Posted on

Test Review: Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics (CAPs)

Today due to popular demand I am reviewing the Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics (CAPs) for children and young adults ages 7 – 18, developed by the Lavi Institute. Readers of this blog are familiar with the fact that I specialize in working with children diagnosed with psychiatric impairments and behavioral and emotional difficulties. They are also aware that I am constantly on the lookout for good quality social communication assessments due to a notorious dearth of good quality instruments in this area of language.

I must admit when I first learned about the existence of CAPs in May 2018, I was definitely interested but quite cautious. Many standardized tests assessing pragmatics and social language contain notable psychometric limitations due to the inclusion of children with social and pragmatic difficulties into the normative sample. This, in turn, tends to overinflate test scores and produce false negatives (a belief that the child does not possess a social communication impairment due to receiving average scores on the test).  Furthermore, tests of pragmatics such as Test of Pragmatic Language -2 (TOPL-2) tend to primarily assess the child’s knowledge of rules of politeness and knowing the right thing to say under a particular set of circumstances and as such are of limited value when it comes to gauging the child’s ability to truly assume perspectives and adequately showcase social cognitive abilities.

The CAPs is a unique test as compared to others with a similar purpose, due to the fact that the testing administration (which can take between 45-60 mins) is conducted exclusively via videos. The CAPs consists of 6 subtests and 3 indices.

Subtests (You can read up more on the comparison of the CAPs subtests HERE ):

Instrumental Performance Appraisal (IPA) subtest (Awareness of Basic Social Routines) is a relatively straightforward subtest which examines the student’s ability to be polite in basic social contexts. The student is asked to first identify “if anything went wrong in the presented scenario?” After that, the student is asked to explain, what went wrong and how s/he knows? Targeted structures include greeting and closure, making requests, responding to gratitude, requesting help, answering phone calls, asking for directions, asking permission, etc.  Goals: can the student discern between appropriate and inappropriate language and then provide a verbal rationale in a coherent and cohesive manner.

Score types: (2) correct identification of problem or lack of thereof + correct justification; (1) correct identification but incorrect rationale; (0) incorrect identification.

Social Context Appraisal (SCA) subtest (Reading Context Cues) requires the student to engage in effective perspective taking (assume mutual vs. individual perspectives) by identifying sarcasm, irony, and figurative language in the presented video scenarios. The student is then asked to provide a coherent and cohesive verbal explanation and effectively justify own response.

Score types: (3) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof + identification of idiom or sarcasm + reference to both characters actions; (2) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof + identification of idiom or sarcasm + reference to one character’s actions; (1) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof but an inability to verbalize the problem in the situation; (0) for incorrect identification.

Paralinguistic Decoding (PD) subtest (Reading Nonverbal Cues) assesses the students’ ability to notice and interpret micro-expressions and nonverbal language.  The aim of this subtest is to have the students grasp what went wrong vs. well in the presented videos, assume mutual perspectives,  as well as verbally justify their responses providing adequate and relevant details.

Score types: (3) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof + explanation of situation + reference to both characters facial expressions and tone of voices; (2) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof + explanation of situation  + reference to one character’s facial expression and tone of voice  (1) correct identification of the problem or lack of thereof but an inability to explain actions and/or nonverbal body language; (0) for incorrect identification.

Instrumental Performance (IP) subtest (Use of Social Routine Language) assesses the student’s ability to use rules of politeness (e.g., make requests, respond to gratitude, answer phone calls, etc.) by providing adequately supportive responses using first-person perspectives relevant to various social situations.

Score types: (2) appropriate introduction + use of supportive statements; (1) appropriate introduction without the use of supportive statements; (0) inappropriate intent of message or use of impolite language 

Affective Expression (AE) subtest (Expressing Emotions) assesses the student’s ability to effectively display empathy, gratitude, praise, apology, etc., towards affected peers in the video scenario. It requires the usage of relevant facial expressions, tone of voice, as well as stating appropriately supportive comments.

Score types: (2) expresses empathy, praise, apology, gratitude, etc. along with supportive statements +appropriate facial and prosodic affect; (1) expresses empathy, praise, apology, gratitude, etc. + appropriate facial and prosodic affect without relevant supportive statements;   (0) provides an approrpiate response but lacks adequate prosody and affect, or message contains inappropriate intent 

Paralinguistic Signals (PS) subtest (Using Nonverbal Cues)assesses the student’s ability to appropriately use facial expressions, gestures, and prosody (act out vs. recognize and interpret facial expression and gestures). This includes showing appropriate expression of empathy, frustration, alarm, excitement, gratitude, etc., exhibiting relevant inflection in prosody as well as showing appropriate to the situation facial expression (vs. having inappropriate message intent, be monotone, have flat affect, etc.)

Score types: (2) appropriately expresses urgency, empathy apology, etc. +exhibits inflections in prosody and shows relevant facial expressions; (1) appropriately expresses urgency, empathy apology, etc. +exhibits inflections in prosody without showing relevant facial expressions  (0)   inappropriate intent of message or monotone prosody. 

Indices (information regarding the student’s pragmatic proficiency):

  1. Pragmatic Judgement (Sum of IPA, SCA & PD scaled scores)
  2. Pragmatic Performance (Sum of IP, AE & PS scaled scores)
  3. Paralinguistic (Sum of PD, AE & PS scaled scores)

Based on the administration of this test the following goals can be formulated for remediation purposes:

Long Term Goal: Student will improve pragmatic abilities for social and academic purposes

Short-Term Objectives: 

  1. The student will verbally identify instances of politeness or impoliteness in presented social routines
  2. The student will provide relevant justifications explaining which aspects of the presented scenarios were appropriate vs. inappropriate
  3. The student will verbally identify sarcasm, irony, and figurative language in presented social scenarios
  4. The student will effectively explain sarcasm, irony, and figurative language in presented social scenarios
  5. The student will verbally interpret micro-expressions and nonverbal body language  (e.g., they feel disgusted; the girl is smirking, the man’s hands are crossed, etc.)
  6. The student will effectively use rules of politeness and provide adequately supportive responses using first-person perspectives pertaining to various aspects of social scenarios
  7. The student will display a range of emotional expressions via the use of relevant facial expressions, tone of voice when providing supporting responses
  8. The student will state appropriately supportive comments regarding relevant social scenarios
  9. The student will use a range of facial expressions, gestures, and relevant prosody pertinent to the provided social scenarios

Furthermore, this test comes with a Contextualized Assessment of Pragmatics Checklist as well as a downloadable  Free Report Template.

Multiple videos posted by the Lavi Institute showcasing individual subtest administration can be accessed by clicking on the above-highlighted links as well as on YouTube.

Psychometrics: the normative sample consisted of 914 individuals out of which 137 (or 15%)  included individuals with atypical language development: ASD: N-18; SLI: N-27; Other (Learning Disabilities): N-92.

Excellent Sensitivity and Specificity Cut Scores (at 1, 1.5 & 2 SD) for clients with ASD ONLY:

Impressions:  To date, I have used this assessment with only 3 students. As such, expect multiple updates of this post as I continue to document how well it suited to identify children with social communication difficulties. Below are my preliminary impressions on how well this test is suited for children with varying pragmatic profiles.

A. Initial Assessment: 8-3-year-old male diagnosed with Autism

The CAPs had captured the student’s display of pragmatic deficits extremely well.  It was able to highlight the student’s relative strengths as well as pervasive pragmatic needs.  Based on the results of the CAPs, I was able to generate relevant pragmatic goals to target with this student in therapy.

B.  Yearly Reassessment: 8-11-year-old diagnosed with Anxiety:

I definitely had some trepidation about how well the CAPs will be able to capture this student’s pragmatic difficulties. This student was initially assessed via the Social Language Development Test-Elementary (SLDTE), which did show deficits in the areas of making inferences, interpersonal negotiation, as well as multiple interpretations of social situations. However, subsequent to his assessment that student did exceptionally well in treatment and had improved exponentially. While I knew that the student was not done with the treatment quite yet, I wasn’t certain if the CAPs was capable of picking up his subtle social pragmatic difficulties. Much to my surprise, the CAPs was effective in highlighting my student’s difficulties on a number of subtests including those pertaining to the effective reading and use of context and nonverbal cues, comprehension  and interpretation of irony and sarcasm, effective support of peers via a variety of statements relevant to social situations (coherent and cohesive sentence formulation given relevant details), as well as use of relevant prosody, facial expressions, tone of voice, and nonverbal cues.

C. Initial Assessment: 11-year-old student with suspected language and literacy deficits 

This was definitely the trickiest assessment subject from my small sample. Based on the collected data I suspected the student had social communication deficits, however, given his relative strengths in a variety of areas and that the fact that no one had previously brought it up, I truly did not anticipate that CAPs will effectively and accurately identify his pragmatic needs. As expected, the student did quite well on that “easier” subtests of the CAPs: (IPA, IP, and AE). However, I was very pleasantly surprised that the CAPs had accurately picked up on the fact that the student presented with difficulty reading both context and nonverbal cues as well as using nonverbal cues to effectively answer the presented questions.

Summary: While my sample of subjects has been quite small to date, I fully intend to continue using the CAPs with students of varying ages with varying diagnoses in order to continue refining profile of students who will significantly benefit from CAPs administration for assessment and reassessment purposes.

MISC:

Current Cost $149

Where to purchase: Effective 1/7/19 on the WPS Publishing website

There you have it! These are my impressions of using the CAPs in my settings. How about you? Have you used this test with any of your students to date? If yes, what are some strengths and limitations you are noticing?

 

 

 

Posted on

Assessing Behaviorally Impaired Students: Why Background History Matters!

As a speech language pathologist (SLP) who works in an outpatient psychiatric school-based setting, I frequently review incoming students previous speech language evaluation reports.  There are a number of trends I see in these reports which I have written about in the past as well as planned on writing about in the future.

For example, in the past I wrote about my concern regarding the lack of adequate or even cursory social communication assessments for students with documented psychiatric impairments and emotional behavioral deficits.

This leads many professionals to do the following: 

a. Miss vital assessment elements which denies students appropriate school based services and

b. Assume that the displayed behavioral challenges are mere results of misbehaving. 

Today however I wanted express my thoughts regarding another disturbing trend I see in numerous incoming speech-language reports in both outpatient school/hospital setting as well as in private practice  – and that is lack of background information in the students assessment reports.

Despite its key role in assessment, this section is frequently left bare. Most of the time it contains only the information regarding the students age and grade levels as well as the reasons for the referral (e.g., initial evaluation, triennial evaluation).  Some of the better reports will include cursory mention of the student’s developmental milestones but most of the time information will be sorely lacking.

Clearly this problem is not just prevalent in my incoming assessment reports. I frequently see manifestations of it in a variety of speech pathology related social media forums such as Facebook. Someone will pose a question regarding how to distinguish a _____ from ____ (e.g., language difference vs. language disorder, behavioral noncompliance vs. social communication deficits, etc.) yet when they’re questioned further many SLPs will admit that they are lacking any/most information regarding the students background history.

When questioned regarding the lack of this information, many SLPs get defensive. They cite a variety of reasons such as lack of parental involvement (“I can’t reach the parents”), lack of access to records (“it’s a privacy issue”), division of labor (e.g., “it’s the social worker’s responsibility and not mine to obtain this information”) as well as other justifications why this information is lacking.

Now, I don’t know about you, but one of my earliest memories of the ‘diagnostics’ class in graduate school involved collecting data and writing comprehensive ‘Background Information’ section of the report. I still remember multiple professors imparting upon me the vital importance is this section plays in the student’s evaluation report.

Indeed, many years later, I clearly see its vital role in assessment. Unearthing the student’s family history, developmental milestones, medical/surgical history, as well as history of past therapies is frequently the key to a successful diagnosis and appropriate provision of therapy services.  This is the information that frequently plays a vital role in subsequent referrals of “mystery” cases to relevant health professionals as well as often leads to resolution of particularly complicated diagnostic puzzles.

Of course I understand that frequently there are legitimate barriers to obtaining this information.  However, I also know that if one digs deep enough one will frequently find the information they’re seeking despite the barriers. To illustrate, at the psychiatric hospital level where I work,  I frequently encounter a number of barriers to accessing the student’s background information during the assessment process. This may include parental language/education barrier, parental absence, Division of Child Protective Services involvement,  etc.  Yet I always try to ensure that my reports contain all the background information that I’m able to unearth because I know how vitally important it is for the student in question.

In the past I have been able to use the student’s background information to make important discoveries, which were otherwise missed by other health professionals. This included undocumented history of traumatic brain injuries, history of language and literacy disabilities in the family, history of genetic disorders and/or intellectual disabilities in the family, history of maternal alcohol abuse during pregnancy, and much much more.

So what do I consider to be an adequate Background History section of the assessment report?

For starters, the basics, of course.

I begin by stating the child’s age and grade levels, who referred the child (and for what reason), as well as whether the child previously received any form of speech language assessment/therapy services in the past.

If I am preforming a reassessment (especially if it happens shortly after the last assessment took place) I provide a clear justification why the present reassessment is taking place. Here is an actual excerpt from one of my reevaluation reports. “Despite receiving average language scores on his _______ speech language testing which resulted in the  recommendation for speech therapy only, upon his admission to ______, student was referred for a language reassessment in _____, by the classroom staff who expressed significant concerns regarding validity and reliability of past speech and language testing on the ground of the student’s persistent “obvious” listening comprehension and verbal expression deficits.”

For those of you in need of further justification I’ve created a brief list of reasons why a reassessment, closely following recent testing may be needed.

  1. SLP/Parent feels additional testing is needed to create comprehensive goals for child.
  2. Previous testing was inadequate. Here it’s very important to provide comprehensive rationale  and list the reasons for it.
  3. A reevaluation was requested due to third party  concerns (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, etc.)

Secondly, it is important to document all relevant medical history, which includes: prenatal, perinatal, and early childhood diseases, surgical interventions and incidents. It is important to note that if a child has a long standing history of documented psychiatric difficulties, you may want to separate these sections and describe psychiatric history/diagnoses following the section that details the onset of the child’s emotional and behavioral deficits.

Let us now move on to the child’s developmental history, which should include, gross/fine motor, speech/ language milestones, and well as cognitive and socioemotional functioning.  This is a section where I typically add information regarding any early intervention services which may have been provided to the child prior to the age of three.

In my next section I discuss the child’s academic functioning to date. Here I mention whether the student qualified for a preschool disabled eligibility category and received services from the age of 3+.  I also discuss their educational classification (if one exists), briefly mention the results of previous most recent cognitive and educational testing (if available) as well as mention any academic struggles (if applicable).

After that I move on to the child’s psychiatric history. I briefly document when did the emotional behavioral problems first arose, and what had been done about them to date (out of district placements, variety of psychiatric services, etc.)  Here I also document  the student’s most recent psychiatric diagnoses (if available) and mention any medication they may be currently on (applicable due to the effect of psychiatric medications on language and memory skills).

The following section is perhaps the most important one in the  report. It is the family’s history of genetic disorders, psychiatric impairments, special education placements, as well as language, learning, and literacy deficits.  This section plays a vital importance in my determination of the contributions to the student’s language difficulties as well as guides my assessment recommendations in the presence of borderline assessment results.

I finish this section by briefly discussing the student’s Family Composition as well as Language Knowledge and Use.

I discuss family composition due to several factors.  For example, lack of consistent caregivers, prolonged absence of parental figures, as well as presence of a variety of people in the home can serve as significant stressor for children with psychiatric impairments and learning difficulties.  As a result of this information is pertinent to the report especially when it comes to figuring out the antecedents for the child’s behavior fluctuation on daily basis.

Language knowledge and use  is particularly relevant to culturally and linguistically diverse children. It is very important to understand what languages does the child understand and use at home and at school as well as what do the parents think about the child’s language abilities in both languages. These factors will guide my decision making process regarding what type of assessments would be most relevant for this child.

So there you have it.  This is the information I include in the background history section of every single one of my reports.  I believe that this information contributes to the making of the appropriate and accurate diagnosis of the child’s difficulties.

Please don’t get me wrong. This information is hugely relevant for all students that we SLPs are assessing.

However, the above is especially relevant for such vulnerable populations as children with emotional and behavioral disturbances, whose struggle with social communication is frequently misinterpreted as “it’s just behavior“. As a result, they are frequently denied social communication therapy services, which ultimately leads to denial of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) that they are entitled to.

Let us ensure that this does not happen by doing all that we can to endure that the student receives a fair assessment, correct diagnosis, and can have access to the best classroom placement, appropriate accommodations and modifications as well as targeted and relevant therapeutic services.  And the first step of that process begins with obtaining a detailed background history!

Helpful Resources: 

 

 

 

Posted on

Assessing Social Communication Abilities of School-Aged Children

Recently, I’ve published an article in SIG 16 Perspectives on School Based Issues discussing the importance of social communication assessments of school aged children 2-18 years of age. Below I would like to summarize article highlights.

First, I summarize the effect of social communication on academic abilities and review the notion of the “academic impact”. Then, I go over important changes in terminology and definitions as well as explain the “anatomy of social communication”.

Next I suggest a sample social communication skill hierarchy to adequately determine assessment needs (assess only those abilities suspected of deficits and exclude the skills the student has already mastered).

After that I go over pre-assessment considerations as well as review standardized testing and its limitations from 3-18 years of age.

Finally I review a host of informal social communication procedures and address their utility.

What is the away message?

When evaluating social communication, clinicians need to use multiple assessment tasks to create a balanced assessment. We need to chose testing instruments that will help us formulate clear goals.  We also need to add descriptive portions to our reports in order to “personalize” the student’s deficit areas. Our assessments need to be functional and meaningful for the student. This means determining the student’s strengths and not just weaknesses as a starting point of intervention initiation.

Is this an article which you might find interesting? If so, you can access full article HERE free of charge.

Helpful Smart Speech Resources Related to Assessment and Treatment of Social Communication 

Posted on

Improving Emotional Intelligence of Children with Social Communication Disorders

Our ability to recognize our own and other people’s emotions, distinguish between and correctly identify different feelings, as well as use that information to guide our thinking and behavior is called Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Salovey, et al, 2008).

EI encompasses dual areas of: emotion understanding, which is an awareness and comprehension of one’s and others emotions (Harris, 2008) and emotion regulation, which are internal and external strategies people use to regulate emotions (Thompson, 1994).

Many students with social communication challenges experience problems with all aspects of EI, including the perception, comprehension, and regulation of emotions (Brinton & Fujiki, 2012).

A number of recent studies have found that children with language impairments also present with impaired emotional intelligence including impaired perception of facial expressions (Spackman, Fujiki, Brinton, Nelson, & Allen, 2005), prosodic emotions (Fujiki, Spackman, Brinton, & Illig, 2008) as well as abstract emotion comprehension (Ford & Milosky, 2003).

Children with impaired emotional intelligence will experience numerous difficulties during social interactions due to their difficulty interpreting emotional cues of others (Cloward, 2012).  These may include but not be limited to active participation in cooperative activities, as well as full/competent interactions during group tasks (Brinton, Fujiki, & Powell, 1997)

Many students with social pragmatic deficits and language impairments are taught to recognize emotional states as part of their therapy goals. However, the provided experience frequently does not go beyond the recognition of the requisite “happy”, “mad”, “sad” emotions. At times, I even see written blurbs from others therapists, which state that “the student has mastered the goals of emotion recognition”.  However, when probed further it appears that the student had merely mastered the basic spectrum of simple emotional states, which places the student at a distinct disadvantage  as compared to typically developing peers who are capable of recognition and awareness of a myriad of complex emotional states.

03well_eyes-tmagArticle

That is why I developed a product to target abstract emotional states comprehension in children with language impairments and social communication disorders. “Gauging Moods and Interpreting Abstract Emotional States: A Perspective Taking Activity Packet” is a social pragmatic photo/question set,  intended for children 7+ years of age, who present with difficulty recognizing abstract emotional states of others (beyond the “happy, mad, sad” option) as well as appropriately gauging their moods.

Many sets contain additional short stories with questions that focus on making inferencing, critical thinking as well as interpersonal negotiation skills.  Select sets require the students to create their own stories with a focus on the reasons why the person in the photograph might be feeling what s/he are feeling.

There are on average 12-15 questions per each photo.  Each page contains a photograph of a person feeling a particular emotion. After the student is presented with the photograph, they are asked a number of questions pertaining to the recognition of the person’s emotions, mood, the reason behind the emotion they are experiencing as well as what they could be potentially thinking at the moment.  Students are also asked to act out the depicted emotion they use of mirror.

Activities also include naming or finding (in a thesaurus or online) the synonyms and antonyms of a particular word in order to increase students’ vocabulary knowledge. A comprehensive two page “emotions word bank” is included in the last two pages of the packet to assist the students with the synonym/antonym selection, in the absence of a thesaurus or online access.

Students are also asked to use a target word in a complex sentence containing an adverbial (pre-chosen for them) as well as to identify a particular word or phrase associated with the photo or the described story situation.

Since many students with social pragmatic language deficits present with difficulty determining a person’s age (and prefer to relate to either younger or older individuals who are perceived to be “less judgmental of their difficulties”), this concept is also explicitly targeted in the packet.

This activity is suitable for both individual therapy sessions as well as group work.  In addition to its social pragmatic component is also intended to increase vocabulary knowledge and use as well as sentence length of children with language impairments.

Intended Audiences:

  • Clients with Language Impairments
  • Clients with Social Pragmatic Language Difficulties
  • Clients with Executive Function Difficulties
  • Clients with Psychiatric Impairments
    • ODD, ADHD, MD, Anxiety, Depression, etc.
  • Clients with Autism Spectrum Disorders
  • Clients with Nonverbal Learning Disability
  • Clients with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
  • Adult and pediatric post-Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) clients
  • Clients with right-side CVA Damage

Areas covered in this packet:

  1. Gauging Age (based on visual support and pre-existing knowledge)
  2. Gauging Moods (based on visual clues and context)
  3. Explaining Facial Expressions
  4. Making Social Predictions and Inferences (re: people’s emotions)
  5. Assuming First Person Perspectives
  6. Understanding Sympathy
  7. Vocabulary Knowledge and Use (pertaining to the concept of Emotional Intelligence)
  8. Semantic Flexibility (production of synonyms and antonyms)
  9. Complex Sentence Production
  10. Expression of Emotional Reactions
  11. Problem Solving Social Situations
  12. Friendship Management and Peer Relatedness

This activity is suitable for both individual therapy sessions as well as group work.  In addition to its social pragmatic component is also intended to increase vocabulary knowledge and use as well as sentence length of children with language impairments. You can find it in my online store (HERE).

Helpful Smart Speech Resources:

References:

  1. Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., & Powell, J. M. (1997). The ability of children with language impairment to manipulate topic in a structured task. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 3-11.
  2. Brinton B., & Fujiki, M. (2012). Social and affective factors in children with language impairment. Implications for literacy learning. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
  3. Cloward, R. (2012). The milk jug project: Expression of emotion in children with language impairment and autism spectrum disorder (Unpublished honor’s thesis). Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
  4. Ford, J., & Milosky, L. (2003). Inferring emotional reactions in social situations: Differences in children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(1), 21-30.
  5. Fujiki, M., Spackman, M. P., Brinton, B., & Illig, T. (2008). Ability of children with language impairment to understand emotion conveyed by prosody in a narrative passage. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(3), 330-345
  6. Harris, P. L. (2008). Children’s understanding of emotion. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett, (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 320–331). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  7. Salovey, P., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T., Detweiler-Bedell, J. B., & Mayer, J. D. (2008). Emotional intelligence. In M. Lewis, J. M. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (3rd ed., pp. 533-547). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  8. Spackman, M. P., Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Nelson, D., & Allen, J. (2005). The ability of children with language impairment to recognize emotion conveyed by facial expression and music. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 26(3), 131-143.
  9. Thompson, R. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2-3), 25-52

a Rafflecopter giveaway