The Modified- Classroom ObservationScheduletoMeasureIntenticnaCommunication( M-COSMIC): EvaluationofReliabilityandValidity

Modified COSMIC 20

= 1.96, SD = 1.71 vs. M = 2.30, SD = 2.21, respectively), as did Non-Interactive acts, t (40) =
2.66, p = .011 (M = .90, SD = .81 vs. M = .65, SD = .66, respectively). Responses, however,
occurred significantly more frequently during the ACT (M = 2.46, SD = 1.43) than during the FP
(M = 1.56, SD = 1.09), t (40) = 6.26, p < .001.

- Insert Figures 1 and 2 -

Figure 3 presents the mean rate-per-minute of various communication functions coded in
the M-COSMIC (i.e., requests, protests, etc.) across the ACT and FP sessions. Rates of specific
coding categories were relatively low (most means < 1 per minute). Paired comparisons
indicated that most communicative functions did not differ across the two sampled contexts. This
was with the exception of Compliance, with children showing higher rates of Compliance and in
the ACT (M = .42, SD = .38) than during the FP (M = .22, SD = .25) setting; t (40) = 3.71, p = .
001.

Figure 4 presents the mean rates-per-minute of the various communication Forms coded
in the M-COSMIC (i.e., vocalization, use of speech, gestures, etc.), across the ACT and FP
sessions. Again, paired comparisons indicated most forms occurred equally often across the two
sampling contexts. This was with the exception of the M-COSMIC code Following another’s
gaze/point, which was more common during the ACT (M = .46, SD = .50) than in the FP (M = .
12, SD = .17), t (40) = 5.03, p < .001 (see Figure 4), and M-COSMIC rates of Shows/gives,
which were seen more frequently in FP (M = .25, SD = .28) than in the ACT (M = .12, SD = .18),
t (40) = -3.75, p < .01.

- Insert Figures 3 and 4 -
6. Discussion

<<   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   >>

More intriguing information