Communicative Competence and Metalinguistic Ability: Performance by Children and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

The Test of Language Competence-Expanded Edition (TLC-E) was administered to children and adults with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Relative to controls, those with ASD were less competent on a range of TLC-E tasks. No differences were found for either child or adult ASD groups on any of the TLC-E measures when re-classified as Asperger syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism (HFA) using DSM-IV language criterion. Hierarchical cluster analyses of individuals with ASD identified subgroups within the spectrum. The use of developmental language history as an identifying marker in autism is questioned. The findings suggest that comprehensive language assessments on individuals with ASD can provide clinically relevant information regarding the heterogeneity of language skills within the autistic spectrum.

Appendices

Appendix A

TLC-E subtests and example items

Subtest	Test item example
Ambiguous Sentences	Target sentenc
An ambiguous sentence is read aloud without the use of intonation to indicate meaning. The sentence is shown to the participant (P). To obtain the full score, P must provide two different interpretations.	The elephant was ready to lift.
	Acceptable responses for full score
	Ready to lift something.
	Ready to be lifted.
Listening Comprehension: Making Inferences	Target prompts
Two statements are read to P. The written prompts remain visible to P. P is read and shown four possible options that link the two statements. To obtain the full score, P must select two correct responses.	Mother was happy to have the turkey and all the trimmings in the house.
	The family was disappointed when they had to eat at a restaurant on Thanksgiving Day.
	Options (correct responses marked*)
	(a) The mother got sick with the flu*
	(b) Mother forgot to buy the turkey
	(c) Most people think that Thanksgiving dinner is always better at a restaurant
	(d) Mother burned the turkey by cooking it too long*
Oral Expression: Recreating Sentences	Target words
A picture of a situation is shown to P. Three target words are read out to P and remain in view of P. P is instructed to make up a sentence a person could have said using the three target words. Sentences are scored on two levels. The first level is the number of target words used by P. The second level of scoring is an holistic approach, which examines P’s intuitions about language and communication. To obtain the maximum score, P’s sentence must be intact semantically, syntactically, and pragmatically (i.e., the sentence must be logical and meaningful, and must relate to the context presented in the picture).	Sit, painted, because.
	Target context shown in the picture
	A lady is about to sit down on a park bench. She is unaware that there is a sign saying WET PAINT attached to the bench. A young man is standing by the park bench looking at the lady.
	Acceptable response for maximum score
	You shouldn’t sit down on that bench lady because it has just been painted.
Figurative Language	Target context
P is told of the context of an utterance said by someone, and the utterance said. P is asked to put into words what the person meant. Next, the same context and utterance, as well as four possible solutions to what was meant are presented visually to P. P selects the best interpretation for the utterance. P is scored for both their own interpretation and the selection of the correct interpretation.	Two boys talking at a dog show.
	Utterance
	He is crazy about that pet.
	Once P has put the utterance into own words.....
	Options (correct response marked*)
	(a) The pet makes him angry
	(b) He is up in arms about the pet
	(c) The pet is really wild
	(d) He is wild about the pet*

Appendix B

Response examples from subgroups within ASD on the TLC-E

Most competent child and adult ASD subgroups

The most competent children and adults with ASD (subgroup 3 for the children and subgroup 1 for the adults) were generally able to resolve ambiguity. Most of these participants were also able to make correct inferential judgments. They showed some linguistic flexibility by including all three words into a context-dependent sentence as required by the Oral Expression: Recreating Sentences subtest. However, their responses were often marked by syntactic errors. For instance, one child from subgroup 3 produced “Before we go we’ll rather see this movie after we get some popcorn” (target words are in bold). An adult from subgroup 1 produced “Here at this bakery you will find the products fresh nor will you have to wait long”. The most competent adults with ASD were generally able to provide their own interpretation to figurative speech. Children from the most competent subgroup, while able to generally use the context to derive the meaning of figurative speech, exhibited restricted knowledge of everyday figures of speech.

Least competent child and adult subgroups

Performance by the least competent subgroups (subgroup 1 for the children and subgroup 3 for the adults) was marked by an inability to recognise ambiguity. Most children and adults gave either one response or elected to pass on the Ambiguous Sentence items. When presented with “And then the man wiped the glasses carefully”, one adult responded with “dirty glasses” and “then wiped them”. On average, participants from these two subgroups were inconsistent in selecting correct responses in the Listening Comprehension: Making Inferences subtest. The inability to consistently select even one correct response could indicate a random selection process rather than an ability to detect inferential messages. Participants from the least competent subgroups exhibited difficulty with the linguistic and pragmatic constraints of the Oral Expression: Recreating Sentences tasks. One child produced “This bakery is fresh said the black lady. The other lady said there’s no way I’m not buying here”, despite being requested to use the three words in one sentence only. Children and adults from the least competent subgroups were on average not able to provide their own meaning for the figurative language, nor were they able to derive meaning from the context. Most selections were literal interpretations of the target. For example, when given the situation Two students moving to a new town and the sentence “there is rough sailing ahead for us”, one adult provided “in Venice” for their own interpretation, and chose “the waves are going to make it hard to sail” when given four possible responses.