Advertisement

Children’s Use of “I Don’t Know” During Clinical Evaluations for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Responses to Emotion Questions

  • Trini Stickle
  • Waverly Duck
  • Douglas W. Maynard
Chapter
Part of the The Language of Mental Health book series (TLMH)

Abstract

This study investigated ways children with autism spectrum disorder respond to questions about emotions on the ADOS-II (Autism Diagnostic and Observation Schedule). Specifically, Stickle et al. examined the children’s I don’t know (IDK) utterances as responsive to these questions, questions designed to tap into the children’s capacity for abstract thinking. Findings revealed that the children’s use of IDK was not haphazard but rather revealed four distinct interactional patterns. Stickle et al. also documented clinicians’ formulations of questions that seem to create difficulty for children to respond to and clinicians’ practice that works to encourage the production of valid responses from children. Overall, this research broadens our understanding of the abilities of children given the diagnosis of autism that lies outside of what is officially being tested.

References

  1. Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind and autism: A review. International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, 23, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2001). Introducing interactional linguistics. In M. Selting & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Donaldson, M. (1978). Children’s minds. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  4. Drake, V. (2015). Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final or. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 301–318.Google Scholar
  5. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Grandin, T. (1995). How people with autism think. In E. Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 137–156). New York: Springer US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hutchby, I. (2002). Resisting the incitement to talk in child counselling: Aspects of the utterance “I don’t know”. Discourse Studies, 4(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hutchby, I. (2005). “Active listening”: Formulations and the elicitation of feelings-talk in child counselling. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.Google Scholar
  11. Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore P. C., Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule (2nd ed.) (ADOS-2 Manual (Part I): Modules 1–4), Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  12. Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Jr., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., et al. (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule-Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205–223.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Losh, M., & Capps, L. (2006). Understanding of emotional experience in autism: Insights from the personal accounts of high-functioning children with autism. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 809–818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Maynard, D. W., & Marlaire, C. L. (1992). Good reasons for bad testing performance: The interactional substrate of educational exams. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard, D. W., & Turowetz, J. J. (2017). Doing Testing: How concrete competence can facilitate or inhibit performances of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Qualitative Sociology, 40(4). Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-017-9368-5  
  16. Pomerantz, A. M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pomerantz, A. (1988). Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communications Monographs, 55(4), 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raymond, G., & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Malden, MA: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schegloff, E. A., & Lerner, G. H. (2009). Beginning to respond: Well-prefaced responses to wh-questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(2), 91–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester; Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Wilkinson, R. (2007). Managing linguistic incompetence as a delicate issue in aphasic talk-in-interaction: On the use of laughter in prolonged repair sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 542–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Recommended Reading

  1. Maynard, D. W., & Marlaire, C. L. (1992). Good reasons for bad testing performance: The interactional substrate of educational exams. Qualitative Sociology, 15, 177–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ochs, E., & Solomon, O. (2004). Practical logic and autism. In C. Casey & R. B. Edgerton (Eds.), A companion to psychological anthropology (pp. 140–167). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Solomon, O. (2015). “But- he’ll fall!”: Children with autism, interspecies intersubjectivity, and the problem of ‘being social’. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 39, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Turowetz, J. (2015). The interactional production of a clinical fact in a case of autism. Qualitative Sociology, 38, 58–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Trini Stickle
    • 1
  • Waverly Duck
    • 2
  • Douglas W. Maynard
    • 3
  1. 1.Western Kentucky UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  2. 2.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations