Browsing by Subject "sensitiivisyys"

Aim: People with speaking disabilities have equal rights to functional interaction and communication as people without disabilities. These rights actualize only through the actions and skills of more able communicators. Guiding staff and family members is an important part of every speech and language pathologist's (SLP) job, especially if the client has severe learning disability. However, many SLPs experience guiding difficult and the results of staff communication training have been unsatisfactory. There are different models that can be used to help the process of indirect speech and language therapy. One of them is called Intensive interaction (II). Its role in enhancing interaction skills of more able communicators has only been studied a little. The purpose of this study is to find out if II is a meaningful approach to carry out indirect speech and language therapy. The aim was to find out if and how the interaction skills of a staff member change during an II process. The aim was also to figure out how she saw the significance of II. Methods: This research data were collected in the Communication and Technology Centre Tikoteekki of the Finnish Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. The data were collected during an II process that took place in 2014 and 2015 in a residential unit for people with learning disabilities. This study had two participants, one of whom was a resident with multiple learning and speaking disabilities, and the other one a staff member. The video material was composed of 14 interaction videos between the resident and the staff member, and one video of guidance discussion between the staff member and the mentoring SLP in the end of the process. The data were analysed according to the themes arising from the data, by mostly qualitative means. The changes in interaction skills were described with different tables and transcriptions. The guidance discussion was transcribed and analysed according to inductive analysis. Results and conclusions: The interaction style of the staff member became more sensitive and present. That change manifested through improvements in four elements of interaction: distance from the interaction partner, touching, quality and quantity of vocalization and tasklessness of interaction. The staff member saw II as a meaningful approach, especially for herself as an employee, but also for her interaction partner with multiple disabilities and more generally. These results suggest that II is a meaningful and effective means of mentoring significant others to become more sensitive, skillful and able interaction partners for persons with severe speaking disabilities. Additionally this study gives premises for further research on II and indirect speech and language therapy. In light of this research II is also important on societal level.

The study examines sensitivity in the everyday interactive situations with multicultural children under 3 years of age in early childhood educational context. The research problem focuses on figuring out in which ways sensitivity occurs and what are the contextual factors related to sensitive and non-sensitive situations. Sensitivity refers to early childhood educator’s ability to detect and take into account the emotional needs of the child (Laevers according to Kalliala, 2008). The study was conducted in collaboration with the University of Helsinki LASSO project and a kindergarten in Helsinki, where the research material was collected by videorecording three early childhood educators and two children in their everyday life at the kindergarten. The research material was colleted between the late autumn 2014 to early spring 2015. The qualitative data were analysed by utilizing theory-driven approach. The basis of the analysis is in AES (adult engagement scale) and especially the sensitivity part of the scale, as well as EA (emotional availability) scale. LIS-YC scale was also used in observation of children (Kalliala, 2008). The results showed that sensitivity is a small part of everyday interactive situations. Differences in results were seen in the quality of the interaction. The majority of the interaction with the first participant was neutral, and more than half of the interactions were sensitive. In contrast, only half of the other participant’s interaction was neutral, and also half was non-sensitive. The differences were also found in the ways in which the sensitive and non-sensitive situations appeared in the participants' everyday life. For the first participant, the sensitivity was constructive, and adults made huge efforts to interact with the child. The insensitive moments were not numerous, but they could not be classified as accidental. The second one’s sensitive moments were supportive in nature but relatively rare. Insensitive situations were somewhat accidental, and for some reason, educators failed to notice the child’s needs. Based on the results, a study related to sensitivity between educators and children comparing Finnish and multicultural children would be important to conduct.