[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Florence Myers
Date: 05 May 2010
Time: 13:38:50 -0500
Remote Name: 22.214.171.124
To the excellent thoughts posed by Ken and David above, respectively, I would add that we need to heed to the issue of validity of measurement as we research the distinctive features of cluttering. Many of us were trained in an era when standardized tests comprise the gold standard for determining whether someone has (or does not have), for example, a language processing problem; and, perhaps rightly so, as standardized tests have associated norms. However, the language processings underlying cluttering may not be captured by standardized tests as these tools are for the most part very structured, closed ended (requiring relatively short responses), and given in a formal situation (i.e., taking a test). To confirm whether language processing issues are part of cluttering, we need to get the PWC in an informal conversational context (e.g., talking with friends at a social gathering or with family at the dinner table) where the individual is not aware that his communication is being monitored, where he is given the opportunity to convey larger chunks of language in a very naturalistic informal setting. The more extemporaneous the output, the more likely organizational issues of language and thought will arise. Some of the (linguistic) maze behaviors we see in cluttering--such as incomplete words + revisions--may in fact be reflections of underlying language formulation issues issues. Some of you are aware that Ken and I have had a long-standing (over 20 years) discussion about the LCD definition. As many of the participants of this conference have already indicated, we need to push forth with research to confirm or modify the two types of definition offered by Ken and David, respectively. I believe this conference has succeeded in generating a great deal of interest in pursuing research.