The Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics (CAPs) is a norm-referenced video-based evaluation of pragmatic

language skills for children and young adults ages 7 through 18 years. The CAPs is administered using
the USB key or the WPS® Online Evaluation System™ (OES) to display video scenes of real people in social
situations. Following administration, the Record Form is used to obtain scoring information. Online
scoring support is available on the OES at platform.wpspublish.com. Instructions for administering,
scoring, and interpreting the CAPs are included in the CAPs Manual, in Chapters 3 and 4 in particular.

This Guide to Report Writing provides a brief overview of the aspects of pragmatic language that are
measured by the CAPs and the tasks that are used in their measurement. It then describes the basic
scores provided by the CAPs and offers an example of how to describe CAPs scores in a narrative report.
You may wish to use this document as a reference as you write up the results of your administration of
the CAPs.
OVERVIEW

Description of pragmatic language, as measured by the CAPs:

Pragmatic language binds together semantics, morphology, syntax, and overall language comprehension
and oral expression for the purpose of effective communication. It is the final element needed for
appropriate and effective interaction to occur, requiring an understanding of social and cultural norms in
order to use language in specific contexts and for specific purposes. Without appropriate pragmatic
language skills, quality communication cannot occur.

A broad array of linguistic skills works cohesively to produce pragmatic language. These include
appropriate turn-taking, politeness, proper introduction to a topic, stylistic variations adjusted for
different listeners, and topic maintenance and changes in direction or intention. In addition, nonverbal
language cues, such as adequate eye contact and gaze, body language, micro-expressions of the face,
and gestures, are all integral components of pragmatic language.

CAPs Subtests

The CAPs is comprised of six subtests, each of which measures pragmatic language skills using either
Pragmatic Judgment (PJ) or Pragmatic Performance (PP). PJ refers to how an individual perceives the
responses of others as either appropriate or inappropriate within various social contexts (e.g., receptive
pragmatic skills), whereas PP refers to the responses given by the individual being assessed (e.g.,
expressive pragmatic skills). Additionally, the CAPs differentiates pragmatic language skills as either
instrumental communication (IC) or affective, non-instrumental communication (NIC). IC is focused on

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

relaying information effectively, whereas NIC involves higher level communication skills, such as
expressing emotions. The CAPs also examines paralinguistic cohesion, the ability to detect a speaker’s
intent by recognizing meanings of various nonverbal cues and expressing various types of intent by using
nonverbal signals.

Instrumental Performance Appraisal (Awareness of Basic Social Routines) measures awareness of basic
social routines and the ability to judge their appropriateness. This includes the ability to judge
appropriateness of introductions, politeness, making requests, requesting help, answering phone calls,
asking for permission, identifying rude tone of requests, identifying polite language, understanding
when interruptions are appropriate, and understanding rules of conversational turn-taking.

Social Context Appraisal (Reading Context Cues) measures awareness of social context cues and the
ability to understand the intent of others and infer what others are thinking (perspective taking). This
also includes detecting nonverbal cues, understanding indirectly implied requests and/or statements
(e.g., idioms, expressions), making appropriate inferences (e.g., sarcasm), and making judgments about
social context when situational cues change.

Paralinguistic Decoding (Reading Nonverbal Cues) measures the ability to detect a speaker’s intent by
recognizing meanings of various nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in
prosody, gestures, and overall body language.

Instrumental Performance (Using Social Routine Language) measures language skills that are necessary
to satisfy an individual’s basic needs and to express communicative intent that is instrumental in nature.
This includes the ability to use social routine language, such as expressing greetings, introductions,
politeness, making requests, responding to gratitude, requesting help, requesting information (e.g.,
directions), and asking for permission.

Affective Expression (Expressing Emotions) measures the ability to appropriately express higher order
pragmatic language that is emotive in nature, such as regret, sorrow, peer support, praise, empathy,
gratitude, encouragement, etc.

Paralinguistic Signals (Using Nonverbal Cues) measures the ability to use various nonverbal cues, such as
facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and overall body language, to express
various communicative intents.

Additional qualitative tasks included in the CAPs:

The CAPs also provides the Conversational Adaptation Checklist as a nonstandardized method of
understanding the variety of social contexts and environments in which pragmatic language is observed.
The checklist is used to record information obtained either during the CAPs evaluation or through
informal methods of assessment, such as observations, parent/teacher reporting, and contextualized
analysis of conversational samples.

See page 23 of the CAPs Record Form for suggested techniques and prompts for eliciting a
conversational sample.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

SCORES PROVIDED BY THE CAPs

CAPs Subtest Scaled Scores:

Each of the six previously described CAPs subtests provides a scaled score. These are standard scores
derived from raw scores with a common subtest mean score of 10 and standard deviation of 3. Scaled
scores are comparable across subtests and can be used to indicate areas of relative strength and
weakness across all domains of the CAPs tests.

See Table 4.1 on page 20 of the CAPs Manual for the Descriptive Ratings for CAPs Normative Scores.

CAPs Index Standard Scores:

Additionally, the CAPs provides several index scores as computed by various combinations of the subtest
scores. Standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Standard scores enable
comparison of an individual’s performance to that of typically developing individuals of the same age. The
index scores represent the specific domains incorporated into the CAPs and provide useful information
about the examinee’s pragmatic proficiency across the following areas:

The Core Pragmatic Language Composite is comprised of all six CAPs subtests and is the most accurate
measure of an examinee’s pragmatic competence across both testing formats: Pragmatic Judgment
(receptive) and Pragmatic Performance (expressive). When making clinical decisions and
determinations, the Core Pragmatic Language Composite score should be used as an estimate of the
examinee’s current pragmatic language ability. Scores in the average or higher range indicate a mastery
of pragmatic language skills in social interactions across various types of communicative intent, social
context cues, and paralinguistic signals. Lower scores suggest that the examinee does not demonstrate
appropriate and meaningful social exchanges. This may be the result of poor pragmatic language
understanding and expression, or due to other variables, such as cognitive ability or environmental,
linguistic, or cultural factors. Low scores may also be indicative of disorders such as autism spectrum
disorder or social (pragmatic) communication disorder, where social communication deficits are
persistent across multiple contexts.

The Pragmatic Judgment Index is comprised of the Instrumental Performance Appraisal, Social Context
Appraisal, and Paralinguistic Decoding subtests. This index denotes the examinee’s ability to correctly
detect, comprehend, and interpret contextualized social cues (i.e., interpret others’ intent and infer
what others are thinking [perspective taking]). It also represents the examinee’s comprehension of
indirectly implied requests and/or statements and ability to draw appropriate inferences and judgments
about social context when situational cues vary, such as conversational adaptation. This index reflects
awareness of basic social routines and the ability to judge their appropriateness. High scores indicate an
awareness of the dynamic nature of social situations and the ability to adapt easily to an interlocutor’s
change in topics, transitions, and use of ambiguous language. Low scores in this area reflect rigidity in
the examinee’s understanding of the fluidity of social situations and difficulty when

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

uncertainty/variability is likely, making engagement in successful reciprocal communication at school

challenging.

The Pragmatic Performance Index is comprised of the Instrumental Performance, Affective Expression,
and Paralinguistic Signals subtests. This index highlights the examinee’s ability to adequately express
natural instrumental communication intent (social routine language, such as expressing farewells,
introductions, politeness, making requests, and responding to gratitude), as well as emotions or higher
order language, such as regret, sorrow, peer support, compliments, humor, empathy, and
encouragement. High scores indicate an ability to adequately express cognitive empathy verbally. Low
scores in this area reflect difficulties in the examinee with using socially acceptable greetings and
expressing elaborate sentiments, reducing their ability to follow expected social routines in school and
communicate their feelings throughout the day.

The Paralinguistic Index is comprised of the Paralinguistic Decoding, Affective Expression, and
Paralinguistic Signals subtests. This index represents the examinee’s use of nonverbal communication,
such as prosody, gestures, and facial expressions. High scores demonstrate an excellent ability to decode
facial expressions (such as boredom, anger, rudeness, etc.), detect when the listener is not
understanding, read inflections in prosody (such as questions, sadness, sorrow, empathy, etc.), and
interpret tone of voice (such as sarcasm, deceit, anger, etc.). Expressively, examinees who do well in this
area demonstrate appropriate and genuine use of facial expressions (e.g., raised eyebrows when
surprised, pleased; frowned eyebrows when expressing empathy, frustration, sorrow, anger) and use of
inflections in prosody to express a variety of types of communication intent, such as empathy,
excitement, pleasure, and sorrow. Low scores indicate reduced use of facial expressions (e.g., flat affect
and little or no movement of the eyebrows when surprised or expressing empathy, frustration, sorrow,
or anger) and inappropriate use of inflection in prosody across various types of communicative intent.
These difficulties may result in breakdowns during reciprocal communication at school.

See Table 4.1 on page 20 of the CAPs Manual for the Descriptive Ratings for CAPs Normative Scores.

Standard Errors of Measurement (SEM):

Standard errors of measurement (SEM) can be used to estimate a confidence interval around the
standard score (i.e., a range of scores within which an individual’s true score falls), which acknowledges
that all test scores include some measurement error.

Percentile Rank:

CAPs scores can also be represented as percentile ranks. A percentile rank is the percentage of same-age
individuals in the CAPs standardization sample who scored lower than the individual being tested.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

EXAMPLES OF CAPs SCORE DESCRIPTION IN A NARRATIVE REPORT

The following two examples display how CAPs results can be described within the context of a narrative
report, with the first being more comprehensive and the second showing an abbreviated version of the
same scores.

EXAMPLE 1

The table below shows an example of an examinee’s scores obtained from a CAPs administration. (A blank
version of this table is provided at the end of this section for use in your own reports.)

Raw %ile Scaled Standard

CAPs Subtests and Indexes score rank score score
Instrumental Performance Appraisal (Awareness of Basic Social Routines) 8 9 6
Social Context Appraisal (Reading Context Cues) 10 2 4
Paralinguistic Decoding (Reading Nonverbal Cues) 7 2 4
Instrumental Performance (Using Social Routine Language) 6 16 7
Affective Expression (Expressing Emotions) 1 1 3
Paralinguistic Signals (Using Nonverbal Cues) 3 1 3
CORE PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE COMPOSITE 64
Pragmatic Judgment Index 77
Pragmatic Performance Index 74
Paralinguistic Index 74
Below is the narrative report based on the above scores, including examples of how the additional
qualitative tasks can be used to interpret the quantitative results:

To assess Child’s communication skills in the realm of pragmatics, both standardized and nonstandardized
measures were used. Standardized measures used include the Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics (CAPs).
Additionally, a language sample was acquired to further examine communication style, reciprocity, and
eye gaze via nonstandardized means.

The CAPs is a norm-referenced video-based pragmatic language battery for children and young adults ages
7 through 18 years old. It is composed of six subtests that fall under two domains: Pragmatic Judgment
and Pragmatic Performance.

The examinee’s Pragmatic Judgment and Pragmatic Performance are assessed via the use of six well-
defined language constructs. The Pragmatic Judgment tasks include the following: 1) Instrumental
Performance Appraisal, 2) Social Context Appraisal, and 3) Paralinguistic Decoding. The Pragmatic
Performance tasks include: 1) Instrumental Performance, 2) Affective Expression, and 3) Paralinguistic
Signals. Pragmatic Judgment is considered equivalent to receptive pragmatics. It is measured by the
examinee’s ability to adequately understand and use appropriate language. This requires the examinee to

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

form appropriate social language responses, such as saying the appropriate response at the right time in a
given social context. This can mean identifying correct and incorrect responses in a social context.
Additionally, this can entail verbally providing appropriate responses in a given situation. Pragmatic
Performance, on the other hand, is defined as congruent to an individual’s expressive pragmatic skills. This
can be measured through the responses given in social situations. Components analyzed in an examinee’s
response include answers to questions/statements and responses to expressed emotions in video-based
scenarios.

In order to investigate specific aspects of Child’s pragmatic language comprehension and usage, the full
battery of the CAPs was administered, with the following results:

Instrumental Performance Appraisal (Awareness of Basic Social Routines) measures awareness of basic
social routines and the ability to judge their appropriateness. This includes the ability to judge
appropriateness of introductions, politeness, making requests, requesting help, answering phone calls,
asking for permission, identifying rude tone of requests, identifying polite language, understanding when
interruptions are appropriate, and understanding rules of conversational turn-taking.

With a scaled score of 6 and percentile rank of 9, Child’s performance on this subtest was in the Below
Average range. Child demonstrated the ability to analyze social situations in videos and determine
whether the individuals were demonstrating appropriate conversational turn-taking, polite introductions
and requests, etc., or whether rudeness, impolite language, or poor conversational turn-taking was
occurring. Child exhibited the ability to determine if anything went wrong by saying “yes” or “no.”
Additionally, he was able to identify and communicate what went wrong frequently. For example, Child
was provided with the following scenarios:

Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance

Narration: Jane is at a restaurant with Child was asked, “Did anything go wrong?” Child responded,
her family. She finished her drink and is “yes,” which prompted the SLP to ask, “What went wrong?”
still very thirsty. The waitress finally Child responded: “Jane was rude.” Child’s response received a 2
comes by. Waitress: Would you like out of 2 for saying “yes,” followed by a reference to the actor’s
impoliteness.
some more water? Jane: I’m very thirsty!
Hurry!
Child was asked, “Did anything go wrong?” to which Child
responded, “yes.” This prompted the SLP to ask, “What went
Narration: It is Tom’s first day at wrong?” Child responded: “Yes, Tom did not say the right thing.”
summer school. All the new students This response is incorrect because Child does not refer to the
are meeting in front of the classroom. A actor’s off-topic response. In total, Child received 1 out of 2 for
girl comes up to Tom. Jane: Hi, my name identifying that something went wrong, but not providing a
is Jane. Tom: Do you know what time correct rationale.
lunch is? What are we having for lunch
today?

Social Context Appraisal (Reading Context Cues) measures awareness of social context cues and the
ability to understand the intent of others and infer what others are thinking (perspective taking). This also
includes detecting nonverbal cues, understanding indirectly implied requests and/or statements (e.g.,
idioms, expressions), making appropriate inferences (e.g., sarcasm), and making judgments about social
context when situational cues change.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

Child obtained a scaled score of 4 and a percentile rank of 2, which is in the Poor range. He demonstrated
difficulty with perspective taking (Theory of Mind). Across several tasks, he exhibited difficulty in providing
a rationale for what went wrong in a situation in which sarcasm or irony was used. For example, Child was
provided the following scenario:
Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance
Narration: It is the first day of school. Child was asked: “Did anything go wrong?” Child
Tom and Cindy are standing next to responded, “no,” which prompted the SLP to ask,
each other. Cindy: Do you know that “Why do you think it went well?” Child responded,
the teacher likes to be called Mr. Know- “The boy called his teacher by his first name.” This
response received a score of 0 because Child was not
it-all? I heard he always gives students
able to detect the direct problem or describe the
A’s who call him that. You should call
sarcasm used.
him that. Tom: Really? Okay. Tom sees
his teacher walk by and says: Mr. Know-
it-all, when is our homework due?
Teacher: What did you just call me?

Paralinguistic Decoding (Reading Nonverbal Cues) measures the ability to detect a speaker’s intent by
recognizing meanings of various nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in
prosody, gestures, and overall body language.

With a scaled score of 4 and percentile rank of 2, Child’s performance on this subtest was in the Poor
range. Understanding facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and overall body
language was noted to be difficult for Child across all tasks presented to him. Child provided rationales
that were either incorrect or vague in nature. For example, he was presented with the following narrative:

Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance

Narration: Tom just got an F on his Child was asked if anything went wrong, to which
exam. Tom: Nervous—looking around— Child responded, “yes.” This prompted the SLP to
pumping fists. Tom’s sister: Hey! What’s ask, “What went wrong, and how do you know
wrong? it?” Child did not describe the situation and said:
Tom: Nothing! Biting lip—rocking back “The girl was upset with Tom.” This response
and forth—pumping fists. Tom’s sister received a score of 1 out of 3 because Child was
(sad and confused): Okay. not able to detect the direct problem of the
situation and was not able to identify
rudeness/deceit. He did not refer to the actors’
facial expressions/tone of voice.

Instrumental Performance (Using Social Routine Language) measures language skills that are necessary
to satisfy an individual’s basic needs and to express communicative intent that is instrumental in nature.
This includes the ability to use social routine language, such as expressing greetings, introductions,
politeness, making requests, responding to gratitude, requesting help, requesting information (e.g.,
directions), and asking for permission.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

Child obtained a scaled score of 7 and a percentile rank of 16, which is in the Below Average range.
However, using social routine language is noted to be a relative strength of Child’s compared to his other
scores, and he was able to provide appropriate responses to specific social situations. For example, Child
was presented with the following situations:

Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance

Narration: Molly and Amber are at the Child was asked, “What should Molly say, and how
park and run into Amber’s cousin. should she say it?” Child responded, “Hi! This is my
Molly has never met Amber’s cousin cousin, and this is my friend, Molly.” Child received a
before. score of 2 out of 2 for expressing an appropriate
introduction with supporting statements.

Child was asked, “What should Mark say, and how

Narration: It’s the first meeting of the
should he say it?” Child responded, “Hi, I’m Mark.”
swim club. A girl comes up to Mark and This response received a score of 1 out of 2 because
says, “Hi, I’m Ellie.” despite expressing an introduction appropriately, no
supportive statements were given.

Affective Expression (Expressing Emotions) measures the ability to appropriately express higher order
pragmatic language that is emotive in nature, such as regret, sorrow, peer support, praise, empathy,
gratitude, encouragement, etc.

Child obtained a scaled score of 3 and a percentile rank of 1, which is in the Deficient range. Child
exhibited difficulty in expressing regret, support, empathy, etc. These higher order pragmatic language
skills were evaluated across several tasks, and Child exhibited significant difficulties in providing
appropriate emotive responses. For example, Child was provided with the following scenarios:

Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance

Narration: It is Sara’s driving test Child was asked, “Show me, what would you tell your
today. She is really nervous. friend and how?” While Child provided an appropriate
response, which was, “That’s okay. It’s okay to be
nervous,” no affect was present and prosody was
noted to be flat. This response received a score of 0
out of 2.
Child was asked, “Show me, what would you tell
Narration: Maria’s new puppy is lost.
your friend and how?” Child responded, “Get a
She printed out missing flyers. She is
new puppy.” This response received a score of 0
sad.
out of 2 because Child’s response lacked empathy
and affect, and was characterized by monotone
prosody.

Paralinguistic Signals (Using Nonverbal Cues) measures the ability to use various nonverbal cues, such as
facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and overall body language, to express
various communicative intents.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

Child obtained a scaled score of 3 and a percentile rank of 1, which is in the Deficient range. Child was
noted to struggle with this task and presents with severe deficits in this area. Overall, his responses were
characterized by diminished gestures, raised inflections at the end of statements, and flat affect. For
example, Child was presented with the following scenarios:

Examples of video-based social situations Comments regarding examinee’s performance

Scenario: You and your friends are Child was asked, “Show me, what would you tell your
running late for a biology test. You are friends and how?” Child responded, “Walk faster,”
very nervous about this test. Your with a flat affect and monotone tone of voice. This
friends are all behind you walking response received a score of 0 out of 2.
slowly and chatting with each other.

Scenario: Jane’s laptop broke down, Child was asked, “Show me, what would you tell
and she needs to finish her class paper your friends and how?” Child responded, “You
today. She is very upset. need to charge it,” exhibiting a flat affect, limited
inflections in prosody, and limited eyebrow
movement. This response received a score of 0
out of 2.

Pragmatic Judgment Index denotes the examinee’s ability to correctly detect, comprehend, and interpret
contextualized social cues (i.e., interpret others’ intent and infer what others are thinking [perspective
taking]). This also includes the comprehension of indirectly implied requests and/or statements and
drawing appropriate inferences and judgments about social context when situational cues vary, such as
conversational adaptation. Additionally, the Pragmatic Judgment Index measures awareness of basic social
routines and the ability to judge their appropriateness. Examinees who do well on the Pragmatic
Judgment Index are aware of the dynamic nature of social situations and adapt easily to an interlocutor’s
change in topics, transitions, and use of ambiguous language. Examinees who score poorly in this area
exhibit rigidity in their understanding of the fluidity of social situations and display difficulty when
uncertainty/variability is likely, making engagement in successful reciprocal communication at school
challenging. With a composite standard score of 77 and percentile rank of 6, Child’s overall performance
in this domain was rated to be Poor.

The Pragmatic Performance Index highlights the examinee’s ability to adequately express natural
instrumental communication intent (social routine language, such as expressing farewells, introductions,
politeness, making requests, and responding to gratitude), as well as emotions or higher order language,
such as regret, sorrow, peer support, compliments, humor, empathy, and encouragement. Examinees who
do well on the Pragmatic Performance Index exhibit an ability to adequately express cognitive empathy
verbally. Examinees who score poorly in this area struggle with using socially acceptable greetings and
expressing elaborate sentiments, reducing their ability to follow expected social routines in school and
communicate their feelings throughout the day. With a composite standard score of 74 and percentile
rank of 4, Child’s overall performance in this domain was rated to be Poor.
  
The Paralinguistic Index represents the examinee’s use of nonverbal communication, such as prosody,
gestures, and facial expressions. Examinees who do well on the Paralinguistic Index domain demonstrate
an excellent ability to decode facial expressions (such as boredom, anger, rudeness, etc.), detect when the

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

listener is not understanding, read inflections in prosody (such as questions, sadness, sorrow, empathy,
etc.), and interpret tone of voice (such as sarcasm, deceit, anger, etc.). Expressively, examinees who do
well in this area demonstrate appropriate and genuine use of facial expressions (e.g., raised eyebrows
when surprised, pleased; frowned eyebrows when expressing empathy, frustration, sorrow, anger), and
use of inflections in prosody to express a variety of types of communication intent, such as empathy,
excitement, pleasure, and sorrow. Examinees who score poorly exhibit reduced use of facial expressions
(e.g., flat affect and little or no movement of the eyebrows when surprised or expressing empathy,
frustration, sorrow, or anger) and inappropriate use of inflection in prosody across various types of
communicative intent; all of these difficulties may result in breakdowns during reciprocal communication
at school. Child presented with significant difficulties in this area. He obtained a composite standard
score of 74 and a percentile rank of 4, which is rated to be Poor.

Conversational Adaptation Checklist

Nonstandardized assessments are critical in the assessment of an individual’s speech and language
abilities, as they provide qualitative insight into an SLP’s observations. It allows for a hologram of a child’s
performance to be constructed by adding detailed information without using percentile rankings. The
following are informal observations made regarding each pragmatic language area, using the
Conversational Adaptation Checklist.

Across tasks assessing Child’s awareness of basic social routines, Child consistently exhibited the ability to
understand when interruptions were or weren’t appropriate, understand appropriate turn-taking, identify
impolite requests, and identify polite language. This means-end and instrumental in nature component of
pragmatics is one of Child’s strengths. He demonstrates the ability to clearly distinguish what is and what
is not appropriate basic social routine language and can frequently express this when asked. Child was
able to use social routine language, such as social greetings, interrupting appropriately, requesting for
permission, etc. These types of tasks do not analyze paralinguistics or any components of higher level
language. Rather, they assess instrumental language or the basic language used in social routines. Child
was able to greet appropriately, interrupt, and ask for permission despite difficulty with inflection,
prosody, and other higher order language skills.

Child presented with difficulty with social context appraisal tasks. While he understood some idioms, Child
demonstrated difficulty in comprehending sarcasm, humor, perspective taking, and identifying the
emotions and viewpoints of others. Despite Child being able to identify when something went wrong, he
often was unable to identify what went wrong. This is likely due to social context appraisal being a non-
instrumental task in which the examinee must consider higher level emotive language and determine the
meaning behind the actor’s sarcasm, humor, and affective presentations. Affective expression tasks
evaluate an examinee’s ability to express emotions adequately, negotiate to achieve compromise, and
demonstrate conversational adaptation. In this task, Child was noted to struggle. Prosody and affect were
noted to be absent. As the interlocutor, it was difficult to decipher Child’s intent owing to lack of emotive
presence. While means-end language was noted to be adequate, Child was unable to convey sarcasm,
achieve compromise, or demonstrate adaptation to situations.

In the area of paralinguistics (understanding of and use of nonverbal language), Child was noted with
difficulty decoding facial expressions, such as anger, happiness, and surprise. In this portion of the
assessment, Child was asked to critically analyze the components of language that do not include
instrumental language, but rather, the higher order component of communication used to convey
emotions/feelings. Child was noted to struggle reading inflections, such as questions, sadness, sorrow, and
empathy. He had great difficulty detecting sarcasm, as evidenced by his response of “I don’t know” when

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

asked what went wrong. Child’s poor performance on this task is likely due to it being a higher level
language task in which nonverbal communication is assessed. Further, Child presented with significant
difficulties on tasks that assessed nonverbal cues, such as the use of genuine facial expressions; the use of
appropriate tone of voice when expressing sarcasm, empathy, humor, etc.; the demonstration of
appropriate eye contact and gaze, etc. He was noted with flat affect, limited eyebrow raising, no
narrowing of the eyes, monotone tone of voice, and rising intonation while making statements.
Additionally, he exhibited difficulty maintaining an adequate dB level while speaking and would often raise
his voice in inappropriate situations.

Pragmatic Language Summary

An examination of Child’s pragmatic performance revealed his greatest strengths to be on instrumental
tasks, which are awareness of basic social routines and use of social routine language. Performing well on
these tasks demonstrates Child’s ability to decide whether greetings, requests, conversational turn-taking,
etc., are appropriate or not, as well as demonstrates his ability to perform means-end tasks with
appropriate language. Despite these strengths, weaknesses were noted in the areas of non-instrumental
tasks (social context appraisal and affective expression) and paralinguistic cohesion tasks (paralinguistic
decoding and paralinguistic signals). Non-instrumental tasks are considered higher order language tasks
that require higher level thought processing. Paralinguistic cohesion is both the ability to detect a
speaker’s intent and express a variety of intent with the help of nonverbal signals, such as facial
expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and overall body language. When asked to
perform tasks that are not instrumental in nature, but rather involved higher level language use, Child was
unable to perform at the level of typically developing peers. This corresponds to Child’s overall Core
Pragmatic Language Composite of 64 and a percentile rank of <1, which is rated to be Deficient.

SUGGESTED IEP GOALS

Conversational Adaptation
 Will demonstrate ability to establish and maintain up to # turns on conversational topics of
mutual interest.
 Will demonstrate ability to acknowledge his/her conversational partner’s interests by asking up
to # relevant questions or making relevant comments.
 Will initiate and maintain (up to #) conversational turns around various topics outside of
personal interest.
 Will demonstrate ability to interrupt conversations using socially appropriate apologies or
excuses.

Sarcasm, Deceit, Irony

 Will demonstrate ability to recognize sarcasm, deceit, and irony by correctly decoding facial
expressions/vocal inflections/tone of voice and making relevant comments.
 Will recognize implied communicative intent (e.g., sarcasm, deceit, irony) by correctly decoding
facial expressions/vocal inflections and making relevant comments.

Empathy, Peer Support, Encouragement

 Will demonstrate ability to recognize disappointment, sorrow, sadness by correctly decoding
facial expressions/vocal inflections/tone of voice and making relevant comments or asking
relevant questions.
 Will demonstrate ability to recognize his/her conversational partner’s needs (need for empathy,
emotional support) by using relevant facial expressions and vocal inflections.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

Idioms, Expressions
 Will demonstrate ability to respond appropriately to comments containing idioms, expressions,
or metaphors or politely ask about their meaning if unfamiliar with them.

Making/Maintaining Friendships
 Will demonstrate ability to establish and maintain up to # turns on conversational topics of
mutual interest.
 Will demonstrate ability to acknowledge his/her conversational partner’s interests by asking up
to # relevant questions or making relevant comments.
 Will initiate and maintain (up to #) conversational turns around various topics outside of
personal interest.
 Will demonstrate ability to interrupt conversations using socially appropriate apologies or
excuses.
 Will demonstrate ability to recognize his/her conversational partner’s state of mind/mood
(correctly decoding facial expressions and vocal inflections) by making relevant comments
and/or asking relevant questions.

Negotiations and Compromise

 Will demonstrate ability to express displeasure and/or accept “no,” an unwanted answer, or a
loss in a game using socially appropriate responses with adequate tone of voice and facial
expressions.
 Will demonstrate ability to politely disagree or state opinion using socially appropriate
responses, tone of voice, and facial expressions.

EXAMPLE 2

Raw %ile Scaled Standard

CAPs Subtests and Indexes score rank score score
Instrumental Performance Appraisal (Awareness of Basic Social Routines) 8 9 6
Social Context Appraisal (Reading Context Cues) 10 2 4
Paralinguistic Decoding (Reading Nonverbal Cues) 7 2 4
Instrumental Performance (Using Social Routine Language) 6 16 7
Affective Expression (Expressing Emotions) 1 1 3
Paralinguistic Signals (Using Nonverbal Cues) 3 1 3
CORE PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE COMPOSITE 64
Pragmatic Judgment Index 77
Pragmatic Performance Index 74
Paralinguistic Index 74
The CAPs is a norm-referenced video-based pragmatic language battery for children and young adults ages
7 through 18 years old. It is composed of six subtests that fall under two domains: Pragmatic Judgment

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

and Pragmatic Performance. In order to investigate specific aspects of Child’s pragmatic language
comprehension and usage, the full battery of the CAPs was administered with the following results:

Instrumental Performance Appraisal measures awareness of basic social routines and the ability to judge
their appropriateness. Child demonstrated the ability to analyze social situations in videos and determine
whether the individuals were demonstrating appropriate conversational turn-taking, polite introductions
and requests, etc., or whether rudeness, impolite language, or poor conversational turn-taking was
occurring. Child exhibited the ability to determine if anything went wrong by saying “yes” or “no.” With a
scaled score of 6 and percentile rank of 9, Child’s performance on this subtest was in the Below Average
range.

Social Context Appraisal measures awareness of social context cues and the ability to understand the
intent of others and infer what others are thinking (perspective taking). This also includes detecting
nonverbal cues, understanding indirectly implied requests and/or statements (e.g., idioms, expressions),
making appropriate inferences (e.g., sarcasm), and making judgments about social context when
situational cues change. Child obtained a scaled score of 4 and a percentile rank of 2, which is in the Poor
range.

Paralinguistic Decoding measures the ability to detect a speaker’s intent by recognizing meanings of
various nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and
overall body language. Understanding facial expressions, tone of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures,
and overall body language was noted to be difficult for Child across all tasks presented to him. Child
provided rationales that were either incorrect or vague in nature. With a scaled score of 4 and percentile
rank of 2, Child’s performance on this subtest was in the Poor range.

Instrumental Performance measures language skills that are necessary to satisfy an individual’s basic
needs and to express communicative intent. This includes the ability to use social routine language, such
as expressing greetings, introductions, politeness, making requests, responding to gratitude, requesting
help, requesting information (e.g., directions), and asking for permission. Using social routine language is
noted to be a strength of Child’s. He performed in the below average range on this subtest and was able to
provide appropriate responses to specific social situations. Child obtained a scaled score of 7 and a
percentile rank of 16, which is in the Below Average range.

Affective Expression measures the ability to appropriately express higher order pragmatic language that is
emotive in nature, such as regret, sorrow, peer support, praise, empathy, gratitude, encouragement, etc.
Child exhibited difficulty in expressing regret, support, empathy, etc. Child obtained a scaled score of 3 and
a percentile rank of 1, which is in the Deficient range.

Paralinguistic Signals measures the ability to use various nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions, tone
of voice, inflections in prosody, gestures, and overall body language. Child was noted to struggle with this
task. Overall, his responses were characterized by diminished gestures, raised inflections at the end of
statements, and flat affect. Child obtained a scaled score of 3 and a percentile rank of 1, which is in the
Deficient range.

Conversational Adaptation Checklist

Nonstandardized assessments are critical in the assessment of an individual’s speech and language
abilities, as they provide qualitative insight into an SLP’s observations. The following are informal
observations made regarding each pragmatic language area using the Conversational Adaptation Checklist.

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

Across tasks assessing Child’s awareness of basic social routines, Child consistently exhibited the ability to
understand when interruptions were or weren’t appropriate, understand appropriate turn-taking, identify
impolite requests, and identify polite language. This means-end and instrumental in nature component of
pragmatics is one of Child’s strengths. However, expressing genuine interest in others’ interests that aren’t
related to his own appeared to be a deficit area. Most of Child’s observed interactions appeared to be
instrumental in nature. Child engaged in what might appear to be reciprocal conversation, but the
purpose of the conversation was instrumental.

Child presented with difficulty with social context appraisal tasks. While he understood some idioms, Child
demonstrated difficulty in comprehending sarcasm, humor, perspective taking, and identifying the
emotions and viewpoints of others. Despite being able to identify when something went wrong, Child
often was unable to identify what went wrong. This is likely due to social context appraisal being a non-
instrumental task in which the examinee must consider higher level emotive language and determine the
meaning behind the actor’s sarcasm, humor, and affective presentations. He presented with limited
understanding that his experience with himself differs from others’ experiences with him. This difficulty is
likely due to impaired Theory of Mind, which is the ability to understand that other people have ideas and
intentions that differ from our own.

In the area of paralinguistics (understanding of and use of nonverbal language), Child was noted with
difficulty decoding facial expressions, such as anger, happiness, and surprise. Child struggled reading
inflections, such as questions, sadness, sorrow, and empathy. He had great difficulty detecting sarcasm, as
evidenced by his response of “I don’t know” when asked what went wrong. He was noted with flat affect,
limited eyebrow raising, no narrowing of the eyes, monotone tone of voice, and rising intonation while
making statements. Additionally, he exhibited difficulty maintaining an adequate dB level while speaking
and would often raise his voice in inappropriate situations.

Pragmatic Language Summary

An examination of Child’s pragmatic performance revealed his greatest strengths to be on instrumental
tasks, which are awareness of basic social routines and use of social routine language. Child performed
well in deciding whether greetings, requests, conversational turn-taking, etc., are appropriate or not, and
in means-end tasks using appropriate language. Weaknesses were noted in the areas of non-instrumental
tasks (social context appraisal and affective expression) and paralinguistic cohesion tasks (paralinguistic
decoding and paralinguistic signals). Non-instrumental tasks require higher level thought processing, and
paralinguistic cohesion requires the ability to detect a speaker’s intent and express a variety of intents
with the help of nonverbal signals. Child was unable to perform at the level of typically developing peers in
non-instrumental and paralinguistic cohesion tasks. This corresponds to Child’s overall Core Pragmatic
Language Composite of 64 and a percentile rank of <1, which is rated to be Deficient.

SUGGESTED INTERVENTION PROGRAM

The Social Skills Squad program has been clinically used and field-tested with children and teens
(between the ages of 7 and 18) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), social communication disorder
(SCD) or pragmatic language impairment, emotional disturbance (ED), and intellectual disability (ID).
https://videolearningsquad.com/

Interactive Therapy Approach

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).
 CAPs Guide to Report Writing

This program uses the authenticity of real-life social situations to teach and obtain the most naturalistic
responses through an interactive and fun therapeutic technique. It uses videos as a powerful and prolific
therapy tool that is both effective and easy.

Reading Facial Expressions and Vocal Inflections

This program focuses on teaching how to read and use facial expressions and vocal inflections, using
visual bombardment, selfies, and role-plays.

Social Mind and Big Heart

This is a rule-based program that focuses on two key concepts: social mind and big heart. Social mind
refers to an individual’s ability to read and detect social cues. Big heart refers to an individual’s ability to
understand others, be supportive, and demonstrate mindfulness and empathy.

BLANK TABLE

Raw %ile Scaled Standard

CAPs Subtest and Indexes score rank score score
Instrumental Performance Appraisal (Awareness of Basic Social Routines)

Social Context Appraisal (Reading Context Cues)

Paralinguistic Decoding (Reading Nonverbal Cues)

Instrumental Performance (Using Social Routine Language)

Affective Expression (Expressing Emotions)

Paralinguistic Signals (Using Nonverbal Cues)

CORE PRAGMATIC LANGUAGE COMPOSITE

Pragmatic Judgment Index
Pragmatic Performance Index
Paralinguistic Index

CAPs Guide to Report Writing copyright © 2020 by Western Psychological Services. Provided by WPS for the benefit of individual professional
use by qualified end users of the measure. All rights reserved (rights@wpspublish.com).