This work describes a new methodology, assisted Symbolic Behavior browsing, and an implemented tool, GSTVIEW, that embodies it to help the user recognize potential violations of high level requirements. The paper also describes case studies of applying GSTVIEW in the domains of email and Web services.
-
Validating personal requirements by assisted Symbolic Behavior browsing
Proceedings. 19th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering 2004., 2004Co-Authors: R.j. Hall, A. ZismanAbstract:Risks and hazards abound for users of today's large scale distributed telecommunications and e-commerce systems. Service nodes are documented loosely and incompletely, omitting functional details that can violate stakeholder requirements and thwart high level goals. For example, it is not enough to know that a book finding service locates a book for no more than a set price; does the chosen book vendor use an acceptable delivery mode and service? Does it retain or abuse personal information? The OpenModel paradigm provides the basis for a solution: instead of interface information alone, each node publishes a Behavioral model of itself. However, large scale and multi-stakeholder systems rule out the use of traditional validation technologies, because state spaces are far too large and incompletely known to support concrete simulation, exhaustive search, or formal proof. Moreover, high level personal requirements like privacy, anonymity, and task success are impossible to formalize completely. This work describes a new methodology, assisted Symbolic Behavior browsing, and an implemented tool, GSTVIEW, that embodies it to help the user recognize potential violations of high level requirements. The paper also describes case studies of applying GSTVIEW in the domains of email and Web services.
Torsten Norlander - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Symbolic Behavior in regular classrooms a specification of Symbolic and non Symbolic Behavior
Frontiers in Psychology, 2011Co-Authors: Stefan Billinger, Torsten NorlanderAbstract:Students’ capabilities to use Symbolic information in classroom setting could be expected to influence their possibilities to be active and participating. The development of strategies for teachers to compensate for reduced capability need specific operational definition of Symbolic Behavior. Fifty-three students, aged 11 to 13 years old, 29 boys and 24 girls, from three classes in the same Swedish compulsory regular school participated in the current study. After a short training sequence 25 students (47%) were defined as showing Symbolic Behavior (Symbolic), and 28 students (53%) were not (non-Symbolic), based on their follow-up test performances. Symbolic and non-Symbolic differed significantly on post test performances (p. < .05). Surprisingly, non-Symbolic Behavior deteriorated their performance, while Symbolic enhanced their performance (p. < .05). The results indicate that the operational definition used in the present study may be useful in further studies relating the capability to show Symbolic Behavior and students’ activity and participation in classroom settings.
