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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

~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

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

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

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 __-_------

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 __-_------

-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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