University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An Investigation Of Two Language, Two Memory, And Two Perceptual Abilities In Retardates Of Mental Age Four

(USC Thesis Other)

An Investigation Of Two Language, Two Memory, And Two Perceptual Abilities In Retardates Of Mental Age Four

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been 65-9968 m icrofilm ed exactly as received CARLSON, Dale Clifford, 1937- AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO LANGUAGE, TWO MEMORY, AND TWO PERCEPTUAL ABILITIES IN RETARDATES OF MENTAL AGE FOUR. University of Southern California, P h .D ., 1965 Education, psychology University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan AN INVESTIGATION OP TWO LANGUAGE, TWO MEMORY, AND TWO PERCEPTUAL ABILITIES IN RETARDATES OP MENTAL AGE POUR by Dale Clifford Carlson A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OP THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) June 1965 UNIVERSITY O F SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA S 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by .Dale _ ,?1 iXf.PjA. .......... under the direction of hi,5....Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y ...... ^ Dean D a te .............. DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman vJVZ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Dr. C. E. Meyers, whose enthusiasm, encouragement and self-sacrifice helped to overcome the barriers en countered In the course of this investigation. To Dr. Harvey P. Dingman and the staff of the Socio-Behavioral Laboratory at Pacific State Hospital, Pomona, California, for supporting this investigation from its conception to its completion. The theoretical and technical assistance received was invaluable. To my good wife, Audrey, whose ceaseless encourage ment, toil and patience was indispensable to the completion of this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS....................... LIST OF TABLES ............................... LIST OF FIGURES ............................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ........................... The Problem Definition of Terms Design of the Investigation Organization of the Remainder of the Study II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND BACKGROUND FOR HYPOTHESES ................. ...... Concepts of Intelligence Factor Studies Research Related to Hypothesized Ability Factors Summary III. THE SAMPLE, THE INSTRUMENTS, AND THE PROCEDURES ........................... Selection and Characteristics of Subjects The Test Battery Testing Procedures Test Reliabilities Summary IV. ANALYSIS AND ROTATION .................. Intercorrelations Subject Differences Interpretation of Orthogonal Matrix Interpretation of Oblique Matrix Summary V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................. Summary Conclusions Discussion and Implications Page 11 v vli 1 12 56 77 112 iii Page BIBLIOGHAPHY............ 121 APPENDIX A. # . 130 APPENDIX B. ..... . ..........................160 Iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Rotated Factor Matrix of Intercorrelations of Developmental Test of Visual Perception and other Variables........ . 47 2. Description of Subjects .............. 57 3. Age and Mental Ability of Subjects According to Location................. 58 4. Age and Mental Ability of Diagnostic Sub- Groups ............................... 59 5. Frequency of Medication According to Combined Diagnostic Sub-Groups ...... 60 6. Location of Subjects According to Diagnosis and Medication............ 61 7. Test Behavior Observation Guide Frequency Distribution, Means and Standard Deviations....................... 62 8. Means and Standard Deviations of Test Behavior Observation Guide According to Etiology................ . .......... 64 9. Means, Standard Deviations, Communalities and Reliability Coefficients of each Subtest ...................... 76 10. Intercorrelations of I.Q., Mental Age, C.A. and Test Variables ......... 78 11. Sex Differences in Means and Standard Deviations....................... 82 12. Test Means and Standard Deviations According to Diagnosis................ 84 13. Principal Component Factor Matrix for Total Sample......................... 88 14. Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for Total Sample..... ............... 89 v Table Page 15* Principal Component Factor Matrix for Younger Sample .............. ..... 97 16. Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for Younger Sample......... 98 17. Principal Component Factor Matrix for Older Sample............ 102 18. Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix for Older Sample ...................... 103 19. Oblique Factor Rotation Matrix ....... 108 20. Correlations between Factors for the Biquartimin Solution .................. 109 Vi LIST OP FIGURES Figure Page 1* Theoretical Model for the complete "Structure of Intellect" ......... 19 2. Studies of Language Factors Identified in Young Children....................... 43 3. Studies of Perceptual Factors Identified in Young Children.............. . . „ . 48 4. Studies of Memory Factors Identified in Young Children ......... ........ 51 5. Classification of Tests by Hypotheses and Structure of Intellect Categories....... 65 6. Test Means of Diagnostic Categories Plotted against Means of Total Group ... 86 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem When Blnet initiated the movement of ability measure ment, the current scholarship accepted a separate faculties or fragmented conception of mind. This approach proved to be of slight assistance to Binet in sorting good from poor learners in the Paris schools. Eschewing measurement of fragments of human competence such as reaction time and perceptual acuity, Binet devoted his attention to broad practical situations to sample what he believed to be intelligent behavior. His definition of intelligence involved taking and maintaining direction of purpose, adaptation to a goal and self-criticism (7*0. Blnet*s work seemed to encourage a general concept of intelligence, though he himself was not dogmatic on the matter. Nevertheless, the generality notion took hold and was supported by his contemporaries, one of whom was Spearman of Britain. Using the so-called tetrad difference 1 : 2 j |criterion with sets of correlations of test scores, he judged that a common or general energy factor underlaid most mental performance. The second and more significant over-validatlon of generality was due to Terman, whose own history started ;with a study of a contrast of extremes of intelligence and ' iwho was convinced of the generality of dullness or of brightness, long before his own revision of Binet (88). Increasingly serious questions were being raised concerning the use of a single score to describe, the ability of a child and the possible existence of relatively uncorrelated abilities. Spearman’s method also held the ■ seeds for the development of factor analytic techniques by Kelley and Thurstone. Bayley most succinctly stated the psychological rationale for the identification and measure ment of differential abilities: I see no reason why we should continue to think of intelligence as an integrated (or simple) entity or capacity which grows throughout childhood by steady accretions. . . . Intelligence appears to me, rather, to be a dynamic succession of developing functions with the more advanced and complex functions in the hierarchy depending upon the prior maturing of earlier simpler ones. ... If Intelligence is a complex of separately timed, developing functions, then to understand its nature we must try to analyze it Into its component parts. (12:813-14) In studying the organization of abilities at the adolescent and adult level the factorial technique has been used considerably in the past two decades. Differen- tial aptitude tests are commonplace in high schools, Industry, the aimed forces, Veterans Administration, and elsewhere. A similar systematic research effort has not been devoted to the investigation of the nature of ability at younger age levels. Only one multifactor test is available at the 5-7 year levels and none at pre-school levels. Factor analytic techniques have enjoyed even less currency in the study of retarded Intelligence. Only very recently has the technique been recognized as a fruitful approach (65). It seems appropriate that educational psychologists should be concerned with the components that comprise the intellectual performance of retardates. Only thus can they Identify and develop specific educational approaches, predict behavior in certain educational and vocational situations, diagnose Individual strengths and weaknesses, assure adequate emphasis on all aptitude areas, and in general, cope with the educational challenge of mental retardation. Statement of the Problem This study explored the degree of differentiation of ability of mental retardates of mental age four to deter mine whether two group factors could be identified in each of the ability domains of language, memory and perception. A total of eighteen specially designed tests were administered to eighty retardates to implement these [hypotheses. i It was hypothesized that a factor analysis of the [tests would yield more than one general factor and that rotation of the obtained factors would yield the following six psychologically meaningful factors: Language Abilities A. Verbal Comprehension. This factor involves primarily the input aspect of linguistic behavior; the ability to understand spoken language; to invest a word with meaning; to recall that meaning at will. B. Verbal Fluency. In contrast to A, this factor ; involves the output or expressive aspect of language behavior. The subject must be able to encode his meanings into standardized symbols. Emphasis is upon the production of the responses from a limited visual or auditory stlmu- . lus. Perceptual Abilities C. Perceptual Speed. This is the well-established factor involving the quick and sure Identification or matching of figural materials. The tests require the identification of a drawing or picture identical to the stimulus among several similar ones. D. Form Discrimination. This factor involves the ability to retain the perception of a form in spite of conflicting contextual effects and to correctly finish an Incomplete form through visual synthesis. - 5 i i Memory Abilities E. Immediate Memory. The ability required is the irecall or reproduction of a visual or auditory sequence. i iThe stimulus is assumed to be relatively meaningless, itherefore measuring the rote information holding power of |the organism. This ability is also known as short-term i memory and Is thought to be related to the neurological concept of "trace.** P. Meaningful Memory. This factor allows the organism to recall a meaningful visual unit. The unit to be remembered is one of several in the stimulus which could not be considered a sequence. This factor differed from E on the basis of the learned meaningfulness of the stimuli, hence allowing the assumption of a different storage and retrieval process. Supplementary Questions 1. What is the relationship between the chrono logical age and the clarity of the above factors? This was pursued by comparing the factor structure of the younger and the older children. 2. How is the development of visual perception related to I.Q., mental age, and chronological age? 3. What are the differential abilities of retar dates on the basis of etiology? i f - . How are the examiner’s ratings of test behavior related to etiology and to the obtained factors and tests? { Importance of the Study i The importance of this study rests on the assumption that any education or training of the retarded is an individual matter related to differential strengths and weaknesses. It follows that until these intellectual I differences are understood and measureable the effective ness of any program will be less than optimal. Adequate understanding of retarded intelligence underlies both differential treatment and the elimination of waste and frustration through ability to predict success in a given program. Logic seems to suggest that understanding of the ability patterns of normals precedes investigation of retarded intellect. Since the structure of normal intelli gence is only slowly being teased out by leading investi gators, time does not allow such procedure. It may also prove true in this area as in other aspects of human behavior that knowledge of the deviant is invaluable in understanding the non-deviant. Emphasis recently has been placed on the critical aspect of early development of Intelligence. The importance of knowing the sequence and concomitants of cognitive development is now recognized. Since very few systematic investigations exist of the qualitative nature and change of intelligence of either normal or the retarded, this study takes on added significance. Definition of Terms Factor Analysis This is defined as a systematic method for examining the meaning of each test in a battery by studying its correlations with other variables. The objective of factor analysis is to find a set of elements, e.g., abilities, which will be fewer in number and more funda mental in nature than the original tests (98). Structure of Intellect This refers to the theoretical model developed by Guilford presuming to show the nature of young adult intellect. It is an attempt to arrange the known factors of ability into a meaningful pattern and serves as a guide for further factorial work (*J4). Ability Ability is a demonstrable competency resulting from the growth of the child in his environment. The prediction of future performance (aptitude) is not necessarily implied in the term. The term ability connotes "the existence of a group or category of performances which correlate highly with one another and which are relatively distinct, i.e., give low correlations with other performances" (9^s*0* Mental Age Four Mental age four refers to a score derived from the Pinneau table (88) on the basis of I.Q. and current chronological age which falls between the limits of 4-2 and 5^ months on the mental age scale. It is assumed that a child with a mental age four is able to perform the general intellectual operations of the average four year old child. Mental Betardatlon "Mental retardation refers to sub-average general Intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period and Is associated with Impairment reflected on one or more of the following aspects: (1) maturation, (2) learning, (3) social adjustment" ( 4 8 : » . Language Language Is defined as the use of symbols of meanings which consists of receptive skills which involve the ability to discriminate and comprehend auditory and visual stimuli and expressive skills which require the ability to express meaning through oral, gestural or written symbols. Visual Perception The process whereby a person organizes, Interprets or otherwise gives meaning to visual sensations. It is Influenced by many neurological and psychological variables. Design of the Investigation The design of this Investigation follows the proce dure for factor-analytic Investigations recommended by Guilford (42). ' ■ ( I 9 | 1. The domains of the investigation were selected. I ; j 2. The hypotheses were developed. | 3. Relatively univocal tests suitable for use with ■four year old children were selected or constructed. Three j :tests were provided for each; hypothesized factor. All of the non-standard!zed Instruments, along with many other tests eventually discarded because of unsuitability or irrelevancy, were administered to a sample of fifteen to twenty-five children of appropriate mental age to assure clarity of instructions, appropriate difficulty level and desirable scaling characteristics. A. The experimental group was selected. The sample of 80 was composed of two subgroups. About 30 subjects were mentally retarded children at Pacific State Hospital in Pomona, California, The other 50 were obtained from special education classes in Los Angeles County schools. The mental age at time of testing ranged from k2 to 5k months. Chronological age was between 5 to 16 years with I.Q.*s from 31 to 60. 5. Analysis of the data. The statistical analysis of the data included intercorrelations of variables obtained by a computer program. An IBM 709^ program was utilized for performing the factor extraction from these intercorrelations by the principal component method. The obtained factors were rotated according to orthogonal and oblique criteria. I 6. The rotated factors were Interpreted in the light j ! I |of the hypotheses. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The remainder of the dissertation is divided in the ; following chapters. In Chapter II, research pertaining to the factor analytic approach to the study of intelligence is reviewed. The development and historical aspects of this method are followed by a review of current findings, with special attention being given to studies of children. Research relevant to the six hypothesized factors concludes the chapter. In Chapter III, the method of selecting the sample Is presented. The sample Is described according to I.Q., mental age, chronological age, location, sex, use of medication and diagnostic category. A brief description of each test variable, testing procedures, and test reliabilities are presented. In Chapter IV are presented the Intercorrelations of the test variables and within sample differences according to sex and diagnostic classification. The factor analyses and interpretations of the factors according to hypotheses conclude the chapter. In Chapter V a summary of the study from hypotheses through procedures, to the discussion and Interpretation 11 of results is set forth, together with conclusions drawn from the findings* Implications for further research are presented as the final section of the chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND BACKGROUND FOR HYPOTHESES This chapter presents first an overview of general and structured concepts of intelligence. This is followed |by a review of studies yielding information on the factor structure over the entire life span. Finally, a survey is made of research related to the six hypothesized ability factors. Concepts of Intelligence General Intelligence In his writing, Blnet gave no single, well-formulated definition of intelligence, but he offered a number of descriptions stressing certain functions involved in mental activity. Underlying these descriptions, however, was the clear notion of a general intelligence, complex but unified. Spearman (81) went farther than merely to offer a definition. Through the application of correlational 12 ' 13 ] \ ' I I techniques he developed the two-factor theory of intelli- j | j Igence. The first of these factors he referred to as "g1 1 lor a general factor identified with general intelligence. ; ' ! iHe conceived of g as a "general fund of mental energy" j :which activated the s-factors which he compared to mechan- ; isms or engines. These "s" factors referred to the per son's specific ability for a particular kind of performance.! He developed the tetrad difference technique to show that ;no significant factors other than g and the specifics were i present. In terms of Spearman!s findings, every test item in a scale was thought to be composed of the g factor,! the universal, plus a specific factor peculiar to it alone. This theory explained the tendency for all abilities to overlap to some extent, and yet to show considerable unevenness. Spearman's two-factor theory was not generally accepted but the concept of general intelligence has predominated through the years. Some of the most widely used tests of intelligence, such as the Stanford revisions of the Binet scale, were designed and constructed.in terms of the concept of general intelligence. The assumption was that all types of mental activity are principally functions of a single general factor, and that it matters little what particular combination of mental tasks or performance is called for in an intelligence scale, since they are all related to, and therefore tap, the same general factor. Consequently, many scales In I iwide use today have little uniformity in content with each ! other or at different age levels. Structured Intellect A structured or differentiated conception of man's ability obviously regards individual differences as plural, and permits thinking about dozens of important ways people can be different from each other. An extreme proponent of this view was Thorndike. He completely rejected g in favor of the theory that intelligence is an infinite array of specific mental operations. He wrote: The mind must be regarded not as a functional unit, nor even as a collection of a few general faculties which work irrespective of particular material, but rather as a multitude of functions each of which involves content as well as form, and so is related closely to only a few of its fellows, to the others with greater and greater degrees of remoteness (91i366). The number of these specific intelligences is purely an arbitrary matter, depending upon how fine a classifica tion is needed in any particular instance. He suggested that for many crude purposes a three-way classification may be found under the headings of (l) abstract intelli gence orihe ability to deal with words and other symbols, (2) mechanical intelligence or the ability to deal with concrete objects and materials, and (3) social intelli gence or the ability to deal effectively with people. Most modem tests of intelligence neglect the latter two. The CAVD test is an example of four elements of abstract intelligence: Completions, Arithmetic, Vocabulary, and Directions. These are only four segments of one form of intelligence; the other types can be similarly divided. The limit of divisibility is reached only when the separate act can no longer be subdivided without losing its identity (83). Standing somewhere between Spearman and Thorndike is the theory of orthogonal traits proposed by Kelley (57). He accorded the g factor a less prominent role by inter preting it as a heterogeneity factor due to differences in age, maturation, race, nurture or sex. He contended that two or three traits were combined in Spearman's g factor. By means of a statistical analysis of the intercorrelations between performances on many different kinds of tests, Kelley arrived at the conclusion that all the varying abilities of an individual can be accounted for on the basis of a relatively small number of independent traits or separate abilities that are completely unrelated to each other. Thurstone's theoretical position is intermediate between that of Spearman and Kelley. Thurstone developed his theory by means of a factor analytic approach which he called the centroid method. Like Kelley, he emerged with a theory of separate and Independent mental traits; he " 16 " differed from Kelley in that he considered these traits to ■ ! be ranked In order of generality and, hence, we may say, in: I terms of their importance in Individual mental life. j ! . i Mathematically speaking, these traits or factors are Indeterminate, meaning that there is nothing In the nature of the analysis Itself that tells what a given factor is like. They are simply Factor I, Factor II, and so on. But it is possible to determine mathematically the part ‘played by any single factor in determining the inter- correlations between tests. By comparing the subject matter of tests In xyhich these factor loadings are markedly different, as, for example, tests that have a high loading for Factor I but a low loading for Factor II with those weighted in the opposite direction, hypotheses may be advanced that are at least in accordance with common sense as to the probable nature of these factors which may then be named in psychological language (4l). Thurstone (92) attempted to develop tests that were pure measures of these factors which he Identified and called "primary mental abilities." He soon arrived at the tentative conclusion that individual differences In human mental abilities can be measured and described in terms of only twelve basic abilities, each of which may be possessed in varying degrees. The seven which proved to be most stable and understandable were named as follows: Spatial, Numerical, Word Fluency, Verbal, iMemory, Induction, and Perceptual. A factor designated Deduction was sometimes found; the other factors were left without names. His original work was done with ;college students, although later investigations extended down to 1A years and finally down to the 5 a*id 6 year j levels. Thurstone insisted that It should not be assumed that these primary factors were final or that they were : elemental and indivisible (92:9). Unlike Kelley, j Thurstone did not expect the group factors to be completely; independent of one another. He reasoned that as height and weight were correlated, yet distinct concepts, so were primary mental abilities. This allowed him to accept the possibility of the existence of a g factor; however, he did not look upon It as an ability that is common to all intellectual activities, but as a general factor which operates through each of the primaries. By a method of factoring the correlations between the original factors he arrived at a "second order factor” which he stated may be the "...much debated * general-intellective factor* of Spearman" (92:7). The most significant contemporary theory of multiple abilities Is the three dimensional "structure of intellect" model developed by Guilford at the University of Southern California under the "Aptitudes Project" sponsored and financed by the United States Office of Naval Research. In spite of the exciting findings in creative thinking abilities, Guilford stated: The most significant outcome has been the development of a unified theory of human intellect, which organizes the known, unique or primary intellectual abilities into a single system called the "structure of intellect" (44:469). This model allows for a large number of factors, each representing a distinct ability, i.e., not correlated with other abilities. These factors can be identified and ordered in terms of a three-dimensional system of classi fication, as portrayed in Figure 1. One face divides factors into contents or forms of input. These are flgural, equivalent to spatial, perceptual, etc.: symbolic, dealing with symbols qua symbols; semantic, dealing with meanings; and behavioral or social under standing. A child fitting pieces in a formboard deals with figural content; a child giving rhymes deals in symbols; if he responds to a comprehension question, semantics; and if he judges the significance of facial expression, behavioral. A second face is called operations or kinds of processing of input. Cognition is knowing or recognizing memory is knowing over time; divergent thinking refers to production of new information, to flexibility and originality; convergent production refers to problem solving when the information leads to one natural solution; and evaluation is self-evident. The model 19 Figure 1 Theoretical Model for the "Structure of Intellect" a OPERATIONS D ivergent P ro d u ctio n C onvergent P roduction ion PRODUCTS Unite C la u s e s R elation? S v stem n T raneiorm atlone Im pltcatlona CONTENTS F lg u ral Symbolfc* Sem antic- a Reproduced by permission of J„ P0 Guilford, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Southern California 20 presumes that one can perform any form of processing on any of the four inputs. A third dimension refers to the products or output of thinking, ranging as Figure 1 shows, from units and classes up through transformations and implications (^5). This conceptualization allows for 120 separate factors of Intelligence, more than half of which have already been Identified and measured. By dividing the model into vertical layers, or slices, In terms of the five cate gories of operations, we have five sets of 2k small cubes each. Each of the 2k cognitive abilities, for example, is an ability to deal with a particular kind of material, such as symbolic content. The outcome or product of that particular operation would then be the cognition of a symbolic unit or a symbolic system, etc. Since the early days of cental testing, an Interes- r ting shift has been made in the nature of the prevailing conceptualizations of the "structure" of Intelligence. As techniques of data analysis have developed, the trend in conceptualization has been away from the original view of intelligence as a unitary general ability presumed to account for Individual differences In any and all sorts of mental functioning, toward greater and greater complexity encompassing a multiplicity of factors. 21 Factor Studies Adolescent and Adult Level The primary mental abilities identified by Thurstone have already been discussed. It was mentioned that over sixty abilities have been identified by Guilford and his co-workers. In terms of operations an Inventory would include eighteen factors in the realm of cognition, eleven convergent production abilities, sixteen divergent thinking abilities, nine memory and eight evaluative abilities (A5). In a comprehensive review of factor-analytic studies that had been attempted through 1952, French listed twenty-eight aptitude and achievement factors which he considered to be established, in that they have been identified in at least three different analyses. He listed twenty-eight additional factors which are con sidered tentative in that they have been identified in only one or two analyses (31*227). It Is evident that a highly differentiated picture of Intellect can be obtained from studies designed to identify separate abilities. Factor analyses of non factor tests also aids in the understanding of Intellect. The factors obtained are obviously limited by the characteristics of test items. Balinski administered the Wechsler-Bellevue to various age groups from nine to sixty. The sub-tests were 22 then correlated at each of the age levels. Factor loadings were obtained, using Thurstone*s centroid method. Verbal and performance factors were consistently found at all age levels. A strong general factor appeared only at the Ivery young and old age levels. A memory factor emerged s iat middle age levels (7). I I In a factor analysis of Wechsler's data, Harwell (6l) jfound two clear factors which he entitled "verbal- intellective1 * and "space performance," The sub-tests of | . information and mazes were omitted. The sub-tests loading | on these two factors cut across Wechsler's intuitive division of verbal and performance. In two factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Cohen (25) found a very strong g factor, either as a first reference or as the calculated second order factor, depending upon the type of solution employed. The second factor is a verbal one found in the sub-tests of Information, Comprehension, Similarities and Vocabulary. The third factor is a visual performance ability seen in Block Design, Picture Arrangement and Object Assembly most distinctly.- A fourth factor identified was named "freedom from distraction," located in such tasks as Arithmetic and Digit Span. This factor could also be interpreted as an Immediate memory or efficiency factor. Wechsler (95) summarized several studies on the Wechsler-Bellevue, all of which seemed to ifind approximately the same factors that Cohen later found on the WAIS. Very few factor studies of mental defectives can be found at the adult level. Taylor (86) factored the intercorrelations of *14 test variables given to 7^ i Goodwill rehabilitation clients. Since the variables were so diverse and were not usually combined in a factor study the results are hard to interpret. Since eleven factors : emerged, however, it is clear that mental ability is also differentiated among the mentally retarded. Alterdlce and Butler (3) in 1952 found two factors in a sample of retarded adolescents of mental age nine years. The first factor to emerge in an analysis of the Binet and Wechsler-Bellevue was a general-verbal factor which saturated both verbal and performance tests. The second factor was a performance factor which saturated only performance tests. In a study of retarded, adults, Satter (77) analyzed the intercorrelations of the Binet total, Bellevue sub-tests, Haven Progressive Matrices, Bender, Porteus, Draw-A-Man scoring of House-Tree-Person, Vineland and a sorting test. Of the three factors the first two were a general-verbal and a performance similar to those of Alterdlce and Butler. The third was saturated by the sorting test, Digit Symbol and Digit Span. This resembles the "trace" factor identified by 2if Baumeister and Bartlett in 1962. Their work with retarded youngsters is discussed later. The most recent work was that of Kebbon (55)t reported from Sweden in 196^. By analyzing twenty-five tests administered to institutionalized adult patients he found four factors which he labeled as follows: verbal, spatial-inductive, numerical and manual speed. The study was replicated on another retarded and on a normal population. School-age Children In this section and that which follows, clarity will be enhanced by considering first the factors identified by studies designed to explore the range of abilities and secondly, those analyses performed on data from standard ized intelligence tests. This section Includes factors identified on children of second grade and up. The pioneer effort to explore the abilities of school children was that of Truman Kelley (57) who studied the intercorrelations of tests given to two groups of children In the third and seventh grades. In addition to a strong general factor which he interpreted as. heterogeneity due to differences in age, race and nurture, he identified verbal, number, memory, spatial and speed factors at each level. In 19^1, Thurstone extended his search for primary mental abilities down to age 1^. Although deduction and perceptual speed disappeared, the other sir factors were stable: verbal, word fluency, number, memory, spatial and iinduction (92).. These factors did tend to be less indepen dent than when found in college students. Chen and Chow (23) administered a battery of tests to three groups of Chinese students. They identified four factors for the primary school group: "g," verbal, numerical and spatial. Three factors were identified for the junior high school group: ”g»n V and N. Two factors were identified in the. high school group: "g" and S. Of interest is their conclusion that mental functions tend to integrate as the educational level Increases, contrary to the general notion of differentiation first cogently presented by Garrett (36). The Wechsler scales, have been subject to a number of factor analyses at this age level also. The work of Balinskl with the Wechsler-Bellevue has been summarized. Three studies using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children reported quite similar factors. Cohen (26) analyzed the sub-tests of the WISC standardization for oblique primary factors. The five factors were verbal comprehension I, perceptual organiza tion, freedom from distractability, verbal comprehension II, and a fifth unlnterpretable factor. Verbal compre hension I involved factual Information and verbal categorizing. Verbal comprehension II was described as |requiring the application of verbal skills to new situa tions. Gault factored Wechsler*s data for ages 10-1/2 and :13-1/2 according to a centroid-rotated bifactor solution ■and found four factors at each level: general-educative, spatial-perceptual, memory and verbal comprehension (37). When Jones administered the WISC to London school children of ages 8, 9, and 10, only two factors emerged. The first was a general factor although heavily loaded with verbal material. The second seemed to involve non verbal tasks' (53). A synthesis of the analyses on Wechsler must include the following points: (1) variance can usually be explained on the basis of three or four factors, g, V, P, and sometimes memory* (2) the general factor is usually the strongest with verbal coming next; and (3) the factorial structure does not seem to be systematically related to chronological age. The Stanford-Binet has not been completely neglected either. Jones (51) analyzed the intercorrelations of 30 items from forms L and M for 200 children at ages 12, 13 and 14 by the centroid method. Nine interpretable factors were found. Three of these were in the area of verbal abilities: one involved vocabulary and abstract words, another the ability to find relationships between words, and the third indicated verbalization of gross 2? Ideas. Two memory factors emerged: one recall for a sequence and the other recall for meaningful verbal material. Other factors were named space, reasoning, closure and carefulness. The study is criticized because the 30 items were essentially alternate forms of tests and j I no outside reference tests were used (4-3*270). Neverthe- ; |less, the concept of differentiated abilities is supported | ! by the emergence of nine factors on a test of general I I intelligence. j : i The dearth of factor analytic research on the mentally retarded is not expanded at this level. The Baumelster and Bartlett factor analyzed WISC scores first In a comparison study of normals and retardates (10) and then In a study of retardates only (8). The first study Involved children 13 . and 14- years old. In both groups a strong general factor along with verbal and performance factors were found. In the retarded group, however, an additional factor named "trace” or short-term memory was found. It loaded on coding, arithmetic and picture com pletion. Digit span was not Included in the analysis. The second study was an effort to reproduce the same factor structure in the retarded, with the inclusion of cBlgit span. The anticipated four-factor structure was found. More Is said about the memory factor later. ! 28 | i • - I i Infant and Pre-School Levels In a pioneer attempt to understand Infant intelli- j Igence, Bichards and Nelson (76) factor analyzed the Gesell j items at six, twelve and eighteen months using both | j ; ! Thurstone* s multiple factor approach and the Spearman- | Holzinger bifactor method. The multiple factor approach i evidenced two factors at six months, three at twelve months and two at eighteen months. The factors could be called "alertness" and "motor" with alertness becoming more saturated with language as age increased. The bifactor method discriminated more factors and also accounted for more variance. Four factors were identified at six months, four at twelve months, and eight at eighteen months. The six month factors were inter preted as "g," motor, fine motor, and language. The eighteen months factors were interpreted as g, language, manipulatory, two alertness factors.and three factors that could not be interpreted meaningfully. From the data collected at the Merri11-Palmer Clinic, Stott and Ball (8*0 have analyzed several infant scales. The California First Year Scale was found to have the following six factors at six months: bodily adjustment to attain a goal, response to a person, exploratory, manipulation, showing displeasure, and vocalizing of satisfaction. At twelve months the factors appeared more cognitive: concepts of relationships, language, goal 29 directed behavior and immediate memory. Their analysis of the Cattell Scale shows quite similar factors, j For the Gesell Developmental Schedules, they found a | meaningful memory factor and five psychomotor factors at isix months. At twelve months the factors were: responds I I to verbal communication, socially communicative tasks, i awareness of test situation and psychomotor control. From this brief overview it is obvious that per- ! formance even at the Infant level is a differentiated ; function. Such studies are, of course, severely limited ! in their potential for understanding infant intelligence ; since the factors are dependent upon the test items which at this level are almost exclusively motor and psychomotor. For this review of pre-school intellect, studies on existing data precede studies of a factor-seeking nature. Hofstaetter (^9)» utilizing the "T" technique factorial design, factor analyzed Bayley's interage correlations of the California Growth Study. Three factors were found, each of which was predominant at a different age level. Sensor!-motor alertness (factor I) was most heavily loaded up to the age of twenty months. It contributed little to the variance after forty months. Factor II was tentatively labeled "persistence” and was predominant between twenty and forty months. The third factor appeared to require the manipulation of symbols (abstract), or the ability to plan, i.e., anticipate future action in the present. 30 Hofstaeter summarized these factors very descriptively: The term, an intelligent child, seems to refer to a lively infant at first and to a rather stubborn child at an age of three before it acquires the connotations which predominate all through the school age (^9:164-). An investigation of trait relationships among six- year old children was reported by Avakian (6). First grade pupils were administered twenty-four sub-tests from the Metropolitan Readiness Tests, Pintner-Cunningham Primary Tests and Chicago Tests of Primary Mental Abilities, ages 5 to 7. Three factors were identified: t verbal comprehension; quantitative; and spatial-percep tual. Avakian found high correlations among the primary factors and therefore concluded that it was. not feasible to construct tests measuring a number of relatively independent traits. Failure to find much differentiation was possibly due to extraneous variables that enter into group testing at this age, , Hurst factor analyzed the Merri11-Palmer Scale with scores from supposedly superior children 36 to months old. Six factors were Identified: unwillingness to cooperate, fine motor coordination, persistence, finding relations, perceptual speed, and space (50). Stott and Rail (84-) analyzed the Merri11-Palmer Scale at the two, three and four year levels. Verbal comprehension was seen at the two year level In addition to several motor factors. Three years factors included: temporal ! 31 j |ordering, gestalt completion and production of a pattern. I j Pour year factors were: seeing of relationships, spatial jorientation, memory for patterns, and perceptual fore- j sight. | McNemar factor-analyzed the standardization data of the 1937 revision of the Stanford-Blnet. The analyses were designed to disclose whether the item selection was done carefully enough to have avoided group factors. The unrotated centroid analyses demonstrated at most age levels the excellence of item selection from the view point given, a first loading accountedibr most of the common factor variance at nearly all age levels. Excep tions Included 2-0 and 2-6 at which there were two apparently unimportant loadings of unclear meaning, evident in the identifying, memory span, and movement items (6A). Stott and Ball (8^) also analyzed the Stanford- Binet at the three, four and five year levels. The factors at the three year level involved two memory abilities, two perceptual and one concept naming factor. The four year factors include: practical judgment, meaningful memory, memory for temporal order and cognition of semantic relations. At the five year level, there were also two memory factors, one visualization and a visual cognition factor. The futility of weaving a comprehensive and orderly | ....... 32 j I picture of pre-school intelligence out of the preceding j studies with such diversity of subjects, tests and pro- ■cedures is obvious. The number of factors located, how- j ever, gives promise to the potentiality of factor-seeking !studies to be reviewed next. Truman Kelley, cited above, published the pioneer .study of differential mental abilities of preliterate children (57). He had already found that the mental abilities of seventh and third grade children were very similar. In order to explore the abilities of younger children, Kelley devised eight individual tests appro priate for use with kindergarten children. The tests administered were called: memory for meaningful forms, control of meaningful visual images, memory for meaning less forms, control of meaningless visual memory images, memory for meaningful and meaningless verbal material, divided forms test and Knox cube test. Using a method no longer utilized, Kelley obtained six factors which he labeled maturlty-heterogeneity, verbal, memory, spatial number one, spatial number two, and control of meaningless context. With the exception of the last factor, the factors were the same as those found in the older popula tions. By present standards, Kelley’s study was rather crude in that only seven tests were used in the battery in which six factors were identified. Guilford suggested a 33 minimum of three tests for each hypothesized ability. The next factor study of differential abilities at the preliterate level was done by the Thurstones (92) as a downward extension of their tests for elementary and high school children. This study resulted in an edition of the PMA tests for five to seven year old children. Five factors were identified at the five to seven year level. The factors were called verbal comprehension, perceptual speed, quantitative, motor and space. These factors are not as clearly differentiated as those among older children and adolescents, however. The University of Southern California-Pacific State studies began in 1958 and were first reported in a mono graph (66) in 1962, followed by another (60) in 1964. The first study was a demonstration of four group factors at mental age six. The first factor hypothesized was Hand- eye Psychomotor and was Intended to determine whether visually guided movements of hand and finger would com prise a factor separate from the more purely "mental" abilities such as perception. The second factor was perceptual speed and was designed to measure the ability to make quick and easy visual Identifications and discriminations. The third factor was called linguistic and depended on such tests as picture vocabularies and language classification. The last factor was named reasoning and was Intended to demonstrate an ability to use given information to make a completion or draw a con- j I elusion while avoiding of reducing any difficulty arising | ifrom language, culture, speed, perceptual speed or motor i : joutput. The tests were Progressive Matrices, Pacific I i i iPattem Copying and IPAT Classification, Two groups, one hundred subjects each, were tested. One was a group of public school kindergarten children, :the other a group of institutionalized retardates. The mean chronological age of the normals was 6 years with an i \ i • javerage I.Q. of 108. The retardates were all under 18 years of age with a mean mental age of about 6 years. All the factors hypothesized were clearly identi fied, in addition to a fifth factor which appeared to be a divergent ability. This factor was only seen in the normals. The normals had generally greater diversity and w more clearly differentiated factors. The 196^ study Involved the extension of the factors down to the two and four year levels. Increasing differ entiation with age was also hypothesized as well as greater factor differentiation in normal than in retarded. 1 Continuity of tasks between age levels was generally achieved by simplifying the tests for lower levels. The Psychomotor factor was somewhat unclear at age two, but was reasonably fair at age four in both groups. The Linguistic and Perceptual Speed factors were blear at all levels. Flgural Seasoning was the least sustained factor, the tests tending to show considerable specificity |or independence. The data did not support the expectation |that older groups would display greater ability differen tiation than younger groups. No systematic change in factor structure was evident, nor was there greater differentiation in normal than in retarded subjects. The next study made in 1964 by NcCartln and Meyers | (63)9 was an investigation of six language factors at mental age six. The hypothesized factors were formulated according to the Structure of Intellect model. The six factors involved three operations and two products all across the semantic content. The first was CMUs cognition of semantic units. This requires the awareness or compre hension of the meaning of single words. The second was CMS: cognition of semantic systems, or the ability to understand the interrelatedness among words. The third hypothesis was NMU: the convergent production of a semantic unit, the ability to produce a verbal response by problem-solving or adapting from memory. The fourth factor was NMS: convergent production of a semantic system, the ability to respond to a task with a sentence. The fifth and sixth were designed to clarify the divergent factor identified previously. The fifth was DMU: divergent production of semantic units, to express a variety of words or ideas according to the instructions given. The sixth was DMS: the divergent production of a I | semantic system. This Involves richness of expression in ' I ■ 1 I producing a sentence or paragraph. i The subjects were 100 white children from seven ;parochial schools who ranged from 70 to 75 months in CA. More than six factors emerged. The divergent factors stand out more clearly while some ambiguity exists j i between the cognitive and convergent production abilities. One of the additional factors seems to be an attending or deliberation factor. The latest study made in 1965 by Orpet and Meyers (72), hypothesized the presence of seven abilities in first grade children. Cast in Structure of Intellect terms these weres NMS; convergent production of semantic systems; EFU: evaluation of flgural units, also known as Perceptual Speed; NFTs convergent production of flgural transformations; DMU and DMC: divergent production of semantic units and classes; MFU and MSU: memory for flgural and symbolic units. A Varlmax orthogonal solution yielded more than seven factors. Clearly Identifiable were EFU and NMS. NFT was somewhat ambiguous and since the tests for the two divergent factors could not be scored independently, only one divergent ability was identified. Although not in strict accordance with the hypotheses, two memory factors were identified. Although both appear to be short-term memory, one is a purer sensory storage or trace i 37 i i | type phenomenon, the other seeming to involve recognition and evaluation processes. | , Except for the studies by Meyers, et al., in 1962 land in 1964 (66, 68) comparing normals and retardates, the only factor-seeking study using mental retardates is that of Loeffler (60). He administered thirty-two tests, among them the Pacific tests and the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, to 100 retardates with an average mental age of 6 years and seven months. Six factors emerged: flgural identification, flgural reason ing, verbal comprehension, a fluency factor, immediate memory for flgural units, and immediate memory for symbolic units. Additional abilities were not found, although the opportunity was provided by including at least three tests for several other hypotheses. It is of note that the hypothesized cognitive and convergent factors did not separate from one another as in the MeCartin study. Besearch Related to Hypothesized Ability Factors Language Domain Evidence for the differentiation of linguistic intelligence into the two realms of input vs. output, encoding vs. decoding, receptive vs. expressive, comprehension vs. fluency will be presented first from the jstudies of differential language studies followed by a I review of the factor analytic research supporting such a i dichotomy. Sievers (79) developed a differential language battery based on the communication theory of Osgood and iSebeck (73). Eleven subtests were administered to 228 subjects ranging from 2 to 6 years. Though the correlation matrix was not factor analyzed, some evidence is present to support a separation of language abilities. Another study from the University of Illinois by Olson (70) offered a linguistic model involving three levels of organization; two modes input and output; and three dimensions of psycholinguistic processes. Implicit in the structure of the model is a separation, though not an Independence, of the decoding from the encoding functions. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguist!c Ability published by McCarthy and Kirk (62) was an outgrowth of the attempt by Sievers, Olson and others to diagnose language strengths and weaknesses. The most comprehensive language study yet completed was reported by Templin (87) for a sample of four hundred eighty children with an age range from 3 to 8 years. Norms on the development of articulation of speech sounds, sound discrimination, sentence structure, vocabulary of recognition and vocabulary of use were presented. Although the Intercorrelations were not factor analyzed, the distinction of vocabulary of recognition and vocabulary! of use corresponds to the division hypothesized. The idecreasing correlations with age between intelligence and vocabulary of use seem to argue for the differentiation of ; ; i this factor with age. Gewirtz (38) reported the only study concerned with word fluency ih young children. He constructed tests to determine the amount of word fluency ability and the a relationships existing between this ability and other measures of behavior. Word fluency ability was defined as ; !the ability to think of isolated words at rapid rate in response to a stimulus. These tests were designed to demonstrate the child’s ability to produce words, as distinguished from his ability to understand than. The mean age of Gewirtz* subjects was 68 months; the mean Stanford-Binet IQ was 126. Different patterns of relationships were found between the tests of word fluency and two types of vocabulary tests; one a recall vocabulary test, the Smith-Williams, and the other a recognition definition vocabulary test, the Stanford-Binet. The study indicated that there are two abilities involved in word- fluency; one involving the rate of word association where there is some restriction imposed, and the other involving the rate of word association where there is little re striction. Thurstone (92) was the first to demonstrate two Iverbal factors of intelligence; verbal comprehension (V), and "word fluency (W). This was an example of the explora tory utility of the factor analytic method, demonstrating two factors long before the development of linguistic theories. Other early studies of verbal fluency were done by Fruchter (35) and Carroll (21). Carroll found eight verbal factors, one which seemed to involve fluency, measured by such tests as naming and speed of word associa tion. In a factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet at age thirteen, Jones (52), found ten factors as previously mentioned. Of the three verbal factors one involved vocabulary and abstract words; one finding relationships between words; and the third could be considered fluency, the verbalization of gross ideas. In a factor analysis of Gewirtz* data, Bereiter (15) found three oblique verbal factors in pre-school children. One was a general verbal factor, comprehension; the other two were fluency factors; verbal and ideational. Two studies already cited, (71) and (63), identified divergent thinking factors as separate from cognitive or convergent thinking in six-year old children. Orpet and Meyers (72) found a general fluency factor, while McCartin and Meyers (63) differentiated production of units or words from production of systems, I.e., sentences and paragraphs. The most elaborate research to date on the Identifi cation of divergent factors has been conducted at the University of Southern California Aptitude Project under ;Guilford. Sixteen divergent production abilities have been identified in intelligent young adults with six of these dealing with verbal materialj Ideational fluency, Expressional fluency, DMS, Originality, DMT, Semantic elaboration, DM1, etc. (A3). The identification of these factors has instigated nationwide research on the cognitive components of creativity, the assumption being that divergent thinking abilities are at the core of creativity. One study, Guilford, Merri field and Cox (A8) has identified eleven divergent production abilities in a Junior high school population, eight of these factors being in the semantic content area. However, research on the pre literate and school age levels is still largely absent. Research on the fluency abilities of the retarded is limited to two studies. Among the seven factors identified by Loeffler in a population of 6 year old retardates, one was definitely a fluency factor (60). Strong (85) factor analyzed the intercorrelations of the subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities administered to two hundred mentally retarded adolescents. Of the ten factors identified, one was clearly a fluency factor while another which he called I conceptual decoding could be considered verbal comprehen- i f slon. A summary of the factor analyses demonstrating a distinction of verbal abilities among pre-school children is seen in Figure 2. The necessity for research at the positions of hypothesized factors A (verbal comprehension) and B (verbal fluency) is self-evident. Perceptual Domain Few aspects of human behavior have received as much attention from psychologists over the years as that of perception. The complexity of the behavior underlying this construct is only beginning to be understood with the aid of sophisticated techniques and delicate Instruments, Only recently has knowledge in this area reached the point where psychologists can turn their attention to the ontogeny of perception. Yet the importance of under standing this subject can be inferred from its demonstrated relationship with at least one developmental task; the ability to read. Lachmann (59)» Goins (40), and Frostig (3M have all shown the relationship of perceptual develop ment to reading achievement. Perception in this discussion shall refer only to visual perception. There is some evidence that visual perception is not a totally learned phenomena as has been assumed. Fantz has shown that infants as young as fifteen days are able to perceive form, since they seem 9 Figure 2 Studies of Language Factors Identified in Young Children Factor Name Chronological Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 General Compre hension including receptive language (V) Hurst Hurst Meyersa Meyers3 Hurst Thurstonfe'• Thurstone?Thurstone Meyers3 HYPOTHESIS Aa (Verbal Comprehension) Bereiter Bereiter Avakian Orpet McCartin Expressive language, divergent produc tion or fluency (w) HYPOTHESIS B3 (Verbal Fluency) Bereiter Thurstone Bereiter Thurstone Thurstone McCartin Orpet Loefflera 3Sample consisted of retarded subjects. V jJ to prefer one over another (30). The work of Gibson (39) I on the seemingly Innate fear of children of a visual cliff i also points to some basio perceptual structure. Generally,! however, the effect of maturation as the organism interacts! with the environment Is well recognized, although not very j clearly understood. Some of the pioneer work In the | development of visual perception was done by Bender (13); the effect was so profound that many of her techniques are 1 basically unchanged today. Visual perception involves many functions little understood which mature at varying rates. At the time a child enters school there is slight doubt that his perceptual mechanisms are not yet mature (75). The relationship between intelligence and perception Is of Interest since perception has figured greatly In many Intelligence tests, and has been accorded a secure position In the Structure of Intellect. Korotkln (58) reported a study of the relation between intelligence and "pure” measures of perception In adults from twenty to sixty years of age. Intelligence was significantly related to; reaction time, lower threshold of closure, more figure reversals, increased perceptual flexibility, and an ability to "structure the field." Secondly, intelligence is important because the perceptual abilities of the mentally retarded have been found to be inferior to the normals according to Splvak 45 (82) and Bajalaksbmi (75). This cannot be attributed entirely to the overlapping nature of the tests , since a study by Allen (2) showed very low correlations between subtest scores of the WISC and a test of visual perception I reported by Frostig (34). The mentally retarded should serve to demonstrate the relative effects of physical maturation and mental development upon perception. In a comprehensive review of the research on the perceptual processes of the retarded, Splvak (82) concluded that the retarded are less able to make fine discriminations and to identify complex stimuli. Such functions as figure-ground discrimination and form constancy seem more closely related to chronological age than to intelligence. Such conclusions are extremely tenuous in the light of the meager research available. Spivak's study hypothesized the existence of two factors of intelligence which are of a perceptual nature (82). The first is called perceptual speed and is con cerned with the quick identification of similarities and differences among visual forms or designs. Thurstone was the first to clearly identify such a factor even down to age five (93). According to French (31), this factor has been found in at least 34 other studies at some age level. He defines the factor as the ability to find in a mass of distracting material a ^iven configuration which is borne in mind during the search. Loeffler (60) and k S \ Meyers, et al., (68) have demonstrated the existence of I such an ability among the mentally retarded. The second factor hypothesized has less theoretical structure or empirical support. The idea for this factor followed from a study by Corah and Powell (27), They factor analyzed the intercorrelations of the subtests of the Developmental Test of Visual Perception and several * other variables. Table 1 shows the resulting factor matrix. It can be seen that factor I pervades several variables; factor II is apparently related to sex; and factor III with age. Factor IV seems to require a form constancy or discrimination ability. It was hypothesized that tests II and III measured the same trait and if combined with a non-paper-pencil test of form discrimina tion, Pre-Haven Pattern Completion, a factor would emerge. Studies by Meyers, et al., (66) hypothesized a FIgural Seasoning factor which was identified with some ambiguity. The study by Orpet and Meyers (72) used tests which seemed to be less factorially complex. These led to the identi fication of a factor they called NFT: convergent produc tion of figural transformations. This factor is closely related to hypothesis D. Figure 3 shows the relationship of hypothesized factors C and D to other identified factors. Further research may prove that to distinguish factor D from the other spatial factors would be erron eous. At any rate, it is different enough from perceptual TABLE 1 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX OF INTERCORRELATIONS OF DEVELOPMENTAL TEST OF VISUAL PERCEPTION AND OTHER VARIABLES (2?) Variables I II III IV h2 Age .005 .139 • 856 .002 .752 Sex .390 -.804 .103 .000 .809 Ghent Overlapping Figures .704 -.136 .129 .367 .665 Ammons Full Range Picture Vocabulary Test .861 -.028 -.15& .058 .770 Form Constancy .006 .047 -.362 .780* .742 Frostig I - Eye-Motor .678 .260 .378 .097 .680 Frostig II - Figure-Ground .261 .090 .654 .509* .763 Frostig III - Constancy of Shape .178 .13^ .232 .624* .543 Frostig IV - Position in Space .386 .817 .127 .104 .843 Frostig V - Spatial Relationships .618 .398 .267 .309 .705 *Tests loading heavily on factor identified as Form Constancy Figure 3 Studies of Perceptual Factors Identified in Young Children Factor Name 1 Chronological Age 2 3 k 5 6 7 Perceptual Speed Hurst Hurst Stott Stott Meyersa HYPOTHESIS ( f (Perceptual Speed) Hurst Stott Meyersa Stott Thurstone Thurstone Thurstone Meyersa Loeffler General Spatial Stott Stott Stott Hurst Hurst Stott Hurst Kelley Stott Hurst Kelley Thurstone Avakian Hurst Kelley Thurstone Thurstone Loefflera Form Discrimina tion HYPOTHESIS if (Form Discrimination) aSsmple consisted of retarded subjects. CD I speed to anticipate factorial separation. Memory Domain Although the ability to remember has long been con sidered by the layman to be an independent ability, only iwith the identification of Thurstone*s factor M, has it achieved independence in professional circles. Periodical analyses dealing with memory tests have added to our understanding of this factor. Christal (2^) factor analyzed the intercorrelations of seventeen visual memory tests combined with fourteen reference tests administered to over 700 Air Force men. Three factors of memory stand out most clearly; the ability to remember the position of objects in space, memory for color, and memory for events in a time series. A factor analysis of memory tests by H. P. Kelley (56) identified four factors of memory. The first was an associative memory, but of a rote nature; second was a meaningful factor, found In memory for ideas or words; third was a span factor for such material as numbers, letters and sentences; and fourth was an ability to remember visual designs. Bryan (18) factor analyzed eleven memory tests administered to school children. In addition to one large factor running through all tests, she found two small factors, which the present investigator interpreted as spatial and rote associative factors. 50 j j In a review of many factor analyses which incidental^ dealt with memory, French (31) listed the factors which he felt had found adequate support. The first factor was a span or capacity ability; second, memory for visual designs such as maps; third was an associative rote memory factor. Investigators working under Guilford*s direction have identified nine memory factors, three In the flgural area of content, three in symbolic, and three in semantic (*5>. The present study hypothesised that among retardates of mental age four, two memory factors can be Identified. One is Immediate memory for a meaningful auditory or visual sequence. The other is memory for meaningful visual units such as pictures and objects. Figure b shows how hypotheses E and F relate to other memory factors identified In young children. In addition to the studies already cited, there is other evidence to support such a division of factors. Jones (51) In a factor analysis of the Stanford- Blnet at age thirteen found two memory factors, one for digits and one for recall of meaningful verbal material, such as sentences and words. Of long standing Is the idea that any experience leaves a trace on the brain. Forgetting is explained as the automatic decay of this trace unless It Is kept alive figure 4 Studies of Memory Factors Identified in Young Children Factor Name Chronological Age 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 General Hurst Hurst Hurst Hurst Hurst Iramediate-Span HYPOTHESIS E? (Immediate Memory) Kelley Kelley Kelley Orpet Bryan Loefflera Associative-Bote Bryan Meaningful- Semantic * HYPOTHESIS (Meaningful Memory) Stott Stott Temporal Stott aSample consisted of retarded subjects. 52 via practice. Although the trace theory was popularized by Gestalt psychology, contemporary spokesmen build a strong case through added knowledge of the nervous system and brain. One such proponent Is Hebb (^7), who wrote of two types of traces. The first Is an activity trace, which Is extremely transitory and may be likened to the perceptual span. The second trace is called structural and can be considered permanent. Closely related to this idea is the information processing approach of Broadbent (17) which has reference to two systems. The first Is the S-system, an ability of the organism to hold information for a very short period before It becomes processed. The processing of the Infor mation is the essence of the P-system, which is an on- . going perceptual activity. A very crude analogy could compare sensation with the S-system and perception with the P-system. As information comes into the organism It is held temporarily in the S-system. In order to be remembered it must go through the P-system. Hypothesis E is considered to be of the pure sensory storage type, while hypothesis P is an ability to remember material which has meaning and therefore is immediately put through the P-system., Further evidence can be cited for the anticipation of a short-term memory factor. In a factor analysis of WISC subtests for two groups, one of normals and one retarded, Baumeister and Bartlett found general, verbal and performance factors for both groups. For the retarded group, however, an additional factor emerged appearing on such tests as arithmetic, coding and picture completion. Digit span was not Included in this analysis. This factor was labeled "trace." A second study designed to replicate the four factor among retardates was gratifying, finding arithmetic, digit span and coding loadings. The rationale for these findings was stated by Ellis (29). Utilizing the concept of Hebb (^7) that every stimulus initiates electrical activity in the nervous system in the form of a reverberatory circuit and that only after an adequate amount of reverberatory activity can an activity trace become a structural trace, Ellis proposed that a deficient nervous system with a reduced availability of reverberatory circuits would not permit the trace of the stimulus to persist as long as in the intact brain, thereby producing deficits in short-term memory. The crucial difference between normals and retardates then is an impoverishment of the stimulus trace leading to a discontinuity in the retarded between items to be associated (29). A further study by Baumeister and Bartlett (10) was designed to test the hypothesis that behavior on a task requiring short-term memory could be successfully predicted in a retarded population on the basis of the WISC sub-tests which load heavily on the trace factor. Correlations between these subtest scores and raw scores on a double alternation learning task are significant for a group of retardates, whereas the correlations for normals; do not reach significance, A study designed to test the neurophysiological basis for the trace theory compared the duration of the blocking of the alpha rhythm by a stimulus on normals and retardates (11), More perserveration of the stimulus in normals was found, although this was most evident on early trials with a tendency to disappear with habituation. Summary An overview of progress in intelligence testing shows a consistent movement away from the useful but limited concepts of a general intelligence generated by Binet and Spearman to a differentiated approach pioneered by Kelley, developed by Thurstone and given sophistication by Guilford. The value of a model such as Guilford's can only be appreciated after reviewing the diverse prolifera tion of factor analyses at the school and adult level populations. A system of ordering is more valuable than evidence of further factors. While some work has been done at the Infant level, the factor analytic approach has had little opportunity to separate mental abilities as they develop in the crucial pre-school period. Most of the existing work 55 has been limited by using standardized tests as they are, rather than experimental tests designed to elicit given factors. Studies on mental retardates with mental ages in this range are even less frequent. All this seemed to indicate the timeliness of exploring the hypothesized three areas in a mentally retarded population. . The fact that the six factors have all been identified in older normal and/or retarded populations suggests that the requirement has been met of standing on solid ground while pushing baclc the frontiers of toiowledge. CHAPTER III THE SAMPLE, THE INSTRUMENTS, AND THE PROCEDURES This chapter provides a delineation of the process of sample selection. The sample Is described according to age, I.Q., sex, mental age, diagnosis, location, use of medication, and test behavior. A brief description of each test variable is followed by a discussion of the testing procedures and the test reliabilities. Selection and Characteristics of Subjects The paramount consideration in the selection of the 80 subjects for this study was that of mental age. The lower and upper limits were 42 and 54 months, respectively. As much as was feasible each child was tested when his mental age was nearest four years. As shown in Table 2 the mean mental age was 48.75 months with a standard deviation of 3.97. Chronologically, the group ranged between 70 to 193 months with a mean of 130.31 and a 56 57 TABLE 2 DESCRIPTION OP SUBJECTS Chronological Age Mental Age I.Q.a Sex N M SD M SD M SD Males 46 130.76 30.69 49.00 4.00 41.67 5.82 Females 34 130.88 33.29 48.41 3.97 41.76 : 7.02 Total 80 130.81 31.61 48.75 3.97 41.71 6.31 Gl Based on most recent testing within the last two years with either Stanford-Binet L-M or Wechsler Intelli gence Scale for Children. MA*s were estimated for time of testing for the present project. standard deviation of 31.61. On the most recent testing, the mean I.Q. was 41.71 with a standard deviation of 6.31, Such values were secured on the Stanford-Binet or equivalent scales. The selection process was complicated by the fact that children of mental age four are prone to manifest other handicaps. On initial screening of records, the criteria of hearing, sight, ambulation, arm-hand manipula tion and speech were observed. During testing, however, many subjects were excluded on the basis of inadequate speech or severe emotional involvement. It was soon discovered that the richest source of subjects in addition to the state hospital was the special education programs for the severely mentally 58 i ■ i retarded. Subjects were taken from three special schools, j itwo of which were operated by the Los Angeles County Schools and one by the Southwest Area Cooperative Special Education Program. The remainder of the sample consisted of patients at Pacific State Hospital, most of whom were Institutionalized, with a few placed in family care homes in the communities surrounding Pomona, California. Table 3 gives the number of cases and pertinent data according to location. TABLE 3 AGE AND MENTAL ABILITY OP SUBJECTS ACCORDING TO LOCATION Chronological Age Mental Age 1.Q. Location N M’ SD M SD M SD Pacific State Hospital 22 137.86 3 2.15 50.09 2.61 A l.8 1 6 .3 5 Family Care 8 138.75 3 9 .3 4 A5.50 A .11 38.63 8.83 Elmwood School0 , 11 1A6.A5 2 8 .Al 49 .5 5 3.A5 39.82 5.9 1 Lincoln Schoola 19 11A.00 2 1 .2 2 48 .9 5 A.8A 4 3 .7 9 4.A7 Columbia School' 3 20 127.25 3 2 .7 0 4 7 .9 5 3 .9 9 A l.90 6 .6 9 Total 80 130.31 3 1 .6 1 4 8 .7 5 3 .9 7 4 1 .7 1 6.31 aOperated by Los Angeles County Superintendent: of of Schools office. ^Operated by Southwest Area Cooperative School Districts. 59 Each subject was classified In one of three |diagnostic categories. The first category included familial, undifferentiated and unknown causes. The second group pertained to those with Down’s Syndrome or mongolism. All infectious and traumatic cases comprised group three. Table 4 gives the I.Q., chronological age and mental age of each diagnostic category. TABLE 4 AGE AND MENTAL ABILITY OP DIAGNOSTIC SUB-GBOUPS Chronological Age Mental Age I.Q. Diagnosis N M SD M SD M SD Familial & Undifferen tiated 23 124.60 26.83 49.70 3.64 43.38 6.42 Down's 22 134.77 38.42 47.64 4.32 40.23 6.77 Infectious Traumatic & Other 35 132.40 30.10 48,83 3.91 41.57 5.87 Since it was suspected that many subjects would be on medication, any indication of medication was recorded. It was found that fourteen subjects were on some kind of anti-convulsant, sedative, tranquilizer or energizer medication. Slightly more males than females were on medication, but a chi square showed this difference to be insignificant. Table 5 shows that significantly more 60 i i TABLE 5 FREQUENCY OF MEDICATION ACCORDING TO COMBINED DIAGNOSTIC SUBGROUPS Dlagnosisa Medication Yes No Familial, Undifferentiated and Down's 4 Infectious and Traumatic 10 25 Total l*f 66 X2 = 7.6*1- df = 1 P<.01 aCategories were collapsed to meet conditions of chi square test. subjects with an Infectious or traumatic diagnosis were on medication. Since no subjects with Down's Syndrome were receiving medication the first two categories were combined. Table 6 shows there were more infectious and traumatic cases in the hospital and as expected, more hospital cases on medication. Behavior of Subjects At the end of the second session the examiner checked a nine-point subjective rating scale dealing with fifteen aspects of the subjects' behavior during testing. A copy of the rating scale appears in Appendix A. The frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations for each of the subjectively rated aspects of behavior are summarized in Table 7* TABLE 6 LOCATION OP SUBJECTS ACCORDING TO DIAGNOSIS AND MEDICATION Diagnosis a On Medication1 * Location Undi fferentiated Familial Unknown Down's Syndrome Infectious Traumatic Other Yes No Pacific State Hospital 5 1 16 11 11 0 All other locations 18 21 19 3 55 Total 23 22 35 14 66 - a x2 = 11.00 df = 2 P < .01 b x2 - 20.89 df =1 P < .001 cCategories were collapsed to meet conditions of chisquare test. ON H TABLE 7 TEST BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION GUIDE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Behavior Rating®1 Behavior Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mean S.D. Motor Activity 3 1 18 3 21 1 24 5 4 5.33 2.04 Performance Rate 3 0 12 6 26 8 21 2 2 5.28 1.74 Manual Dexterity 1 4 15 10 35 3 10 2 0 4.66 1.48 Amount of Speech 2 1 16 6 17, 12 23; 0 3 5.26 1.81 Attention 6 3 21 7 18 6 17 1 1 4.56 1.94 Anxiety 2 3 11 9 Jk 3 16 0 2 4.94 1.63 Self Confidence 0 1 10 10 33 7 18 1 0 5.16 1.35 Effort Displayed 2 2 13 2 2k 4 27 3 3 5.46 1.86 Cooperation 2 0 4 1 18 5 33 8 9 6.43 1.74 Interest 1 0 8 5 21 8 30 2 5 5.86 1.66 Impulsivity 1 1 14 9 25 11 10 5 5.23 1.76 Hostility 60 2 9 1 5 0 3 0 0 1.76 1.54 Initiative 4 2 21 5 32 5 8 2 1 4.53 1.68 Lovability 1 0 5 4 3k 9 18 1 8 5.78 1.63 Nervous Habits 7 1 22 5 19 6 15 3 2 4,66 2.04 aRefer to the copy of the "Test Behavior Observation Guide" In the Appendix A. ON INS 63 I | Means and standard deviations of variables according j ! I to etiological classification are presented in Table 8. It can be observed that the undifferentiated and familial group had the best speech, least anxiety and best manual dexterity* The Down’s had the least hostility according to the examiners and in general agreement with the stereo type, they were most lovable, interested, cooperative, self-confident and attentive. The infectious and traumatic were conversely the least attentive, interested, lovable, displayed the least effort and initiative and quite expectedly were the most active. The Test Battery The empirical background for the hypothesized factors was described In the related literature. Figure 5 shows the tests used to measure each of the factors according to the given factor name and the possible corresponding factor in the Structure of Intellect model. The application of the latter is purely Judgmental and temporarily arbitrary because of the paucity of factor analyses at the preschool level. A more complete description of the eighteen tests follows. Order of administration was different from that of presentation to avoid the effect of set. A copy of the battery Is reproduced In Appendix A. TABLE 8 MEANS AND STANDARD ‘ DEVIATIONS OP TEST BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION GUIDE ACCORDING TO ETIOLOGY Undifferentiated Infectious Familial Down’s Traumatic Unknown Syndrome Other Variable M SD M SD M SD Motor Activity 5.34 2.12 4.77 1.71 5.65 2.15 Performance Rate 5.34 1.82 5.72 1.63 4.94 1.71 Manual Dexterity 5.08 1.59 4.86 1.32 4.25 1.44 Amount of Speech 5.73 1.48 5.22 1.92 4.97 1.90 Attention 4.52 1.87 5.22 1.87 4.17 1.96 Anxiety A.73 1.78 5.59 1.18 4.65 1.69 Self Confidence 5.00 1.47 5.72 1.20 4.91 1.29 Effort Displayed 5.78 2.04 6.00 1.85 4.91 I.63 Cooperation 6.52 1.92 7.00 1.57 6.00 1.64 Interest 6.17 1.80 6.22 1.54 5.42 1.59 Impulsivity 5.17 1.43 5.31 1.67 5.20 2.04 Hostility 2.17 1.92 1.45 1.37 1.68 1.34 Initiative 4.65 1.64 4.90 1.60 4.20 1.74 Lovability 5.82 1.74 6.04 1.29 5.57 1.75 Nervous Habits 5.17 1.94 3.90 1.71 4.80 2.20 On - P r Figure 5 Classification of Tests by Hypotheses and Structure of Intellect Categories Name of Test Author-Source Structure of Intellect Category Hypothesis A. Verbal Comprehension 1. Comprehension 2. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 3. Actlon-Agent Convergent Hypothesis B. Verbal Fluency Action-Agent Divergent 5. Monroe language Classification 6. Picture Description Hypothesis C. Perceptual Speed 7. Design Discrimination 8. Color-Form Matching 9. Figure Matching Hypothesis D. Form Discrimination 10. Pre-Raven Pattern Completion 11. Figure-Ground 12. Constancy of Shape Stanford-Binet L-M Lloyd Dunn Rachael S. Ball McCartlna Monroe b Meyers Meyers Meyers Meyers Frostig II Frostig III CMU Cognition of Seman tic Units DMU Divergent Production of Semantic Units EFU Evaluation of Figural Units CPU Cognition of Figural Units os Figure 5— 1 Continued Name of Test Author-Source Structure of Intellect Category Hypothesis E. Immediate Memory 13. Digit Span 14. Letter Span 15. Cube Test McCarthy and Kirk (ITPA Orpeta b MFS Memory for Figural Systems Hypothesis F. Meaningful Memory 16. Object Memory 17. Picture Memory 18. Paired-Pictures Stanford-Binet L-M® b b MMU Memory for Semantic Units aModified for this study. ^Constructed for this study. Os Os 67 | Hypothesis A. Verbal Comprehension i Test 1, Comprehension. The six questions for this test were taken from levels III-6, IV-6 of the Stanford- Einet, Form L-M. The test was designed to measure the j ability to apply or describe the knowledge of the environ ment which he should have gained through experience. All six questions were administered and scored according to the criteria in the Manual (88). Test 2. Peabody Picture Vocabulary. This test was selected as a measure of the ability to comprehend the meaning of a word or unit. The child was asked to select from amongifour simple pictures of objects the one picture which corresponded to the stimulus word said by the examiner. There was no time limit. The necessary materials included a spiral-bound book containing 150 numbered plates, the test manual and individual test records. Test 3. Action-agent Convergent. This test was a modified form of one appearing in the Merri11-Palmer Scale. The subject was given an active verb and asked to produce the name of the person, animal or object which normally performs the"action. There were twenty items. No time limit was imposed. Hypothesis B. Verbal Fluency Test Action-agent Divergent. The task required 68 the production of many words from a given stimulus, in j this oase a verb. The subject was asked, "What sleeps?" | After the initial response, the child was asked to name, ! i as quickly as he could, all the things that sleep. Thirty seconds were allowed for each test item. The verbs used were: swim, burn, cut, run, and fly. A score of one point was given for each acceptable response. Test 5. Monroe Language Classification. To obtain a measure of word fluency, the subject was asked to name all the objects i that he could think of in a given classification: "Name all the animals you can think of as quickly as you can." The same procedure was followed for "things to eat" and "toys." Thirty seconds were allowed for each of the three classes of response. The score was obtained by totaling the number of animals, things to eat and toys named. Test 6. Picture Description. The subject was presented with four 8-1/2 by 11 inch colored pictures taken from Picture Stories (78). He was asked to tell all about the picture, to describe everything he saw. The ability to verbalize in response to a visual stimulus was essential in this test. Scoring was based on one point for each item enumerated, each description, idea or relationship expressed. Hypothesis C. Perceptual Speed Test 7. Design Discrimination. The test materials 69 I | consisted of twenty 5 by 8 Inch cards with several figures arranged in a circle, all being identical except one. The task was to find the one which differed. There were five practice cards and 15 test cards. Score was the number of correct identifications made in 90 seconds. Test 8. Color-Form Matching. The child was presented with an 8-1/2 by 11 inch card which had a simple j figure to the left, to be matched from among three or more on the right. The figures were all simple colored geometric designs, such as circles or squares. The series of 15 cards was presented rapidly, the task being quick but accurate identification. Score was the number of correct identifications made in 60 seconds. Test 9. Figure Matching. This test utilized 15 cards with black grease-pencil figures. One figure was at the left, its duplicate to be found among others at the right. Procedure, scoring and time was the same as for Color-Form Matching. Hypothesis D. Form Discrimination Test 10. Pre-Haven Pattern Completion. The materials were eight 8-1/2 by 11 inch colored cards with large cutouts. The child was to select one of two or more small cards to complete the large card. While this is a flgural test and superficially resembles perceptual speed, it differed in two ways: it was not timed, and 70 / the child was not to do simple matching or identifying, but rather to infer from the cutout which filler would suit. Test 11. Figure-Ground— Prostig II. This test Involved shifts in perception of figures against increas ingly complex grounds. The eight intersecting or hidden forms were: triangle, rectangle, cross, moon, two stars, four stars, kites and Easter eggs. The child had to demonstrate his ability to perceive the figure by tracing it. Test 12. Constancy of Shape— Frostig III, This test involved the recognition of certain geometric figures presented in a variety of sizes, shadings, textures, and positions in space and also their discrimination from similar geometric figures. Circles, squares, rectangles, ellipses and parallelograms were used. The child was asked to find all the figures similar to a stimulus item or pattern. Hypothesis E. Immediate Memory Test 13. Digit Span. The task was to reproduce a series of digits from memory immediately following pre sentation by the examiner. The series of digits was taken from the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistlc Abilities (62). The digits were given at the rate of two per second which helped sustain attention. More adequate 71 scaling was also achieved by giving the subject two trials i per series, two points for correct reproduction on the first tyial, and one point for the second. Test 1A. Letter Span. This task was identical to that of Digit Span except for the use of letters, which were also assumed to be rather meaningless stimuli to a child of mental age four. Test 15. Cube Test, This test was an adaptation of the Knox Cube Test (4). It consisted of four blocks (slightly larger than Knox*) spaced two inches apart, attached to a board. The examiner and the subject each had an eight inch dowel. The examiner tapped the blocks with his dowel in a prescribed sequence and instructed the subject "do as I do." The test was intended to measure the ability to retain a meaningless sequence. Hypothesis F. Meaningful Memory Test 16. Memory for Objects. The objects for this test were the automobile, dog, shoe, cat, spoon, engine, doll, scissors, thimble, and box from the Stanford-Blnet, Form L-M. The test was a modification of the Memory for Objects test found at level IV. Two or three objects were put out In front of the subject which he was asked to Identify. Then one was covered up and he was required to give the name of the hidden one. A series of six trials was utilized for more adequate scaling. Test 17. Picture Memory. The materials were ten 8-1/2 by 11 inch cards with from two to four colored pictures of familiar objects taken from Scott-Foresman Speech Improvement Cards (19). After the subject had identified each object the card was screened and one or two pictures were concealed. The task was to verbalize the concealed objects. The test became increasingly difficult. Test 18. Paired-Pictures. The materials for this test were eighteen 5 ^ 8 inch cards, each of which showed two colored pictures of common objects taken from Scott-Foresman Cards (19) or from Picture Stories (78). The two pictures were always either members of a class, e.g., a lion and a cow, or Implied some other relationship, e.g., a horse and a saddle or a bird and a nest. After three introductory cards, the subject was shown all 15 cards and asked to name the objects. Then returning to card 1, he was asked to name the concealed object. While tests 16 and 17 simply tapped memory for objects presumed to be meaningful, this test introduced memory based on the association of meaningful elements. Testing Procedures During the three-month period of experimentation with original tests or existing tests appropriate for other levels, the eighteen most promising tests were selected to meet the criteria of clarity and appropriate level of difficulty. These were then duplicated so that both detailed instructions for administration and scoring blanks were included in a packet for each subject. The actual testing commenced November, 1964 and was completed during January, 1965. For the hospital sample the testing was conducted on the wards in spare or visitor rooms which proved very satisfactory. For the family care cases the testing was done in the homes with advance preparation and arrange ments being done by the Pomona Bureau of Social Work. All three of the special schools had extra classrooms or multi-purpose rooms so that testing conditions were quite ideal in this respect. Since the average testing time was about 90 minutes per subject, the battery was administered in two sessions of about 45 minutes, separated by a time span of not more than a week in most cases. It was necessary in the case of a few young hyperactive subjects to divide the testing Into three sessions. The combination of the Inherent curiosity value of test materials and the willingness of the subjects to "play games" reduced problems of rapport and cooperation to an insignificant minimum. The tests were administered in an order designed to minimize the effects of response sets which might tend to Inflate correlations. 7 4 - While slightly more than half of the testing was done by the investigator whose claim to competency was previous psychological testing experience and an intimate knowledge of these specific tests, the remainder of the | testing was done by two female examiners, one with a Master's degree and the other completing a Master's degree in Psychology. After a period of orientation and practice i each was observed and supervised in the administration and : scoring of the battery. For the sake of reliability any test having subjective scoring qualities was scored only by the investigator. Test Reliabilities Table 9 presents the means, standard deviations, communal!ties and estimates of reliability for each test. Frequency distributions for each of the test variables can be found in Appendix B. Test reliabilities for published tests were taken directly from their manuals. Tests 4 - , 5» 7, 8 and 9 were speeded tests for which the communalities may be taken as conservative estimates of the reliabilities. The communalities for all tests range from .4-11 for the Cube Test to .787 for Figure Matching. Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 was used to compute the coefficients for all the other tests except 6, 13 and 14-, which did not meet the assumptions of this method. These coefficients TABLE 9 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, COMMUNALITIES AND RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF EACH SUBTEST Test Mean S.D. h2 r t t 1. Comprehension 3 .3 1 1.8? .595 . 88° 2. Peabody Picture Vocabulary 37.2 A 1 2 .6 7 .559 •77* 3. Action-agent Convergent 10.06 A. 66 .6?2 .8 1 ° A. Action-agent Divergent 1 1.82 7 .8 0 .77A b 5 . Monroe Language Classification 9.68 5.A2 .679 b 6. Picture description 37.69 1 5 .9A 8 .600 d 7. Design Discrimination 9 .3 0 5.A5 .5 1 8 hb 8. Color-form Matching 11.1 A A.32 .762 b 9 . Figure Matching 1 2 ,7 7 A.A6 .7 87 b 10. Pre-Raven Pattern Completion 5 .3 8 1.75 .507 .A81 11. Figure Ground— Frostig II® 1.A8 .50 .578 .91* 12. Shape Constancy— Frostig III® 1 .5 8 .50 .A67 .72* 13. Digit Span 7.5A 5 .6 5 .688 d 1A. Letter Span 7.0A 2.3A .633 d 15. Cube Test 5 . AO A. 05 .All c 16. Object Memory A.A6 1 .5 2 .A91 .6 1 ° 17. Picture Memory 5 .5 3 3 .1 9 .559 .6 9 % 18. Paired Pictures 9.2A A.A6 .556 .87® Coefficients taken from published norms. ^Speeded tests, cDetermined by Kuder-Rlchardson formula 21. ^Power test but does not meet criteria for K-R 21, - < j eBased on dichotomized distribution. ^ ranged from *48 for Pre-Haven Pattern Completion to .88 j for Comprehension. Summary This chapter has presented a discussion of the j criteria and methods of selecting the sample. The sample j was described in regard to characteristics of sex, age, I.Q., mental age, location, diagnoses, use of medication, and test behavior. Each test variable was briefly described with emphasis on the nature of the task required. Finally, a description of testing procedures and test reliabilities was presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND ROTATION In this chapter are reported the Intercorrelations for the eighteen test variables, age, I.Q. and mental age. Test differences according to sex and etiological classi fication are discussed. The rotated factor matrix for the orthogonal solution is presented with a discussion of the psychological meaning of the results for the total sample and two sub-groups. This is followed by a brief interpretation of the factors obtained from the oblique rotation. A summary of factor findings concludes the chapter. Intercorrelations Intercorrelations among the eighteen test variables, age, ..mental age and I.Q. are reproduced in Table 10. The correlations between I.Q. and the test variables are quite low. Five variables seem substantially correlated with mental age in spite of its extremely restricted range. One test Is in the perceptual domain: Constancy 77 TABLE 10 INTEBCOHRELATIONS OP I.Q., MENTAL AGE, C.A. AND TEST VARIABLES Variable A B C 1 2 3 4 5 A. I.Q. B. Age C. Mental Age 1. Picture Vocabulary^ 2 . Picture Description . Letter Span . Color Form Matching 5. Paired Pictures 6. Cube Test 7 . Action-Agent Convergent 8. Figure Matching 9. Comprehension 10. Object Memory 11. Action-Agent Divergent 12. Picture Memory 13. Digit Span 14. Pre-Raven Completion 15. Monroe Classification lb. Design Discrimination 17. Figure-Ground 18. Constancy of Shape -816 285 204 -100 161 285 -111 084 -003 019 232 -179 093 1?1 073 000 120 243 -006 033 189 436 06l 009 188 191 049 031 303 462 098 -008 160 262 -032 063 176 380 -000 -046 -030 151 080 026 327 393 037 034 142 089 164 -109 118 126 -030 064 028 214 094 000 292 41? -047 170 199 335 -127 116 060 284 089 015 259 309 078 390 273 220 281 233 093 299 213 146 026 24 7 035 257 470 372 733 363 170 188 371 264 111 0 55 181 369 245 214 176 291 177 195 296 441 036 654 I83 171 38I 407 490 275 243 262 020 341 325 400 304 478 178 489 350 391 297 257 371 aListed in order of administration. TABLE 10— Continued 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 . 4. 3. C. 1. 2. 3. 4. ' 5. 6. 7. 067 8. 328 018 9. 093 573 216 10. 138 199 10? 261 11. 187 625 147 531 306 12. 121 140 306 243 560 282 13. 177 345 374 262 088 357 200 14. 352 119 468 195 124 097 240 264 15. 203 524 163 304 269 720 192 284 178 16. 354 345 485 306 239 376 242 421 376 392 17. 396 035 522 136 123 131 158 069 370 127 18. 398 268 355 199 129 290 126 118 402 333 404 378 412 -o SO 80 of Shape. The others are all related to languages Action-j agent Convergent, Action-agent Divergent, Monroe Language Classification and Peabody Picture Vocabulary. It appears j that none of the variables is related to chronological age for these subjects when mental age is held relatively constant. The hypothesis that some abilities, e.g., the ! perceptual-motor domain, may be more maturational or age-specific is not verified for these subjects, who are, of course, not representative of "normal" children of either the chronological or mental ages in question. Subject Differences Sex Differences Previous research has indicated differences in abilities between girls and boys. The research shows that females tended to be superior in fine motor skills, perceptual speed, verbal fluency, and other tasks involving the mechanics of language. Males tended to excel in tasks involving speed and coordination of gross bodily movements, spatial aptitudes, mechanical compre hension and arithmetic reasoning (20:577-58^). Research on retarded populations shows the same trends. Sirkin and Lyons (80) studied 1,^27 female and 1,095 male defectives. Twenty per cent of the males had no speech as compared with fourteen per cent of the females. Of the persons who had speech, 7^ per cent of 81 the males had defective speech compared with 51 per cent of the females. Spradlin (83) reported data which allowed for comparison of 93 boys and 9^ retarded girls on the nine measures of the Parson's Language Sample, Girls were superior in their performance on the echoic measure (digit and sentence repetition). Boys were superior on the intraverbal gesture measure. There were no other significant differences. Table 11 shows the means and standard deviations of the tests in the present study according to sex. Only on one test did the mean difference reach significance, Action-agent Divergent. The difference is in favor of the boys, which is interesting since the task is in theory one of verbal fluency. The differences in variability did not reach a significant level. Diagnostic Differences A review of the research shows that a relatively consistent relationship has been found between certain abilities and etiology of retardation. A measurable difference has usually been found between exogenous and endogenous children in visual-motor perception, figure- ground relationships, perseveration and conceptual development. Werner and Strauss (96) compared matched groups of I TABLE 11 SEX DIFFERENCES IN MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS Test Meansa Male Female Standard Male Deviationsa Female 1 3.17 3.50 1.72 2.06 2 38.63 35.36 12.23 13.19 3 10.80 9.05 4.36 4.93 4 13.24* 9.91 7.83 7.46 5 10.57 8.47 5.39 5.30 6 38.61 36.44 14.60 17.74 7 9.61 8.88 5.79 5.01 8 r 10.96 11.38 4.47 4.14 9 13.39 11., 94 4.61 4.18 10 5.09 5.76 1.74 1.72 11 1.50 - 1.44 .50 .50 12 1.56 1.58 .50 .49 13 8.09 6.79 5.93 5.26 14 7.00 7.08 2.33 2.37 15 5.36 5.44 4.02 4.16 16 4.46 4.47 1.50 1.56 17 5.78 5.18 3.28 3.09 18 9.32 9.11 4.38 4.61 *.05 level of confidence aThe t-test was used for differences between means; the F test for variabilities. 0 3 ro 83 i I endogenous and exogenous children, then compared each j i group with a similar number of normal children, matched for: i mental age, on a test Involving figure-ground relationships.! Eighty-four per cent of the brain injured children in this study responded more frequently to the background material than to the objects in the foreground. None of the normals and only fifteen per cent of the endogenous children, however, tended to confuse foreground with background. The endogenous were also superior In reproducing unseen geometric patterns by feeling and tracing them. Using the Bender-Gestalt Test with Matched groups of one hundred and sixty endogenous children and an equal number of exogenous retarded children, Bensberg (14) found the endogenous superior within the mental age range of five to twelve years. Little difference was found between the two groups below the mental age of five years. In a study comparing six year old normals with retardates of mental age six, Attwell (5) found the mongoloids to be the lowest group. They were lower than the normals on tests of perceptual speed, receptive vocabulary and immediate memory. The group diagnosed as infectious and traumatic were lowest in perceptual speed tasks and the undifferentiated and familial group were most like the normals. Table 12 gives.the means and standard deviations for each diagnostic group for each test. These differences TABLE 12 TEST MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ACCORDING TO DIAGNOSIS Undifferentiated Infectious and Down* s Traumatic Familial Syndrome Other Test M SD M SD M SD 1 3.87 1.91 2.68 1.67 3.3A 1.88 2 38.17 1A. 56 38.05 9.69 36.ll 13.25 3 11.52 A.17 8.36 A.lA 10.17 5.^3 A 16.43 8.23 9.50 7. AO 10.26 6<58 5 12.73 5.73 9.09 5.A6 8.03 A. 38 6 Al.39 19.11 39.86 13.90 33.89 14*41 7 10.96 7.76 9.77 A.66 7.91 S 12.00 A.19 10.83 A. 31 10.77 4.44 9 14.83 A. 31 12.82 A.Al 11. AO 4.17 10 5.7$ 1.13 5.AO 2.17 5.H 1.79 11 1.56 0.50 1.68 0.A8 1.28 0.45 12 1.78 0.A2 1.63 0.A9 1.A0 0.49 13 10.26 6.31 A. 81 3.06 7.46 5.74 14 7.57 2.A8 6.6A 1.79 6.94 2.53 15 5.39 A.27 6.81 3.76 4.51 3.94 16 A. 8? 1.51 A. 36 1.55 A. 26 1.A8 17 6.87 3.^8 A.00 2.39 5.60 3.09 18 10.13 3.68 9.6A A.05 8.AO 5.09 \ can be more easily observed in Figure 6. It must be realized that subjects were placed in one of these three limited categories ct f the basis of information available, which was of a medical nature but was not always a medical diagnosis. These groups can not be considered random samples of diagnostic populations. The familial and undifferentiated group were superior in all tests but two, which is consistent with their slightly higher mental age. Their two highest areas were tests ^ and 5» both measures of language ability. The Down’s showed the most uneven profile. Their highest scores were in test of visual memory and Figure Ground— Frostig II. They scored low on two memory tests. Although second highest on mental age, the infec tious and traumatic group were consistently lowest. In agreement with the stereotype of neurologically handi capped children, they were lowest on the vlsuo-perceptual and visuo-motor tasks of Figure Matching, Figure Ground— Frostig II and Constancy of Shape— Frostig III. Interpretation of Orthogonal Matrix Total Sample An IBM 709^ program (BMD 03M) at the Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of California, Los Angeles, was used for performing the arbitrary Figure 6 Test Means of Diagnostic Categories Plotted against Mean of Total Group +1 Familial, Undifferentiated & Unknown Down's Syndrome Infectious, Traumatic & Other /N / — X -1 2 6 14 8 18 15 3 9 1 16 i f 10 11 12 +1 -1 Test Number CD ON 87 factor extraction by the principal component method. Squared multiple correlations were inserted as lower bound estimates of the communalities. The unrotated matrix appears in Table 13. The computer program employed provides a rotational solution which observes the orthogonal criterion. The resulting factors appear in Table 14. The order of the factors has been rearranged to correspond with the hypotheses. A loading of a test on a factor was regarded as significant enough for consideration if its value was .33 or greater. Although ten factors emerged and were rotated, only seven saturated tests at this magnitude. In the following Interpretations the capital letter In parentheses behind the test corresponds to the hypothesis for which it was designed, Factor I— This is clearly a verbal factor. Five tests have significant loadings! Test 4 Action-agent Divergent (B) .785 Test 3 Action-agent Convergent (A) .767 Test 1 Comprehension (B) .638 Test 5 Monroe Language Classification (B) ,628 Test 2 Peabody Picture Vocabulary (A) .475 (v i .503) This strong factor is made up on tests which were hypothesized to form two factors: Comprehension (A) and Fluency (B). Since the saturations of tests 1, 2, and 3» TABLE 13 PRINCIPAL COMPO I NENT FACTOR MATRIX FOR TOTAL SAMPLE Test II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1. (A) Compr.ehens ion 540a -301 -084 -057 419 009 -007 -146 041 -049 2. (A) Picture Vocabulary 520 -226 -124 213 116 -379 054 114 -055 -003 3. (A) Action-Agent Convergent 505 -591 047 110 178 -046 049 -104 052 048 4. (B) Action-Agent Divergent 612 -557 -087 079 -000 234 -101 057 -005 -007 5. (B) Monroe Language 577 -463 -056 174 -207 146 -013 116 -134 010 6. (B) Picture Description 454 317 -260 169 -030 421 126 -031 031 002 7. (C) Design Discrimination 665 030 098 056 -017 -024 -188 056 054 137 8. (C) Color-Form Matching 587 495 -055 -112 383 -010 -046 -002 -078 -004 9. (C) Figure Matching 675 500 078 -036 121 047 007 235 -031 -009 10. (D) Pre-Raven Completion 560 324 104 034 -055 -014 060 -230 -117 039 11. (D) Figure Ground 540 410 -181 214 -071 -069 -077 024 141 -042 12. (D) Shape Constancy 556 093 -082 271 -180 -024 124 -135 027 029 13. (E) Digit Span 496 -134 602 -188 005 107 014 087 070 017 14. (E) Letter Span 523 037 546 -106 -132 -036 138 -078 -006 -060 15. (E) Cube Test 418 164 111 122 -225 -150 -305 -099 -014 -072 16. (F) Object Memory 381 -153 -316 -429 -138 *026 -115 -062 002 028 ' 17. (F) Picture Memory 451 -004 -211 -543 -118 029 -002 -019 -003 -004 18. (F) Paired Pictures 573 -036 -219 -152 -177 -225 249 090 046 -018 Decimal points have been removed. 00 oo TABLE 14 ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX FOR TOTAL SAMPLE Test I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1. (A) Comprehension -638a 311 013 077 -181 088 032 -206 072 046 • 2. (A) Picture Vocabulary -475 192 -039 006 -023 503 -196 -033 033 019 3. (A) Action-Agent Convergent -767 -041 -019 184 -066 158 -013 -094 -074 059 4. (B) Action-Agent Divergent -785 -041 184 141 -225 004 -101 156 121 -028 5. (B) Monroe Language -628 -127 235 165 -163 156 -169 322 027 017 6. (B) Picture Description -087 291 699 -016 -099 -029 -064 049 010 -005 7. (C) Design Discrimination -326 297 163 274 -151 105 -372 055 037 207 8. (C) Color-form Matching -042 800 201 113 -163 056 -146 -079 -090 -012 9. (C) Figure Matching 008 685 322 311 -127 169 -216 119 097 036 10. (D) Pre-Raven Completion -034 334 320 290 -114 113 -309 -039 -288 -018 11. (D) Figure Ground -013 381 412 -008 -071 239 -429 -067 095 038 12. (D) Shape Constancy -218 094 441 124 -043 285 -314 -026 -130 -025 13. (E) Digit Span -263 136 035 757 -074 -045 -068 038 077 071 14. (E) Letter Span -112 114 076 727 -061 121 -196 -019 -106 -059 15. (E) Cube Test -061 122 083 166 -071 057 -590 029 -023 -015 16. (F) Object Memory -199 039 022 -027 -660 047 -096 004 -012 026 17. (F) Picture Memory 088 165 084 142 -701 056 -021 007 -004 -017 18. (F) Paired Pictures -185 115 199 137 -422 512 -093 006 005 -009 Decimal points have been removed. CD VO 9° those designed for the comprehension factor (A), are approximately as high as tests A and 5* those designed for the fluency factor (B), the hypothesis of a separate fluency factor in retardates of mental age four years is not verified. Test 6, Picture Description, the third test hypothesized for verbal fluency, has unexplainably Joined Factor III and will be discussed later. The charge that the factor may exist and simply was not tapped by tests 4 and 5 is weakened to the extent that these are only minor modifications of the tests used by McCartin and Meyers in 196** (63) to obtain one of two clear fluency factors in six year old normal children and not unlike those used by Loeffler (60) in finding of a fluency factor in retardates of mental age six years. The absence of an independent fluency factor may be related to reasons other than developmental status. Perhaps the true variation of children on this trait is masked by the intelligibility problem caused by the high proportion of speech disorders in severely retarded children. Factor II— This factor can be identified as Perceptual Speed as described in Hypothesis C. Two of the three hypothesized tests loaded on it. Test 8 Color-Form Matching (C) .800 Test 9 Figure Matching (C) .685 91 | Test 11 Figure Ground (D) .381 j (III .412, VII .429) Test 12 Pre-Haven Pattern Completion (D) .334 | i On the basis of the two strongest tests, this factor Involves the ability to Identify a drawing or picture i i identiflcal to the stimulus among several similar ones. The absence of test 7, Design Discrimination, Is difficult i to explain. The fact that It Is based on the oddity principle rather than the similarity principle may be pertinent. The low loadings of tests 10 and 11 on this factor are not too unlikely. Although the Figure Ground— Frostig II test does require motor ability to obtain a high score, the basic operation Is of a visuo-perceptual nature as much as visuo-motor. This test is obviously measuring more than one specific ability. Test 10 requires the synthesis of a visual form, so along with 11, is on the Input end of the vlsuo-perceptual-motor system. The tests for this factor were included for reference purposes. This ability known as Perceptual Speed, first Identified by Thurstone and since verified in a multitude of studies, has been demonstrated In a retarded population by Meyers, et al. (68) of a similar ability level. Factor III— This factor Is tentatively identified as the Form Discrimination factor described In 92 , ! | Hypothesis D. Two of the three hypothesized tests load on | this factor. Test 6 Picture Description (B) .699 Test 12 Shape Constancy (D) .441 ! j Test 11 figure Ground (D) .412 | This factor is characterized by the ability to perceive and outline a figure concealed in a confusing background or placed beside others of slightly varying shapes. The absence of the third test, Pre-Baven Pattern Completion, in this factor may argue for the idea that the distinguish ing dimension of the factor is the requirement of a motor response coordinated with a visuo-perceptual one. The high loading of Picture Description on this factor is not easily understood. The most logical alter native to interpreting it as a chance loading is to emphasize the initial similarity of all three tasks. Even in Picture Description the initial process is to scruti nize a visual stimulus and separate the figures from the background. For this level of subject, the pictorial difficulty may have been greater than the verbal. Factor IV— This is an Immediate Memory factor as described in hypothesis E. Two out of the three intended tests loaded on this factor. Test 13 Digit Span (E) .7 5 7 Test 14 Letter Span (E) .72? This factor is characterized by the immediate reproduction of a series of meaningless auditory symbols. The meaning- | less nature of the stimuli was especially noticeable in ■ t h e case of the letters, the subjects treating them simply as different sounds, I The third test, Cube Test, which was expected to j load here, went with Factor VII, to be discussed later. The fact that Information is received visually rather than auditorlally may be the dividing characteristic. Previous research ias been equivocal on the relationship between mode of reception and factor structure. By confirming Hypothesis E, this factor adds credence to the stimulus trace theory proposed by Ellis (29) based on the work of Baumeister and Bartlett (9). The ability to temporarily hold meaningless Information until and while a more solidifying process takes over does seem to be a dimension along which retardates demonstrate marked variability. This is not to say that the retarded have an ability the normals have not, but have a variability in it capable of independent Identifi cation. Factor V— This factor cai be clearly labeled Meaningful Memory. Three tests loaded as anticipated for Hypothesis F. Test 17 Picture Memory (F) .701 Test 16 Object Memory (F) .660 Test 18 Paired-Pictures (F) ,422 (VI .512) This factor is characterized by the ability to recall a meaningful visual stimulus, either an object or a colored picture of an object within the life space of a retarded youngster. The lower loading of Paired-Pictures must be attributed to the variance shared with Factor VI. This factor seems to be a combination of two factors identified by Kelley (56) In an adult population: meaningful and associative memory. A meaningful memory factor has not been demonstrated in a retarded population of this ability level before. It might be argued that the dimension along which Factors IV and V separate is that of sense modality. If this were the case, however, Test 15, Cube Test, should have loaded on Factor V which it did not. — Factor VI— This is a doublet which is not one of the hypothesized factors, but may be tentatively Identified as a pictorial factor. Two tests have signi ficant loadings on this factor. Test 18 Peabody Picture Vocabulary (A) .503 (I .475) Test 2 Paired-Pictures (F) .512 (V ,422) Two different interpretations can be applied to this factor. The first is that the underlying similarity of these two tests is the pictorial nature of their content. This is in contradiction to this investigator’s assumption 95 that factors based upon mental operation would have a lower threshold for emergence than those based upon the form of the Information being processed. Secondly, when these two tests are compared on the behavior of the examinee, the obvious memory component in the Paired-Pictures test is visible In the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test. Where In test 18 the subject is required to remember the name of the object In each of the pair of pictures and which pictures were paired together, in the vocabulary test the subject had to rely on his memory for word meanings to select the proper choice. If memory were the underlying unit, however, one would expect test 2 to load 6n Factor V (Meaningful Memory) also, which Is not the case. Therefore, Factor VI will be considered a pictorial factor for the present. Factor VII— This factor is an unidentified percep tual factor. Three tests load on this factor. Test 15 Cube Test (E) .590 Test 11 Figure Ground (D) .^29 Test 7 Design Discrimination (C) .372 Although all of these tests have perceptual similarities, the loadings are fairly low and the apparent nature of the tests so divergent, that no further speculations will be made. Younger Sample Although it has long been speculated that the- kinds of abilities comprising a given mental age is related to the age and I.Q. level of the person, the argument is ■weakened by lack of empirical support. Since the point is especially relevant for retarded populations the present sample was split into two subgroups at the median chronological age. A separate factor analysis and orthogonal rotation were performed on each. While the findings are comparable to the factors identified for the total group, enough variations exist to warrant special presentation. Tables 15 and 16 present the principal component factor matrix and rotated factor matrix respectively for the younger sample. The ten factors will be presented with a brief interpretive discussion. Any test loadings with a value above .30 are considered. Factor I— This is clearly the global verbal compre hension factor identified in the total sample. Eight tests load substantially on this factor. Test 3 Action-agent Convergent (A) .807 Test k Action-agent Divergent <B) .7^8 Test 5 Monroe Language Classlfl- (B) .672 cation Test 12 Constancy of Shape—• Frostig III (D) .65^ Test 1 Comprehension Test 7 Design Discrimination (A) .610 (C) .581 TABLE 15 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR MATRIX FOR YOUNGER SAMPLE Test I II III IV V VI vn VIII IX X XI XII 1 -74ia 057 -386 022 159 188 -251 -025 -140 -013 047 -079 2 -527 -302 057 347 -131 414 080 -086 -095 -096 -050 -035 3 -637 -419 -228 123 229 011 002 -131 -095 -056 03? 086 4 -640 -508 -116 -270 151 -102 -141 -21 090 048 -Ill 024 5 -644 -500 123 -093 022 -186 318 -040 -004 063 079 -062 6 -478 084 -218 -712 -000 -046 024 123 -074 -009 045 -022 7 -798 -065 -035 361 -121 -088 -212 093 073 187 044 016 8 -529 652 -045 -060 -183 230 -032 -209 021 036 -065 034 9 -651 588 082 069 -000 177 117 -043 160 094 005 -032 10 -468 362 -068 -077 -146 -305 149 -112 -245 057 -007 044 11 -572 168 070 -164 -277 168 -105 223 047 -179 -046 043 12 -572 -300 -286 -016 -296 -072 194 -074 216 -026 090 013 13 -360 325 -140 216 495 -205 002 020 135 -063 -030 007 14 -420 389 -142 284 .116 -322 123 089 -011 -136 -004 -035 15 -406 -030 332 157 -474 -407 -162 013 -045 -042 -000 -023 16 -316 -161 490 -221 075 010 -084 -236 072 -077 063 -015 17 -414 167 582 -091 367 -084 -070 -024 -033 -031 021 012 18 -647 -099 362 107 113 264 204 258 -075 068 041 025 D e c im a l p o in ts h a v e b een r e m o v e d . VO >1 TABLE 16 ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX- FOR YOUNGER SAMPLE Test I II in IV V VI vn VIII IX X 1 -610 -210 -432 023 -285 -044 083 022 -379 -047 2 -574 296 230 024 119 044 413 -082 -049 -217 3 -807 -028 -013 -071 -192 098 107 025 -108 -063 4 -748 -390 -075 108 -025 247 034 »D88 -026 131 5 -672 -181 -109 -179 -017 307 237 -207 220 082 6 -230 -815 270 -112 -003 095 -009 040 007 -000 7 -581 070 309 085 -289 020 241 -483 -144 219 8 -005 -082 883 -113 -170 061 019 086 -058 -038 9 -052 -148 790 -049 -322 197 223 -042 093 090 10 -084 -226 360 -474 -281 022 -010 -285 010 000 11 -168 -330 458 173 -012 080 271 -311 -019 -181 12 -654 -155 180 -005 -003 -139 019 -235 351 -053 13 -122 004 151 027 -737 107 -006 104 -057 069 14 -072 -017 218 -156 -669 -074 074 215 035 -073 15 -122 022 080 -098 -018 181 044 -808 044 -016 16 -175 -043 073 020 129 651 030 -107 058 -034 17 023 -068 122 -040 -280 722 233 -081 -104 050 18 -324 -031 197 -006 -100 319 713 -082 005 030 D e c im a l p o in ts h ave b een r em o v ed . vo oo 99 I Test 2 Peabody Picture Vocabulary (A) .574 I Test 18 Paired-Pictures (P) ,324 In addition to two uninterpretable loadings of perception tests, all three of the tests hypothesized for Factor B I are present. Factor II~This factor appears to be the hypothesized! I factor B; Fluency, although low test reliabilities and restricted sample size invites a cautious interpretation. Three tests have loadings on this factor. Test 6 Picture Description (B) .815 Test 4 Action-agent Divergent (B) .390 Test 11 Figure Ground— Frostig II (D) .330 While it is most parsimonious to interpret this as a fluency factor, the perceptual nature of this factor is * indicated by the loading of test 11 and the fact that Picture Description clings to perceptual tests In the total sample analysis and in the older group analysis presented later. Factor III— This complex perceptual factor is obviously factor G, Perceptual Speed. Six tests appear on this factor. Test 8 Color Form Matching (C) .883 Test 9 Figure Matching (C) .790 Test 11 Figure Ground— Frostig II (D) *458 Test 1 Comprehension (A) .432 Test 10 Pre-Raven Pattern Completion (D) .360 100 Test 7 Design Discrimination (C) .309 All three of the hypothesized tests are present in addition to tests 10 and 11 which are clearly visuo-per ceptual in nature. The meaning of Comprehension here is unknown. Factor IV— This factor is a weak singlet which is most tentatively identified as hypothesis D. The test loading here is Pre-Haven Pattern Completion which apparently demands figural reasoning or visual synthesis not absorbed by factor III. Test 10 Pre-Haven Pattern Completion (D) .^74 Factor V— This is the immediate memory factor as described in hypothesis E. Two of the three hypothe sized tests load on this factor. Factor VI— Hypothesis F: Meaningful Memory, is confirmed in this factor. The three tests designed to elicit this factor load on it in addition to a verbal test. Test 5 Monroe Language Classification (B) .307 The low loading of test 18: Paired-Pictures, on this factor Is understandable since it also loads on Factor VII. Test 13 Digit Span Test 1^ Letter Span (E) .737 (E) .669 Test 17 Picture Memory Test 16 Object Memory Test 18 Paired-Pictures (F) .722 (F) .651 (F) .319 101 j I Nor Is it difficult to interpret the presence of test 5* i Monroe language Classification, since memory is an obvious j i requirement for a word recall task and since all of the memory tests have the prerequisite of verbal comprehension. : i Factor VII—.This is the same as Factor VI in the total sample which was identified as a pictorial factor after exploring several possibilities. The same two tests have loadings on this factor. Test 18 Paired-Pictures (F) .713 Test 2 Peabody Picture Vocabulary (A) .4-13 Factor VIII~The ambiguous nature of this factor prevents labeling. It is similar to Factor VII in the total sample and seems to have elements of both memory and visual perception. Test 15 Cube Test (E) .808 Test 7 Design Discrimination (C) .4-83 The weak and psychologically meaningless loadings on factors IX and X do not warrant consideration. Older Sample Tables 17 and 18 present the principal component factor matrix and rotated matrix respectively for the older group. The ten factors are presented with a brief" interpretive discussion, followed by a comparison of the two sub-sample analyses. Factor I— This can be identified as the strong TABLE 17 PRINCIPAL COMPONENT FACTOR MATRIX FOR OLDER SAMPLE Test I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI 1 _ _ _ c l -332 558 365 191 -045 -311 012 004 -109 018 001 2 -540 201 -045 238 -427 -010 -057 083 161 025 -001 3 -361 647 -058 099 -125 -044 -141 078 -101 -094 042 4 -580 661 -014 158 004 071 192 -116 020 038 007 5 -509 475 -161 159 -031 399 057 -085 -046 008 -053 6 -454 -514 079 175 926 303 071 -033 -065 -001 014 7 -650 -057 -143 150 311 123 -287 016 -011 003 026 8 -631 -317 240 291 151 -144 084 211 -022 -067 -038 9 - -698 -415 -106 192 133 -050 184 083 094 024 040 10 -677 -310 -022 -125 ' -186 -087 -174 089 -027 127 -046 11 -530 -538 -033 136 -105 -005 -114 -186 017 -089 -008 12 -606 -350 054 -242 -227 Q41 028 -037 -209 021 028 13 -618 323 -476 -215 227 -065 -042 029 041 055 026 14 -621 145 -361 -426 037 -033 108 107 -012 -100 -043 15 -477 -182 -242 032 014 -396 064 -268 005 -003 -008 16 -418 223 523 -165 183 017 -162 -119 107 -029 025 17 -474 087 525 -211 210 028 084 001 -022 052 005 18 -537 -040 301 -344 -236 103 049 004 122 -046 039 D e c im a l p o in ts h a v e b een r em o v ed . o w TABLE 18 ORTHOGONALLY ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX FOR OLDER SAMPLE Test I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X 1 546a 068 057 082 413 -162 045 -435 031 029 2 -563 -214 -299 -027 -016 -086 -006 -076 378 -005 . 3 677 149 -022 -201 109 007 -128 -246 057 -106 4 -828 -049 -054 -252 274 -113 093 010 -013 075 5 -747 -125 -050 -232 071 106 -076 221 -091 019 6 -029 -680 *276 062 050 038 -046 224 -106 008 7 -242 -515 -026 -336 160 -055 -443 039 -004 -005 8 -070 -759 -094 -033 261 -087 025 -262 065 -020 9 -051 -789 -152 -260 055 -203 058 017 089 076 10 -039 -428 -557 -237 121 -156 -176 -197 169 088 11 -055 -598 -372 016 001 -303 -168 136 062 -121 12 -006 -374 -658 -173 149 -124 007 010 -100 003 13 -371 -094 -035 -777 060 -179 -168 008 024 079 • 14 -215 -105 -304 -761 092 -094 066 002 -002 -069 15 -057 -301 -146 -253 -020 -608 -013 -054 018 006 16 -180 -050 -072 -026 739 -022 -139 -006 049 -054 17 -102 -199 -147 -091 710 042 065 -065 -088 074 18 -119 -144 -519 -145 449 019 135 092 160 -069 D e c im a l p o in ts h a v e b een r e m o v e d . H o 10A verbal factor evident In both previous analyses. Six tests have significant loadings. Test 4 Action-agent Divergent (B) .828 Test 5 Monroe Language Classification (B) .7^7 Test 3 Action-agent Convergent (A) .677 Test 2 Peabody Picture Vocabulary (A) .563 Test 1 Comprehension (A) .5^6 Test 13 Digit Span (E) .371 Three of the hypothesized tests for comprehension and two of the fluency tests are represented. The fluency factors play a slightly stronger role here than in the previous analyses. While it was hypothesized for immediate memory, the low loading of Digit Span is under standable, considering the element of verbal expression. Factor II— This strong perceptual factor can be identified as that described in hypothesis C; Perceptual Speed. Eight tests have some loading on this factor. Test 9 Figure Matching (C) .789 Test 8 Color Form Matching (C) .759 Test 6 Picture Description (B) .680 Test 11 Figure Ground— Frostig II (D) .598 Test 7 Design Discrimination (C) .515 Test 10 Pre-Haven Pattern Completion (D) .A28 Test 12 Constancy of Shape— -Frostig III(D) .37^ Test 15 Cube Test (E) .301 While all six perceptual tests are present the highest 105 loadings confirm the speeded nature of the factor. As In the previous analyses, two tests designed for memory and fluency— Cube Test and Picture Description— assert their perceptual constitution. Factor III— The four tests loading on this factor indicate its perceptual nature as outlined in hypothesis D. Test 12 Constancy of Shape— Frostig III(D) .658 Test 10 Pre-Haven Pattern Completion (D) ,557 Test 18 Paired-Pictures (F) .519 Test'14 Letter Span (E) .304 Visual recognition eliciting a meaning is apparently the element underlying both Paired-Pictures and the two form discrimination tests. The low loading of Letter Span with such a small sample should not cause dissonance. Factor IV— This factor can be recognized clearly as immediate memory or hypothesis E. Two of the three tests designed for the factor are present in addition to one uninterpretable loading of a perceptual test: Design Discrimination. Factor V— This is the meaningful memory factor: Hypothesis F, already clearly identified. All three hypothesized tests are present along with a verbal compre hension test the meaning of which has been explored Test 13 Digit Span Test 14 Letter Span Test 7 Design Discrimination (E) .777 . ( E ) .761 (C) .336 106 previously. Test 16 Object Memory Test 17 Picture Memory Test 18 Paired-Pictures (F) .739 (F) .710 (F) .449 (A) .^13 Test 1 Comprehension Factor VI— This uninterpreted factor with memory and j i perceptual elements has been identified in all analyses. j Although the accompanying test varies, Cube Test consis tently appears as a perceptual factor. This is not to say that the memory component in this particular figure ground test is not reflected. Factors VII, VIII and IX are singlets which do not merit interpretation. Factor X has no loadings over ,30. Comparison of Sub-Sample Analyses This strong verbal factor was clearly evident in both analyses. The fluency aspect played a stronger part in that of the older group, whereas in the younger group with higher I.Q.* s there was a tendency for the fluency aspect to separate. Both perceptual factors were observed in each sample although both were stronger in the older sample. The two factors hypothesized for the memory domain can be interpreted without qualifications for each age group. Test 15 Cube Test Test 11 Figure Ground— Frostig II (E) .608 (D) .303 107 The pictorial factor was observable only for the younger retardates, whereas, the unidentified factor seemingly related to both perception and memory emerged in both groups. Interpretation of Oblique Matrix Seven of the ten extracted factors were rotated according to Carroll's biquartimin solution (22), pro grammed for an IBM 709^ at the Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of California, Los Angeles. Table 19 shows this solution. In Table 20 the correlation between these oblique factors is presented. The highest corre lation is between uninterpretable factors VI and VIII, which are not relevant to the study. All other correla tions are relatively low. The psychological meaningfulness of the factors was not significantly increased by the oblique solution. The minor differences between solutions are discussed for each factor. Factors were rearranged to correspond to the order of hypotheses. Factor I is the general verbal factor saturated by the same variables in both methods. t Factor II is the perceptual speed factor, as predicted by Hypothesis C. The two identifying tests 8 and 9 are present, although absent are the two other perceptual tests, 11 and 12, present in the orthogonal 108 TABLE 19 OBLIQUE FACTOR ROTATION MATRIX Test® I II III IV V VI VII h2 3 U2 -050 -079 110 -027 050 -059 65 4 691 -143 147 042 122 -134 055 76 5 548 -300 196 0 77 076^ 024 102 64 2 *28 090 -089 -086 -030 243 117 54 1 224 -015 012 083 -059 -096 56 8 -015 620 201 071 086 -065 084 75 9 -083 468 3 . 0 9. 245 054 009 149 73 6 01? 128 682. -073 009 016 -048 59 11 -023 242 328 -094 002 058 212 55 12 170 -051 242 046 -046 224 133 44 13 150 050 -086 214 008 -079 026 67 14 006 -002 -012 687 -006 !35 050 62 17 -038 O65 Oil . O87 660 056 -037 55 16 095 -018 -058 -086 622 -003 060 48 18 132 -059 099 050 373 419. -053 54 15 Oil 046 -015 106 020 -121 508 39 7 2*<1 173 082 18? 060 -104 318 49 10 -051 203 243 247 026 108 143 43 aRearranged for ease of interpretation. 109 i TABLE 20 i CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FACTORS FOR THE BIQUARTIMIN SOLUTION I II III IV V VI VII I II 091a I I I 183 160 IV 262 129 224 V 300 145 267 199 VI 166 360 091 057 056 VII 224 205 326 226 163 547 aDecimal points have been omitted. solution. A minimal loading of a verbal test, 1, is uninterpretable. Factor III is basically the same as III in the orthogonal, Form Discrimination. It has one additional loading, test 9> also a perceptual test. Factors IV and V are the two memory factors identifical to those identified in the orthogonal solution. Factor VI, identified as a pictorial factor, saturates only one test, Paired-Pictures. Factor VII is the same unlnterpretable perceptual factor identified in the orthogonal solution. Three tests 110 I load on this factor. A fourth test, Constancy of Shape-- ! Frostig II, which Is present in the corresponding orthogonal factor, does not load significantly here. j Summary i In this chapter, the lntercorrelatlons and subject j differences were presented. The factor analysis with the orthogonal and oblique rotations followed. Each of the obtained factors with significant test loadings was Interpreted in the light of the hypotheses. A synthesis of these findings is presented below. Five of the sir hypothesized factors were identified In this study. The two verbal factors, A-Comprehension and B-Fluency, did not prove to be separate abilities In this sample of children as measured with these tests. The one strong verbal factor which did emerge, Factor I, is further confirmation of the linguistic factor identified by Meyers, et al. (67). While two observed factors, II and III, are percep tual factors, the similarity to hypotheses C and D is not as close as desired. It is evident that they are these factors, however. Factor II, Identified as the Perceptual Speed Factor, is somewhat more complex than anticipated, whereas, Factor III, identified as Form Discrimination, has lower and more ambiguous loadings. It Is not clear whether Its existence is dependent upon 1 1 1 I f figural reasoning as hypothesized or the requirement of a | I perceptual-motor production. i Factors IV and V are clearly the two memory factors, ; hypotheses E and F. The first can he described as immediate memory, often called memory span or more con temporarily, sensory storage. The second, identified as • i meaningful memory, involves the recall of a picture or object, whereas, the former requires a reproduction of an auditory stimulus. Two other factors emerged which can be Interpreted with caution. The first, Factor VI, seems to require content of a pictorial nature in spite of different mental operations accompanying it. The second, Factor VII, is even more difficult to understand, although all tests are of a perceptual nature. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose, procedure and findings of the study are reviewed in this chapter. Some conclusions and implica tions for further research are also presented. Summary The Problem The history of ability testing shows a progressive movement from utilization of the concept of a general intelligence to the more useful and definitive concept of a structured Intellect. Through the technique of factor analysis many of these independent abilities have been Identified in adults and school-age children. The search for structure in pre-literate children is just beginning, however. With national attention being given to the welfare of the retarded in a technological society, factor analysis should prove to be a useful tool In understanding their strengths and wealcnesses which must precede effective education and habilitation. With this 112 in mind, the present study was designed to determine j whether six Independent abilities could be demonstrated j in a severely retarded population of mental age four. i Plan of the study / Hypotheses- The domains of verbal cognition, memory and perception were selected as promising points of i origin for research because of findings in normals or older retardates. Two factors were hypothesized for each domain. Hypothesis A— Verbal Comprehension. This is the ability to understand spoken language. Emphasis is placed on the input function of language. Hypothesis B— Verbal Fluency. This is the output or expressive aspect of language behavior, that is, the ability to produce verbal responses from: a limited visual or auditory stimulus. ; t Hypothesis C— Perceptual Speed. This is recognition or matching of visual figural materials with speed being the central variable. Hypothesis D---Form Discrimination. This is the ability to retain a form concept in spite of contextual changes and to complete a visual form through visual synthesis or figural reasoning. Hypothesis E— Immediate Memory. This is the ability to reproduce a visual or auditory sequence. To ii4 hold an Input temporarily is the essence of this factor. Hypothesis P— Meaningful Memory. This is the ; ! ability to recall the name of a meaningful visual unit, picture or object, almost immediately after presentation. Subjects. Mental age was the most important con- j sideration in selecting the eighty subjects for the j experimental sample. All subjects had a mental age i between 42 and 54 months with a mean of 48,75. The mean I.Q. was 41.71 with the mean age at 130.31 months. The subjects were either students in special schools for the severely retarded or patients at Pacific State Hospital. For the three diagnostic categories of familial and undifferentiated, Down's syndrome, infectious and traumatic, the number of cases were 23, 22 and 35 res pectively. Since no other source of subjects was tapped and since significant relationships exist between location of subjects, diagnostic category and level of medication j required this sample can not be considered a random sample of all severely retarded children. Procedures. A battery of eighteen tests was de vised or modified for use at this age and ability level. Three tests were designed for each hypothesized factor. To most subjects the battery was administered in two sessions of about forty-five minutes. Testing facilities and rapport were very satisfactory. All tests were administered individually by three trained examiners between November, I96A and January, 1965. Intercorrelations of test variables were computed electronically and subjected to a principal component factor extraction on an IBM ?09^. Here the squared multiple-correlatlon coefficients were used as estimates of communallty. The obtained factors were rotated according to orthogonal and oblique criteria. Findings 1. Only one strong verbal cognition factor was Identified. Loadings identified it as Hypothesis A-Verbal Comprehension. Sub-sample analyses suggested that the fluency ability— hypothesis B may exist in younger children with higher I.Q. 's. Ability at mental age four years is apparently not differentiated enough to manifest this distinction between verbal abilities, at least in the mentally, retarded. 2. Two perceptual factors were obtained which nearly parallel hypotheses C and D. The factor Identified as C-Perceptual Speed was a much stronger factor than the one recognized as D-Form Discrimination. Recognition of forms obviously precedes production developmentally. 3* The two factors in the memory domain emerged the most clearly. The factors were interpreted as hypothesis E-Immedlate Memory and hypothesis F-Meaningful Memory, with no qualifications. 116 | In addition to five of the six hypothesized ! factors, two unidentifiable factors were present. j Supplementary Findings 1. On only one of the test variables was there a i i significant difference between the sexes, and that was in i I favor of the boys. Differences in variability were not significant. 2. Although mental age differences between subjects according to diagnostic category were insignificant, slight differences were noted on the test variables. The familial and undifferentiated were consistently highest, with the infectious and traumatic cases consis tently lowest and the mongololds showing the most uneven profile. 3. Differences between subjects according to diagnostic classification on test behavior as quantified by the Test Behavior Observation Guide, tended to confirm the stereotypes of diagnostic categories: the mongololds being tie most cooperative and interested; the infectious and traumatic cases being the most active and least attentive; the familial and undifferentiated being a composite and characteristically manifesting the best speech. 4. It was hypothesized that the tests of visual perception would bear some relationship to chronological 117 age since motor ability was a requisite for success. Interoorrelations did not show a relationship, nor a relationship with I.Q. 5. Separate factor analyses at different age levels did not show a basic difference in factor structure. The verbal and two perceptual factors were stronger factors at the higher age level. The pictorial factor was j not observed in the older sample, however. Conclusions Generalization of the findings to a population of retardates of mental age four has several known and unknown limitations. By design the sample was limited to subjects with recognizable speech, vision, hearing, and fair con tact with reality. Several sources of bias were undoubtedly incurred by selecting the sample from special schools and a hospital. These factors will continue to be | unknowns until the characteristics of the non-hospital and non-school retarded are determined. With this cautious preface the following conclusions are offered. 1. It is reasonable to conclude from this study that with the appropriate selection of test materials, careful test administration, and the utilization of statistical tools such as factor analysis, the structure of ability of severely retarded children can be demon strated to consist of relatively uncorrelated, separately measurable abilities. 2. Language ability Is not differentiated Into comprehension and fluency components at mental age four In j a retarded population. 3. Two kinds of perceptual ability are Identifiable although not completely independent. 4. Memory Is clearly differentiated into two factors identified as immediate span and meaningful memory. 5. Sex differences in these abilities are negli gible. 6. The structure of these abilities is not related to chronological age. Discussion and Implications When placed in Structure of Intellect terms, the five factors identified in this study become: CMU, cognition of semantic units; EFU, evaluation of figural units; CPU, cognition of figural units; MFS, memory for figural units; and MMU, memory for semantic units. These are hypothesized factors A, C, D, E, and P, res pectively. The separateness of factors demonstrated at lower levels suggests the use of a profile of abilities derived from factor or z-scores. Such assessment tools may be useful in predicting adjustment or success in an 119 educational or training program. It would also facilitate the study of the development and individuation of abilities and the extent to which different abilities are affected by training. . Several suggestions for further research are suggested by the results of this study. j 1. Although the divergent aspect of language j ability has been demonstrated as independent In normal six-year-olds and in retardates of mental age six, it was not found to be independent at mental age four. Research at mental age five may be the next step, perhaps with modified instruments. 2. Since two memory factors were found, research leading to a better understanding of each is in order. This is especially true in the case of immediate memory. Correlates of immediate memory, e.g., behavioral charac teristics, neurological character!sties or symptoms and other cognitive variables, should Increase the usefulness of this factor and aid the search forthe key to the human storage system. 3. Studies comparing normals and retardates on these and other abilities will lead to a better understanding of the developmental potential of each. Carefully designed longitudinal studies based upon hypothesized factors such as those demonstrated in this investigation could yield valuable information about 120 the genesis, development and interrelatedness of cognitive abilities. BIBLIOGRAPHY A proposed program for national action to combat mental retardation. Report to the President. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Allen, Robert, Haupt, Thomas D., and Jones, R. Wayne. The relationship between the Developmental Test of Visual Perception and the WISC factors in mentally retarded children. Paper presented at APA convention, Los Angeles, 1964. Alterdlce, E. T. and Butler, A. J. An analysis of the performance of mental defectives on the revised Stanford-Binet and Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale. Amer. J. ment. Defic., 1952, 56, 609-614. : Arthur, Grace. A point scale of performance tests. 2nd ed. New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1943. Attwell, Arthur. Differential abilities in normal and retarded children of mental age six. Unpublished! Ed.D. dissertation, University of Southern ; California, i960. Avakian, S. A. An investigation of trait relation ships among six year old children. Genet. Psychol. Monogr., 1961, 63, 339-394. Balinski, G. An analysis of the mental factors of various age groups from nine to sixty. Genet. Psychol. Monogr.. 1941, 23» 191-234. Baumeister, A. A. and Bartlett, C. J. A comparison of the factor structure of normals and retar dates on the WISC. Amer., J. ment. Deflc.. 1962, 66, 641-646. 122 9. Baumeister, A. A. and Bartlett, C. J. Further factor ial Investigation of WISC performance of mental defectives. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1962, 67, 257-261. 10. Baumeister, A. A. and Bartlett, C. J. and Hawkins, W.F. Stimulus trace as a predictor of performance. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1963* 67, 726-729# 1 11. Baumeister, A. A., Spain, C. J. and Ellis, N. H. A j note on alpha block duration in normals and j retardates. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.# 1963» 67, 723-725# 12. Bayley, Nancy. On the growth of Intelligence. Amer. Psychologist. 1955* 10, 805-818. 13. Bender, Lauretta. A visual motor gestalt test and its I clinical use. Monograph Series No. 3. New York: Amer. Orthopsychiatric Assoc., 1938. lA. Bensberg, G. J. A test for differentiating endogenous and exogenous mental defectives. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1950, 5^» 502-506. 15. Bereiter, Carl. Fluency abilities in pre-school children. J. genet. Psychol.. 1961, 98, A7-A8. 16. Bernstein, Donald M. Perceptual primitiveness in children as a function of age, intelligence, and exposure time. Unpublished dissertation, University of Buffalo, 1961. 17. Broadbent, D, E. A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory. Psychol. Bev.. 1957, 6A, 205-215. 18. Bryan, A. I. Organization of memory in young children. Arch. Psychol.. 193^* 106, 162-169. 19. Bryngelson, Bryng, and Glaspey, Esther. Speech Improvement Cards. Set B. New York: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1951. 20. Carmichael, Leonard. Manual of Child Psychology. Ne w York: Wiley, 195^ 21. Carroll, J. B. A factor analysis of verbal abilities. Psychometrika. 19A1, 6, 279-307. 123 22. Carroll, J. B. Biquartimin criterion for rotation to oblique simple structure in factor analysis. Science. 1957, 126, 1114-1115. 23. Chen, T. L. and Chow, H. A. A factor study of a test battery at different educational levels. J. genet. Psychol.. 1948, 73, 187-199. 24. Chrlstal, R. E. Factor analytic study of visual memory. Psychol. Monoer.. 1958, 72, No. 466. 1 25. Cohen, Jacob, The factorial structure of the WAIS between early adulthood and old age. J. consult, i Psychol.. 1957, 21, 283-290. 26. Cohen, Jacob. The factorial structure of the WISC at ages 7-6, 10-6 and 13*6. J. consult. Psychol... 1959, 23, 285-299. 27. Corah, Norman and Powell, Barbara J. A factor analytic study of the Pros tig Developmental Test of Visual Perception. Percept, mot. Skills. 1963, 16, 59-63. 28. Dyer, Dorothy W. and Harcum, E. Eae. Visual percep tion of binary patterns by preschool children and by school children. J. educ. Psychol.. 1961, 52, 161-165. 29. Ellis, N. R. The stimulus trace and behavioral inadequacy. In Ellis, N. R. (Ed.). Bandbook of mental deficiency. New York: McGraw-Hill, 30. Fantz, Robert L. The origin of form perception. Scientific American. 1961, 204, 66-72. 31. French, J. W. The description of aptitude and achievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometr. Monogr.. 1951, No. 5. 32. Frostig, Marianne, Lefever, D. W. and Whittlesey, J. R. B. A developmental test of visual perception for evaluating normal and neurolo- gically handicapped children. Percept, mot. Skills. 1961, 12, 383-389. 33. Frostig, Marianne, Lefever, D. W. and Whittlesey, J. R. B. Disturbances in visual perception. J. educ. Psychol.. 1963, 57, 160-162. 1 2 k 3^. Frostig, Marianne, Lefever, D. W. and Whittlesey, J# E, B. Developmental Test of Visual Perception. (3rd ed.) Palo Alto. California: Consulting Psychologists Press, 19&K 35* Fruchter, Benjamin. The nature of verbal fluency. Educ. psychol. Measmt.. 194B, 8, 33-^7* 36. Garrett, H. E. A developmental theory of intelli gence. Amer. Psychologist. 19^6, 1, 372-378. 37. Gault, U. Factor patterns of t t i e Wechsler Intelli gence Scales. Australian J. Psychol.. 195**, 6, 85-90. 38. Gewirtz, J. L, Studies in word fluency: I. Its relation to vocabulary and mental age in young children. J. genet. Psychol.. 19^8, 72, . 165-176. 39. Gibson, Eleanor and Whlk, Bichard. Visual cliff. Scientific American, i960, 65. 4-0. Goins, Jean T. Visual perceptual abilities and early reading progress. Su ppI. educ. Monogr.. No. 87. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958. *fl. Goodenough, Florence L. The nature and organization of intelligence in ehildhood. In Carmichael, Leonard (Ed.). Manual of child psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 195f t . k2, Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw Hill, 1954. 43. Guilford, J. P. The structure of intellect. Psychol. Bull.. 1956, 53, 267-293. 4^. Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. Amer. Psychologist. 1959, 1^, 469-^79. 4-5. Guilford, J. P. and Hoefner, H. Current summary of structure of intellect factors and suggested tests. Bep. Psyohometr^Lab.. 1963, No. 30. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. k6. Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, Philip, and Cox, A. B. Creative thinking in children at the junior high school levels. Bep. Psychol. Lab. No. 26, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1961. 125 47. Hebb, D. 0. The organization of behavior - New Yorks John Wiley and Sons, 1949. 48. Heber, Hick. A manual on terminology and classifi cation in mental retardation. Monogr. Suppl.. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. 1959* 64. 49. Hofstaetter, Peter R. The changing composition of 'intelligence* A study in T-technlque. J. genet. Psychol.. 1954, 85, 159-164. 50. Hurst, J. G. A factor analysis of the Merri11- Palmer with reference to theory and test con struction. Educ. psychol. Measmt.. I960, 20, 519-532. 51. Jones, L. V. A factor analysis of the Stanford-Blnet at four age levels. Psvchometrlka. 1949, 14, 229-231. 52. Jones, L. V. Primary abilities in the Stanford-Binet at age 13. J. genet. Psychol.. 1954, 84, 125- 147. 53. Jones, Sheila. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children applied to a sample of London primary school children. Brit. J. educ. Psychol.. 1962, 32, 119-132. 54. Kaiser, H. P. The varlmax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis. Psychometrlka. 1958, 23, 187-200. 55. Kebbon, L. Ability structure and special defects in the mentally retarded. International Copen hagen Congress on the Scientific Study of Mental Retardation. August 7 - 14, 1964. Abstract. 56. Kelley, H. P. A factor analysis of memory ability. Princeton's Educational Testing Service, 1954. 57. Kelley, Truman. Crossroads in the mind of man. California:Stanford University Press,1928. 58. Korotkin, A. L. Perception and intelligences the relationship of certain visual-perceptual skills with intelligence, age and sex. Dissertation Abstracts, i960, 21, 1637. 126 59. lachmann, Frank. Perceptual motor development and reading ability- J. consult. Psychol.. I960. 24, 427-431. * ■ 60. Loeffler, Frank J. An extension and pattial replica tion of Meyer's et al. primary abilities at mental age six. Paper presented to Society for Research in Child Development symposium, Berkeley, 1963. 61. Maxwell, A. E. A factor analysis of the WISC. Brit. J. educ. Psychol., 1959, 29, 237-241. 62. McCarthy, J. J. and Kirk, Samuel A. The Illinois Test of Psyohollngulstlc Abilities. University of illinois, 1961. 63. McCartin, Sr. Rose Amata and Meyers, C. E. An exploration of six semantic factors at first grade, 1964, in press. 64. McNemar, Q. The revision of the Stanford-Blnet scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. 65. Meyers, C. E. and Dingman, Harvey. Factor analytic and structure of intellect models in the study of mental retardation. Paper presented at the Conference on Cognitive Models and Development in Mental Retardation. New Jersey: November, 1964. 66. Meyers, C. E., Orpet, R. E., Attwell, A. A. and Dingman, H. F. Primary abilities at mental age six. Mongr.. Society for Res, in Child Develpm.. 1962, 1, No. 82. 67. Meyers, C. E., Dingman, H. F., Attwell, A. A. and Orpet, R. E. Comparative abilities of normals and retardates of MA six years on a factor type test battery. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1961, 250-258. 68. Meyers, C. E., Dingman, H. F., Orpet, R. E., Sitkei, E. G. and Watts, C. A. Four ability factor hypotheses at three preliterate levels in normal and retarded children. Mongr.« Society for Res, in Child Develpm.. 1964. 29, No. 96. 69. Monroe, M. Reading aptitude tests. Bostons Houghton Mifflin, 1935. ” 127 70. . Olson, J. L, A comparison of sensory aphasia, expressive aphasia, and deaf children on the Illinois test of language ability. Unpublished dissertation. University of Illinois, i960, 71. Orpet, E, E, A factor analysis of some hypothesized abilities of six year old children. Unpublished dissertation. University of Southern California, I960. 72. Orpet, R. E. and Meyers, C. E. Studies of evaluative, memory, and divergent factors at six years. In progress, 1965. 73. Osgood, C. E. and Sebeck, T. A. Psycholinguistics: a survey of theory and research problems. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. Sunni.. 1954. 49. 74. Peterson, Joseph. Early conceptions and tests of intelligence. New York: Yonkers-on-Hudson, World Book Company, 1925. 75. Rajalakshmi, R. and Jeeves, M. A. Changes in tachistoscoplc form perception ag a function of age and intellectual status. J. Gerontology. 1963, 18, 275-278. 76. Richards, T. W. and Nelson, V. L. Abilities of infants during the first eighteen months. J. genet. Psychol.. 1939, 55, 299-318. 77. Satter, G. Retarded adults who have developed beyond expectation— Part III: Further analysis and summary. Train. Sch. Bull.. 1955, 51, 237-243. 78. Sheldon, William D., Mills, Queenie B., and Mower, Rosalie. Picture Stories: Readiness Book I. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957. 79. Sievers, D. J. Development and standardization of a test of psycholinguistic growth in preschool children. Unpublished dissertation. University of Illinois, 1955. 80. Sirkin, J. E. and Lyons, W. F. A study of speech defects in mental deficiency. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1941, 46, 74-80. 81. Spearman, Charles. The abilities of man. New York: McMillan Company, 1927. 128 82. Spivak, George. Perceptual processes. In Ellis, N. H. (Ed.) Handbook of Mental Retardation. New York: McGraw Hill, 19&3. — — —— — — 83. Spradlin, J. E. Assessment of language skills among mentally retarded children. Parsons Research Project Working Paper 29, I960. 84. Stott, Leland and Ball, Rachael S. Evaluation of Infant and preschool mental tests. Detroit: Merrill-Palmer, 1963* 85. Strong, Robert T. Multidimensional studies of psycholingulstlc abilities In neurologically impaired retarded children. Report of progress, Columbus, Ohio, 1963. 86. Taylor, J. B. The structure of ability in the lower intellectual range. Amer. J. ment. Deflc.. 1964, 68, 766-774. 87. Templin, M. C. Certain language skills in children. Child Welfare Mongr.. 1957* No* 26. 88. Terman, L. M. Genius and stupidity: a study of some of the intellectual processes of seven "bright" and seven "stupid" "hoys. Pedagogical Seminary. 1906, 13, 307-373* 89. Terman, L. M. and Merrill, M. E. Stanford-Blnet Intelligence Scale: Manual for the Third Revision. Form L-M. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1950: ' 90. Thompson, George G. Child Psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. 91. Thorndike, E. L. Educational Psychology. New York: Columbia University, 1914. 92. Thurstone, L. L. and Thurstone, T. G. Factorial ■ studies of intelligence. Psychometr. Monogr. No. 2. University of Chicago Press, 1941. 93. Thurstone, L. L. and Tfturstone, T. G. S.R.A. Primary Mental Abilities. Science Research Associates, 1953'. 94. Vernon, Philip E. The structure of human ability. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950. 129 95* Wechsler, David. The measurement and appraisal of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1958. 96. Werner, H. and Strauss, A. A. Pathology of figure- background relation in the child. J. abnorm. Psychol.. 19^1, 36, 58-67. 97. White House Conference on Mental Retardation, Pro ceedings. Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1963. 98. Wolfle, Dael. Eactor analysis to 1 9 * 1 K ) . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1^0. 99. Zimmerman, W. S. A simple graphical method for orthogonal rotation of ares. Psychometrika. 19^6, 11, 51-55. APPENDIX A 131 Name No. Wd. (Examiner) School Bm. Teacher Dlaemosl Sex I.Q. Test given Date Date of testing C.A. in months Date of birth Current M.A. in Mo. Chronological Age Medication Dosage Code Baw Scores: Tests Behavior Bating Scale: 1. PV 10. OM A. I. 2. PD 11. AD B. J.. 3* LS ; 12. PM C. K. 4. CP 13. DS D. L. 5. PP 14. PH E. M. 6. CT 15. MC P. N. 7. AC 16. DD G. 0. 8. PM 17. II H. 9. CO 18. III 132 Picture Description Materials: Pour 8 x 10 colored pictures. Procedures: Showing the first card- to S say, "Look at this picture." "What do you see?" "Tell me all about it." "Tell me everything you see." Encourage as much as necessary. Becord items enumerated, descriptions, ideas, and relationships expressed. On each of the other cards say, "Now tell me about this one." "Tell me all about it." Time: No limit. Discontinue: Administer all four cards. Scoring: One point for each item, idea, description, or relationship expressed. 1. ■ _ 2. 3. 4. Score 133 Letter Span Materials! Procedures! Time: Discontinue: Scoring: Score Series of letters taken from Orpet, 1964 . Say, "Now I am going to say some letters. Listen carefully and say them right after me." If S starts to say the letters before E has finished he should be instructed to, "Walt until I am through and then say the letters." Say the letters at the rate of two per second. Allow 10 seconds for recall. Failure on both trials of a series. Score 2 points for success on first trial, one for success on second. 1. A __________ 2. P K _________ 3. K H _____ 4. K F C _ ______ 5. P F E _ _ _ _ _ 6e S L F H ________ 7. F S I L _______ _ (14) 1 3 4 j Color-Form Matching | Materials: ‘ .-Sixteen 8 x 11-1/2 inch color-form matching j cards, A and 1 - 15. Procedure: Using card A for demonstration, place it on table directly in front of S and say, "See this one?" (Indicate left figure), "Find it." (Indicate all the others with a general circular motion.) Guide S's finger to correct choice if necessary. Repeat until S responds correctly, then begin series of 15 ltbms. Present series rapidly, encourag ing S to choose quickly. Correct each mis take without stopping time by touching, saying "No. this one." Credit Immediate self- corrections. Time: 60 seconds. Start timing as soon as S's hand touches in response to first card, whether correct or not. If necessary, restart series to run out the 60-second time limit. Discontinue: No Scoring: One point for each correct choice. Score (15) 135 j Palred-Plctures Materials! 36 pictures from Scott-Foresman Speech Improvement Cards. Procedures: Open folder and show card A to S. Ask him to name each picture on the card. Do the same with card B. Then return to card A with the blank card superimposed covering one picture. Ask S to name the exposed picture. Then say, "Whafs under here?" pointing to the covered picture. Bepeat If necessary for S to understand the task. Correct name for picture Is not necessary as long as S Is consistent. Show cards 1 - 16 In one series. Time: Around ten seconds per card. Discontinue; Show all cards, 1 through 16, but discon tinue after five consecutive recall failures. I Scoring; One point for each correct recall starting with card 1. Allow A and B for practice. Series: 1. 7. 2. 8. 3. _________ 9. _____ 10. 5. _____ 11. 6. 12. 136 Palred-Plctures (continued) 13. _________ 14. _____________ 15. 16. Score (16) Cube Test Materials: Procedures: Discontinue Scoring: Sequence: 137 Pour blocks (1-6/16") spaced two inches apart attached to a board (11-1/2 x 1-6/16"). Two dowels (5/8 x 8")._ Place blocks immediately in front of S. E gives S one dowel and keeps the other. Blocks are numbered 1 - ^ reading from S*s left to right, E instructs S to "do as I do." E tapped each of the following sequences. After each sequence S tries to tap the same pattern. Three consecutive failures. One point for each correct sequence. 1. Block 1 2. 1 2 3. 1 2 3 4. 1 2 3 • 5. 1 A 6. 1 3 7. 1 3 A 8. 2 A 9. 2 3 A 10. A 2 1 11. 1 2 3 12. 1 2 3 13. 1 A 3 2 138 Cube Test (continued) 15. 16. 14-23 13 2 4 1 3 1 2 4 Score (16) Action-Agent Materials: Procedures: Time: Discontinue: Scoring: Series: 139 Convergent ■ Taken from Stutsman, Rachael, Mental Measurement of Pre-School Children. "What runs?1 1 If the response is basi cally correct, ask, "What cries?" If no response, or inappropriate response, say, "A bo.v runs doesn*t he?" "And a dog runs too." "Now tell me what cries." If incorrect or no response say "A baby cries. doesn't it?" "Do you know what sleeps?" Give no further illustrative help. Questions may be repeated if S is not attending to the task. No limit. Seven consecutive failures. One point for each correct response. Score correct if S names: A. The agent performing; act (knife cuts); B. The object of action (paper cuts); C. Unusual responses of good quality (tigers melt). 1. sleeps __________; __________________ 2. flies __________________■ 3. bites ____________ ; __________________ swims ____ . ______________________ 5. burns ___________________ ~ - 6. cuts ________________________________ Aotlon-Agent Convergent (continued) 7. melts 8. sails ___ 9. boils ___ 10. floats __ 11. growls __ 12. stings __ 13. shoots __ 1^. gallops _ 15. roars __ 16. scratches 17. blows _ 18. mews __ 19. explodes 20. aches Score (20) 1 J H L I i Figure Matching | Materials: Sixteen figure-matching cards, with black < * grease-pencil figures. Procedures: Using card A for demonstration, place It on table directly in front of S and say, "See j this one?" (Indicate left figure). "Find | it." (Indicate all the others with a general ; circular motion. ) Guide S*s finger to correct choice if necessary. Hepeat until S responds correctly, then begin series of 15 items. Present series rapidly, encouraging S to choose quickly. Correct each mistake without stopping time by touching, saying, "No. this one." Credit immediate self- corrections. Time: 60 seconds. Start timing as soon as S*s hand touches in response to first card, whether correct or not. If necessary, restart series to run out the 60-second time limit. Discontinue: No Scoring: One point for each correct choice. Score ; (15) 1A-2 Comprehension Materials: Questions taken from Stanford-Binet L-M, Levels 3 - 6, A - 6. Procedures: Examiner simply asks the questions. E may repeat each question if S did not hear or was obviously inattentive. Time: Allow 10 seconds for an answer if necessary. Discontinue: Administer all questions. Scoring: Use scoring standards as given in S-B L-M Manual. One point per correct answer, total of six possible. Series: 1. What must you do when you are thirsty? 2. Why do we have stoves? 3. Why do we have houses? A. Why do we have books? 5. What do we do with our eyes? 6. What do we do with our ears? Score (6) 143 f ! Object Memory / I Materials: Automobile, dog, shoe, cat, spoon, engine, doll, scissors, thimble* box from Stanford- Binet L-M, Level IV. j Procedures: Place the automobile and dog before the child in the order indicated from his left to his i i right. Call his attention to each, asking | him to name it. Accept whatever name he gives it. If he hesitates, name it for him. Then say, "Now shut your eyes tight so that you can* t see them." Screen the test objects from his sight and cover the dog with the small box cover. Remove the screen and say, "Open your eyes. Looki Which one did I hide?" If the child points without naming object, say, "Yes, what is it?" Repeat the procedure for two through eight, hiding in [ turn the spoon, doll, engine, etc. E must be careful to prevent the child from lifting the box cover before he has named the hidden object. Time: No limit. Discontinue: Three consecutive failures. Scoring: One point for each correct identification, total of eight. Object Memory (continued) Sequences: 1. Automobile Dog 2. Shoe Spoon 3. Doll Engine Spoon Cat 5. Scissors Shoe 6. Dog Doll Scissors Engine Automobile Cat Score (6) Aotlon-Agent Materials: Procedures: Time: Discontinue: Scoring: Sequence: wj i j Divergent ! I Stop watch* i Say "Tell me what swims." (pause) "Now j tell me all the other things that swim as quickly as you can." If S does not respond at all, E may ask "Does a boy swim?* . . "What else swims?" Only on this item may such help be given. However, if the child has given some answers, but has lost Interest in the task before the end of the time limit, E may encourage him by saying, "Can you think of anything else that _____ Continue in the same manner with items 2-5- Record all answers. 30 seconds. Administer all items. A score of two points is given for classes or group names and a score of one point for each acceptable member of a class or elaboration following it. 1. What swims? 2 . What bums?______________ ___________ _ 3 . What cuts?____________ k . What r u n s ? _____________ 5. What flies?___________________________ Score 1 4 6 Picture Memory Materials: Pictures taken from Scott-Foresman Speech Improvement Cards. Procedures: Open book and show S card 1. Ask him to name the pictures of objects. Then say, nClose your eyes tightly." Screen the card and flip down the preceding card so one picture is concealed. Then say, "Now open your eyes, what did I cover up? * * If S doesn't understand, say, 1 1 What's under here?" pointing to the concealed picture. Time: Allow about 10 seconds for child to respond. Discontinue: Three consecutive failures. Scoring: One point for cards 1-6; 2 points for cards 7-10; on cards 7-10 score one point for each concealed picture correctly recalled. Series: 1. _________ 2. ______ 3. ________ _____ 5. ________ _ 6. __ 7 . _ _ _ _____________ Picture Memory (continued) 9. ________ 10. ____ Score Digit Span Materials: Procedures: Time: Discontinue: Scoring: Series: 1^8 Series of digits from ITPA. Say, "Listen carefully and say the numbers .lust as I do." If S starts to say the number before E has finished he should be instructed to, "Walt- until I am through and then say the numbers." Say the numbers at the rate of two per second. Allow ten seconds for recall. Failure on both trials of a series. Score two points for success on first trial, one point for success on second trial. 1. 1 2 2. 9 6 3. 5 2 l 6 8 9 5. 9 7 6 6. A 3 k 7. 6 6 1 1 8. 6 3 5 8 9. A 2 A . o H 5 7 A 5 11. 2 5 k 9 9 12. 6 1 6 3 7 13. A 5 9 1 149 Digit Span (continued) 14. 9 1 7 5 3 3 15. 8 9 6 3 4 8 Score (30) Pre-Baven Pattern Completion Materials! Eleven 8-1/2 x 11 inch cards with designs of solid colors from gummed-back shelf paper. Prom each is cut a 3 i 5 inch corner. Prom two to four 3 i $ inch cards go with each of the large cards, one being the proper cutout i l for the large card. Cards A, B, and C, and their associated small cards are for both practice and score. Cards I - VIII are for score. Procedures: The large card is always placed with the cut out corner toward S and to his right. The bhoices are always placed so that choice 1 (when there are 2 choices) and choice 3 (when there are 3 or 4) is closest to the cut out comer of the large card, and of course, between S and the large card. ■ Using i card A, lay out choices and large card in front of S. Point to the large card, the cutout and the several choices. Demonstrate correct choice, replace it and say, "Which one goes in here?" (Indicate smaller cardsj In cases of lower-level subjects, those not used to testing and any for whom necessary, use more elaborate processes, such as: Show Pre-Baven Pattern Completion (continued) S how to try them out. Put in two wrong ones successively, saying, "No. this one I doesn’t go. No. this one doesn’t go." Then j trying the correct one, dramatize and verbalize that it is the correct one, saying, "This one goes. * * Express satisfaction. Leave it in place, then show how continuity of large and small cards is preserved. Get S to put the correct one in himself. Repeat this procedure for cards B and C. Then for the test cards I through VIII simply put each set out, saying, "Now you do this one. " Correct all errors, on test series as well as on A, B, and C. This is necessary to discourage perfunctory responding. Times No limit. Distontlnue: Scorings Allow credit for self-corrected cards if the correction is done right away. Give a point each for A, B, and C if S performs after the demonstration by himself without . assistance. Give one point credit for each set I through VIII. 152 Pre-Haven Pattern Completion (continued) Distinguish carefully between S»s trying out and his seeming to have made a final choice. Avoid glances of doubt, or motions of over- hesltatlon which might cue S that his selection is wrong, but also avoid too quick of a set lest S be viewing his results with an eye to correction, A few high level S*s will score well enough to be given the Haven. Their scores were added to the score according to the following: Add 0 for Haven score 0-10 1 11-20 * * 2 21-30 etc. Series: I II IH _ IV _ V _ VI _ VII _ VIII _ Score ____ _(8) 153 Monroe Language Classification Materials; Stop watch. Procedures: Say, "Name all the animals you can think of as quickly as you can." If S does not res pond, E may add, "Just tell me all the animals you know." If S stops before the end of thirty seconds and Is obviously not attending to the task, E may encourage S with "Can you think of any others?" Follow the same procedure for "things to eat" and "toys." Timei 30 seconds. Discontinue: Administer all items. Scoring: Score equals total number of animals, things to eat and toys. 1. Animals ________ _______________ _____ 2. Things to eat 3. Toys Score 154 Design Discrimination Materials: Twenty 5* 8 inch cards with several figures arranged in a circle, all being identical except one. The task is to find the one which differs. There are five practice cards and 15 test cards. Time: 90 seconds. Start time as soon as S*s finger touches the first test card whether correct or not. Repeat from first test card if time remains, in order to use up 90 seconds. Correct any error quiokly without stopping time, by pointing and saying, "No. this one.” Allow self-corrections immediately made and not due to E*s reaction. Procedure: The five practice cards are presented twice. On the first trial, E points to the correct response while saying for each, "Not the same." or "This one is different." The practice series is then repeated, S doing the pointing until comprehension is assured. S*s hand may be guided if necessary. Discontinues Administer cards until the end of 90 seconds. Scoring: One point for each correct identification within the time limit. Design Discrimination (continued) Series: 1. 9. 2. 10. 3. _________ 11. 4. _________ 12. 5. _________ 13. 6. _________ 14. 7. __ 15. 8 . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Score 1 5 6 TEST BEHAVIOR OBSERVATION GUIDE Do the ratings toward end of test battery. Ratings % 4 to be based only upon observed behavior during administra tion of battery. A nine-point scale ("stanine**) is used and frequencies should approximate a normal distribution. The mean and mode are 5; 1 and 9 represent infrequent extremes. See percentages on the scales. A. Amount of Motor Activity ( A/6) — 1 almost motionless ( — 9 extreme movement B. Performance Rate — 1 extremely slow — 3 slow — 5 average — 7 rapid — 9 extremely rapid — 1 extremely awkward — 3 awkward — 5 average — 7 skillful — 9 extremely skillful (20#j — 5 average 3 infrequent movement 7 frequent movement C. Manual Dexterity 157 D. Amount of Speech — 1 mute (practically) — 3 quiet — 5 average — 7 talkative — 9 loquacious E. Attention — 1 almost Impossible to get and hold — 3 easily distracted — 5 moderately attentive M M — 7 relatively undisturbed by external stimuli — 9 oblivious to external stimuli P. Anxiety — 1 extremely ill at ease — 3 rather anxious and poorly poised — 5 average social confidence — 7 better than average social confidence mm mm — 9 completely at ease G. Self Confidence — 1 painful -uncertainty — 3 inclined to distrust own ability M M " — 5 somewhat confident — 7 rather self confident and assured. — 9 extremely self confident 158 H. Effort Displayed — 1 lackadaisical, Indifferent — 3 works perfunctorily — 5 strives for success — 7 works diligently — 9 expends maximum effort I. Cooperation Given to Examiner — 1 negativlstic and uncooperative — 3 somewhat negativlstic — 5 generally good — 7 cooperates readily — 9 cooperates enthusiastically J. Interest — 1 completely uninterested — 3 lack of interest shown — 5 adequate amount of interest shown — 7 definitely interested — 9 enthusiastic K0 Impulsivity — 1 extreme restraint of own actions — 3 strong self control — 5 average self restraint — 7 poor inhibition of impulse — 9 highly impulsive--no Inhibition 159 L. Hostility — 1 no evidence of dislike — 3 sporadic expressions of hostility — 5 some evidence of hostility — 7 many hostile feelings expressed — 9 highly hostile toward anyone M, Initiative — 1 no initiative— must he pushed or led — 3 must he encouraged — 5 moderate initiative — 7 takes lead — 9 takes initiative away from others — 1 incurs dislike— hard to enjoy — 3 not easy to like, to stay with — 5 Incurs average lovability, for sex and age — 7 very lovable, winning, enjoyable — 9 highly winning, one enjoys personas company 0. Nervous Habits — 1 very relaxed and tranquil — 3 no nervous habits — 5 little amount of nervous habits — 7 average amount of nervous habits — 9 extreme exhibition of nervousness, shown in one or more of sweating, tics, scratching, blinking, etc. N. Lovability APPENDIX B 161 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 1 Comprehension Items Correct Frequency 0 7 1 10 2 10 3 14 4 12 5 17 6 10 N = 80 M = 3.31 S.D. = 1.88 162 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 2 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Items Correct Frequency 12-15 3 16-19 1 20-23 io 24-27 8 28-31 3 32-35 13 36-39 12 40-43 3 44—47 ................. 8 48-51 6 52-55 6 56-59 3 60-63 4 N - 80 M * 37.23 S.D. = 12.75 163 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 3 Action-Agent Convergent Items Correct Frequency 0 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 - 3 6 5 7 1 8 8 9 11 10 4 11 4 12 5 13 8 14 7 15 5 16 .. 2 17 5 18 1 19 .. 1 N = 80 M = 10.06 S.D. = 4.69 164 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 4 Action-Agent Divergent Items Correct Frequency 0-2 . 3 - 5 ......... ........................ 6-8 .......... 9 - H .................................. 12-14 ......... 15-17 ........................ 18-20 21-23 24-26 ...... . 27-29 ......... 30-32 .......... N = 80 M = 11.82 S.D. = 7.80 11 10 8 10 6 11 5 1 2 1 165 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 5 Monroe Language Classification Items Correct Frequency 0 3 1 1 2 A 3 .................. 5 ^ 3 5 ... ............. ^ 6 5 7 , 6 8 A 9 1 10 ..... 8 11 3 12 8 13 6 1^ 4 15 3 16 k 17 ... h > 19 1 21 2 2k ............. i IT =80 M = 9.67 S.D. = 5 A 5 166 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 6 Picture Description Items Correct Frequency 10-16 4 17-23 - .................... 9 24-30 14 31-37 17 38-44 12 ^5 -5 1 15 52-58 2 59-65 2 66-72 2 73-79 1 80-86 1 87-93 0 94-100.. ........... .... 1 N = 80 M = 37.69 S.D. = 15.94 16? FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST ? Design Discrimination Items Correct Frequency 1 3 2 2 3 3 i f 6 5 7 6 3 7 6 8 ^ 9 8 10 11 11 3 12 6 13 9 lif 3 15 1 16 1 18 ... 1 21 ..... 1 23 1 38 1 N = 80 M = 9.30 S.D. = 5.i f 9 168 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 8 Color Form Matching Items Correct Frequency 3 4 5 3 6 4 7 8 8 6 9 7 10 3 11 7 12 Q 13 3 14 6 15 8 16 2 17 ...... ........... 3 18 2 19 4 20 1 N = 80 M = 11.14 S.D. = 4.34 169 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 9 Figure Matching Items Correct Frequency 1 .. 1 3 1 5 2 6 5 7 2 8 ............... 3 9 3 10 4 11 AO.OAO... ......... 6 12 6 13 10 Ik ...... 15 15 7 16 1 17 2 18 3 19 ............. . 2 20 2 21 2 22 3 N = 80 M = 12.78 S.D. = k.k9 170 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 10 Pre-Raven Pattern Completion Items Correct Frequency 0 2 2 2 3 7 A ................ 12 5 . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . 1^* 6 22 7 13 8 8 N = 80 M = 5.37 S.D. = 1.76 171 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 11 Figure Ground— Frostlg II Scorea Frequency 0 . 10 1 8 2 . 9 3 7 * j > 6 5 7 6 .... b 7 8 8 b 9 3 10 5 11 l 12 1 13 1 1^ o 15 2 16 0 17 2 18 1 19 0 20 1 aSlnce distribution was seriously truncated, it was ' dichotomized at the median. 172 FBEQ.UENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 12 Constancy of Shape— Frostig III Scorea Frequency 0 2 6 1 8 2 16 3 12 4 4 5 .. 3 6 7 7 3 8 1 aSince distribution was seriously truncated, it was dichotomized at the median. 173 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 13 Digit Span Items Correct Frequency 0 . 6 2 5 3 2 k ..... ............ 21 5 2 6 10 7 . 6 8 3 9 3 10 1 11 1 12 k 13 1 Ik ...... 3 15 2 16 3 17 1 18 2 19 2 20 1 2? 1 N = 80 M = 7.54- S.D. = 5.69 174 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 14 Letter Span Items Correct 2 .............. 3 4................... 5... ............ 7... ......... 8 .......... 9............ 10 .......... 11 .......... 12 .......... N = 80 M - 7.04 S.D. = 2.35 Frequency 3 1 8 5 23 6 11 6 13 3 1 175 frequence distribution of the sample on test 15 Cube Test Items Correct Frequency 0 8 1 10 2 8 3 5 4 10 5 4 6 2 7 2 8 9 9 8 10 5 11 .w............. 3 12 4 15 2 N = 80 M = 5.40 S.D. = 4.08 176 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 16 Object Memory Items Correct Frequency 0 . 2 1 3 2 3 3 9 b .... ....... 19 5 19 6 25 N = 80 M » s.D. = 1.53 177 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 17 Picture Memory Items Correct Frequency 0 5 1 6 2 2 3 7 k ................................ 8 5 15 6 10 7 9 8 A 9 ^ 10 3 11 2 12 A 13 1 N - 80 M = 5.52 S.D. = 3.21 178 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE SAMPLE ON TEST 18 Paired Pictures Items Correct Frequency 0 6 1 A 3 1 A ................ A 5 2 6 1 7 3 8 6 9 9 10 . A 11 9 12 10 13 8 1A .............................................. 8 15- 5 N = 80 M = 9.2A S.D. = A.A9

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Relationship Of Creative Thinking Abilities To School Achievement

PDF

An Evaluation Of Orientation Programs In Seven Selected Small Liberal Arts Colleges, Using Student Satisfaction Criteria

PDF

An Empirical Study Comparing Various Methods Of Achievement Expectancy Bymeans Of Mental Ability

PDF

The Impact Of The College Experience On Students' Ability To Identify Certain Concepts Of Freedom

PDF

An Assessment Of Effects Of A Large, County Wide, Public School Program Of Special Training Classes On Trainable Retarded Children

PDF

Development And Analysis Of Some Tactual Measures Of Intelligence For Adolescent And Adult Blind

PDF

The Stability Of The Self-Concept In Junior College Students

PDF

An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Anxiety And Stress On The Group Intelligence Test Performance Of Elementary School Children

PDF

An Experimental Study Of Self-Confrontation In Counseling

PDF

Upperclassmen As Academic Advisers To Freshmen In An Undergraduate College: An Experiment

PDF

A Cross-Cultural Study Of The Use Of Art Forms

PDF

A Study Of The Effectiveness Of Teaching Methods Of Study To Selected High School Freshmen

PDF

A Methodological Investigation Of Affect Response Bias

PDF

A Projective Look At The Educational History Of Adult Mental Patients

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The School Psychologist In The State Of California

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of Some Hypothesized Abilities Of Six-Year-Old Children

PDF

Differential Abilities In Normal And Retarded Children At Mental Age Six

PDF

Prediction Of Success In Training Among Electronics Technicians

PDF

The effect of noise on intellectual performance as related to personality and social factors in upper division high school students

Asset Metadata

Creator Carlson, Dale Clifford (author)

Core Title An Investigation Of Two Language, Two Memory, And Two Perceptual Abilities In Retardates Of Mental Age Four

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Meyers, Charles Edward (committee chair), Carnes, Earl F. (committee member), Grings, William W. (committee member), Lanier, Vincent (committee member), Lefever, David Welty (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-166281

Unique identifier UC11359207

Identifier 6509968.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-166281 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6509968.pdf

Dmrecord 166281

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Carlson, Dale Clifford

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA