Upload
vuque
View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TASIT-R: The Awareness of
Social Inference Test Revised
Skye McDonald, Sharon
Flanagan & Jennifer Rollins
Pearson Assessment
2010
Why TASIT Was Developed
Social skills deficits are common in many clinical groups, e.g. autism, traumatic brain injury, learning disabilities
Social skills comprise Expression (behaviour)
Perception
There are few tools available that measure perception
What Is Social Perception?
Social perception is the ability to read selected social cues in order to make judgements about the behaviour, attitudes and emotions of others (McFall, 1982)
Social cues include Facial expression and tone of voice
Gesture and “body language”
Contextual information
Knowledge of the world
Why Does Social Perception
Matter?
Verbal messages alone are insufficient to convey meaning
A single utterance e.g. “Thankyou!” may be meant
Sincerely to end an encounter
As a request for further assistance
As a sarcastic insult
Nonverbal cues determine this meaning
Failure to read these = Failure of communication
TASIT Comprises Three Parts:
PART 1: Emotion Evaluation Test
PART 2: Test of Social Inference -
Minimal
PART 3: Test of Social Inference -
Enriched
Each with parallel forms
PART 1: EET
Emotion Evaluation Test
EET is an ecologically valid test of emotion recognition
There are 28 videoed vignettes of professional actors enacting ambiguous scripts representing 7 basic emotions
These stimuli: Are dynamic
Portray naturalistic, complex expressions
Provide intonation and gestural cues
PART 1: EET
Response format
Respondents choose the perceived emotion
from the following descriptors: Happy
Surprised
Sad
Angry
Anxious
Revolted
Neutral
PART 1: EET
Normative Data
134 normal adults aged 14-60
88 tested on Form A
46 tested on Form B
Normal speakers achieved high scores on both forms of the EET
Form A: 24.9 (Maximum = 28)
Form B: 24.2 (Maximum = 28)
PART 1: EET
Validity Study
Traumatic brain injury is known to impair emotion recognition
12 adults with severe traumatic brain injury were compared to 12 matched control speakers on the EET
The TBI group were significantly worse than controls, especially on fear and neutral items.
PART 1: EET
Types of Emotion
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
happy
surprised
neutral
sadangry
anxious
revolted
Normalspeakers
TraumaticBrainInjurySpeakers
PART 2: SI-M
Social Inference – Minimal
SI-M examines understanding of conversational meanings that are determined by paralinguistic cues (facial expression, tone of voice, gesture etc)
SI-M comprises 15 videoed vignettes of everyday conversational exchanges
10 vignettes use neutral scripts such as the following:
PART 2: SI-M
Example of Neutral Script
Ruth: Great movie, wasn’t it?
Michael: Oh yeah, great.
Ruth: I thought it was terrific I was on the
edge of my seat.
Michael: Oh me too, on the edge of my seat.
Ruth: Weren’t you surprised by the ending?
Michael: Oh yeah, the ending was a huge surprise.
PART 2: SI- M
Neutral Scripts
These scripts are enacted by professional
actors to represent either
Sincere exchanges (5 examples)
Sarcastic exchanges (5 examples)
PART 2: SI – M
Paradoxical Scripts
In addition there are 5 examples of paradoxical
scripts e.g.
Gary: Are you sure you’ve got your passport?
Keith: (sarcastically) Oh, yes, I tore it up and threw it
away.
Gary: Good, that’s OK then.
These are nonsensical unless it is recognised
that one speakers is sarcastic
PART 2: SI-M
Comprehension Probes
Comprehension is assessed via 4 questions for each vignette.
These cover 4 facets of understanding, i.e. the speakers’ Beliefs (what s/he knows)
Meaning (what s/he means by what is said)
Intentions (what s/he intends to do: to insult, to reassure etc)
Feelings (what s/he feels)
PART 2: SI-M
Normative Data
171 Normal speakers aged 14-50 took part
98 viewed Form A
73 viewed Form B
They achieved generally high scores on each
form.
54 for Form A (maximum = 60)
53 for Form B (maximum = 60)
PART 2: SI-M
Validity Study
Traumatic Brain Injury rarely causes language disturbances but can impair the ability to understand conversational inference
12 speakers with severe TBI were compared to 12 normal speakers
As predicted, the TBI group performed normally on sincere exchanges but were poor on sarcastic exchanges
PART 2: SI-M
Sincere vs Sarcastic Exchanges
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
SINCERE SARCASTIC
NBD Speakers
TBI Speakers
PART 3: SI-E
Social Inference – Enriched
SI-E assesses the ability to use contextual knowledge, i.e. visual and verbal information to derive meaning
SI-E comprises 16 videoed vignettes of everyday exchanges
In each of these there is a literally untrue comment.
PART 3: SI-E
Literally untrue scripts
These comments: e.g.
“Yes Cal has finished his dinner!” (when he has not)
“No of course you don’t look fat” (when he does)
are enacted in one of two ways:
1. As sarcasm meant to amplify the truth
2. As a lie meant to conceal or minimise the truth
PART 3: SI-E
Contextual cues
SI-E provides two sources of non-verbal cues to determine meaning
Paralinguistic features (like Part 2)
Contextual cues - Visual edit indicating the true state of affairs
e.g. a view of Cal’s still full dinner plate
- Prologue that reveals the speaker’s true thoughts
e.g. Ruth confiding to a third person that Garry has put on weight
PART 3: SI-E
Comprehension Probes
4 probes are used to assess comprehension of
each vignette covering the same facets of
understanding as PART 2, I.e speaker
Beliefs
Meanings
Intentions
Feelings
PART 3: SI-E
Normative Study
186 normal speakers aged 14-50 took part
123 viewed Form A
63 viewed Form B
They achieved generally high scores on both forms
Form A: 55.6 (maximum of 60)
Form B; 55.1 (maximum of 60)
PART 3: SI-E
Validity Study
12 adults with severe traumatic brain
injury were compared to 12 matched
control speakers on the SI-E
The TBI speakers were poorer than
normal speakers on sarcasm but not lies
Additional studies of TASIT:
Reliability and construct validity
Reliability (32-38 adults with TBI) Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.74 to 0.88.
Alternate forms reliability ranged from 0.62-0.83.
Validity (up to116 people with TBI) TASIT was associated with
face perception,
information processing speed
working memory.
Socially relevant new learning and executive tasks were significantly associated with TASIT performance
Non-social tasks showed little association.
Ekman photos and theory of mind stories were also associated.
McDonald, Bornhofen, Shum, Long,
Saunders & Neulinger (2006)
Additional Studies using TASIT
with TBI
Poor TASIT performance predicts poor social interaction skills (McDonald et al, 2003)
Poor emotion recognition (EET) is associated with reduced communicative competence on relative report (Watts & Douglas, 2006)
A study of 35 people with TBI confirmed problems on TASIT following TBI and examined relations between emotion, mentalising and conversational understanding (McDonald & Flanagan, 2004)
There are clear differences in the ability to recognise emotion from dynamic and static visual displays as well as voice only (McDonald & Saunders, 2005).
Studies using TASIT with other
populations
TASIT performance is indicative of frontotemporal dementia (Kipps et al, 2009)
In a large group of people with differing forms of dementia only those with semantic dementia had particular difficulty with sarcasm (Rankin et al, 2009)
Right hemisphere pathology appears to disrupt performance on TASIT especially (Fournier et al, 2008)
People with schizophrenia are more impaired than people with FTD (Kosmidos et al, 2008)
Uses of TASIT
TASIT appears to be sensitive to a range
of deficits in social perception
It can be used to assess social perception
It can also be used to treat such deficits
Treatment Applications
Common scripts on Form A and B of TASIT denote contrasting meanings
sad versus angry, etc
sarcastic versus sincere
lie versus sarcastic
These can be used to help clients appreciate the importance of contextual cues
Treatment Applications
The audio channel can be muted or the
visual channel obscured to assist clients
concentrate on information from one
channel alone
Contact Details
For purchasing:
Pearson Assessment http://pearsonassess.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-
us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8055-
063&Mode=summary
Contact Details
For information regarding research
Prof Skye McDonald
School of Psychology,
University of New South Wales
Sydney 2052,
NSW, AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61 (2) 93853029
Fax: +61 (2) 93853641
Email: [email protected]
References
McDonald, S., Flanagan, S., Rollins, J. & Kinch, J. (2003) TASIT: A New Clinical Tool for Assessing Social Perception after traumatic brain injury Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 18, 219-238.
McDonald, S., & Flanagan, S. (2004) Social perception deficits after Traumatic Brain Injury: The interaction between emotion recognition, mentalising ability and social communication. Neuropsychology 18, 572-579.
McDonald, S., Flanagan, Martin, I. & Saunders, C. (2004) The ecological validity of TASIT: A test of social perception, Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14, 205-302.
McDonald, S., Saunders, C. (2005) Differential impairment in recognition of emotion from still, dynamic and multi-modal displays in people with severe TBI. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 392-399.
McDonald, S., Bornhofen, C., Shum, D., Long, E. Saunders, C., Neulinger, K.
(2006) Reliability and validity of ‘The Awareness of Social Inference Test’
(TASIT): A clinical test of social perception. Disability and Rehabilitation, 28,
1529-1542.
Watts, A.J., & Douglas, J.M. (2006). Interpreting facial expression and
communication competence following severe traumatic brain injury. Aphasiology,
20(8), 707-722.
References continued
Rankin, K., Salazar, A., Goorno-Tempini, M.L., Sollberger, M., Wilson, S.M.,
Pavlic, D., Stanley, C.M., Glenn, S., Weiner, M.W., Miller, B.L. (2009) Detecting
sarcasm from paralinguistic cues: Anatomic and cognitive correlates in
neurodegenerative disease. Neuroiamge, 47, 2005-2015.
Fournier, N.M., Calverley, K.L., Wagner, J.P., Poock, J.L., & Crossley, M. (2008).
Impaired social cognition 30 years after hemispherectomy for intractable epilepsy:
The importance of the right hemisphere in complex social functioning. Epilepsy &
Behavior, 12, 460-471.
Kipps, C.M., Nestor, P.J., Acosta-Cabronero, J., Arnold, R., & Hodges, J.R. (2009).
Understanding social dysfunction in the behavioural variant of frontotemporal
dementia:the role of emotion and sarcasm processing. Brain.
Kosmidis, M.H., Eleni, A., P., B.V., Maria, G., & Panayiotis, I. (2008). Studying
social cognition in patients with schizophrenia and patients with frontotemporal
dementia: Theory of mind and the perception of sarcasm. Behavioural Neurology,
19(Print), 65-69.
References continued
Dewar, B-K, Gracey, F. (2007) "Am not was": Cognitive-behavioral therapy for
adjustment and identity change following herpes simplex encephalitis.
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. Vol 17(4-5), Aug 2007, 602-620.
Jahshan, C.S. & Sergi, M.J. (2007) Theory of mind, neurocognition, and functional
status in schizotypy. Schizophrenia Research. Vol 89(1-3) 278-286.
Knox, L. & Douglas, J. (2009) Long–term ability to interpret facial expression after
traumatic brain injury and its relation to social integration. Brain and Cognition.
Vol 69(2), 442-449
Blake, M.L (2009) Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage:
Maintenance of inferences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
Vol 52(2) 359-372
Kern, R. S.; Green, M. F.; Fiske, A. P.; Kee, K. S.; Lee, J.; Sergi, M. J.; Horan, W.
P.; Subotnik, K. L.; Sugar, C. A.; Nuechterlein, K. H. (2009) Theory of mind
deficits for processing counterfactual information in persons with chronic
schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine. Vol 39(4) 645-654