ارزیابی دستور داستان در گفتمان روایتی فارسی

مقدمه: آزمون گفتمان روایتی فارسی که ابزاری برای بررسی بالینی گفتمان کودکان و بزرگسالان فارسی‌زبان با و بدون نیازهای ویژه به شمار می‌رود، مقیاسی برای ارزیابی دستور داستان ارائه نکرده است. پژوهش حاضر به منظور استانداردسازی آزمون دستور داستان در گفتمان روایتی فارسی‌زبانان مبتلا به اختلالات ارتباطی جهت ارزیابی بالینی انجام شد.روش کار: با استفاده از مقیاس لیکرت برای ارزیابی روایت، از پرسشنامه پنج‌ سطحی برای سنجش وضوح عناصر چهار بخش روایت در مدل سلسله‌مراتبی ثرندایک استفاده شد. برای تعیین این که آیا سوالات پیشنهادی، دامنۀ رفتاری مشاهده شده (دستور داستان) را پوشش می‌دهد، و برای همه آزمون ‌گران ساده و ملموس است، و به طور کلی پرسشنامه دارای شاخص اعتبار محتوای بالایی بر اساس نظر متخصصان می‌باشد یا خیر، با شش زبان‌شناس و شش آسیب‌شناس گفتار و زبان مشاوره شد. برای تعیین روایی افتراقی، بررسی دستور داستان در رابطه با دو تکلیف بازگویی داستان و خلق بداهه روایت توسط دو گروه از دانش‌آموزان دبستانی با و بدون اختلال شنوایی در مدارس ابتدایی عادی انجام شد. پایایی به صورت درون‌ارزیاب و برون‌ارزیاب مورد بررسی قرار گرفت.یافته‌ها: در بخش‌های صحنه و موضوع، بین میانگین نمرات گروه‌های شنوا و دچار آسیب شنوایی در خلق روایت یا بازگویی داستان تفاوت معنا‌داری وجود نداشت اما در بخش‌های اپیزودها (0.001>p) و گره‌گشایی (0.001>p)، نمرات گروه شنوا به طور قابل توجهی بالاتر از گروه آسیب‌دیده شنوایی بود.نتیجه ‌گیری: روایی و پایایی آزمون مبتنی بر مدل ثرندایک مشخص کرد که برای ارزیابی بالینی دستور داستان موثر است.

story grammar assessment in persian narrative discourse test

introductionthe present study was carried out to standardize the grammar of the story in the narrative discourse of persian speakers with communication disorders for clinical examination. psycholinguistic approaches have already been used in iran to evaluate some aspects of discourse among people with speech and language disorders. the persian narrative discourse test (pndt) was developed based on fredericksen’s model, and its validity and reliability were evaluated. this test is designed to quantify sentence complexity, coherence, and overall cohesion (referential, relational, lexical cohesion, deletion, and substitution). since fredriksen’s model is suggested to investigate the damage levels of narrative discourse in the processing stage of conceptual structures, the evaluation of story grammar is also proposed. accordingly, the present study aimed to include the evaluation scale of story grammar in the persian version of the test. methodsusing a likert scale to evaluate the narrative, a five-level questionnaire was used to measure the clarity of the elements of the four narrative parts using thorndyke’s hierarchical model: the scene is composed of time, place, and characters. the topic consists of the title of the narrative and the main incident. the plot consists of the characters’ efforts, the results of these efforts, the resolution consists of the characters’ intentions, and the result of the narrative. in the above-mentioned questionnaire, six linguists and six speech and language pathologists were consulted to determine whether the proposed questions cover the observed behavioral domain (story grammar) and are simple and tangible for all examiners, and also whether the questionnaire has high content validity index based on the experts’ opinion. a second part of the research was conducted to determine the differential validity, examining story grammar as it relates to retelling stories and creating improvised narratives by two groups of elementary school students with and without hearing impairment in normal elementary schools. the reason for choosing the age of 6 to 12 years (primary school age) for this assessment is the evolution of the critical stages of narrative development at the end of five years of age so that children can organize integrated chains of events with a map and subsequent events and related endings. thirty-six elementary students in regular schools were evaluated, including 18 students with hearing impairments (accessible sample) and 18 without hearing impairments (random sample). all hearing-impaired students had completed oral or verbal auditory rehabilitation for more than two years before entering the normal school assessment, and none had any physical, mental, movement, or psychological problems. newsha tests were accomplished for hearing, language, and speech development, including listening skills, language comprehension, expressive language, speech clarity, cognitive skills, social skills, and motor skills. at least the low domain score was achieved to develop the desired skills in normal children. during the test, audiologists checked the hearing aids and cochlear implants of all children and verified that the device and its settings were correct. children were homogeneous in terms of age, sex, socioeconomic level of schools, parents’ education, and an intragroup comparison of hearing aid users, and cochlear implant users was made before the main assessment. no significant differences were observed in any of the two tasks between the two subgroups. a comparative assessment was conducted between two groups: one with hearing impairment and the other without. data were collected by recording two oral narrative tasks, including telling a previously heard story and improvising a narrative. after transcribing, the data were entered into spss version 26 for statistical analysis. an internal evaluator and an external evaluator also evaluated the reliability of the test.resultsa significant difference was found between the average scores of hearing and hearing-impaired participants in narrative creation and story retelling, and in both cases, the hearing group scored significantly higher than the hearing-impaired group. the current research compared the scores separately to determine where this difference comes from, as seen in table 1.table 1. comparing the average scores of the hearing (n=18) and hearing-impaired (n=18) groups by separating the parts of the story grammarstorygrammarmeanstd. deviationstd. error meandifferencepooled st devtdfpsettingimprovising a narrativehearing group0.4900.2790.0660.1300.2611.49340.145hearing-impaired group0.3600.2430.057telling a previously heard storyhearing group0.5370.2910.0690.1470.2321.9340.066hearing-impaired group0.3900.1510.036themeimprovising a narrativehearing group0.4400.5090.1200.2050.3881.58340.133hearing-impaired group0.2350.2050.048telling a previously heard storyhearing group0.6200.2120.0500.10.1681.79340.083hearing-impaired group0.5200.1060.025episodesimprovising a narrativehearing group0.5230.0250.0060.3770.03136.980340.000hearing-impaired group0.1470.01350.008telling a previously heard storyhearing group0.6270.0400.0100.2140.03817.080340.000hearing-impaired group0.4130.0350.008resolutionimprovising a narrativehearing group0.6250.1060.0250.3850.075615.280340.000hearing-impaired group0.2400.0140.003telling a previously heard storyhearing group0.7750.0780.0180.4050.068317.790340.000hearing-impaired group0.3700.0570.013 no significant difference was found between the average scores of hearing and hearing-impaired groups in creating a narrative or retelling the story in the scene and topic sections. however, in the episodes and resolution sections, the hearing group scores significantly higher than the hearing-impaired group.conclusiona significant difference in the story grammar between retelling and improvising narratives aligns with research that shows hearing-impaired children, even with the aid of modern technology, continue to face challenges in advanced language usage. this is particularly evident