Word+Finding+Characteristics+Assignment

=**Finding Referral Checklist: Zak **=

The diagnostic tool //The Word Finding Referral Checklist// (WFRC) was used to assess the oral language of Zak for the presence of word-finding behaviors. I completed the checklist as a result of my interview with Zak’s teacher, Mrs. Cindy Green. Based on the information obtained from the checklist, it has been determined that Zak does indeed have word-finding difficulties in both the single-word context and the discourse context. A detailed explanation of Zak’s assessment is given below.

According to the information given to me by Zak’s teacher, he does seem to have a good understanding of language, at least in what she has observed in her classroom. Mrs. Green stated that Zak knows the words that he is trying to say but sometimes has trouble thinking of them. Because Zak does appear to have a good understanding of language, his difficulty in expressing himself is attributed to a word-finding problem, though he also has an articulation difficulty, independent of his word-finding problems. The presence of a good understanding of language despite word-finding difficulties in Zak was seen in his frequent substitution of the function or action of words for which he could not remember (please see checklist item 4b below).

The WFRC says that a “yes” answer for items 1, 2, 3; one or more for 4 a, b, c, or d; and at least 2 for items 5, 6, 10, 11, or 12 suggests a word-finding difficulty in an individual in single-word retrieval contexts. Mrs. Green answered “yes” for items 1, 2, and 3, as well as 4b and 4c, 6, 10, and 11, confirming Zak’s difficulty in single-word contexts. Zak’s good understanding of language is reflected in Mrs. Green’s affirmative responses to items 1 through 3, but Zak’s difficulty in retrieving known words is evidenced by his struggle to think of familiar baseball terms such as “home base, catcher, safe, strike, and batter.” Zak frequently used the substitutions described in items 4b and 4c. For instance, he squats down and pretends to hold a mitt the way a catcher would and says “The guy who does this…” when trying to think of the word “catcher.” Mrs. Green also noted that Zak did use nonsense words for words that he couldn’t remember but that the words were related to meaning rather than sound (and thus did not prompt a “yes” to 4a). For example, Zak used words such as “bat guy” (batter) and “sporter” (athlete) when he had difficulty thinking of target words. Question 6 describes long delays when the student can’t think of a word, and Zak displays this particular behavior when he can’t think of the word “home base” (though he also inserts the substitutions described in 4b and c at this point) and while trying to describe what a “strike” is.

Question 10 asks the observer about both gestures of frustration and gestures used to mime the target words. Though Zak never exhibits any gestures of frustration (in fact, he seems quite relaxed through-out the conversation), he frequently mimes several different target words. He mimes holding a bat, swinging a bat, throwing a ball, a catcher, sliding into base, dribbling a basketball, and mimes running/sliding and doing a back flip with his fingers. As previously discussed, some of Zak’s miming is also used in the form of a substitution to describe the function of the word that he can’t remember. Finally, item 11 asks if the individual uses time fillers such as “um” and “er” while trying to think of a word, and Zak uses these fillers during the course of the entire conversation. Mrs. Green’s “yes” answers to these specific items on the WFRC suggest Zak’s difficulty with word-finding in single-word contexts.

The WFRC says that “yes” answers for items 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9 and one or more for 4 a, b, c, or d suggest that an individual has potential word-finding difficulties in the discourse context. The “yes” answer for questions 1 and 2 established Zak’s good understanding of language for both the single-word and discourse context. As previously mentioned, Zak had difficulty remembering the names of specific baseball terms, and his blocks occurred during the course of a conversation in which he was asked to describe the sport of baseball, prompting Mrs. Green to answer “yes” to number 7. Numbers 8 and 9 on the WFRC refer to an individual’s repetition of words and phrases and false starts and revisions during a conversation. Zak repeated several phrases such as “throw it,” “that’s home base,” “if you like do that,” “the one does that this,” “I can go,” and “make a back flip” and made revisions when talking about the batter and the catcher at both the beginning and the end of the conversation. Finally, Zak’s use of substitutions as described in items 4b and 4c were discussed in the previous section explaining his word-finding difficulties in the single-word context and confirms his word-finding challenges in the discourse context also.

Finally, Zak’s word-finding difficulties in both the single-word and discourse contexts are evidenced by the presence of secondary characteristics frequently seen in individuals with word-finding challenges. There are two types of secondary characteristics, gestures and extra-verbalizations. As discussed before, Zak never displayed any gestures of frustration, but he frequently mimed the function of words that he couldn’t think of, referred to as iconic gestures. Zak does not, however, exhibit extra verbalizations in either metalinguistic or metacognitive comments.

Using the information gathered from Mrs. Green through the WFRC, it appears that Zak has word-finding difficulties in both the single-word and discourse contexts and should be assessed using a standardized test in order to appropriately meet his word-finding needs in the classroom.

[|WFRC.jpg]

= =

=Word Finding Referral Checklist: FRANKIE =

The diagnostic tool //The Word Finding Referral Checklist// (WFRC) was used to check the oral language of Frankie for the presence of word-finding behaviors. I completed the checklist as a result of my interview with Frankie’s teacher, Mrs. Laura Paraskevas.

Based on the information provided by Mrs. Paraskevas, the following questions on the checklist were marked as YES*: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12. The results of the WFRC do suggest that Frankie has word-finding difficulties in the single-word retrieval context. Overall, Frankie was shown 16 picture cards, each containing a different vegetable. He successfully retrieved the correct word for 7 vegetable names and was unable to retrieve the correct word for 9 vegetable names. His checklist shows the presence of specific patterns, as explained below.

Considering that both questions 1 and 2 were checked YES on the checklist, Frankie __does__ appear to have a good general understanding of language. He knows the words for the vegetables that appeared on the picture cards, and the teacher confirms his general understanding of language based on everyday classroom observations. His understanding of language is further evidenced by the fact that he is not observed making substitutions of nonsense words, words that sound like the target words, or vague words.

Question #5 asks whether the student gave a wrong answer and then self-corrected. On the first card shown, Frankie gave an incorrect answer, “fries” for potato. Several cards later, he made a self-correction – he located the card and said the word potato. On a subsequent card, Frankie was shown a picture of celery but could not retrieve the word. Two cards later in the sequence Frankie retrieved the celery card and said “celery.” Two occurrences of this type out of a total of 16 is not a frequency that would establish a pattern, per se, but it is noteworthy and something that should be monitored. Per Item #6, Frankie frequently had long delays, three seconds and longer, when trying to think of the vegetable names. As it relates to Item #10, Frankie was often observed fidgeting with his hands (tapping, twisting fingers together, playing with his bracelet), indicating frustration during his attempts at single-word retrieval. Furthermore, he used the time filler “um” routinely and made the remark, “I can’t think of it” when trying to retrieve a vegetable name. As a result, questions 11 and 12 on the checklist are answered YES.

As described above, the student did display secondary characteristics when he experienced a word finding block, such as gestures of frustration (fidgeting hands) and extra verbalizations (“ummm” “Don’t tell me” “I think…..those are….” “It’s --” followed by a long pause). Furthermore, during this particular observation period, Frankie was given a phonemic cue, “rrr” for radish, but he was unable to retrieve the word on his own.

Using the information gathered from Mrs. Paraskevas through the WFRC, it appears that Frankie has word-finding difficulties in the single-word context and should be assessed using a standardized test in order to appropriately meet his word-finding needs in the classroom.

// Testing Observations: A couple of observations from the testing environment seemed noteworthy. First, was it appropriate to separate the piles of correct and incorrect answers? How might this impact Frankie’s confidence or feelings of success? Second, would a child this age really know all of these items? Beets and radishes don’t seem like common vegetables, so can you accurately say that it was a true word retrieval difficulty, as it relates to these two particular words? //
 * Dr. German: Items 4 a, b, c and d are checked as NO based solely on the video, but in real life the classroom teacher may have been able to give further insight based on classroom observations.

[|WFRC_Frankie.JPG]