In this study we explored metaphor and idiom competencies in two clinical populations, children with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and children with Klinefelter syndrome (KS), (age range: 9–12), compared to typically developing (TD) children of the same age. These three groups were tested with two multiple-choice tests assessing idiom comprehension through iconic and verbal alternatives and a metaphor comprehension test composed of novel, physical-psychological metaphors, requesting verbal explanations. To these instruments, another test was added, assessing basic sentence comprehension. Performances on the different linguistic tasks were examined by means of discriminant analysis which showed that idiom comprehension had a very small weight in distinguishing children with ASD from TD controls, whereas metaphor explanation did distinguish them. This study suggests that figurative language comprehension is not a “core deficit” per se in individuals with ASD. Only when the task requires to explicitly construct and explain a semantic mapping between the two terms of a metaphor does the performance of children with ASD significantly deviate from the typical population. These results are interpreted in terms of a difficulty in children with ASD and KS with complex cognitive and linguistic processes and also in relation with clinical assessment.

Effective communication is crucial in cancer care due to the sensitive nature of the information and the psychosocial impact on patients and their families. Patient-centered communication (PCC) is the gold standard for providing quality cancer care, as it improves patient satisfaction, treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, and overall quality of life. However, doctor–patient communication can be complicated by ethnic, linguistic, and cultural differences. This study employed the ONCode coding system to investigate PCC practices in oncological visits (doctor’s communicative behavior, patient’s initiatives, misalignments, interruptions, accountability, and expressions of trust in participants’ talk, Markers of uncertainty in doctor’s talk, markers of emotions in doctor’s talk). Forty-two video-recorded patient–oncologist encounters (with 22 Italian and 20 foreign patients), including both first and follow-up visits, were analyzed. Three discriminant analyses were conducted to assess differences in PCC between patient groups (Italian or foreign patients) according to the type of encounter (first visit or follow-up) and the presence or absence of companions during the encounters. Multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate the PCC differences by oncologist age, patient age, and patient sex, controlling for the type of encounter, the presence of a companion during the visit, and patient group on ONCode dimensions. No differences were found in PCC by patient group in discriminant analyses and regressions. Doctor communication behavior, interruptions, accountability, and expressions of trust were higher in first visits than in follow-ups. The disparities in PCC were primarily linked to the type of visit and the age of the oncologist. However, a qualitative analysis showed notable differences in the types of interruptions during visits with foreign patients compared to Italian patients. It is essential to minimize interruptions during intercultural encounters to foster a more respectful and conducive environment for patients. Furthermore, even when foreign patients demonstrate sufficient linguistic competence, healthcare providers should not solely rely on this factor to ensure effective communication and quality care.

In this paper, we describe an intervention implemented to assist a 13.2-year-old boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder, G, without intellectual disability, aimed at improving his ability to compose persuasive texts. There was an initial assessment (baseline), an intermediate assessment after two weeks, a six-session intervention phase, and a post-intervention assessment. Our intervention applied two procedures. The first aimed at enhancing general composition abilities in terms of picking (P) ideas, organizing (O) notes, and writing (W) them down (POW), while the second specified the steps to write a persuasive text addressing a possible reader: a topic sentence (T), reasons (R), an explanation (E) for the reasons and the end of the sentence (E) (TREE). These procedures were termed POW + TREE. To analyze G’s texts, three types of measures were used by two raters at baseline, intermediate and post-test time: (a) the presence of the TREE components; (b) the quality of the reasons and explanations for the reasons; (c) the number of mental state terms. All these measures showed relevant quantitative improvements, as well as qualitative changes. In addition, when G’s performance at the end of the intervention was compared to that of typically developing controls, no statistical difference appeared. The results are discussed in light of the potentialities offered by the type of intervention described here.