{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02700617283950617, 'fraction_numerical': 0.023148148148148147, 'mean_word_length': 5.55050505050505, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Use of the Peabody Language Development Kits in Specific Language Dysfunction

LINDA LATHAM BEATY, B.A. Atlanta City Schools The recent development and increased availability of tools, techniques, personnel, and other resources for the evaluation of problems in childhood learning have moved education for exceptional children closer to a position of clinical instruction than has hitherto been possible (Dunn, 1968; Ensminger, 1970). Clinical instruction in education involves the division of learned global skills into components and a subsequent objective and/or subjective evaluation of those components in the individual child. Instruction that is based on strengths and weaknesses should then be possible. Language functioning is one learned behavior that has received widespread attention in the literature in the past 10 years. An effort to divide this global behavior into chartable subskills is demonstrated in the development of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). The use of this instrument for language-subskill analysis has been discussed by Bateman (1964, 1965), Kirk and Bateman (1962), and Kirk and McCarthy (1961). The instrumentalized approach to language remediation has not, however, been without challenge. Mann (1971) contended that the ITPA and similar