Computerized Verbal Content Analysis of Institutionalized versus Community Retarded Children

Previous studies have indicated structural language differences favoring the non-institutionalized retarded when compared to matched institutionalized retarded children. In this study, a sociological and psychological deficit hypothesis for institutional retardates was explored by utilizing a verbal content analysis system. Unstructured speech samples from 20 institutionalized and 20 non-institutionalized retarded children were employed utilizing the computerized General Inquirer System and the Harvard III Psychosociological Dictionary. Very few significant contentive category differences were noted between the institutional and non-institutional retarded children. The findings of this study do not support a psychological or sociological deficit hypothesis for institutionalized educable retardates as measured by this content analysis system. JAMES C. MONTAGUE, JR. Most investigators have concluded that the institutionalization of retardates results in more severe verbal language deficits when compared with matched non-institutionalized retardates. Institutionalized children were found by Little and Williams (1937) to be more defective in vocabulary than matched non-institutionalized children. Schlanger (1954), using mean sentence length and average number of words per minutes, also compared matched groups of institutionalized and non-institutionalized children: children living at home scored significantly higher on both measures. Another study relevant to this apparent relationship was performed by Badt (1958), using a scoring system for qualitative analysis of verbatim vocabulary definitions: an inverse relationship was found between length of institutionalization and abstracting ability. At the conclusion of a series of studies, Lyle (1960) indicated that there are clearly retarding effects within the institution itself; it was speculated that the causes of institutional retarding effects included separation from parents, reduced learning opportunities and incentive to communicate. Sievers and Essa (1961) found that a non-institutionalized community group of mentally retarded subjects had significantly higher scores on the Developmental Language Facilities Test than a matched institutional group; the investigators proposed that in those subtests showing differences the common factor was the need for the chile to express himself in a meaningful way. These previous studies, heavily favoring non-institutionalized retardates in various measures of verbal language, have narrowly focused on JAMES C. MONTAGUE, JR. 4 the structural and vocabulary elements of verbal language. Taken as a whole these studies suggest the possibility that institutional deprivation may negatively affect at least certain portions of verbal language. Of more crucial importance is the role that institutionalization might play in the overall psychological and sociological well-being of the institutionalized retarded child. Public institutions for the retarded have been portrayed as failing to provide environments conducive to cognitive and affective development. A deficit hypothesis of institutionalization could be further tested by contrasting psychological and sociological verbal language content categories between institutional and non-institutional retarded children. Such an 'hypothesis would raise the following questions: In comparison to non-institutionalized retardates-1. Do institutionalized children refer less often to roles, to persons, and to ideals and norms of their culture? 2. Do institutionalized children use fewer words registering emotions? Do they use fewer words indicating comparisons of value? Do they make more evaluations of badness than of goodness? Do they use fewer words which refer to thought processes? 3. Does the language of institutionalized children show a higher incidence of words with aggressive connotations? Does their language contain more or fewer words connoting cooperation