University of London Thesis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REFERENCE ONLY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THESIS Degree fVv*> Year jZ.oo'fe Name of Author A COPYRIGHT This is a thesis accepted for a Higher Degree of the University of London. It is an unpublished typescript and the copyright is held by the author. All persons consulting the thesis must read and abide by the Copyright Declaration below. COPYRIGHT DECLARATION I recognise that the copyright of the above-described thesis rests with the author and that no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author. LOANS Theses may not be lent to individuals, but the Senate House Library may lend a copy to approved libraries within the United Kingdom, for consultation solely on the premises of those libraries. Application should be made to: Inter-Library Loans, Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. REPRODUCTION University of London theses may not be reproduced without explicit written permission from the Senate House Library. Enquiries should be addressed to the Theses Section of the Library. Regulations concerning reproduction vary according to the date of acceptance of the thesis and are listed below as guidelines. A. Before 1962. Permission granted only upon the prior written consent of the author. (The Senate House Library will provide addresses where possible). B. 1962-1974. In many cases the author has agreed to permit copying upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. C. 1975 - 1988. Most theses may be copied upon completion of a Copyright Declaration. D. 1989 onwards. Most theses may be copied. This thesis com es within category D. This copy has been deposited in the Library of Q This copy has been deposited in the Senate House Library, Senate House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU. C:\Documents and SettingsUproctortLocal SettingsYTemporary Internet Files\OLKS\Copyright - thesis (2).doc Th e A sse ssm e n t of the S pec ia l E d u c a t io n a l N e e d s of C h il d r e n w ith A u t ism in S in g a po r e Sharifah Mariam B. H. ALJUNIED D epartm ent of P sych o lo g y U niversity C ollege Lo n d o n 26 B e dfo rd W a y Lo n d o n W C 1E 6B T U n ited King do m T h e sis S u b m it t e d t o t h e F a c u l t y o f L ife Sc ie n c e s a t t h e U n iv e r s it y C o l l e g e L o n d o n f o r t h e D e g r e e o f D o c t o r o f P h il o s o p h y S e p t e m b e r 2005 UMI Number: U592607 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592607 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I owe a lot to many, but this thesis is dedicated to those that matter the most, my family, Mohd Najiib and Sara Nazir ah. I would like to express sincere appreciation to my supervisors, Prof. Norah Frederickson and Prof. Uta Frith, for their guidance and insights throughout the research. I would like to also thank other faculty members, who have provided assistance in various aspects of the research, namely Dr. Robin Murphy, Dr. Phil Reed, Dr. Simon Williams and Ms. Sarah White. I am indebted to the following organisations and their staff for their cooperation and support: • Autism Resource Center (Singapore) • Grace Orchard School (Singapore) • Helen Alison School (UK) • Metta School (Singapore) • National Autistic Society (UK) • Pathlight School (Singapore) • Rainbow Center (Singapore) This thesis was made possible through the generous sponsorship of the Ministry of Education (Singapore). I express my deep appreciation to officers from the Staff Training Branch and Education Programmes Division (EPD) who have supported me throughout the duration of my studies; and in particular, to the current and previous directors of EPD, Ms. Sum Chee Wah, Ms. Ho Peng and Mrs. Mok Choon Hoe, for their leadership and guidance. Lastly, but in no sense the least, I am thankful to my family and friends for their never fading encouragement and support. Special thanks go to Zarinah Mohamed and Laura Cockbum for their invaluable assistance and support throughout my studies. In Singapore, there is a high reliance on IQ scores as the basis for deciding children’s access to special educational provisions. Children with disabilities remain in the mainstream if they are perceived to be able to cope with the demands of the mainstream schools. On the other hand, if children were seen to require intensive support, referral to special schools would be initiated. This thesis aims to evaluate the validity of measures of intelligence and other selected indicators of special educational needs (SEN) for children with autism in Singapore. The first phase of the thesis involved identifying an independent measure of SEN. Results of Study 1, which involved interviews with the parents of 40 children with autism, provided support for the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF: WHO, 2001) as an adequate independent measure of SEN. The second phase involved the evaluation of selected indicators of SEN that can be used alongside the ICF, namely measures of intelligence, theory of mind, executive function, central coherence and cognitive modifiability. These were evaluated based on their psychometric and treatment validity, as defined in educational contexts. For evaluations of psychometric validity, two criteria were used: firstly, the extent to which the indicators were able to predict children’s SEN level; and secondly, the extent to which the indicators were able to distinguish children with autism who can cope with mainstream schools, from those that require special schools. This involved individual assessments with 52 children with autism and interviews with their parents (Study 2). For evaluations of treatment validity a qualitative approach was adopted to obtain practitioners’ views on the extent to which the indicators of SEN were able to provide information that can be used to plan interventions (Study 3). The findings indicated that it was the combination of indicators that accounted for the greatest variance in the SEN levels of children with autism. However, depending on the purpose of testing and types of sub-group of children with autism, different indicators proved to have different validity strength. When the treatment validity of these measures was evaluated, measures of theory of mind showed the strongest treatment validity. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications for SEN assessments in Singapore, and the assessment of children with autism in general. v A cknowledgement 111 A b s t r a c t iv L is t o f T a b l e s xii L is t o f F ig u r e s xv -- nj.~ {X^ggjiy - 1.1 C o n t e x t 1.2 O v e r v ie w 2.1 C o n c e p t u a l F r a m e w o r k f o r Sp e c ia l E d u c a t io n a l N e e d s 7 2.1.1 Focus on individual differences 7 2.1.2 Focus on environmental demands 8 2.1.3 Interactional analysis of SEN 9 2.2 M e t h o d o l o g y f o r E v a l u a t in g t h e V a l id it y a n d R e l ia b il it y o f SEN 12 A s s e s s m e n t s 2.2.1 Definition of validity 13 2.2.2 Types of validity evidence as described in the Standards 14 2.2.3 Measurements of reliability 20 2.2.4 Summary 22 2.3 R e v ie w o f t h e International C lassification o f F u n c t io n in g , D is a b il it y 23 a n d H e a l t h 2.3.1 Background and Rationale 23 2.3.2 Description of the ICF 24 2.3.3 Adequacy of the ICF model 27 2.3.4 Feasibility 29 2.3.5 Applicability for specific populations 29 2.3.6 ICF checklist 29 2.3.7 Reliability and validity of the ICF checklist 30 2.3.8 Critique of the ICF 32 2.3.9 Summary and conclusion 38 2.4 C o n c e p t s a n d T h e o r ie s o f A u t is m 41 2.4.1 Concept of autism 41 2.4.2 Theories of autism 46 2.4.3 Cognitive modifiability in children with autism 53 2.4.4 Conclusion 59 2.5 A s s e s s m e n t A p p r o a c h e s f o r C h il d r e n w it h A u t is m 60 2.5.1 Behaviour observation scales 61 2.5.2 Parental reports 61 2.5.3 Investigator-based interviews 63 2.5.4 Comparison of the ADI and the DISCO 66 2.5.5 Summary on investigator-based interviews 70 2.6 Su m m a r y a n d C o n c l u s io n f o r C h a p t e r 2 71 3.1 Introduction 73 3.1.1 Evidence based on content 75 3.1.2 Evidence based on response processes 76 3.1.4 Evidence of reliability 78 3.1.5 Evidence based on external criteria 78 3.1.6 Evidence based on treatment validity 79 3.1.7 Objectives of present study 79 3.2 M e t h o d o l o g y 81 3.2.1 Participants 81 3.2.2 Measures 83 3.3.3 Procedures 86 3.3 R e s u l t s 87 3.3.1 Results for the first criterion 87 3.3.2 Results for the second criterion 90 3.3.3 Results for the third criterion 92 3.3.4 Summary of results 94 3.4 D is c u s s io n s 95 3.4.1 Evaluation of the first criterion 95 3.4.2 Evaluation of the second criterion 96 3.4.3 Evaluation of the third criterion 96 3.4.4 Methodological issues 97 3.4.5 Conclusion 99 4.1 M e a s u r e o f Intelligence 100 4.1.1 What is intelligence; how is it measured? 101 4.1.2 Measurement issues 102 4.1.3 Description and review of the WISC-III (Singapore) 106 4.2 M e a s u r e o f E x e c u t iv e Fu