J. COMMUN. DISORD. 24 (1991), 251-266
LANGUAGE SKILLS OF DELINQUENT AND NONDELINQUENT ADOLESCENT MALES ABBE D. DAVIS Lincoln Public Schools
DIXIE D. SANGER and MARY MORRIS-FRIEHE Department of Special Nebraska-Lincoln
Education
and Communication
Disorders,
University
of
A comparison of language skills between adolescent juvenile delinquent males and matched nondelinquent peers was made using an informal language sample analysis (a modified Clinical Discourse Analysis) and the TOALmeasure. Twenty-four institutionalized delinquents and 24 nondelinquents ranging in age from 14.4 to 17.9 years were subjects. Their respective mean full scale intelligence quotients were 99.75 and 101.25 and they had no known verified handicapping conditions. Two one-way ANOVAs showed that there were significant differences for language skills on the dependent measures between the two groups. Differences between the groups also were observed from descriptive statistics for academic performance. Implications for assessment and treatment of “at-risk” populations are addressed.
INTRODUCTION Juvenile delinquency is a major social problem in the United States. Approximately 13 million serious crimes such as murder and rape, and up to 100 million total crimes are committed annually by adolescents and adults (Rojek and Jensen, 1982; Senna and Siegel, 1984). A juvenile delinquent is defined as an individual who has been adjudicated or determined guilty of violating the law before the age of 18 (Mauser, 1974). For purposes of this study, institutionalized juvenile delinquents and matched nondelinquent peers were studied. As society confronts the escalating incidence of juvenile delinquency, responsibility has been placed on educators to explore means for dealing with and eventually assisting with the prevention of juvenile delinquency. One avenue that educators and researchers have pursued to better understand the problem ofjuvenile delinquency is the coexistence ofjuvenile delinquency and developmental disabilities such as language and learning disabilities (Bachara and Zaba, 1978; Broder, Dunivant, Smith, and Sutton, 1981; Bryan and Pflaum, 1978; Larson and McKinley, 1989; Mauser, 1974; McKay and Brumback, 1980; Wilgosh and Paitich, 1982; Zinkus and Gottlieb, 1978). The connection between delinquents and individuals 0 1991 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
251 0021-9924191153.50
252
A. D. DAVIS
et al.
with disabilities is of interest since both populations have been consistently characterized as at risk for school failure and have a higher incidence of drop-out. Although there is inconsistent evidence regarding the exact relationship between delinquency and language and learning disabilities, many researchers agree that the probability of adjudication or being found guilty of committing a crime may be higher for certain types of adolescents with disabilities such as learning disabilities (Broder et al., 1981; Crawford, 1984). Studies, in general, support the notion that nonverbal and problematic behavior exhibited by delinquents may result from the failure to acquire age appropriate speech and language skills (Durand and Carr, 1985; Shery, 1985; Waltzawick, Beavin, and Jackson, cited in Carr and Durand, 1985). According to Bryan and Pflaum (1978), decreased linguistic skills may lead to the substitution of behaviors that are viewed by society as inappropriate. A few studies have focused on the communication skills of juvenile delinquents (Cozad and Rousey, 1966; Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969). These researchers examined speech, language, and hearing skills of institutionalized delinquents. Cozad and Rousey (1966) found 24 percent of their delinquent group to exhibit a hearing disorder. The figure for the presence of speech disorders was 58%. Taylor (1969) expanded on the Cozad and Rousey study by administering a language battery to 119 institutionalized, adolescent male delinquents. Results showed that 84% of the sample had communication problems of which the greatest proportion (95%) were problems in the area of language. Irwin’s replication (1977) of Taylor’s study yielded an incidence level of 68% for communication disorders (57% language and 6% articulation). A more recent study conducted by Falconer and Cochran (1989) on 53 institutionalized male juvenile offenders revealed that statistically significant differences were found when their sample was compared to national prevalence figures and the normative sample data from the Fullerton Language Test for Adolescents. Eighty-three percent of the delinquents demonstrated some type of language problem compared to 4%-6% of their noninstitutionalized peers. While the number and type of communication disorders differed between these studies, the incidence was significantly greater compared to the population at large. In comparing these studies, it was noted that a variety of language assessment procedures including standardized tests and brief samples of speaking were utilized. Although some of the studies addressed the issue of assessing communication skills such as articulation, voice, or rhythm in a conversational context (Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969), none examined language specifically using an informal, language sampling analysis procedure despite the fact it is considered valuable in describing language behaviors (Cole, Mills, and Dale, 1989; Lahey, 1988; Lund and Duchan, 1988; Owens, 1991). It was speculated
LANGUAGE
AND DELINQUENCY
253
that the procedures used in previous reports were somewhat restricted in scope and insufficient for identifying students “at-risk” for language problems. Since there continues to be attention placed on the language and learning skills of delinquents and students with disorders in areas other than language such as behavioral/emotional disorders (Camarata, Hughes, and Ruhl, 1988; Fessler, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg, 1991; McDonough, 1991; Miniutti, 1991; Prizant, Audet, Bruke, Hummel, Maher, and Theadore, 1991; Rosenthal and Simeonsson, 1991), and learning disorders (Chandler and Keefe, 1988; Kamhi and Catts, 1989), the question of identification of those students who are “at risk” for concomitant language problems is important. One challenge that arises when selecting procedures for evaluating students who may be “at risk” for language problems is the issue of valid and reliable measures. Current practice advocates the use of both standardized and informal measures to obtain a representative sampling of language behavior. For that reason this research is unique in that it included both a standardized measure and an informal language sampling procedure which did not have normative data. These measures were used to assess a population of students who were thought to be at risk for subtle, yet concerning language problems. Based on the prevalence figures for juvenile delinquents, the potential link between language problems and delinquency, and the need to include standardized and informal language measures in an assessment process, this study was conducted. The purpose was to compare the language and learning skills of institutionalized juvenile delinquents and their nondelinquent peers. The comparison was made in relation to comprehension and production of spoken language and academic skills. Four specific questions were addressed: 1. Does the language of institutionalized juvenile delinquents significantly differ from their nondelinquent peers using an informal language sample analysis procedure? 2. Does the language of institutionalized juvenile delinquents significantly differ from their nondelinquent peers using a comprehensive standardized measure? 3. How many institutionalized juvenile delinquents in this study who had never received special services would qualify for services in the area of language? METHOD Subjects This study included two groups (n = 48) of male, Caucasian adolescents: one group of adjudicated institutionalized delinquents (n = 24) and a normal group of nondelinquent peers (n = 24). The group of institution-
254
A. D. DAVIS et al.
alized delinquents ranged in age between 14 years 5 months and 17 years 8 months (M = 16.6 years). The nondelinquents were ages 14.1-17.9 years (M = 16.6 years). Full scale intelligence quotients (FSIQ) for the delinquent group ranged from 91 to 108 (M = 99.75). For the nondelinquents, intelligence quotients were between 90 and 109 (M = 101.25). The names of 37 delinquent and 94 nondelinquent students were elicited from an administrator either in a correctional institution or a midwestern junior/senior high. All were Caucasian and had no verified disability. The nondelinquents also had no record of adjudication. Of those two groups, 65% (n = 24) of the delinquents and 80% (n = 75) of the nondelinquents consented to participate. The nondelinquent group was reduced in size to 24 subjects by matching them with the delinquent subjects according to age and FSIQ. Demographic information obtained from each subject’s institutional or school record included the following: (a) present grade level, (b) full scale intelligence scores (FSIQ), and (c) standardized educational achievement scores. Procedures A between-groups comparison research design was utilized to compare the language skills of delinquents to their nondelinquent peers. The independent variable, juvenile status, consisted of two levels: delinquent and nondelinquent. The two dependent variables included an informal language sample analysis and a standardized language test. Existing scores from standardized academic tests also were obtained. The Clinical Discourse Analysis (Damico, 1985) was the informal procedure for examining spoken language. The Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2) (Hammill, Brown, Larsen, and Wiederholt, 1987), which is normed for individuals up to the age of 18.5, was the standardized measure. It consisted of 8 subtests, which were used to yield a global language quotient (Adolescent Language Quotient-ALQ) and 10 other related quotients pertaining to listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks. All subjects were tested in a room at the institutional facility or public school by a graduate student in speech-language pathology. Prior to testing, a 5-IO-minute period was spent establishing rapport and explaining the purpose of the tasks. The informal measure and two subtests of the Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2) (Hammill et al., 1987), Speaking Vocabulary and Speaking Grammar, were administered individually. In order to collect a IO-15-minute descriptive spoken language sample, each subject was asked to tell the researcher about a TV show, movie, or book he had seen or read recently that he enjoyed. A descriptive task was chosen to elicit “conversation-like” discourse. The subjects were instructed to assume the examiner knew nothing about their chosen topic. The examiner was told to interact with the subject in a “natural” conversational manner. The samples were audiotaped and later transcribed.
LANGUAGE
AND DELINQUENCY
255
A modified Clinical Discourse Analysis was used to analyze the samples (Damico, 1985). In addition to the original 15 discourse behaviors described by Damico, word choice and morphological error categories were added. Word choice was defined as use of a word closely related to the target word, but not necessarily an appropriate choice. Morphological errors included any grammatical error, omission of a word, or incomplete sentence. The analysis was divided into four broad categories of communication behaviors derived from Grice’s “cooperative principle” (1975). This theoretical framework was used to organize the original 15 discourse behaviors into the four categories relating to Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Word choice was placed in the category for Quantity. Morphological error was placed in the Manner category. Definitions provided by Damico were used to interpret errors during the analysis. The informal procedure yielded a frequency count for each of the discourse behaviors, a total count of errors across all categories, a mean number of errors per utterance, and a percentage of utterances with one or more discourse errors (see Appendix A). Both the examiner and subjects’ language was transcribed; however, only the subjects’ language was coded per the Damico procedural guidelines. Interaction between the student and the examiner was used to determine appropriate codes for the student’s response. After eliciting the language sample and administering two TOAL- subtests, the remaining six TOAL- subtests were administered in groups of 3-7 according to the TOAL- Manual. These subtests included (a) Listening Vocabulary, (b) Reading Grammar, (c) Writing Vocabulary, (d) Listening Grammar, (e) Reading Vocabulary, and (f) Writing Grammar. During group sessions, a lo-minute break was permitted following completion of the Writing Vocabulary Subtest and prior to initiating the Listening Grammar Subtest as specified by the authors of the TOAL-2. Articulation, voice, and fluency were observed informally by the researcher during the language sample and expressive components of the TOAL-2. A comparison of the academic achievement of the delinquents and nondelinquents was completed by comparing the subjects’ most recent achievement scores. The standard scores for reading, language, and math achievement using either the California Achievement Test (CTB/McGraw, 1977,1978), the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Achievement Battery (Woodcock and Johnson, 1977), or the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak and Jastak, 1978) were recorded and mean standard scores for each group analyzed. Reliability All language samples were transcribed by a graduate assistant majoring in speech-language pathology. The student had received guidelines and practice samples prior to the transcription. The primary researcher also
256
A. D. DAVIS
et
al.
listened to all tapes and examined the transcripts for accuracy. With respect to rater reliability for coding the samples, every eighth sample (13%) was selected from each of the two groups and rerated by the primary researcher using a blind review procedure. A point-by-point agreement procedure resulted in a 95% intrarater agreement rate between the two ratings of the same samples. Data Analysis The ALQ from the TOAL- and the percentage of utterances with error from the Clinical Discourse Analysis were the dependent variables considered for statistical analysis. One-way ANOVAs were computed to determine if there were significant differences between the mean language scores for each group (p < .Ol). Descriptive analyses were computed on reading, language, and math achievement scores. RESULTS A Comparison of Delinquent and Nondelinquent
Language Skills
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the delinquents and nondelinquents on the two dependent variables. These data indicate the delinquents performed worse than their nondelinquent peers on both informal and standardized language measures. These differences were significant for the percent of utterances with error from the Clinical Discourse Analysis F (1,46) = 10.79, p < .002, and the Adolescent Language Quotient F (1, 46) = 7.17, p < .Ol. Tables 2 and 3 present the means and standard deviations for the remaining components of the Clinical Discourse Analysis and the TOAL2. The mean number of utterances analyzed for each group on the language
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Clinical Discourse Analysis and the TOALAdolescent Language Quotient of the Delinquent and Nondelinquent Groups Adolescent males Dependent variables Clinical discourse analysis percent of utterances with error Adolescent language quotient (TOAL-2)b
b TOAL-Z
= Test of Adolescent
Language-2
Delinquent (n = 24) M SD M SD
= 75.08 = 8.19 = 82.04 = 13.23
Nondelinquent (n = 24) M = 66.71” SD = 9.43 M = 92.42” SD = 13.62
LANGUAGE AND DELINQUENCY Table 2. Means and Standard Subcategories
of the Delinquent
Deviations for the Clinical Discourse and Nondelinquent Groups
Analysis
Adolescent males Delinquent (n = 24) Clinical discourse categories
M
Percent of utterances with error Total utterances Total errors Mean error/utterance Quantity errors Redundancy Failure to provide sufficient information Inappropriate response Failure to ask relevant questions Situational inappropriateness Inappropriate speech style Manner Linguistic nonfluency Revision behaviors Nonspecific vocabulary Need for repetition Word choice Quality errors Message inaccuracy Relation errors Topic maintenance Delays before responding Discourse structure Turn-taking difficulty Morphological error
75.08 109.75 465.54 4.23 96.67 1.63 32.96 .42 .13 .04 .25 364.83 260.13 55.17 54.71 .13 6.25 2.88 2.92 1.17 .42 .21 10.92 2.75 36.04
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
SD
M
SD
8.19 29.33 179.75 1.25 41.44 1.69 13.89 .72 .34 .20 .68 165.41 117.20 28.26 29.92 .45 4.63 3.63 3.56 1.44 .93 .42 8.53 2.56 18.70
66.71 107.33 264.83 2.50 50.58 .46 17.08 .21 .21 0.00 .04 211.79 163.46 33.00 29.54 .04 3.92 1.00 1.00 1.42 .96 .08 3.54 .83 19.46
9.43 31.28 103.14 .73 28.44 .83 8.10 .51 .51 0.00 .20 81.43 53.64 18.49 20.69 .20 2.84 1.22 1.22 2.21 2.07 .28 3.83 .96 9.90
sample (Table 2) was 109.75 and 107.33 for the delinquents and nondelinquents, respectively. Additionally, the delinquents showed an average of 4.23 errors in each utterance, while the nondelinquents produced an average of 2.50 errors per utterance. The mean number of total errors for the delinquents was almost twice that for the nondelinquents (465.54 versus 264.83). Trends in both subtest performances and resulting TOAL- quotients were examined. Both groups had the least difficulty on the Listening Vocabulary Subtest which required the subject to select two or four pictures that related to each word orally presented. The subtest that was the most difficult for both groups was the Writing Grammar. This subtest required the subject to read and combine a number of sentences into one sentence. The subjects had to embed and transform phrases, form pos-
258
A. D. DAVIS
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Subtest Standard Composite Standard Scores of the Delinquents and Nondelinquents Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2)
et al.
Scores and on the
Adolescent males Delinquent (n = 24) TOAL-
subtest profile
Subtest standard scores: Listening vocabulary Listening grammar Speaking vocabulary Speaking grammar Reading vocabulary Reading grammar Writing vocabulary Writing grammar Composite standard scores: Listening Speaking Reading Writing Spoken language Written language Vocabulary Grammar Receptive language Expressive language
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
M
SD
M
SD
9.04 7.61 7.92 7.33 7.50 7.21 7.21 5.46
3.14 2.44 2.84 4.08 2.93 2.02 3.73 2.40
10.00 9.29 9.08 8.21 9.04 9.50 9.08 7.00
2.75 1.92 2.34 3.91 3.18 2.55 3.18 3.14
16.71 15.25 14.71 12.71 31.96 27.38 31.67 27.67 31.42 27.92
4.06 5.97 4.15 5.05 9.22 8.15 9.63 7.04 6.53 10.03
19.29 17.29 18.54 16.13 36.58 34.67 37.04 34.25 37.83 33.42
3.96 5.35 4.85 5.67 8.01 9.23 8.48 7.86 7.19 9.64
sessives, and alter tenses in order to create more complex sentences. With respect to the quotients, both groups performed better in the areas of Spoken Language, Vocabulary, and Receptive Language, while their performances in the areas of Written Language, Grammar, and Expressive Language were lower. It is interesting to note that even though the delinquent group’s scores were depressed when compared to their nondelinquent peers, the areas of strength and weakness were comparable for both groups. Delinquents In This Study Who Would Qualify for Services in the Area of Language Individual subject scores for the Adolescent Language Quotients (ALQ from TOAL-2) and full scale intellectual quotients (FSIQ taken from each subject’s school records) are presented in Table 4 in an effort to further explore the link between language, delinquency, and at-risk behavior for
LANGUAGE
259
AND DELINQUENCY
Table 4. Delinquent and Nondelinquent Adolescent Language (ALQ) and Full Scale Intelligence Quotients (FSIQ) Subject number (n = 24) 02 03” 04” 05 06” 01” Oga 09 10” 12 14 15” 16” 17 18 19” 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
ALQ
FSIQ
Subject number (n = 24)
103 83 59 75 76 71 72 104 60 97 102 72 II 96 97 71 76 98 89 74 82 78 74 83
106 108 91 96 101 94 95 105 103 105 108 97 107 102 106 95 94 100 101 96 101 97 92 94
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44” 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 54
Delinquent
Quotients
Nondelinquent
ALQ
FSIQ
82 90 83 116 92 108 95 110 107 77 94 109 95 96 96 62 97 82 91 99 85 107 69 76
93 108 103 109 107 107 103 102 103 92 103 109 109 97 109 94 106 92 91 103 99 108 90 93
o Subjects with 23 point or greater differential (1.5 standard deviation) between ALQ and FSIQ.
language problems. A 23 point or greater (1.5 standard deviation discrepancy) differential between language performance and overall mental ability level (FSIQ) was utilized by the researchers for an individual to be considered potentially eligible for speech and language services. This criterion was chosen since it is consistent with verification guidelines for language impairment in some states. Four percent (n = 1) of the nondelinquents and 38% (n = 9) of the delinquents had a 23 point or greater difference between language performance and overall mental ability level. In addition to examining the subjects for potential language problems, their academic performances also were compared (Table 5). The mean standard scores from the various academic measures indicated that the nondelinquents scored higher in reading, math, and written language than the nondelinquents.
260
A. D. DAVIS et al.
Table 5. Comparison of Delinquent and Nondelinquent and Math Achievement Standard Scores
Reading, Language, Adolescent males
Achievement
areas
Reading achievement standard scores Language achievement standard scores Math achievement standard scores
Delinquent (II = 24)
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
M
M
97.71 94.26 98.96
108.21 103.46 109.33
DISCUSSION Language Skills The statistically significant findings between the delinquents and nondelinquents on the informal language sample and the TOAL- adds new credence to previous reports that the delinquent population is at greater risk for exhibiting communication deficits when compared to their nondelinquent peers (Cozad and Rousey, 1966; Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969). The delinquent youth performed significantly below their nondelinquent peers on both the informal language sample, which evaluated language in a more functional, descriptive context, and the comprehensive standardized measure (TOAL-2). Results of the informal language sample revealed that while a mean of 75.08% of the delinquents’ and 66.71% of the nondelinquents’ utterances were characterized by some type of discourse error, the mean number of total errors for the delinquents was almost twice that of the nondelinquent group. Even though the percent of utterances with error was significantly different, the relative similarity in the two group’s performances may have been due to how the variable was scored. For example, an utterance was scored as an error if it contained one or more errors (Damico, 1985). Even though the nondelinquents had half the number of errors as the delinquents, they were evenly distributed over the utterances resulting in a somewhat high percent of utterances with error. Clinicians must be sensitive to the manner in which informal summative variables (i.e., percent of utterances in error) are calculated and consider the information in view of the total battery of test findings. Few if any guidelines exist from which to make qualitative judgements concerning summative or specific language behaviors from language samples and their relationship to the presence of language disorders. The nondelinquents exhibited fewer, but relatively similar, types of errors across the categories for Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner (Table 2). Both groups evidenced fewer errors in the Quality (truth value) or Relation (relevance and timing of contribu-
LANGUAGE AND DELINQUENCY
tions) areas. Most errors were experienced by both groups within the Quantity (sufficient information and vocabulary) and Manner (delivery) categories. Within the Manner category, the behaviors that occurred most frequently for both groups were linguistic nonfluencies and revisions. These included: pauses, interjections, part/whole word revisions, and/or repetitions. Again the delinquents did exhibit more errors than the nondelinquents; however, this trend should be interpreted cautiously. These behaviors reflect a need for time to retrieve words, sequence information, and in general plan discourse. Brinton and Fujiki (1989) reported that selfrepairs such as these are common in the speech of “normal” children and adults. To some extent, they represent the speaker’s attempt at monitoring discourse for production difftculties. Unfortunately, guidelines are not readily available for determining what proportion of errors in this category constitute deviant versus normal language behavior. Given the nature of the procedures used, the researchers acknowledge that the frequently occurring behaviors reported from the language sample (Appendix A) are not necessarily analogous to language disorders. For example, one cannot assume that 15 occurrences of failure to provide sufftcient information constitutes a language problem. The present language sample results are important but if interpreted in isolation preclude any firm generalizations. The use of both the informal language sample and the standardized procedure lend preliminary support to the existence of yet another population of students who are frequently not identified as having language and learning problems. The presence of concomitant language and learning problems among delinquents is similar to research documenting the prevalence of language problems among students with behavioral disorders/learning disorders (Baltaxe and Simmons, 1988; Camarata, Hughes, and Ruhl, 1988; Chandler and Keefe, 1988; Fessler et al., 1991; Giddan, 1991; Kamhi and Catts, 1989; McDonough, 1991; Miniutti, 1991; Prizant et al., 1990; Rosenthal and Simeonsson, 1991). This research should be of interest to speech-language pathologists who are dealing with the identification and management of at-risk populations. The TOAL- findings support the research of Falconer and Cochran (1989) that delinquent subjects score lower on subtests of standardized language instruments. To provide additional developmental information using the standardized measure, the delinquent and nondelinquent group quotient scores were compared to the TOAL- sample norms. The Adolescent Language Quotient (ALQ) has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 points. Interestingly, the mean score of the delinquent group (82.02) was more than one standard deviation below the mean reported for the TOALstandardization sample. The nondelinquents’ mean score (92.42) was within one standard deviation of the TOALmean. Likewise the ALQ standard deviations of both groups were com-
262
A. D. DAVIS
et al.
parable to those of the TOAL- norms (TOAL- = 15 points; delinquents = 13.23; nondelinquents = 13.62). A more in-depth examination of each subject’s ALQ in relation to the TOAL- norms revealed that 50% (n = 12) of the delinquents compared to 12% (n = 3) of the nondelinquents scored greater than one and a half standard deviations (23 points) below the mean of that test sample. These findings concur with Falconer and Cochran’s (1989) comparisons between their delinquents’ scores and the standardization population of the Fullerton Language Test of Adolescents (FLTA). They too found that delinquents scored lower on that instrument. The results contrast, however, in terms of the percentage of delinquents who scored more than one and a half standard deviations (23 points) below the mean. In the present study, 50% of the adolescents scored more than one and a half standard deviations below the mean, while only 15% of delinquents sampled by Falconer and Cochran’s scored more than one standard deviation below the mean. This discrepancy may be attributable to the difference between the TOAL- and the FLTA in the types of language tasks included and the level of task complexity. In addition to the language discrepancies, the delinquents also scored lower than the nondelinquents across academic measures. Different from the language performances, the academic scores were all within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean. These results are somewhat similar to what Mellzer, Roditi, and Fenton (1983) noted from retrospective studies of institutionalized youth, which consistently have suggested a history of school failure or poor academic achievement among delinquent groups. Unfortunately, this study does not add direct support to the Mellzer et al. research since there was no control over the type of academic instruments used for comparison. Future research using the same measure for academic achievement and incorporating additional data concerning school failure (i.e., absenteeism, drop-out rates, grades) would be beneficial. While statistical significance provides information for researchers and professionals, one consideration for any professional should be the practical or clinical implications of the research. It is disconcerting that greater numbers of delinquents (9/24 compared to l/24 for the nondelinquents) appeared to qualify for services in the area of language, but had not been identified nor were they receiving special education services (Nelson et al., 1987; Rutherford, Behrens, and Fejesk, 1987). These findings suggest that speech-language pathologists as well as other special educators need to continue to advocate for early identification of language problems and critique the types of assessment procedures and treatment alternatives they use in working with delinquent populations. For example, clinicians could promote early identification by providing educators with informal checklists, referral forms, and examples of behaviors which interfere with
LANGUAGEANDDELINQUENCY
263
conversation (e.g., discourse structure, problems with turn taking, poor referential communication skills, and nonspecific information) (Larsen and McKinley, 1989). The question of the potential relationship between a language problem and delinquency is complex and beyond the scope of this study. However, a more solid basis has been established for the notion that juvenile delinquents may be more at risk for language problems than nondelinquents. It is important to consider the following hypothesis. Children who are “at risk” for language and learning difficulties demonstrate more obvious problems when they encounter the language demands of “school or the curriculum” (Owens, 1991). The curriculum within schools places demands on students to plan, integrate, evaluate, and acquire knowledge about subject matter not always experienced. As the language demands of a classroom increase, the expected level of student independence increases. The chasm potentially widens between ability and expectations for communicatively at risk students. These students experience greater frustration as they fall further behind their peers. Consequently, the likelihood of increases in areas such as truancy and asocial behaviors occur as the student’s needs continue to go unmet. Perhaps nonverbal and problematic behaviors result in part from the failure to acquire appropriate language skills. The authors are not suggesting that all delinquents have language problems. Rather, the issue appears to be one of a potential link between delinquency and language problems. This issue remains unresolved until further research can support the assumption. It does seem appropriate, however, that interdisciplinary team functioning and early identification and intervention programs for populations at risk for delinquency in general should consider the role of language and communication. REFERENCES Bachara, G. H., and Zaba, J. N. (1978). Learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. J. Learn. Disabil. 11(4):242-246. Baltaxe, C., and Simmons, J. Q. (1988). Pragmatic deficits in emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. In R. R. Schiefelbusch and L. L. Lloyd (eds.), Language Perspectives: Acquisition, Retardation, and Intervention, 2nd ed. (pp. 223-253). Austin, TX: Pro Ed. Broder, P. K., Dunivant, N., Smith, G. C., and Sutton, L. P. (1981). Further observation on the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. J. Ed. Psychol.
731838-850.
Brinton, B., and Fujiki, M. (1989). Conversational Management with LanguageImpaired Children, (pp. 63-93). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers. Bryan, T., and PBaum, S. (1978). Social interactions of learning disabled children: A linguistic, social and cognitive analysis. Learn. Disabif. Q. 1(3):70-79.
264
A. D. DAVIS et al.
Camarata, S., Hughes, C., and Ruhl, K. (1988). Mild/moderate behaviorally impaired students: A population at risk for language disorders. Lang. Speech, Hear. Serv. Schools,
19(2): 191-200.
Carr, E. G., and Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. J. Applied Behav. Anal. 18: 11l- 126. Chandler, A., and Keefe, C. (1988). Identifying the learning disabled student with a language problem. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. Washington DC, April, 1988. Cole, K. Mills, P., and Dale, P. (1989). Examination of test-retest and split-half reliability for measures derived from language samples of young handicapped children. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Schools, 20:259-268. Cozad, R., and Rousey, C. (1966). Hearing and speech disorders among delinquent children. Corrective Psychiatr. J. Social Thera. 12:250-255. Crawford, D. (1984). ACLD-R & D Project summary: A study investigating the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. In W. M. Cruickshank and J. M. Kliebhan (eds.), Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood (pp. 13-71). Washington DC, Syracuse University. CTB/McGraw-Hill(l977, 1978). California Achievement CA: CTBIMcGraw-Hill.
Tests (CAT).
Monterey,
Damico, J. S. (1985). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language assessment. In C. S. Simon (ed.), Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment of Language-Learning Disabled Students (pp. 168-203). San Diego: College Hill Press. Durand, V. M., and Carr, E. G. (1985). Self-injurious behavior; Motivating conditions and guidelines for treatment. School Psychol. Rev., 14(2):171-176. Falconer, K. O., and Cochran, J. R. (1989). Communication skills in male institutionalized juvenile offenders. Rocky Mount. J. Commun. Disord. 545-54. Fessler, M., Rosenberg, M., and Rosenberg, L. (1991). Concomitant learning disabilities and learning problems among students with behavioral/emotional disorders. Behav. Disord., 16(2):97-106. Giddan, J. (1991). School children with emotional problems and communication deficits: Implications for speech-language pathologists. LSHSS 22:291-295. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic
Press. Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., and Wiederholt, of Adolescent Language-2. Austin, TX: Pro-end.
J. L. (1987). Test
Irwin, D. L. (1977). A comparative study of the disorders of communication among incarcerated delinquents: Further implications for remedial speech and language programs. J. Missouri Speech Hear. Assoc. 10:27-33. Jastak, J., and Jastak, S. (1978). The Wide Range Achievement Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
Test (WRAT).
Kamhi, A., and Catts, H. (1989). Reading Disabilities: A Developmental guage Perspective. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Lan-
265
LANGUAGEANDDELINQUENCY Lahey, M. (1988). Language NY: MacMillan Press.
Disorders
and Language
Development.
New York,
Larson, V., and McKinely, N. (1989). If kids need speech and language help are your schools prepared to give it? Am. School Board J. January: 32-33. Lund, N., and Duchan, J. (1988). Assessing Childrens’ Language Contexts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mauser, A. (1974). Learning
disabilities
and delinquent
in Naturalistic
youth. Acad.
Ther. Q.
9:389-402.
McDonough, K. (1989). Analysis of the expressive language characteristics of emotionally handicapped students and social interactions. Behav. Disord. 14(2):127-139.
McKay, S., and Brumback, R. A. (1980). Relationship between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Percept. Motor Skills 51: 1223-1226. Mellzer, L., Roditi, B., and Fenton, T. (1983). Cognitive and learning profiles of delinquent and learning disabled adolescents. Adolescence 21(83):581-591. Miniutti, A. (1991). Language deficiencies in inner-city children with learning and behavioral problems. Lang. Speech, Hear. Serv. Schools 23:31-38. Nelson, C. M., Rutherford, R. B., and Wolford, B. I. (1987). Special education in the criminal justice system. Behav. Disord. J. Council Children Behav. Disord.
13(1):62-63.
Owens, R. W., Jr. (1991). Language sessment
and Intervention.
Disorders: A Functional New York: Macmillan.
Approach
to As-
Prizant, B., Audet, L., Burke, G., Hummel, L., Maher, S., and Theadore, G. (1990). Communication disorders and emotional/behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 55: 179-192. Rojek, D. G., and Jensen, G. F. (1982). Readings ington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lex-
in Juvenile Delinquency.
Rosenthal, S., and Simeonsson, R. (1991). Communication disturbed and nondisturbed adolescents. Behav. Disord.
skills in emotionally 16(3):192-199.
Rutherford, R. B., Behrens, J. T., and Fejesk, K. (1987). Preventive programs for adjudicated or incarcerated youth. Teach. Exceptional Child. 19(4):58-61. Senna, J. R., and Siegel, L. J. (1984). An Introduction Paul: West Publishers. Shery, T. (1985). Correlates of language development dren. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 50:73-83.
to Criminal Justice.
in language-disordered
St. chil-
Taylor, J. S. (1969). The communicative abilities of juvenile delinquents: A descriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO. Wilgosh, L., and Paitich, D. (1982). Delinquency evidence. J. Learn. Disabil. 15(5):278-279.
and learning disabilities:
More
Woodcock, R. W., and Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Part II. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation.
A. D. DAVIS et al.
266
Zinkus, P. W., and Gottlieb, M. I. (1978). Learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Clin Pediatr. 17:775-780. APPENDIX
A: MODIFIED
Percent of utterances Total utterances Total errors Mean errors/utterance
CLINICAL
with error
Quantity errors Redundancy Failure to provide sufficient information Nonspecific vocabulary Need for repetition Word choice Quality errors Message inaccuracy Relation errors Topic maintenance Inappropriate response Failure to ask relevant questions Situational inappropriateness Inappropriate speech style Manner Linguistic nonfluency Revision behaviors Delays before responding Discourse structure Turn-taking difficulty Morphological error
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
LANGUAGE SKILLS OF DELINQUENT AND NONDELINQUENT ADOLESCENT MALES ABBE D. DAVIS Lincoln Public Schools
DIXIE D. SANGER and MARY MORRIS-FRIEHE Department of Special Nebraska-Lincoln
Education
and Communication
Disorders,
University
of
A comparison of language skills between adolescent juvenile delinquent males and matched nondelinquent peers was made using an informal language sample analysis (a modified Clinical Discourse Analysis) and the TOALmeasure. Twenty-four institutionalized delinquents and 24 nondelinquents ranging in age from 14.4 to 17.9 years were subjects. Their respective mean full scale intelligence quotients were 99.75 and 101.25 and they had no known verified handicapping conditions. Two one-way ANOVAs showed that there were significant differences for language skills on the dependent measures between the two groups. Differences between the groups also were observed from descriptive statistics for academic performance. Implications for assessment and treatment of “at-risk” populations are addressed.
INTRODUCTION Juvenile delinquency is a major social problem in the United States. Approximately 13 million serious crimes such as murder and rape, and up to 100 million total crimes are committed annually by adolescents and adults (Rojek and Jensen, 1982; Senna and Siegel, 1984). A juvenile delinquent is defined as an individual who has been adjudicated or determined guilty of violating the law before the age of 18 (Mauser, 1974). For purposes of this study, institutionalized juvenile delinquents and matched nondelinquent peers were studied. As society confronts the escalating incidence of juvenile delinquency, responsibility has been placed on educators to explore means for dealing with and eventually assisting with the prevention of juvenile delinquency. One avenue that educators and researchers have pursued to better understand the problem ofjuvenile delinquency is the coexistence ofjuvenile delinquency and developmental disabilities such as language and learning disabilities (Bachara and Zaba, 1978; Broder, Dunivant, Smith, and Sutton, 1981; Bryan and Pflaum, 1978; Larson and McKinley, 1989; Mauser, 1974; McKay and Brumback, 1980; Wilgosh and Paitich, 1982; Zinkus and Gottlieb, 1978). The connection between delinquents and individuals 0 1991 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010
251 0021-9924191153.50
252
A. D. DAVIS
et al.
with disabilities is of interest since both populations have been consistently characterized as at risk for school failure and have a higher incidence of drop-out. Although there is inconsistent evidence regarding the exact relationship between delinquency and language and learning disabilities, many researchers agree that the probability of adjudication or being found guilty of committing a crime may be higher for certain types of adolescents with disabilities such as learning disabilities (Broder et al., 1981; Crawford, 1984). Studies, in general, support the notion that nonverbal and problematic behavior exhibited by delinquents may result from the failure to acquire age appropriate speech and language skills (Durand and Carr, 1985; Shery, 1985; Waltzawick, Beavin, and Jackson, cited in Carr and Durand, 1985). According to Bryan and Pflaum (1978), decreased linguistic skills may lead to the substitution of behaviors that are viewed by society as inappropriate. A few studies have focused on the communication skills of juvenile delinquents (Cozad and Rousey, 1966; Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969). These researchers examined speech, language, and hearing skills of institutionalized delinquents. Cozad and Rousey (1966) found 24 percent of their delinquent group to exhibit a hearing disorder. The figure for the presence of speech disorders was 58%. Taylor (1969) expanded on the Cozad and Rousey study by administering a language battery to 119 institutionalized, adolescent male delinquents. Results showed that 84% of the sample had communication problems of which the greatest proportion (95%) were problems in the area of language. Irwin’s replication (1977) of Taylor’s study yielded an incidence level of 68% for communication disorders (57% language and 6% articulation). A more recent study conducted by Falconer and Cochran (1989) on 53 institutionalized male juvenile offenders revealed that statistically significant differences were found when their sample was compared to national prevalence figures and the normative sample data from the Fullerton Language Test for Adolescents. Eighty-three percent of the delinquents demonstrated some type of language problem compared to 4%-6% of their noninstitutionalized peers. While the number and type of communication disorders differed between these studies, the incidence was significantly greater compared to the population at large. In comparing these studies, it was noted that a variety of language assessment procedures including standardized tests and brief samples of speaking were utilized. Although some of the studies addressed the issue of assessing communication skills such as articulation, voice, or rhythm in a conversational context (Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969), none examined language specifically using an informal, language sampling analysis procedure despite the fact it is considered valuable in describing language behaviors (Cole, Mills, and Dale, 1989; Lahey, 1988; Lund and Duchan, 1988; Owens, 1991). It was speculated
LANGUAGE
AND DELINQUENCY
253
that the procedures used in previous reports were somewhat restricted in scope and insufficient for identifying students “at-risk” for language problems. Since there continues to be attention placed on the language and learning skills of delinquents and students with disorders in areas other than language such as behavioral/emotional disorders (Camarata, Hughes, and Ruhl, 1988; Fessler, Rosenberg, and Rosenberg, 1991; McDonough, 1991; Miniutti, 1991; Prizant, Audet, Bruke, Hummel, Maher, and Theadore, 1991; Rosenthal and Simeonsson, 1991), and learning disorders (Chandler and Keefe, 1988; Kamhi and Catts, 1989), the question of identification of those students who are “at risk” for concomitant language problems is important. One challenge that arises when selecting procedures for evaluating students who may be “at risk” for language problems is the issue of valid and reliable measures. Current practice advocates the use of both standardized and informal measures to obtain a representative sampling of language behavior. For that reason this research is unique in that it included both a standardized measure and an informal language sampling procedure which did not have normative data. These measures were used to assess a population of students who were thought to be at risk for subtle, yet concerning language problems. Based on the prevalence figures for juvenile delinquents, the potential link between language problems and delinquency, and the need to include standardized and informal language measures in an assessment process, this study was conducted. The purpose was to compare the language and learning skills of institutionalized juvenile delinquents and their nondelinquent peers. The comparison was made in relation to comprehension and production of spoken language and academic skills. Four specific questions were addressed: 1. Does the language of institutionalized juvenile delinquents significantly differ from their nondelinquent peers using an informal language sample analysis procedure? 2. Does the language of institutionalized juvenile delinquents significantly differ from their nondelinquent peers using a comprehensive standardized measure? 3. How many institutionalized juvenile delinquents in this study who had never received special services would qualify for services in the area of language? METHOD Subjects This study included two groups (n = 48) of male, Caucasian adolescents: one group of adjudicated institutionalized delinquents (n = 24) and a normal group of nondelinquent peers (n = 24). The group of institution-
254
A. D. DAVIS et al.
alized delinquents ranged in age between 14 years 5 months and 17 years 8 months (M = 16.6 years). The nondelinquents were ages 14.1-17.9 years (M = 16.6 years). Full scale intelligence quotients (FSIQ) for the delinquent group ranged from 91 to 108 (M = 99.75). For the nondelinquents, intelligence quotients were between 90 and 109 (M = 101.25). The names of 37 delinquent and 94 nondelinquent students were elicited from an administrator either in a correctional institution or a midwestern junior/senior high. All were Caucasian and had no verified disability. The nondelinquents also had no record of adjudication. Of those two groups, 65% (n = 24) of the delinquents and 80% (n = 75) of the nondelinquents consented to participate. The nondelinquent group was reduced in size to 24 subjects by matching them with the delinquent subjects according to age and FSIQ. Demographic information obtained from each subject’s institutional or school record included the following: (a) present grade level, (b) full scale intelligence scores (FSIQ), and (c) standardized educational achievement scores. Procedures A between-groups comparison research design was utilized to compare the language skills of delinquents to their nondelinquent peers. The independent variable, juvenile status, consisted of two levels: delinquent and nondelinquent. The two dependent variables included an informal language sample analysis and a standardized language test. Existing scores from standardized academic tests also were obtained. The Clinical Discourse Analysis (Damico, 1985) was the informal procedure for examining spoken language. The Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2) (Hammill, Brown, Larsen, and Wiederholt, 1987), which is normed for individuals up to the age of 18.5, was the standardized measure. It consisted of 8 subtests, which were used to yield a global language quotient (Adolescent Language Quotient-ALQ) and 10 other related quotients pertaining to listening, speaking, reading, and writing tasks. All subjects were tested in a room at the institutional facility or public school by a graduate student in speech-language pathology. Prior to testing, a 5-IO-minute period was spent establishing rapport and explaining the purpose of the tasks. The informal measure and two subtests of the Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2) (Hammill et al., 1987), Speaking Vocabulary and Speaking Grammar, were administered individually. In order to collect a IO-15-minute descriptive spoken language sample, each subject was asked to tell the researcher about a TV show, movie, or book he had seen or read recently that he enjoyed. A descriptive task was chosen to elicit “conversation-like” discourse. The subjects were instructed to assume the examiner knew nothing about their chosen topic. The examiner was told to interact with the subject in a “natural” conversational manner. The samples were audiotaped and later transcribed.
LANGUAGE
AND DELINQUENCY
255
A modified Clinical Discourse Analysis was used to analyze the samples (Damico, 1985). In addition to the original 15 discourse behaviors described by Damico, word choice and morphological error categories were added. Word choice was defined as use of a word closely related to the target word, but not necessarily an appropriate choice. Morphological errors included any grammatical error, omission of a word, or incomplete sentence. The analysis was divided into four broad categories of communication behaviors derived from Grice’s “cooperative principle” (1975). This theoretical framework was used to organize the original 15 discourse behaviors into the four categories relating to Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner. Word choice was placed in the category for Quantity. Morphological error was placed in the Manner category. Definitions provided by Damico were used to interpret errors during the analysis. The informal procedure yielded a frequency count for each of the discourse behaviors, a total count of errors across all categories, a mean number of errors per utterance, and a percentage of utterances with one or more discourse errors (see Appendix A). Both the examiner and subjects’ language was transcribed; however, only the subjects’ language was coded per the Damico procedural guidelines. Interaction between the student and the examiner was used to determine appropriate codes for the student’s response. After eliciting the language sample and administering two TOAL- subtests, the remaining six TOAL- subtests were administered in groups of 3-7 according to the TOAL- Manual. These subtests included (a) Listening Vocabulary, (b) Reading Grammar, (c) Writing Vocabulary, (d) Listening Grammar, (e) Reading Vocabulary, and (f) Writing Grammar. During group sessions, a lo-minute break was permitted following completion of the Writing Vocabulary Subtest and prior to initiating the Listening Grammar Subtest as specified by the authors of the TOAL-2. Articulation, voice, and fluency were observed informally by the researcher during the language sample and expressive components of the TOAL-2. A comparison of the academic achievement of the delinquents and nondelinquents was completed by comparing the subjects’ most recent achievement scores. The standard scores for reading, language, and math achievement using either the California Achievement Test (CTB/McGraw, 1977,1978), the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Achievement Battery (Woodcock and Johnson, 1977), or the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak and Jastak, 1978) were recorded and mean standard scores for each group analyzed. Reliability All language samples were transcribed by a graduate assistant majoring in speech-language pathology. The student had received guidelines and practice samples prior to the transcription. The primary researcher also
256
A. D. DAVIS
et
al.
listened to all tapes and examined the transcripts for accuracy. With respect to rater reliability for coding the samples, every eighth sample (13%) was selected from each of the two groups and rerated by the primary researcher using a blind review procedure. A point-by-point agreement procedure resulted in a 95% intrarater agreement rate between the two ratings of the same samples. Data Analysis The ALQ from the TOAL- and the percentage of utterances with error from the Clinical Discourse Analysis were the dependent variables considered for statistical analysis. One-way ANOVAs were computed to determine if there were significant differences between the mean language scores for each group (p < .Ol). Descriptive analyses were computed on reading, language, and math achievement scores. RESULTS A Comparison of Delinquent and Nondelinquent
Language Skills
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for the delinquents and nondelinquents on the two dependent variables. These data indicate the delinquents performed worse than their nondelinquent peers on both informal and standardized language measures. These differences were significant for the percent of utterances with error from the Clinical Discourse Analysis F (1,46) = 10.79, p < .002, and the Adolescent Language Quotient F (1, 46) = 7.17, p < .Ol. Tables 2 and 3 present the means and standard deviations for the remaining components of the Clinical Discourse Analysis and the TOAL2. The mean number of utterances analyzed for each group on the language
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for the Clinical Discourse Analysis and the TOALAdolescent Language Quotient of the Delinquent and Nondelinquent Groups Adolescent males Dependent variables Clinical discourse analysis percent of utterances with error Adolescent language quotient (TOAL-2)b
b TOAL-Z
= Test of Adolescent
Language-2
Delinquent (n = 24) M SD M SD
= 75.08 = 8.19 = 82.04 = 13.23
Nondelinquent (n = 24) M = 66.71” SD = 9.43 M = 92.42” SD = 13.62
LANGUAGE AND DELINQUENCY Table 2. Means and Standard Subcategories
of the Delinquent
Deviations for the Clinical Discourse and Nondelinquent Groups
Analysis
Adolescent males Delinquent (n = 24) Clinical discourse categories
M
Percent of utterances with error Total utterances Total errors Mean error/utterance Quantity errors Redundancy Failure to provide sufficient information Inappropriate response Failure to ask relevant questions Situational inappropriateness Inappropriate speech style Manner Linguistic nonfluency Revision behaviors Nonspecific vocabulary Need for repetition Word choice Quality errors Message inaccuracy Relation errors Topic maintenance Delays before responding Discourse structure Turn-taking difficulty Morphological error
75.08 109.75 465.54 4.23 96.67 1.63 32.96 .42 .13 .04 .25 364.83 260.13 55.17 54.71 .13 6.25 2.88 2.92 1.17 .42 .21 10.92 2.75 36.04
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
SD
M
SD
8.19 29.33 179.75 1.25 41.44 1.69 13.89 .72 .34 .20 .68 165.41 117.20 28.26 29.92 .45 4.63 3.63 3.56 1.44 .93 .42 8.53 2.56 18.70
66.71 107.33 264.83 2.50 50.58 .46 17.08 .21 .21 0.00 .04 211.79 163.46 33.00 29.54 .04 3.92 1.00 1.00 1.42 .96 .08 3.54 .83 19.46
9.43 31.28 103.14 .73 28.44 .83 8.10 .51 .51 0.00 .20 81.43 53.64 18.49 20.69 .20 2.84 1.22 1.22 2.21 2.07 .28 3.83 .96 9.90
sample (Table 2) was 109.75 and 107.33 for the delinquents and nondelinquents, respectively. Additionally, the delinquents showed an average of 4.23 errors in each utterance, while the nondelinquents produced an average of 2.50 errors per utterance. The mean number of total errors for the delinquents was almost twice that for the nondelinquents (465.54 versus 264.83). Trends in both subtest performances and resulting TOAL- quotients were examined. Both groups had the least difficulty on the Listening Vocabulary Subtest which required the subject to select two or four pictures that related to each word orally presented. The subtest that was the most difficult for both groups was the Writing Grammar. This subtest required the subject to read and combine a number of sentences into one sentence. The subjects had to embed and transform phrases, form pos-
258
A. D. DAVIS
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations for the Subtest Standard Composite Standard Scores of the Delinquents and Nondelinquents Test of Adolescent Language-2 (TOAL-2)
et al.
Scores and on the
Adolescent males Delinquent (n = 24) TOAL-
subtest profile
Subtest standard scores: Listening vocabulary Listening grammar Speaking vocabulary Speaking grammar Reading vocabulary Reading grammar Writing vocabulary Writing grammar Composite standard scores: Listening Speaking Reading Writing Spoken language Written language Vocabulary Grammar Receptive language Expressive language
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
M
SD
M
SD
9.04 7.61 7.92 7.33 7.50 7.21 7.21 5.46
3.14 2.44 2.84 4.08 2.93 2.02 3.73 2.40
10.00 9.29 9.08 8.21 9.04 9.50 9.08 7.00
2.75 1.92 2.34 3.91 3.18 2.55 3.18 3.14
16.71 15.25 14.71 12.71 31.96 27.38 31.67 27.67 31.42 27.92
4.06 5.97 4.15 5.05 9.22 8.15 9.63 7.04 6.53 10.03
19.29 17.29 18.54 16.13 36.58 34.67 37.04 34.25 37.83 33.42
3.96 5.35 4.85 5.67 8.01 9.23 8.48 7.86 7.19 9.64
sessives, and alter tenses in order to create more complex sentences. With respect to the quotients, both groups performed better in the areas of Spoken Language, Vocabulary, and Receptive Language, while their performances in the areas of Written Language, Grammar, and Expressive Language were lower. It is interesting to note that even though the delinquent group’s scores were depressed when compared to their nondelinquent peers, the areas of strength and weakness were comparable for both groups. Delinquents In This Study Who Would Qualify for Services in the Area of Language Individual subject scores for the Adolescent Language Quotients (ALQ from TOAL-2) and full scale intellectual quotients (FSIQ taken from each subject’s school records) are presented in Table 4 in an effort to further explore the link between language, delinquency, and at-risk behavior for
LANGUAGE
259
AND DELINQUENCY
Table 4. Delinquent and Nondelinquent Adolescent Language (ALQ) and Full Scale Intelligence Quotients (FSIQ) Subject number (n = 24) 02 03” 04” 05 06” 01” Oga 09 10” 12 14 15” 16” 17 18 19” 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
ALQ
FSIQ
Subject number (n = 24)
103 83 59 75 76 71 72 104 60 97 102 72 II 96 97 71 76 98 89 74 82 78 74 83
106 108 91 96 101 94 95 105 103 105 108 97 107 102 106 95 94 100 101 96 101 97 92 94
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 44” 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 54
Delinquent
Quotients
Nondelinquent
ALQ
FSIQ
82 90 83 116 92 108 95 110 107 77 94 109 95 96 96 62 97 82 91 99 85 107 69 76
93 108 103 109 107 107 103 102 103 92 103 109 109 97 109 94 106 92 91 103 99 108 90 93
o Subjects with 23 point or greater differential (1.5 standard deviation) between ALQ and FSIQ.
language problems. A 23 point or greater (1.5 standard deviation discrepancy) differential between language performance and overall mental ability level (FSIQ) was utilized by the researchers for an individual to be considered potentially eligible for speech and language services. This criterion was chosen since it is consistent with verification guidelines for language impairment in some states. Four percent (n = 1) of the nondelinquents and 38% (n = 9) of the delinquents had a 23 point or greater difference between language performance and overall mental ability level. In addition to examining the subjects for potential language problems, their academic performances also were compared (Table 5). The mean standard scores from the various academic measures indicated that the nondelinquents scored higher in reading, math, and written language than the nondelinquents.
260
A. D. DAVIS et al.
Table 5. Comparison of Delinquent and Nondelinquent and Math Achievement Standard Scores
Reading, Language, Adolescent males
Achievement
areas
Reading achievement standard scores Language achievement standard scores Math achievement standard scores
Delinquent (II = 24)
Nondelinquent (n = 24)
M
M
97.71 94.26 98.96
108.21 103.46 109.33
DISCUSSION Language Skills The statistically significant findings between the delinquents and nondelinquents on the informal language sample and the TOAL- adds new credence to previous reports that the delinquent population is at greater risk for exhibiting communication deficits when compared to their nondelinquent peers (Cozad and Rousey, 1966; Falconer and Cochran, 1989; Irwin, 1977; Taylor, 1969). The delinquent youth performed significantly below their nondelinquent peers on both the informal language sample, which evaluated language in a more functional, descriptive context, and the comprehensive standardized measure (TOAL-2). Results of the informal language sample revealed that while a mean of 75.08% of the delinquents’ and 66.71% of the nondelinquents’ utterances were characterized by some type of discourse error, the mean number of total errors for the delinquents was almost twice that of the nondelinquent group. Even though the percent of utterances with error was significantly different, the relative similarity in the two group’s performances may have been due to how the variable was scored. For example, an utterance was scored as an error if it contained one or more errors (Damico, 1985). Even though the nondelinquents had half the number of errors as the delinquents, they were evenly distributed over the utterances resulting in a somewhat high percent of utterances with error. Clinicians must be sensitive to the manner in which informal summative variables (i.e., percent of utterances in error) are calculated and consider the information in view of the total battery of test findings. Few if any guidelines exist from which to make qualitative judgements concerning summative or specific language behaviors from language samples and their relationship to the presence of language disorders. The nondelinquents exhibited fewer, but relatively similar, types of errors across the categories for Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner (Table 2). Both groups evidenced fewer errors in the Quality (truth value) or Relation (relevance and timing of contribu-
LANGUAGE AND DELINQUENCY
tions) areas. Most errors were experienced by both groups within the Quantity (sufficient information and vocabulary) and Manner (delivery) categories. Within the Manner category, the behaviors that occurred most frequently for both groups were linguistic nonfluencies and revisions. These included: pauses, interjections, part/whole word revisions, and/or repetitions. Again the delinquents did exhibit more errors than the nondelinquents; however, this trend should be interpreted cautiously. These behaviors reflect a need for time to retrieve words, sequence information, and in general plan discourse. Brinton and Fujiki (1989) reported that selfrepairs such as these are common in the speech of “normal” children and adults. To some extent, they represent the speaker’s attempt at monitoring discourse for production difftculties. Unfortunately, guidelines are not readily available for determining what proportion of errors in this category constitute deviant versus normal language behavior. Given the nature of the procedures used, the researchers acknowledge that the frequently occurring behaviors reported from the language sample (Appendix A) are not necessarily analogous to language disorders. For example, one cannot assume that 15 occurrences of failure to provide sufftcient information constitutes a language problem. The present language sample results are important but if interpreted in isolation preclude any firm generalizations. The use of both the informal language sample and the standardized procedure lend preliminary support to the existence of yet another population of students who are frequently not identified as having language and learning problems. The presence of concomitant language and learning problems among delinquents is similar to research documenting the prevalence of language problems among students with behavioral disorders/learning disorders (Baltaxe and Simmons, 1988; Camarata, Hughes, and Ruhl, 1988; Chandler and Keefe, 1988; Fessler et al., 1991; Giddan, 1991; Kamhi and Catts, 1989; McDonough, 1991; Miniutti, 1991; Prizant et al., 1990; Rosenthal and Simeonsson, 1991). This research should be of interest to speech-language pathologists who are dealing with the identification and management of at-risk populations. The TOAL- findings support the research of Falconer and Cochran (1989) that delinquent subjects score lower on subtests of standardized language instruments. To provide additional developmental information using the standardized measure, the delinquent and nondelinquent group quotient scores were compared to the TOAL- sample norms. The Adolescent Language Quotient (ALQ) has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 points. Interestingly, the mean score of the delinquent group (82.02) was more than one standard deviation below the mean reported for the TOALstandardization sample. The nondelinquents’ mean score (92.42) was within one standard deviation of the TOALmean. Likewise the ALQ standard deviations of both groups were com-
262
A. D. DAVIS
et al.
parable to those of the TOAL- norms (TOAL- = 15 points; delinquents = 13.23; nondelinquents = 13.62). A more in-depth examination of each subject’s ALQ in relation to the TOAL- norms revealed that 50% (n = 12) of the delinquents compared to 12% (n = 3) of the nondelinquents scored greater than one and a half standard deviations (23 points) below the mean of that test sample. These findings concur with Falconer and Cochran’s (1989) comparisons between their delinquents’ scores and the standardization population of the Fullerton Language Test of Adolescents (FLTA). They too found that delinquents scored lower on that instrument. The results contrast, however, in terms of the percentage of delinquents who scored more than one and a half standard deviations (23 points) below the mean. In the present study, 50% of the adolescents scored more than one and a half standard deviations below the mean, while only 15% of delinquents sampled by Falconer and Cochran’s scored more than one standard deviation below the mean. This discrepancy may be attributable to the difference between the TOAL- and the FLTA in the types of language tasks included and the level of task complexity. In addition to the language discrepancies, the delinquents also scored lower than the nondelinquents across academic measures. Different from the language performances, the academic scores were all within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean. These results are somewhat similar to what Mellzer, Roditi, and Fenton (1983) noted from retrospective studies of institutionalized youth, which consistently have suggested a history of school failure or poor academic achievement among delinquent groups. Unfortunately, this study does not add direct support to the Mellzer et al. research since there was no control over the type of academic instruments used for comparison. Future research using the same measure for academic achievement and incorporating additional data concerning school failure (i.e., absenteeism, drop-out rates, grades) would be beneficial. While statistical significance provides information for researchers and professionals, one consideration for any professional should be the practical or clinical implications of the research. It is disconcerting that greater numbers of delinquents (9/24 compared to l/24 for the nondelinquents) appeared to qualify for services in the area of language, but had not been identified nor were they receiving special education services (Nelson et al., 1987; Rutherford, Behrens, and Fejesk, 1987). These findings suggest that speech-language pathologists as well as other special educators need to continue to advocate for early identification of language problems and critique the types of assessment procedures and treatment alternatives they use in working with delinquent populations. For example, clinicians could promote early identification by providing educators with informal checklists, referral forms, and examples of behaviors which interfere with
LANGUAGEANDDELINQUENCY
263
conversation (e.g., discourse structure, problems with turn taking, poor referential communication skills, and nonspecific information) (Larsen and McKinley, 1989). The question of the potential relationship between a language problem and delinquency is complex and beyond the scope of this study. However, a more solid basis has been established for the notion that juvenile delinquents may be more at risk for language problems than nondelinquents. It is important to consider the following hypothesis. Children who are “at risk” for language and learning difficulties demonstrate more obvious problems when they encounter the language demands of “school or the curriculum” (Owens, 1991). The curriculum within schools places demands on students to plan, integrate, evaluate, and acquire knowledge about subject matter not always experienced. As the language demands of a classroom increase, the expected level of student independence increases. The chasm potentially widens between ability and expectations for communicatively at risk students. These students experience greater frustration as they fall further behind their peers. Consequently, the likelihood of increases in areas such as truancy and asocial behaviors occur as the student’s needs continue to go unmet. Perhaps nonverbal and problematic behaviors result in part from the failure to acquire appropriate language skills. The authors are not suggesting that all delinquents have language problems. Rather, the issue appears to be one of a potential link between delinquency and language problems. This issue remains unresolved until further research can support the assumption. It does seem appropriate, however, that interdisciplinary team functioning and early identification and intervention programs for populations at risk for delinquency in general should consider the role of language and communication. REFERENCES Bachara, G. H., and Zaba, J. N. (1978). Learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. J. Learn. Disabil. 11(4):242-246. Baltaxe, C., and Simmons, J. Q. (1988). Pragmatic deficits in emotionally disturbed children and adolescents. In R. R. Schiefelbusch and L. L. Lloyd (eds.), Language Perspectives: Acquisition, Retardation, and Intervention, 2nd ed. (pp. 223-253). Austin, TX: Pro Ed. Broder, P. K., Dunivant, N., Smith, G. C., and Sutton, L. P. (1981). Further observation on the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. J. Ed. Psychol.
731838-850.
Brinton, B., and Fujiki, M. (1989). Conversational Management with LanguageImpaired Children, (pp. 63-93). Rockville, MD: Aspen Publishers. Bryan, T., and PBaum, S. (1978). Social interactions of learning disabled children: A linguistic, social and cognitive analysis. Learn. Disabif. Q. 1(3):70-79.
264
A. D. DAVIS et al.
Camarata, S., Hughes, C., and Ruhl, K. (1988). Mild/moderate behaviorally impaired students: A population at risk for language disorders. Lang. Speech, Hear. Serv. Schools,
19(2): 191-200.
Carr, E. G., and Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. J. Applied Behav. Anal. 18: 11l- 126. Chandler, A., and Keefe, C. (1988). Identifying the learning disabled student with a language problem. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children. Washington DC, April, 1988. Cole, K. Mills, P., and Dale, P. (1989). Examination of test-retest and split-half reliability for measures derived from language samples of young handicapped children. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Schools, 20:259-268. Cozad, R., and Rousey, C. (1966). Hearing and speech disorders among delinquent children. Corrective Psychiatr. J. Social Thera. 12:250-255. Crawford, D. (1984). ACLD-R & D Project summary: A study investigating the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. In W. M. Cruickshank and J. M. Kliebhan (eds.), Early Adolescence to Early Adulthood (pp. 13-71). Washington DC, Syracuse University. CTB/McGraw-Hill(l977, 1978). California Achievement CA: CTBIMcGraw-Hill.
Tests (CAT).
Monterey,
Damico, J. S. (1985). Clinical discourse analysis: A functional approach to language assessment. In C. S. Simon (ed.), Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment of Language-Learning Disabled Students (pp. 168-203). San Diego: College Hill Press. Durand, V. M., and Carr, E. G. (1985). Self-injurious behavior; Motivating conditions and guidelines for treatment. School Psychol. Rev., 14(2):171-176. Falconer, K. O., and Cochran, J. R. (1989). Communication skills in male institutionalized juvenile offenders. Rocky Mount. J. Commun. Disord. 545-54. Fessler, M., Rosenberg, M., and Rosenberg, L. (1991). Concomitant learning disabilities and learning problems among students with behavioral/emotional disorders. Behav. Disord., 16(2):97-106. Giddan, J. (1991). School children with emotional problems and communication deficits: Implications for speech-language pathologists. LSHSS 22:291-295. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic
Press. Hammill, D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., and Wiederholt, of Adolescent Language-2. Austin, TX: Pro-end.
J. L. (1987). Test
Irwin, D. L. (1977). A comparative study of the disorders of communication among incarcerated delinquents: Further implications for remedial speech and language programs. J. Missouri Speech Hear. Assoc. 10:27-33. Jastak, J., and Jastak, S. (1978). The Wide Range Achievement Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
Test (WRAT).
Kamhi, A., and Catts, H. (1989). Reading Disabilities: A Developmental guage Perspective. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Lan-
265
LANGUAGEANDDELINQUENCY Lahey, M. (1988). Language NY: MacMillan Press.
Disorders
and Language
Development.
New York,
Larson, V., and McKinely, N. (1989). If kids need speech and language help are your schools prepared to give it? Am. School Board J. January: 32-33. Lund, N., and Duchan, J. (1988). Assessing Childrens’ Language Contexts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Mauser, A. (1974). Learning
disabilities
and delinquent
in Naturalistic
youth. Acad.
Ther. Q.
9:389-402.
McDonough, K. (1989). Analysis of the expressive language characteristics of emotionally handicapped students and social interactions. Behav. Disord. 14(2):127-139.
McKay, S., and Brumback, R. A. (1980). Relationship between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Percept. Motor Skills 51: 1223-1226. Mellzer, L., Roditi, B., and Fenton, T. (1983). Cognitive and learning profiles of delinquent and learning disabled adolescents. Adolescence 21(83):581-591. Miniutti, A. (1991). Language deficiencies in inner-city children with learning and behavioral problems. Lang. Speech, Hear. Serv. Schools 23:31-38. Nelson, C. M., Rutherford, R. B., and Wolford, B. I. (1987). Special education in the criminal justice system. Behav. Disord. J. Council Children Behav. Disord.
13(1):62-63.
Owens, R. W., Jr. (1991). Language sessment
and Intervention.
Disorders: A Functional New York: Macmillan.
Approach
to As-
Prizant, B., Audet, L., Burke, G., Hummel, L., Maher, S., and Theadore, G. (1990). Communication disorders and emotional/behavioral disorders in children and adolescents. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 55: 179-192. Rojek, D. G., and Jensen, G. F. (1982). Readings ington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Lex-
in Juvenile Delinquency.
Rosenthal, S., and Simeonsson, R. (1991). Communication disturbed and nondisturbed adolescents. Behav. Disord.
skills in emotionally 16(3):192-199.
Rutherford, R. B., Behrens, J. T., and Fejesk, K. (1987). Preventive programs for adjudicated or incarcerated youth. Teach. Exceptional Child. 19(4):58-61. Senna, J. R., and Siegel, L. J. (1984). An Introduction Paul: West Publishers. Shery, T. (1985). Correlates of language development dren. J. Speech Hear. Disord. 50:73-83.
to Criminal Justice.
in language-disordered
St. chil-
Taylor, J. S. (1969). The communicative abilities of juvenile delinquents: A descriptive study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO. Wilgosh, L., and Paitich, D. (1982). Delinquency evidence. J. Learn. Disabil. 15(5):278-279.
and learning disabilities:
More
Woodcock, R. W., and Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Part II. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources Corporation.
A. D. DAVIS et al.
266
Zinkus, P. W., and Gottlieb, M. I. (1978). Learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Clin Pediatr. 17:775-780. APPENDIX
A: MODIFIED
Percent of utterances Total utterances Total errors Mean errors/utterance
CLINICAL
with error
Quantity errors Redundancy Failure to provide sufficient information Nonspecific vocabulary Need for repetition Word choice Quality errors Message inaccuracy Relation errors Topic maintenance Inappropriate response Failure to ask relevant questions Situational inappropriateness Inappropriate speech style Manner Linguistic nonfluency Revision behaviors Delays before responding Discourse structure Turn-taking difficulty Morphological error
DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
