Assessing pragmatic abilities of small children with and without ASD diagnosis.
Ingrid Ya I Sun, Thais Helena Ferreira Santos, Fernanda Dreux Miranda Fernandes
Children with confirmed ASD scored higher (more impaired) than children whose ASD suspicion was ruled out, across all four pragmatic domains measured.
The pilot involved 22 toddlers aged 18 to 36 months.
Key findings
1Children with confirmed ASD scored higher than children whose ASD suspicion was ruled out across all four domains: Responsiveness (p = 0.009), Eye Contact and Joint Attention (p < 0.001), Imitation (p = 0.01), and Symbolic Play (p = 0.01).
2The overall LOGPP score was significantly higher in the confirmed ASD group (p < 0.001).
3A statistically significant association was found between communicative modality (verbal vs. nonverbal) and study group (p < 0.001), with the ruled-out group showing a higher proportion of nonverbal children.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Very small sample: 11 children per group, which limits the generalisability of any group difference. Single examiner (the first author) administered and scored all sessions, so inter-rater reliability is unknown. The comparison group is children whose ASD suspicion was ruled out, not a typical-development group, so the tool's ability to separate ASD from typical development is not tested here. All recordings took place in SLP clinics where the children were already receiving assessment or intervention, which may influence engagement and performance. The authors describe the LOGPP as a pilot instrument from a doctoral project and call the findings preliminary. No information is given on how the ASD diagnosis was confirmed or ruled out (which criteria, which clinician, which instruments). The examiner was not a familiar interlocutor to the child, and the authors acknowledge this as a factor that could affect performance.
Declared interests
Funded by CAPES (Brazilian federal agency for graduate education). No industry sponsor, no commercial interest in the tool, and no author conflicts of interest are declared beyond the funding line.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as validation of the LOGPP as a diagnostic or screening tool ready for routine use. It is a pilot with 22 children scored by a single examiner, and the comparison group is children whose ASD suspicion was ruled out, not a typical development group. The authors themselves state the tool does not classify or diagnose, and they call for further studies to establish its strengths and limitations.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →