PURPOSE: To describe and compare the pragmatic language profiles of school-age children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and Williams syndrome (WS) on a standardized measure to determine whether a standard pragmatics tool can differentiate between 2 groups of children with opposing social presentations and pragmatic language difficulties. METHOD: Twenty-two parents of school-age children with ASD, 21 parents of school-age children with WS, and 19 parents of school-age typically developing children rated their child on the Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2; D. Bishop, 2003), a standardized pragmatic language assessment tool. RESULTS: Both clinical groups demonstrated impairment in overall communication and pragmatic language functioning, but children with WS performed significantly better on overall pragmatic language functioning, and the magnitude of the effect was medium. Profile examination revealed equivalent performances between ASD and WS on most CCC-2 subscales; however, significantly better performances on the Coherence, Stereotyped Language, Nonverbal Communication, and Social Relations subscales were observed in WS. CONCLUSIONS: The CCC-2 appears to provide an effective means to identify and characterize pragmatic language difficulties using a standardized approach in children with ASD and WS.
PURPOSE: To describe and compare the pragmatic language profiles of school-age children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and Williams syndrome (WS) on a standardized measure to determine whether a standard pragmatics tool can differentiate between 2 groups of children with opposing social presentations and pragmatic language difficulties. METHOD: Twenty-two parents of school-age children with ASD, 21 parents of school-age children with WS, and 19 parents of school-age typically developing children rated their child on the Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2; D. Bishop, 2003), a standardized pragmatic language assessment tool. RESULTS: Both clinical groups demonstrated impairment in overall communication and pragmatic language functioning, but children with WS performed significantly better on overall pragmatic language functioning, and the magnitude of the effect was medium. Profile examination revealed equivalent performances between ASD and WS on most CCC-2 subscales; however, significantly better performances on the Coherence, Stereotyped Language, Nonverbal Communication, and Social Relations subscales were observed in WS. CONCLUSIONS: The CCC-2 appears to provide an effective means to identify and characterize pragmatic language difficulties using a standardized approach in children with ASD and WS.