Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Effects of stimulus dimensionality and other stimulus characteristics on classification performance in… Scribner, Donna Marilyn 1974

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 S38_7.pdf [ 4.83MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0099940.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099940-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099940-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099940-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099940-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099940-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099940-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0099940-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099940.ris

Full Text

EFFECTS OF STIMULUS DIMENSIONALITY AND OTHER STIMULUS CHARACTERISTICS ON CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE TN CHILDREN OF AGES 3 TO 7 YEARS  by Donna Marilyn Scribner B.H.E. , University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OP ARTS  i n the Department of Educational Psychology  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1974  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  thesis  an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t the L i b r a r y I  further  agree  scholarly  for  by h i s of  shall  this  written  make  the U n i v e r s i t y it  fulfilment  of  of  Columbia,  of  for  for extensive  the  requirements  reference copying o f  I agree and this  for  It  financial  is understood gain  shall  Educational  1974  Psychology  Columbia  that  not  copying or  for  that  study. thesis  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8 , Canada  August,  British  available  permission.  Department  Date  freely  that permission  representatives. thesis  in p a r t i a l  or  publication  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  i  i  Abstract  The problem studied i n t h i s investigation was the e f f e c t s of stimulus dimensionality, other stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the age of subjects on free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance.  The t h e o r e t i c a l  basis was e a r l i e r research (inhelder & Piaget, 1964) and the experimental procedures were adapted from a t e s t developed to assess conceptual functioning i n brain damaged children (Graham-Ernhart Block Sort Test, 1963) GEBST. Ninety children, 18 from each of the following age groups; preschool three year olds, preschool four year olds, kindergarten, grade one and grade two were subjects i n t h i s investigation. were three sets of stimulus objects; three dimensional  There  styrofoam  objects, two dimensional f l a t styrofoam objects and photographs of the three dimensional objects.  Each stimulus set required subjects  to match or group s t i m u l i which d i f f e r e d i n respect to three chara c t e r i s t i c s ; color (yellow, red and blue),.form ( c i r c l e , square and t r i a n g l e ) , and s i z e (large, medium and small). The GEBST procedures were followed with minor changes i n the order of task presentation and i n the scoring.  Two d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l s  i n the GEBST were used and each l e v e l contained three t r i a l s .  Level  I I I s t i m u l i d i f f e r e d on one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c and were constant i n r e s pect to the remaining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Level IV s t i m u l i d i f f e r e d on  two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s simultaneously while the t h i r d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was held constant.  Dimensionality of the t e s t material was randomly  assigned with s i x subjects i n each age group r e c e i v i n g the GEBST i n each dimension, characteristics.  A subject received only one dimension but a l l three  Two separate analysis of variance procedures were performed, one f o r each l e v e l on the GEBST.  Dimensionality, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,  age as a c a t e g o r i c a l variable and t h e i r interactions were assessed with analysis of variance.  Age as a continuous variable, sex and  t h e i r interactions were assessed with two l e a s t square regression analyses, one f o r each d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of the GEBST.  Unequal num-  bers o f each sex f o r some age groups necessitated a n a l y s i s of the sex variable by l e a s t squares regression analysis. Age was the most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g performance on a free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task.  The age range of t h i s investigation seem-  ed adequate to t e s t the performance of preconceptual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n behavior as described by Inhelder & Piaget(l964).  The sex of subjects  d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance, a f i n d i n g supported by most research i n t h i s area.  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the  stimulus object was a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance.  Size appeared to be a much more d i f f i c u l t c h a r a c t e r i s -  t i c to base c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on than color or form p a r t i c u l a r l y with the youngest subjects. Stimulus dimensionality was not found to be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance.  This was contrary t o research  i n t h i s area and also the hypotheses made i n t h i s investigation.  Two  explanations seemed plausible f o r the r e s u l t s occurring i n t h i s study: the scoring system of the GEBST d i d not s u f f i c i e n t l y r e f l e c t the performance of the tested subjects, and the choice paradigm of Level IV, implicit;yin the design of the GEBST, obscured some of the v a r i a b i l i t y of stimulus dimensionality. Further research i n the area of stimulus dimensionality i n a  iv  free  classification  tigation  d i d not  an a r e a w h i c h has has  great  support not  practical  performance  task  seems n e c e s s a r y other  been  the  investigations  fully  applicability  on c o n c e p t u a l  as  tasks.  studied to  the  results  in this  and s t i m u l u s study  of  of  area.  this It  invesis  also  dimensionality  young  children's  v Table of Contents Page  Chapter 1  Introduction 1  Statement of the Problem Review of Literature Theoretical Aspects of the Problem Validation Research on C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Theories Conceptual Functioning Assessment and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Tasks Training Procedures and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Research Subject Characteristics and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Research.. Stimulus Attributes and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Research Procedures i n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Research Chapter 2  1 4 7 11 13 15 23  The Research Problem  Purpose  27  Operational Definitions.  27  Hypotheses  28  Chapter 3  Methods  Subjects  30  Stimuli  32  Procedure..  33  Scoring Design  36  > ,  37  ,  38  S t a t i s t i c a l Analysis Chapter 4  Results  42  Chapter 5  Summary and Conclusions..,  ,,  61 73  References Appendix A  Graham-Ernhart  Block Sort Test Manual  B  Consent Form L e t t e r  C  P i c t o r i a l Representational Stimuli  vi  List  of  Tables  Table  Page  1  Distribution of  2  Stimulus  3  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e on L e v e l I I I  4-3  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l IV  47  4  5  7  8  b y Age  and Sex  Objects  31 34  Mean C o m p a r i s o n o f S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on L e v e l IV u s i n g t h e B o n f e r r o n i T e s t w i t h a  6  Subjects  95%  Confidence  Interval  50  Mean C o m p a r i s o n o f S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e 3 Y e a r Age G r o u p on L e v e l I V u s i n g t h e B o n f e r r o n i T e s t w i t h a 95% C o n f i d e n c e I n t e r v a l  5^  Summary o f S t e p w i s e R e g r e s s i o n o f I n d e p e n d e n t Variable Predicting C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l I I I  59  Summary o f S t e p w i s e R e g r e s s i o n o f I n d e p e n d e n t Variable Predicting C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l IV  60  vii  List  of  Figures  Figure  P  1  Diagram o f  2  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n the E f f e c t s o f  3  4  the  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  Performance  Scores  on L e v e l IV  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Performance  of  Characteristics  Preferred or F i r s t Selected the  7  Performance Scores Age on L e v e l I I I  Age  Effects 6  ^  Five  Ages T e s t e d  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Interaction of  ,  with  9  44  45  48 Scores  with  on L e v e l  the  IV  Characteristics  , .  49  for  on L e v e l IV  51  Performance Scores with the Age a n d S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 53  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e S c o r e s w i t h E f f e c t s o f D i m e n s i o n a l i t y on L e v e l IV  the  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Interaction of  the and  Stimulus  39  the  on L e v e l I V 8  g  with  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e S c o r e s w i t h the I n t e r a c t i o n o f Stimulus D i m e n s i o n a l i t y and S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on L e v e l I I I . . . . . . . . .  Effects 5  Research Design  a  Performance Scores with Stimulus Dimensionality  Characteristics  on L e v e l  IV  56  57  e  1  Chapter 1 Introduction  -Statement o f t h e Problem  Research w i t h c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a s k s i s an o l d problem t h a t has been done many times.  Although a l a r g e number o f s t u d i e s have been  conducted, few have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t o f t h e many s u b j e c t and stimulus  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance,  The major  concern o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was t o a s s e s s e f f e c t s o f s t i m u l u s dimmensionality,  stimulus  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s u b j e c t ' s age on f r e e  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance. i f i c a t i o n research  The t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s was e a r l i e r c l a s s -  ( i n h e l d e r & P i a g e t , 1964) w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  procedures adapted from a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t e s t  (Graham-Ernhart  Block  S o r t T e s t , 1963) GEBST.  Review o f L i t e r a t u r e  T h e o r e t i c a l Aspects o f t h e Problem "A l o g i c a l c l a s s i s a union o f elements p o s s e s s i n g ity.  a common q u a l -  Adding c o n s i s t s i n d e f i n i n g t h e s m a l l e s t c l a s s t h a t  both" (Piaget, 1952).  contains  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n a b i l i t y does n o t suddenly emerge  but i t s s u c c e s s i v e b e g i n n i n g s c a n be t r a c e d a s growing o u t o f e a r l i e r abilities.  Between 6 t o 8 and 18 t o 24 months, I n h e l d e r & P i a g e t ( 1 9 6 4 )  note a c h i l d when g i v e n a f a m i l i a r o b j e c t r e c o g n i z e s  i t s p o s s i b l e uses.  These a u t h o r s suggest t h a t t h i s i s a s o r t o f p r a c t i c a l  classification,  however f a r removed from t h e o p e r a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e . Inhelder & Piaget(l964) described opment o f f r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  three main phases i n the d e v e l -  The f i r s t phase, " g r a p h i c  collections,"  2  o c c u r r e d when t h e object  c h i l d was u n a b l e  he g r o u p e d f r o m t h e  graphic  collections  c h i l d w h i c h was roof.  Substages  i n the  and a t r i a n g l e  "graphic  The s e c o n d p h a s e  free  i n the development  ilarity  alone.  An e x a m p l e  all  squares  together  from the  squares.  the  arated stage  exemplified  i n which objects of  clusion"  was  the  last  clusion referred to are  some o f  ages 5  significant groups.  ability  the  age  to  study 73  years  of  groupings  the  f o u r main c a t e g o r i e s  1959)  classify  differences.  ity  vehicles  was  "non-  the  on t h e  the  sim-  placed  together  with  a  sequence.  child  sep-  final  same  criterion  The t h i r d  phase  was  of  "class  in-  by c h i l d r e n .  Class  in-  The u n d e r s t a n d i n g  t o be a c h i e v e d  (Annett,  With an i n c r e a s e the  same  triangles  same c r i t e r i o n .  understanding of  for  grouped a c c o r d i n g t o  the  a  these  classification  being based  sense.  of  by  on t o p hut  the  c h i l d that  " a l l of A  B."  A descriptive subjects  strict  put  w o u l d be when t h e  groupings the  a "house"  i n the  Again substages e x i s t ,  by a l l  i n the  this  were  and p l a c e d a l l  and s u b d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o classification  of  of  Ah example  collections"  appear  collections"  properties  called  s t a g e s c o u l d o v e r l a p and do n o t always  graphic  the  he p r o d u c e d .  arrangement  by a s q u a r e  existed  separate  arrangement  w o u l d be t h e  created  to  of  the  i n which normal  f a m i l i a r objects  Younger s u b j e c t s  i n subject  age  existed  tended  (9.years  was r e d u c e d a n d s u b j e c t s that  way  i n the  demonstrated to  f o r m many  or older)  tended study  to  the  sort  divers-  within  (animals,  plants,  (Swayze,  1967)  and f u r n i t u r e ) .  Children's  ability  to  order picture  confirmed P i a g e t ' s  general  conceptual  w i t h an i n c r e a s e  thought  idea of  sequences  a movement f r o m p e r c e p t u a l i n subject  age.  An  to  investigation  3  (Whyte, 1970) of classification ability of children below average intelligence confirmed Piaget's results that classification was not one ability, but a number of related ones which organize in the sensorimotor period and grow out of :the ability to bring similar objects together.  A summary of Piagetian research in child development  (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) stated that i t was possible to trace at the preoperational level the successive beginnings of what would become the additive and multiplicative "groupings" of classes and relations. Piaget & Inhelder(1969)» note that the child's preconceptual period occurs approximately between two and seven years, and these authors have noted that the component operations of logical classification emerge during this time. The following investigations, Inhelder & Piaget(1964); Inhelder (1962) and Piaget(1953 & 1954)  assign a nonsignificant role to lang-  uage. It is noted by Inhelder(l962) that the operations constituting logical classes show continuous progress from elementary behaviors to anticipatory processes that precede and go beyond linguistic associations.  Two studies (Sigel & Shapiro, 1966; and Vinacke,  1952) note that a child may be able to perform classification tasks, yet be unable to verbalize the principle underlying his groupings. A study (Bruner, Olver, Greenfield, et al,,1966) explains classification in terms of language, stating that older subjects translate the image into a form that can be coded into language thus formulating a set of verbal rules to guide them in making transformations. An early work in Russian in 193^ (Vygotsky, 1962) described the intellectual development of the child in terms of a classificatory structure.  Vygotsky(l962) described three basic phases in the devel-  4  opment  of classification.  jects"  a n d a number o f s e e m i n g l y  gether. to  on t h e b a s i c  was b r o k e n down i n t o  utilization  thinking. for  activity  exists  between  and a r e c o m p l e t e ' o n l y exist  state  development  language  ties.  state  that  performance  towards  language  Inhelder &  concepts  Piaget  develop  early  Opposing  The r e s e a r c h e r s ,  Inhelder  start  independent  before  and beyond  Bruner e t al.(1966), and Vygotsky(l962)  i s essential  was made  i n the development  (Flavell,  validation  Since  1960's a n d e a r l y studies.  of  of  classification  and i n i t s functioning.  A statement  ification.  according  functions.  reach a l e v e l  V a l i d a t i o n Research on C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  attempt  that  This  conceptual  the precursors of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  In contrast,  language  utilized  intellectual  o f language.  and f i n a l l y  began  progressive  w i t h i n c r e a s e d age a n d development.  that  language  a  the necessity  on t h e a s p e c t  placed t o -  grouped  Bruner et al,(1966),  on t h e importance  and P i a g e t ,  were  of ob-  s h a r e d byr t h e b l o c k s .  phase  stressed  "heaps  and t h e c h i l d  the c h i l d  The t h i r d  also  (1964), a n d Vygotsky(1962)  views  finally  u t i l i z i n g a l l basic  Agreement  objects  stages which demonstrated  attribute.  Vygotsky(l962)  was c a l l e d  "complexes"  similarities  of similarity until  to one c o n s i s t e n t  phase  unrelated  T h e s e c o n d p h a s e was c a l l e d  group blocks  phase  The f i r s t  the subject  t e r m was u s e d i n t h i s  that  there  seemed  issues  of psychological  (Kofsky & Osier,1967)  may c h o o s e  m a n n e r b y Kfofsky  t o be no  work o n c l a s s -  journals  have r e p o r t e d a number o f f r e e  Free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  e d t o mean t h a t  1963)  of Inhelder & Piaget's(l964)  then recent 1970's)  Theories  classification  h a s become  the c r i t e r i a o f sorting. & Osler(l967)j  (late  acceptThe  Denney(l972a,  5 1972b); and O v e r t o n , usage i s accepted. classification research, given  Wagner & D o l i n s k y ( l 9 7 l ) . However,  investigations  a n d some o f t h e s e  previously.  attempted  Denney(l972a)  Inhelder & Piaget(1964).  6,  8,  12  female  the task  Subjects  own.  The r e s u l t s  tween  age a n d t y p e  of response.  variability  between  ponse  ultimately  might  n o t be d e v e l o p m e n t a l  Vygotsky(l962) age ent.  range  that  stages  struction.  the r e s u l t s  categories.  groups,  2,  with  relationship be-  and the "form"  study  s i m i l a r t o those i t  change  was  i n c r e a s i n g age  decreased  indicated  resthere  r e p o r t e d by  was s u g g e s t e d  Denney(l972a) subjects  4,  meant t o c o r r e s p o n d t o  that'the  t o become  i n a n age group r e c e i v e d  With only eight  male  results  r e c e i v i n g each procedure i n each  subjects  To a n a l y s e  eight  which v a r i e d i n both  was t o o b r o a d f o r some s t a g e s  T h e number o f s u b j e c t s  that  employed by  a significant  and I n h e l d e r & P i a g e t ( l 9 6 4 )  of subjects  one s i m i l a r t o  r e s e a r c h were  Although t h i s  g r o u p was s m a l l — e i g h t  into  were  namely t h a t  predominated.  is  Piaget(1964).  T h e same d e v e l o p m e n t a l  subjects  what  Denney(l972a,  nor Inhelder & Piaget's  did indicate  observed w i t h each procedure, response  procedures,  wooden b l o c k s  were r e p l i c a t e d b y t h e p r o c e d u r e s  definition  only two,  of Inhelder &  for this  Neither Vygotsky's  their  studies,  each o f the f o l l o w i n g  S t i m u l i were  c o l o r and form.  the  i n assessing  and one s i m i l a r t o t h a t  c h i l d r e n from  a n d 16,  classification  task.  u s e d two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  employed by Vygotsky(l962)  and e i g h t  be t a k e n  classification  to replicate  its  r e f e r r e d t o a number o f  so l a b e l l e d d i d not f i t  classification  On r e v i e w i n g r e c e n t  w o u l d seem t h a t  l a b e l l i n g a l l as free  C a r e must t h e r e f o r e  meant b y t h e t e r m f r e e  1972b)  Denney(1972a)  It  combined  apparage  each i n responses  i n e a c h age g r o u p ,  combin-  6  ing responses into s i m i l a r categories could eliminate some of the stages reported by the e a r l i e r researchers.  I t i s suggested that  t h i s procedure could further hinder observation of a l l the stages previously described. A s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between procedure and type of response.  Denney(l972a) stated, "The differences i n the  types of responses obtained with the two types of procedures was not surprising since Vygotsky and Inhelder & Piaget themselves obtained d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s when using d i f f e r e n t procedures."  A  larger variety of responses were obtained with the free grouping procedure of Inhelder & P i a g e t ( l 9 6 4 ) . procedure  With the verbal l a b e l i n g  of Vygotsky(1962), however, the subjects were simply i n -  structed to pick out a l l the "wugs" (or " s l i b s " ) and were not i n structed to do i t any way they wanted.  Thus with more r e s t r i c t i v e  instructions there were fewer types of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n responses. In a second study, Denney(1972b) attempted to r e p l i c a t e responses obtained by Inhelder & Piaget(1964) ren ages 2 , 3»  a n  and presented c h i l d -  d 4 years old with a free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task sim-  i l a r i n nature to the e a r l i e r researchers. obtained by Inhelder & Piaget(1964)  Many of the responses  were not obtained, however the  data of Denney(1972b) indicated stages i n the development of the a b i l i t y to group according to s i m i l a r i t y .  F i r s t , a stage occurred  i n which the c h i l d was unable to group according to s i m i l a r i t y . Second, there was a stage i n which the c h i l d grouped only p a r t i a l l y according to s i m i l a r i t y , and i n the t h i r d and f i n a l stage the c h i l d grouped the entire stimulus array according to s i m i l a r i t y .  The stage  l a b e l l e d "graphic responses" by Inhelder & P i a g e t ( l 9 6 4 ) d i d not  7  appear as a separate the of  results  s t a g e i n the development  o f Denney(1972b).  classification  ability  Inhelder & Piaget(l964),  w i t h an i n c r e a s e  replicate  "looked a l i k e . " methodological children.  the task  i n age a s r e p o r t e d by  classification  studies  attempted  t h e work o f I n h e l d e r & P i a g e t ( 1 9 6 4 ) b u t i n s t e a d of t h e i r research.  a n d F e l d m a n , 1969)  possible,  development  1972b).  free  on a p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t 1970;  the gradual  c h i l d r e n matched geometric  advantages f o r the study graduated  the author suggested,  child's  generalization  shapes  of "circle"  quiring  subjects  results  o f Feldman(l969) supported  o r d e r and approximate  geometric  obtain  f o r example.  the importance  i n young i t was  estimates A block  of negation  s t i m u l i w h i c h were  of sorting by r e -  "not X . "  Inhelder & Piaget(l964)  age c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p e d  that  task had  changes i n the s t i m u l i ,  by Feldman(1969) i n v e s t i g a t e d to sort  (Croll,  of generalizations  to accurately  to  focussed  I n two s t u d i e s  Croll(l970) reported a classification  With f i n e l y  in  a n d V y g o t s k y ( l 9 6 2 ) was c o n f i r m e d b y t h e  research o f Denney(l972a, None o f t h e o t h e r  I n summary,  of classification  The  i n the  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  negation. There  still  appears  t o be l a r g e  by I n h e l d e r & P i a g e t ( 1 9 6 4 ) t h a t one r e s e a r c h e r ,  Denney(1972a,  stages i n the development  have  areas  presented  n o t been i n v e s t i g a t e d  and only  1972b) h a s a t t e m p t e d t o r e p l i c a t e t h e  of classification  Conceptual F u n c t i o n i n g Assessment  Some e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h e r s  of the theory  performance.  and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  (Bolles,  1937;  Tasks  Goldstein & Sheerer,1941;  8  Hanfmann & K a s a n i n , 1937; were  interested  deviation." "concrete" (vinacke, ior  i n free  classification  D i s t i n c t i o n s were and " a b s t r a c t "  1952;  level.  to separate  t o the object  resultant  relations  tinctions  between  apart  was t h e f o l l o w i n g :  objects,  of behavior  utilizes  person  behaviors.  young c h i l d r e n use c o n c r e t e like  adults.  tinction lation  between  abstract  These  (Hunt,  1961)  and concrete  dis-  an abnormal  state  class  that  concepts  perhaps  the d i s -  was b u t a v a g u e  h a d made b e t w e e n  formu-  formal and  operations.  The f r e e strument  thought  that  made  and concrete)  researchers  suggested  behav-  and with  whereas  b e h a v i o r a n d do n o t have  o f t h e same d i s t i n c t i o n P i a g e t  concrete  as  One a u t h o r  (abstract  both behaviors  terms  b e h a v i o r was a  Goldstein & Scheerer(l94l)  t h e two modes  on a  concrete  from the p e r c e p t u a l f i e l d ,  grasped.  concrete  and abstract  1944)  "mental  classification  The d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s e  and n o t e d a normal a d u l t has only  as a t o o l to assess  made b e t w e e n  a n d W e r n e r , 1948)  was a r e s p o n s e  response  and Reichard, Schneider & Rappaport,  classification  to assess  test  conceptual  the "conceptual  test"  GEBST, s e l e c t e d  development  i n a test  battery  i n this  as a suitable i n research,  to assess brain  was u s e d damage.  T h e r e s e a r c h w h i c h u s e d t h e GEBST ( E r n h a r t , G r a h a m , E i c h m a n , M a r s h a l l & T h u r s t o n , 1963; Ernhart, was  Craft  the single  aged  children.  Graham, E r n h a r t , 'Thurston & C r a f t ,  & B e r m a n , 1963) most  impaired function  In devising  the t e s t ,  procedures from p r e s c h o o l l e v e l with brain  o l d e r groups injured.  demonstrated  tests  to differentiate  that  1962;  conceptual  i n the studies  between  ability  with b r a i n dam-  Graham e t a l . ( 1 9 6 3 ) that  and Graham,  had been used  adapted successfully  b r a i n i n j u r e d and non  T h e GEBST was d e s c r i b e d b y Graham e t  al.(1963).  9  The t e s t  " r e q u i r e d the  ed w i t h r e s p e c t four  levels  boards;  to  subjects  three  Level I  sorting.  On L e v e l  and were  constant  i n respect  differed  e n s i o n was  ed i n s e p a r a t e  trials.  other tests  the  years.  of  items  test-retest ably  jects  is  portant, of  remaining dimensions.  but  level  differed  all  i n c r e a s i n g age. this  coefficient;  (r=.61).  brief  less  on t h e  It  was  the  girls  were  h i g h performance  a l . ( 1 9 6 2 ) and the  2^5  repeated  skewness reliabil-  replica-  judged  scores  boys,  and low s t a t u s  V a l i d i t y was d i s c u s s e d  i n the  GEBST was d e s c r i b e d a s t h e  were  less  im-  perform-  high groups  research of  single  long  affecting  and the  order of  consub-  an u n u s u a l l y  status  The  reason-  i n most r e s e a r c h ,  most i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e  socioeconomic  5i  similar in kind.  after  superior to  by  nor-  to  session  GEBST was  that  test-  Goldstein  negative  little  IV  dim-  were  from 2 years  had t o o  Sex and s o c i o e c o n o m i c  g r o u p s was i n t h e  scores.  the  third  i n a p r e s c h o o l group than w i t h o l d e r  Age was  i n general  for  dimension  employed  concepts,  Single  form  On L e v e l  the  that  were  a n d IV  on a g r o u p o f  or items  stated  p r o c e d u r e s were  test.  test  in  concepts  s i m i l a r to  GEBST was t o w a r d s  since  o n one  while  three  group a c c o r d i n g to  comparable d i f f i c u l t y  generally  status  performance  with  reliability  groups r e c e i v i n g  et  the  to  obtain  s i x months.  performance  ance  of  and the  interval,  to  t r e n d on t h e  to  satisfactory  sistency  blocks  differ-  There  and L e v e l I I I  the  The p r o c e d u r e i s  variance  was d i f f i c u l t  tion  blocks;  T h e GEBST was s t a n d a r d i z e d  The g e n e r a l  and form.  placing blocks  b r a i n i n j u r e d c h i l d r e n r a n g i n g i n age  and d e c r e a s i n g ity  involved  which  III  At each  ability  & Scheerer(l94l)." m a l a n d 70  size  on two d i m e n s i o n s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y  held constant.  of  color,  r e q u i r e d matching of  required  blocks  match o r group b l o c k s  dimensions;  of d i f f i c u l t y .  Level II  to  status low Graham  most d i s c r i m i n -  10 a t i n g t e s t i n the b a t t e r y used t o d i s t i n g u i s h b r a i n i n j u r e d from n o r mal  groups.  The  t h r e e s t u d i e s c i t e d , E r n h a r t e t a l . ( 1 9 6 3 ) , Graham  e t a l . ( 1 9 6 2 , 1963) GEBST. The  The  a r e a l l the p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h t h a t has used  t e s t manual f o r the GEBST i s i n Appendix A.  GEBST was  s e l e c t e d f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r sev-  e r a l reasons 1 i t purported  to assess  f r e e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t e s t and  i t was  conceptual simple  c o u l d e a s i l y be adapted t o the a s p e c t p r o c e d u r a l a l t e r a t i o n s , i t presented P i a g e t ( 1 9 6 4 ) , and was  a b i l i t y ; i t was  to administer.  The  test  a task s i m i l a r to Inhelder  the s c o r i n g system a l l o w e d  &  s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. It d e v e l o p e d was  not  t o be used i n t h i s study, however, the t e s t a u t h o r s  r e p o r t e d the t e s t measured c o n c e p t u a l measure c o n c e p t u a l  a  o f d i m e n s i o n a l i t y w i t h o u t major  r e a l i z e d t h a t the purpose f o r which the t e s t was  the same as i t was  The  the  ability.  I t should  therefore  a b i l i t y i n a sample o f e x c l u s i v e l y "normal" s u b j e c t s .  age range o f s u b j e c t s upon which the t e s t was  standardized  than the ages t o be s t u d i e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  I t was  was  felt  less  that  p r e s e n t i n g p i c t o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the geometric shapes would make a more d i f f i c u l t t e s t f o r the o l d e r s u b j e c t s . f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h were L e v e l I I I and  The  L e v e l IV, and  procedures were c a r r i e d out t o i n c r e a s e the spread  only l e v e l s  additional scoring of  classification  performance a t the top o f the s c o r i n g s c a l e i n L e v e l IV. r e a s o n f o r s e l e c t i n g the GEBST was  utilized  The  final  the p o s s i b i l i t y i t p r e s e n t e d  for  comparing the r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h .  There  have been many i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o young c h i l d r e n ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n formance, but each i n v e s t i g a t o r developed h i s own Comparison o f r e s u l t s was  thus d i f f i c u l t and  classification  p o s s i b l y c o u l d be  founded by the type o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n t a s k used.  per-  task.  con-  I f the GEBST i s a  11  suitable  instrument to assess  possibly  i t c o u l d be u s e d by o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s  Training  Procedures and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Many c l a s s i f i c a t i o n disprove tal  of logical  which d e r i v e  thinking.  Furth(i969). closely things there  tion,  complex.  i n c l u d i n g language,  process  Induction sults  o f a concept  i n a concept  Broad concept  play  a part  1970)  actions,  developmen-  "The c e n t r a l  of  of  after  and these  learning,  cognitive  c a n n o t be  supported P i a g e t ' s  t h i n k i n g was n o t p o s s i b l e  children  actions i n turn  of  educa-  logical  without  environment. organization r e situation.  performed. (Aldrich,  proposal that  until  putting  and s o c i a l  would n o t o c c u r  on t h e c h a n g i n g  adequate  are  the  l i m i t e d to the t r a i n i n g or s i m i l a r  generalizations  opera-  actions"  i n the development  however,  actions  without  or  f o r example  i s continuous;  Maturation,  Research with kindergarten son,  actions,  to these  operations,  of the c h i l d ' s  coordinations  elementary  adjustments  Logical  to verify  Inhelder & Piaget(1964),  The d e v e l o p m e n t  increasingly  operations. the  the general  then  area.  i s found i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n  linked with certain  are various  attempted  Piaget described,  Logical operations,  in piles.  become  from  i n this  of Inhelder & Piaget's(1964)  mechanism S f i n t e l l i g e n c e tions  performance,  Research  investigations  certain aspects  theory  classification  1970;  training i n  t h e c h i l d was r e a d y  and R o b i n logical  for this  oper-  r ation.  Aldrich(l970)  ed an " i s o l a t e d In h i s study, ditions  attempted  schema"  to teach  successful  only with  Robinson(1970) attempted  to f a c i l i t a t e  class  classification  i n c l u s i o n and r e p o r t -  the t r a i n i n g  to develop  materials.  a variety  i n kindergarten  of  con-  children but  12 "conditions"  d i d n o t make a s i g n i f i c a n t  difference  i n the  subjects'  performance. Some r e s e a r c h &Brodzinsky,  1972;  (Jacobs  & Vandeventer,  1971J  Nowak,  Parker,  Rieff  1971;  and Y o u n i s s ,  reported  significant  differences  ages  and o l d e r .  Piaget  six  occurs  with  from  ment u p o n w h i c h t h e ize  previously  icatory  developed  behavior.  suggested  kindergarten  four  year  ed.  These  material. in  (Olmsted,  olds.  actions  level  subjects,  who  concrete  level,  age  operations environ-  could true  group  stage  reported  provided the  demonstrate  i n the  Parks & R i c k e l ,  changes  reported  however,  to  maturational  and t h u s  1971)  util-  classif-  i n which  Piaget  emerged.  Significant  Piaget  cognitive  that  Overton  pre-operational  may h a v e  1970)  c h i l d r e n , middle c l a s s  researchers  the  The r e s e a r c h e r s  subjects  at  behavior  that  classification  The c h i l d r e n were  concrete  One s t u d y negro  older  child,  training in their  7 years.  pre-operational  training in their  with  suggested  i n c h i l d r e n ages 2 to  a change  & Sperr,  1969;  trained  five  year  in cognitive  changed  when a p p l i c a b i l i t y  to  the  olds,  skills  performance  would q u e s t i o n  lower  with  existence  new s i t u a t i o n s  class  and  gifted  were  report-  training of  changes  was  not  investigated. In ing  summary,  subjects  suggested ers'  others the  i n the  that  the  assessment  ed changed  conflict  of  logical  changed  with  original test  i n the  operations  explanation  cognitive  tested  exists  for  the  cognitive  skills  with  the  of  conflict  test  success  of  classification."  skiills.  new s t i m u l i v a r y i n g materials.  reported  lies  "trainIt  i n the  research-  Some r e s e a r c h e r s  material alone  i n degrees  of  is  report-  whereas  similarity  with  13 Subject  Characteristics  All  research reviewed  ification child.  performance  affecting  replicate  An i n c r e a s e occurred with  i n age o f t h e  research  It  was r e p o r t e d  that  f o r the categorization  ordinal  scale  sortings  preconceptual  procedure,  tradictory  were  type  subject  of subject  statements  important to  between  of true  i n subject  sortings  age a n d classifi-  age from  task  2 to  t o a wide  showed a  age  clear  reduced as age i n c r e a s e d .  o f r a t i n g responses  increased with  class-  classification,  a classification  w i t h t h e number o f c a t e g o r i e s  planations  on  relationship  an i n c r e a s e  in  When a t t e m p t i n g  i n the frequency  Annett(l959) presented  of subjects.  change  the  & Piaget's(1964)  of response.  4 years.  of  improvement  o n t h e GEBST.  reported a significant  cation responses  the  a steady  w i t h an i n c r e a s e  performance  Inhelder  Denney(1972b)  range  indicated  Research  Graham e t , a l , ( 1 9 6 3 ) r e p o r t e d a g e t o b e t h e m o s t  variable  type  and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Ex-  r e c o r d e d by A n n e t t ( l 9 5 9 ) and demonstrated  abstract  age t o a d u l t h o o d .  or stimulus  object  concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p  basis  Regardless  there  were  of  no c o n -  o f age and  performance. Research aspects  of Piaget's  cultures ducted age  has been conducted  (Dasen,  theories.  1972)  noted  i n other  A review that  most  stage  i n Piaget's  of this  range  r e p o r t e d by P i a g e t .  sequence  in  research  operational  primitive subjects  developmental  to v e r i f y  of the research  a t the p r e o p e r a t i o n a l and concrete  a t which i l l i t e r a t e ,  cultures  reached a  differed  stages.  con-  The  designated  from  t h e age  The o r d e r o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l  compared c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  other  has been  was r e p o r t e d b y D a s e n ( l 9 7 2 ) t o b e t h e same a s d e s c r i b e d Price-Williams(1962)  some  of literate  stages  by  Piaget.  and i l * -  14 literate  6 t o 11  digeneous at  material.  an o l d e r age  All,  year  however,  different  (sometimes  Sigel  children  from middle c l a s s  entation  of objects.  backgrounds. children  scored lower homes.  Wei(l967)  Reporting  similar findings explained  socioeconomic necessary lower  sufficient  This  explanation  of  logical  the lower  performance  manner.  structures  repres-  objects  t h e r e was  socioeconomic disadvantaged  with four  class-  cited research, scores  at a similar rate,  lower  the cognitive theory  summary,  i t  appears  of  status  pro-  development  o f the c h i l d with h i s  socioeconomic  to  for  structures.  environment. In  the  but activation  as the environment f a i l s  i s i n harmony w i t h P i a g e t * s by the a c t i o n s  o f the  Overton  A l l c h i l d r e n may d e v e l o p  opportunity to develop  structures  than  than c h i l d r e n from  subjects  to the previously  c h i l d r e n may o c c u r l a t e r  vide  lower  pictorial  reported culturally  presented  children  & Shapiro(1966)  homes s c o r e d  tasks  com  f r o m t h e work o f I n h e l d e r & P i a g e t ( 1 9 6 4 ) .  group i n t h i s  cognitive  class  by S i g e l  homes when c l a s s i f y i n g  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  tasks developed  al.(l97l)  socioeconomic  by Wei(l967)  (Overton,  i n lower and middle c l a s s The s t u d y  behavior  a n d W e i , 1967)  between the c h i l d r e n from d i f f e r e n t  A study  class  1966;  When t h e s t i m u l u s was a c t u a l  ification  et  & Shapiro,  performance  c h i l d r e n from lower  middle  Four investigations  i n a g e f r o m 3 "to 9 y e a r s .  difference  subjects.  comparing c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  groups.  reported  little  than P i a g e t * s  operations  stage.  socioeconomic 1971;  using i n -  reached concrete  adulthood)  have been done  classification  ranging  into  reached t h i s  Wagner & D o l i n s k y , pared  from a p r i m i t i v e A f r i c a n t r i b e  The A f r i c a n s u b j e c t s  Investigations in  olds  is related  to  15  classification to  practice  children  performance  classification  could explain  different  economic  or discussed,  2.  techniques  of  by  the  in classification  performance  reported  A study girls  would appear  tasks  scores  Stimulus  affects the  (Asch,  classify  of  was  are  slightly  the  non-meaningful children's  objects  abstractly.  meaningful  investigated  (for  abstract  of  between  analysed  boys.  on t h e sex at  example  use  in their  al.(1963)  GEBST.  It  differences  on  all.  investigations familiar  than non-meaningful  more a b s t r a c t  A study as  in  geometric  of  to matto  class-  classification  pictures  a logical  more c o r r e c t  modes  able  than  with  by Feldman(1969) t o  random s h a p e s ) .  and c o n c r e t e  per-  Research  representational  example  Denney  by Graham e t  p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n were  negation  be  classification  M a t e r i a l w h i c h was  that  forms.  (for  that  not  Using a t r a i n i n g procedure  reported that  familiar material  scores  reported to  i n free  exist  more a b s t r a c t l y  Disadvantaged  geometric  material  they  performance.  classified  task  i f  1.  ahead  battery  reviewed,  researchers  understanding of  classification  familiar  slight,  Asch(l970) reported  occurred with  a test  and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  1970).  pictures  ification,  with  tasks  available  socioeconomic  o r 3.  h i g h e r than boys  literature  classification  subjects  erial  the  Attributes  The t y p e  slightly  ares  non-existent  standardize  scored  from  classification  to  lower  i n performance  (1972a, 1972b) r e p o r t e d n o s e x d i f f e r e n c e s formance.  opportunities  groups.  r e p o r t e d t o be  with g i r l s  lack  the d i f f e r e n c e s  status  Sex d i f f e r e n c e s  slight  and the  operation  responses shapes)  assess inr.a  were  made  than with  un-  Price-Williams(1962)  classification  in  a  16  primitive  society.  material  such as  familiar  to  the  abstractly.  little  ed t o  culty  the  but  of  intelligence  culturally  familiar.  female  i n each  conceptual  was  subjects  ceptual  at  formance  can be  familiar  to  all  the  literate  4  type,  objects  through this  successful  subjects  i f  the  growth  a  diffi-  Philippine  15  were male  and  demonstrated  with  signifying  two  and  which  9 with  study  of  performance  Items from  In dealing with  less  attempt-  conceptual  directions  a decrease as  in  T h e r e were  classification  of  showed  of  I n summary a more a b s t r a c t from  of  group  age.  A  nonconsist-  conceptualization the  Philippine  in utilizing  con-  classification  stimulus  objects  perare  them. into  & Piaget(1964); tasks  with  surroundings of  objects  ages were  obtained  Some r e s e a r c h  presented  Results  i n age.  could not  responses.  for  age  interpreted  an i n c r e a s e  object  material resulted  matched w i t h  were  explanations  strategies.  Inhelder  group.  i n responses  noted with  items  age  sorting  ent!, i n c r e a s e  Subjects  Western  a stimulus  performance  measurement  matched  were  of  cultural familiarity  categorizing  a comparison of  test  use  Wieman a n d G u t h r i e ( 1 9 7 2 )  and the  first,  the  subjects  in cultural familiarity.  non-verbal  15  and thus  on i n d i g e n o u s  age  stimulus items  that  provide  classification  of  research!  differing  d i d not  subjects  on c h i l d r e n ' s  and second,  sets  reported  difference.;.;  influence  in this  ages,  w i t h two  shapes  African subjects  items  objectives across  illiterate  performance  assess  stimulus  geometric  A comparison of  and i l l i t e r a t e very  This researcher  such as  classification Sigel(l954)}  stimulus the  animals  objects  subject. (cow,  performance, and S i g e l w h i c h were  &  Shapiro(l966), normally present  Annett(l959) used  bird),  plants  Annett(l959);  (tree,  line  in  drawings  flower),  and  of  furn-  17 iture  (chair,  pictures by  television).  of animals,  Sigel(l95^)  tures,  ences in  and s m a l l toys as stimulus  compared t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  w o r d names o f m e a n i n g f u l  representation  of stimulus  a similar fashion  ing  texture,  size  pictures  ject  i s greatly  has f o r each  meaning o f an o b j e c t acteristics basis  term developed  by  o r w o r d names.  tended  familiar  refers  dimensional  of the objects.  sional  objects  form b o a r d o r p u z z l e ing  on cards  such as b a l l s ,  are flat  cut outs  pieces.  i s the t h i r d  responded The c o n -  properties,  Sigel(l95 0 i  of  sub-  was t h a t  the  char-  dominant as a  " M e a n i n g d o m i n a n c e " was t h e this  result.  of tasks.  object. blocks  to affect  S t i m u l i c a n be o r small toys.  of objects  per-  Dimensionality three Two d i m e n -  such as c i r c l e s ,  P i c t o r i a l representation,  type  In  of the stimulus  apparently  to explain  of the stimulus  objects  differ-  t o be i g n o r e d .  independent  o f young c h i l d r e n on a v a r i e t y  t o the form  pic-  p r i m a r i l y on the mean-  D i m e n s i o n a l i t y o f s t i m u l i has been demonstrated formance  using  objects, the c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  b u t was a l s o  Sigel(l95^)  study  by t h e p a r t i c u l a r meaning t h e  was n o t o n l y  of organization  as the c h i l d  A c o n c l u s i o n by  of the object,  A  dimensional toy  to the stimulus  o r form  affected  object.  performance  was b a s e d  related  summarizing the r e s e a r c h with such objects  flowers,  objects.  and three  presentation  to toys,  Concepts  used  T h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t  used by t h e s u b j e c t s  of the object.  such as c o l o r ,  objects  of the objects.  regardless  ceptualization  Piaget(1964)  Inhelder &  squares,  or line  of stimulus dimensionality  that  drawc a n be  utilized. SigeT  & Shapiro(1966) u s e d  stimulus  dimensional p i c t o r i a l representation  material consisting  of familiar objects  o f two  and a c t u a l  18 life  sized  f a m i l i a r objects.  and m i d d l e c l a s s types  of  similar class  stimuli.  Middle class  they  were  abstractly.  c o u l d be  resolved  training  they  the  is  by  affects  task  According to  to  able  the  the  success  c o u l d be  performance  levels.  stimulus  & McBee,  and a l l r e p o r t e d  Everett  1958) that  was to  objects.  The age  3 "to 6 y e a r s . the  child's  range  The age  ability were  of  of  Asch's  subjects  less  able  to  dimensional stimuli.  to  conflict  subjects  according  an i m p o r t a n t preschool  study  the  of  to  to  factor  children  Sigel  reviewed  &  which  relationship Studies  subjects  subjects  ?the  &  the  with  of  in-  or line  i n the  subject  was  Falk,  area  1968;  a discrimination discriminated  drawings  four  cited  reported  to  of  pictorial  (Dornbush & W i n n i c k ,  the  studies be  p i c t o r i a l m a t e r i a l as  discriminate  A study  stimulus  in this  d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i were  to discriminate  youngest three  of  even  pictures  Sigel  & A r m s t r o n g , 1968;  presented three  lower  dimensionality.  investigated  1971;  the  a  Asch(l9?0)  of  The r e s e a r c h  more r a p i d l y t h a n p i c t o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n same  of  two  perform i n  classify  results  classification  have  to  and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n performance.  (Etaugh & Van S i c k l e , and Stevenson  of  lower  p i c t o r i a l representation  & Shapiro(1966)  only  to  Stimulus d i m e n s i o n a l i t y  socioeconomic the  able  a t r a i n i n g procedure•and  w h i c h compare  of  compared w i t h t h e  were  object.  attributing  Many r e s e a r c h e r s dimensionality  the  used  behavior  presentation,however  contradictory  Sigel  S h a p i r o ( l 9 6 6 ) was vestigated  by  had r e c e i v e d .  results  from d i f f e r e n t  of  the  Asch(l9?0)  research of  subjects  p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n were  This  Shapiro(1966).  affecting  confused  could identify  "disadvantaged"  the  p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n was  manner w i t h b o t h t y p e s  subjects  though  negro  The c a t e g o r i z a t i o n  related the  compared 1966)  19  reported  five  year  more r a p i d l y w i t h No s i g n i f i c a n t  o l d subjects three  dimensional stimuli  differences  three  subjects.  A similar result  a size  and t h i s  and  less  effect  stimulus  years,  pattern  stimuli.  were  that  study  year o l d  by F a l k  the rate  by the d i m e n s i o n a l i t y  o l d subjects.  of  learning  o f the s t i m -  o l d subjects  Summarizing the r e s e a r c h  and age, i t appears  dimensional objects.  t h e c h i l d becomes  seven  able  Engle(1972)5  and F a l k ( l 9 6 8 )  dimensionality  suggested.  that  for child-  i s more d i f f i c u l t Around s i x o r  t o discriminate both  to  seven pictorial  Etaugh & Van Sickle(1971):  attempt  information that subjects  to explain  the effect  i n a discrimination task.  The t h i r d d i m e n s i o n , i s lacking  o r "depth  cue," gives  i n p i c t o r i a l representation  The second  of the information a subject  explanation  gains  of  Two e x p l a n a t i o n s  t o d i s c r i m i n a t e more r a p i d l y w i t h  than p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l i .  additionand thus  three  dimensional  suggests  the import-  through touching  i n contrast  to the v i s u a l  tures.  explanation  was s u p p o r t e d b y t w o s t u d i e s ,  This  second  action  the  dimensional objects  (1972) a n d T a n a k a ( 1 9 6 8 ) , w h i c h c o m p a r e d t h e e f f e c t s i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods in  occurr-  d i m e n s i o n a l m a t e r i a l i n a s i m i l a r manner.  Gibson(1963);  enables  i n another  o f age, p i c t o r i a l material  Some r e s e a r c h e r s ,  stimulus  stimuli with  f o r the four year  dimensionality  than three  however,  and t h r e e  ance  study  was g r e a t e r  under s i x years  discriminate  al  of this  f o r the s i x year  relating  are  was r e p o r t e d  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was a f f e c t e d  uli  ren  dimensional and pattern  The c o n c l u s i o n s  than with  task  i n t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e a r n i n g time  ed between  (1968).  could learn a discrimination  classification  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  performance  scores  performance.  resulted  alone  of  three  on p i c Engle  different Greater  when s u b j e c t s  gains  were  20  able  to  touch stimulus  verbalized  without  Contrary to presentation, ing  that  than  the  use  different  all  of  of  not  results  correct  of  verbal  of  the  with  the  ance.  In  summary,  ed p e r f o r m a n c e  of  was  the  age.  three  negation,  year  the  negation the  The l e a r n i n g o f  and were  thus  cited  the  the  the  of  for  task  subrecall  labels  was  The a u t h o r s  distracted  researchers,  was n o t t h e  rioted  from  the  Inhelder  A study as  it  conceptual  a factor  number o f  this  seven  to  operation  objects  number o f as  objects  i n the  stimulus age year  was  in a task  still  the  task  and c o u l d s u c c e s s f u l l y  appearperform-  which  affect-  classification  objects  help  as  tasks.  by F e l d m a n ( l 9 6 9 )  a logical  same  Devor & Stern(1970)  and l a b e l l i n g  number o f  old subjects,  nor d i d i t  type  and t h e n r o t e  d i m e n s i o n a l i t y was  the  Reducing the  understanding of  taught  task  The r e a s o n f o r  y o u n g c h i l d r e n on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  reported that  subject  i n an e a s i e r  c o u l d be  verbal ability  ability  investigated.  understanding of task  that  of  demonstrat-  1954); S i g e l & S h a p i r o ( 1 9 6 6 ) ; and  stimulus  The r e l a t i o n s h i p formance  were  i n young c h i l d r e n .  scoring verbal  and  on p i c t o r i a l  s c o r i n g procedures  Previously  explained  looked  1970)  dimensional objects.  objects  instructions.  knowledge  same o b j e c t .  and the  three  Vinacke(l952)t  be  research  (Devor & S t e r n ,  was r e q u i r e d .  Piaget(1953,  ed t o  cited  Devor & Stern(1970)  & Piaget(l964)  conceptual  the  Verbal labels  by  played  taped  presented  presented,  label  facilitated  subjects  was  visually  stimuli.  previously  pictures  performance.  the  the  t h a n when t h e y  d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i do n o t r e s u l t  these researchers ject  touching  data  three  objects  of  children's  classification interacted d i d not  unable  old subjects  per-  to  help handle  who h a d a  perform the  with  full  task  21  with the complete stimulus set.  The performance of four and f i v e  year old subjects was improved when fewer objects were presented. Feldman(1969) was the only researcher with a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task who varied the number of stimulus objects to assess the e f f e c t of t h i s variable on performance scores. The perception of color and form by young children has been investigated by many researchers.  A review of this area by S i g e l  (195*0 c i t e d research that demonstrated both form and color d i s criminations can be made by very young infants.  There i s c o n f l i c t -  ing research evidence concerning color versus form preference by subjects three and four years of age.  In a color-form sorting  task (Harris, Schaller & Mitter, 1970) form matches were more f r e quent f o r geometric figures.  There was a s i g n i f i c a n t increase i n  the number of form matches with an increase i n subject age.  The  subject age i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was preschool to grade three s t u dents.  Kagan & Lemkin(l96l) used a task of matching a stimulus  object to a standard to study form, c o l o r and size i n children's conceptual behavior.  Children, ages three to eight years, preferred  to match by form rather than color as a basis of s i m i l a r i t y . searchers (Modreski & Goss, 1969)  Re-  instructed young children to give  the name of colored geometric shapes.  The r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to  Denney(l972a)• and Suchman & Trabasso(l966). ed form names more often than color.  Young children s e l e c t -  Even three year old subjects  named by form more often than color, and the number of subjects naming by form increased with ages four and f i v e . Other researchers reported r e s u l t s which c o n f l i c t e d with those just cited.  A recent study, (Denney,1972a) reported an increase i n  22  the  use o f color as a basis  a decrease.  A study  ren to "point that ren  3 year  (Suchman & T r a b a s s o ,  t o t h e two a l i k e "  1966)  from s l i d e  which r e q u i r e d  presentations  The c h i l d r e n r a n g e d  6 years  6 months  ination  task  i n this  to assess  i n age f r o m 2 y e a r s  investigation.  young  children's  A study  10  subjects  (Trabasso,  attribute  lished  a s t h e p r e f e r r e d d i m e n s i o n by w h i c h t o match o b j e c t s  ented  conflicting  color  t o be c l e a r l y  (1966) jects. school of  stated  that  evidence  i n h i s two s t u d i e s .  r e q u i r e d t o match g e o m e t r i c  explain  preschool  o f asymmetric  the c o n f l i c t i n g  supporting color  results.  preferences  c h i l d r e n , but i t  has n o t been  c o l o r i s p r e f e r r e d by the majority  i n this  Research i n the area o f c o l o r versus age  subjects  research  consistent  on the c o l o r versus  school-age color.  presents  subjects  matched  Corah  forms.  subPre-  drawings  Corah c o u l d not there  are  form p r e f e r e n c e s  in  demonstrated  that  group. by  school  A l l the previously  form preference or categorized  pres-  time.  line  form preference  findings.  sub-  later  each  forms,  clearly age  when  by the youngest  I n summary,  than  estab-  reported  and then  even  color  1966)  Corah(1964)  characteristic,  and k i n d -  clearly  1964,  a s i m i l a r match t o s t a n d a r d t a s k  f o r m , and an o u t l i n e  more s t u d i e s  (Corah,  f o r m was p r e f e r r e d t o c o l o r  c h i l d r e n were  a simple  c o l o r has n o t been  One r e s e a r c h e r  t h e dominant  He p r e s e n t e d  adequately  the  children.  to  reported  In the  form c o n f l i c t  a r e young  presented,  school  versus  jects  just  months  preference  1969).  Stave & Eichberg,  old child-  which used a d i s c r i m -  c o l o r was p r e f e r r e d more t h a n f o r m w i t h n u r s e r y  ergarten  child-  demonstrated  o l d c h i l d r e n t e n d t o match by c o l o r and 6 y e a r  by form.  that  o f s o r t i n g up t o t h e age o f s i x , and t h e n  stated  that  their  cited older  by form i n preference  to  23 In  the research  ren's  performance  size)  was c o m p a r e d .  either  form  ing by size object  relating  as  a basis  object,  three  Size  was r e p o r t e d  In  task  a review  of research  the point  o f him?"  Other  instruction  classify-  form and c o l o r .  was  An  step  selected  in relation a matching  to  another  or a  were there  used  that  go t o g e t h e r  were  things  used by  their  results.  Annett(l959).  W i t h a mean  difference  "Sort  together  study that  by  that  them i n t o  belong  together."  sub-  tasks.  groups  so  T h i s was together  Bolles(l937)  belong  Two  i n perform-  used f o r the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  "Put those  classification  that are  also  a r e i n t h e same g r o u p . "  compared w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  t o , "Put those  were  to affect  the i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  is  by I n h e l d e r &  "Put together  was n o s i g n i f i c a n t  Annett(l959) f i r s t  u n d e r s t a n d what  of classification  compared by  (Bijou &  problem o c c u r r i n g i n  the c h i l d  but i t d i d not appear  when t h e two i n s t r u c t i o n s  An e a r l y  or  development  a special  s i m i l a r i n nature  ance  that  that  the i n s t r u c t i o n s ,  age o f 8 y e a r s  subjects  only  i n child  c h i l d r e n i s : "Does  wordings  t h e ones  existed  methods  ject  groups."  matching  cue than  Research  i s raised  instructions  these researchers  salient  was r e q u i r e d when s i z e Size  The s t u d i e s  used  c o l o r and  c o u l d be performed.  in Classification  Piaget(1964), alike."  that  a c o m p a r i s o n was r e q u i r e d b e f o r e  r e s e a r c h w i t h young required  stated  (form,  child-  c o l o r o r form b u t an a d d i t i o n a l  two o r more o b j e c t s  and thus  I960)  t o be a l e s s  r e q u i r e d i g n o r i n g t h e more o b s e r v a b l e  of categorization.  Procedures  Sigel(l964)  and  stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Sigel(l964)  or color.  classification  Baer,  with  c o u l d be one p a r t i c u l a r  of  Lemkin(l96l)  o f Kagan &  into  instructed In a  recent  study,  Denney(1972b)  things  that  instructed  are a l i k e ,  o r the things  In another free  classification  young c h i l d r e n ,  "Put together  Piaget*s  experimental  which d i s c u s s e d experiment, the  ones  spontaneous ly  formance, formance  tendencies,  ing this  type  Oleron  enable  result  Harris  instructed  In a review  instructions,"  the experimenter t o  t h e way t h e c h i l d  of 1969)  such as observe  would  are not r e s t r i c t i v e , will  groups."  Inhelder & Greco,  independent-  according to  maximize c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  i n the highest  p r e s e n t i n g matching t o sample  et al.(1970)  classification  age; r a n g e summary,  i n these  previously discussed.  perper-  subjects  unable  young c h i l d r e n  that  presented  "Indeterminate "spontaneous  used  three  studies unable  investigations  there  which u t i l i z e d  type  as  was n o d i s c u s s i o n o f  was 3 y e a r s  t o 11  The  years.  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and  "indeterminate they  were  instructions" expected  to do. for  task.  i n s t r u c t i o n s " may e n a b l e tendencies"  or alike  o f i n s t r u c t i o n was s u i t a b l e  a categorizing  follow-  to understand the task.  t o u n d e r s t a n d what this  sim-  Bearison & Sigel  i s t h e same  none o f t h e r e s e a r c h i n f r e e studies  tasks  and Kagan & L e m k i n ( l 9 6 l ) used t h e  In these  One c o u l d c o n c l u d e  observe  into  a c c o r d i n g t o the aim o f the  o f i n s t r u c t i o n s , " W h i c h one o f t h e s e  m a t c h i n g sample reported  "Put the  scores.  problems encountered w i t h c h i l d r e n  In  the same."  "indeterminate  et al.(l969),  o r i n other words,  (standard)?"  subject  go t o g e t h e r ,  (Oleron, Piaget,  that  to,  Kofsky & Osier(1967)  looks  f o r example  i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e ones  (1968),  what  Instructions  Some r e s e a r c h e r s ilar  study,  p r e v i o u s l y quoted  authors,  that  how t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s v a r y  group objects.  these  methods  i t was n o t e d t h a t  just  preschool children  the experimenter  as suggested by Oleron  et  to  al.(1969).  25  Unfortunately in  difficult  described  o c c u r r e d between  ject  was n o t s c o r e d ,  a g e s was d e s c r i b e d . frequency  stages i n the development  subjects.  Groujfcng  developed It  an extremely  too d i f f i c u l t  ive  instructions  tasks.  to solve  tasks  would n o t a l l o w  Each subject  score  o f one p o i n t  cedure  was f o l l o w e d  within  a task  This in  second  was a s k e d  f o r each  by Wei(l967).  was made i n t e r m s  evaluation  difficulties  T h e GEBST h a s i n d e t e r m i n a t e task  to that  structuring  of Inhelder so t h a t  aged  steps  test.  subjects  Analysis  subject's  T h e t e s t was  tendencies."  form  test.  hypotheses  of a  restrictWei(l967)  classification of question  An a d d i t i o n a l  of responses  o f percentage  or  and the  & Piaget(1964)  response.  individual  Vygotsky(1962)  The e v a l u a t i o n of this  were  classification  o f success  p r o c e d u r e was more s u b j e c t i v e  analysing  procedure  o f s c o r i n g systems  a standardized  correct  across  1972b).  "spontaneous  on I n h e l d e r  pattern  sub-  and r e p o r t i n g on  t h e number o f s e p a r a t e  f o r preconceptually  modelled  behavior  and c o m p l i c a t e d  the problem.  similarities  o f an i n d i v i d u a l  o f performance.  was s i m p l i f i e d b y t h e d e s i g n  far  presented  level  classification  the evaluation  a variety  structured  by counting  by a s u b j e c t  performance  tasks,  of  patterns  and D e n n e y ( l 9 ? 2 a ,  the conceptual  was e v a l u a t e d  tried  o f response  o c c u r r e n c e ? was a l s o  W i t h more s t r u c t u r e d to evaluate  the general  results  Inhelder &  and n o t i n g  The p e r f o r m a n c e  but instead  of their  performance  o f i n d i v i d u a l performances.  f o l l o w e d by Annett(l959)  used  i n classification  b y o b s e r v i n g many c a t e g o r i z a t i o n s  that  the  variation  evaluation  Piaget(1964) performance  t h e wide  with  scoring  to each  a pro-  item  f o r the item.  and would  result  performance.  instructions  & Piaget(l964).  i n d i v i d u a l performance  It  and a very i s designed  c a n be s c o r e d .  similar with  a  The  slight  26:  structuring of  of  the  experimenter  still  a major  structure.  the  judgment.  This results  problem o f f r e e of  is  not  sufficient  Scoring of  i n elimination of  performances. classification  reviewed  research*  to  a free  p r o b l e m w h i c h c a n be s o l v e d  classification  any  test  The c o m p l e t e tasl© has  allow  test  scoring  classification  by i n c r e a s i n g the some o f  the  solution of  task  free is  task  "spontaneous" the  scoring  not been demonstrated  by  27  Chapter  The R e s e a r c h  2  Problem  Purpose  The p u r p o s e ships  of  this  among s t i m u l u s  istics,  subject  performance  investigation  object  characteristics  as  of  examine  other  the  relation-  stimulus  and p r e c o n c e p t u a l l y  aged  character-  children's  task.  Operational  purposes  to  dimensionality,  on a c o n c e p t u a l  For the  was  this  Definitions  study  the  major  variables  are  defined  follows j Dimensionality tion a  of  of  the  geometric  a flat  the  stimulus solid  geometric  or a picture  of  (termed  Level  III  on L e v e l  and/or  and on L e v e l plus  is IV,  additional  physical  denotes  a three  whether  dimensiona'l  descripit  is  object),  a two d i m e n s i o n a l  dimensional  refers  geometric  object),  solid  (term-  to  the  color,  form o r  size  object.  performance  III  the  representation).  stimulus  Classification  to  It  (termed  a three  characteristics the  refers  object.  shape  of  ed a p i c t o r i a l Stimulus  stimulus  refers  Level  IV  according the  to  the  score  on  on t h e  GEBST.  to  manual f o r  scoring  changes noted  the is  according  The  to  difficulty scoring the  GEBST,  the  under procedures  manual  and  scoring.  28  Level III six  refers  to  stimulus  the  difficulty  objects  are  one d i m e n s i o n a n d w e r e L e v e l IV r e f e r s blocks while Trial  the  age of  presented  constant  difficulty  of  on t h e  level  d i m e n s i o n was  the  GEBST  of  remaining the  GEBST  t a s k s were p r e s e n t e d  and L e v e l  IV o f  the  child's  age  two. where  constant.  three  the  on  simultaneously,  which o f  was  where  which d i f f e r e d  o n two d i m e n s i o n s  third  to  Level III  time  the  differed  refers  Subject  to  level  in  both  GEBST.'  i n years  and months a t  the  testing.  Hypotheses  Two m a j o r The major gation;  hypotheses  these  secondary priority istics  hypotheses  are  refer  stimulus  hypotheses in this  and t h r e e  are  to  the  concerned with  investigation,  have been  primary interest  dimensionality  and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s  Major  minor ones  such as  formulated.  of  this  and s u b j e c t  age.  the  variables  the  other  with subject  age  The  three  secondary  stimulus  and  investi-  in  character-  dimensionality.  Hypotheses! la  Dimensionality the  following  scores  are  of  manner:  Subject's the  affects  following  manner:  younger  are  higher with  subjects.  affects  classification  than with  age  scores  stimulus  higher with three  mensional objects 2a  the  performance performance  d i m e n s i o n a l a n d two pictorial  classification  d i -  representation, performance  in  classification  performance  older  and lower  subjects  in  with  29 Minor Hypotheses: I'D  Characteristics  of the stimulus affects performance  i n the following manner:  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance  scores are higher with color and form based sorts than with size based sorts. 2b  Stimulus size and stimulus dimensionality i n t e r a c t i o n a f f e c t s performance scores i n the following manner: size based c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance scores are higher with two and three dimensional s t i m u l i and lower with p i c t o r i a l representation.  3b  Subject age and stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  interaction  a f f e c t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n performance scores i n the following manner: size based c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s r e s u l t i n lower scores than color or form f o r the youngest subjects, but with an increase i n subject age there i s a difference  smaller  i n performance scores between s i z e , form and  color based sorts.  30  Chapter  3  Methods  Subjects  T h e 90 five  age  year  olds,  ing of  for  this  g r o u p i n g s w i t h 18  subjects Twelve  subjects  kindergarten,  of  these  the  3 year  g r o u p i n g s were  subjects  e d by age  3 year  18  group. range  subjects  both centers  a box.  as  the  Columbia.  the  not attempted  of  the  subjects of  age,  Twelve  s i x from  the  for  each age  group the  group.  subjects daycare  attend-  for  each  center  at  one a n d  1.  Approx-  subjects.  Subjects  were  all  not a c r i t e r i a i n  subjects  3 year  t o do t h i s  In order to  same p r o p o r t i o n o f  in  group., To  old children registered  research.. at  The select-  v a r i e d w i t h i n each grouping.  children registered  daycare  o l d s were  f o r any o t h e r age  names w e r e d r a w n f r o m t h e  and  All  Vancouver.  c h i l d r e n were  were p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h i s  names o f  of  4  school i n Vancouver.  insufficient  was  3 years  city  e a c h s e x was  It  following  children.  4 year  summarized i n T a b l e  were  the  K i n d e r g a r t e n , grade  male and f e m a l e  there  two  a cooperative  and e q u a l numbers o f  selection  group a l l in  sexes i s  group,  The a g e  at  of  of  from  p r e s c h o o l 3 and  area i n the  a p u b l i c elementary  e q u a l numbers o f  distribution  obtain  attended  groups  The r e m a i n i n g s i x  attending  two  were  one a n d g r a d e  and twelve  preschool.  University of B r i t i s h  the  grade  olds  the  subject  i n e a c h age  r e s i d e d i n a middle class  a cooperative  imately  investigation  In the  a c e n t e r were  preschool 4 year obtain similar  c h i l d r e n from  each  4  year  placed group subjects center  31  Table Distribution  of  "Age a n d  1 Subjects  by  Sex  Age  Sex  3  4  5  6  7  Female  7  8  9  9  8  11  10  9  9  10  Male  Total  41  rM-9  32  participated selected  the  testing  required.  the  test of  At  r e s e a r c h was to  study.  At  c h i l d r e n i n e a c h age  explaining idual  i n the  procedure.  bottom  a section  of  for  Consent  the the  The l e t t e r  than  the  r e q u i r e d number o f  were  a r b i t r a r i l y selected  school  placement;  g r o u p were in  a few  k years  placement,  for  grouped as  February,  ually  placement  parent was  consents  from each  to  of  3 year  and the  only  had J a n u a r y b i r t h d a y s , ical  spread of  olds  to  for  is  forms  sign,  take all  home  indiv-  c o u l d be  these  even  Only  groupings;  More  subjects  again  by  r e q u i r e d number. testing  was  the  i n the  misplacements  grouping,  the  same  preschool 3 year  though by  A l l c h i l d r e n were "apparent"  the  subjects.  w e r e r e t u r n e d a n d 18 of  was  and r e t u r n  i n A p p e n d i x B.  time  had J a n u a r y b i r t h d a y s  E a c h age  arbitrarily  explaining  off,  c h i l d r e n i n the  the-group  0 months.  tear  grouping f o r  example,  a letter  from a parent  sent  consent  i n the  given  30  Vancouver p u b l i c s c h o o l system  p l a c i n g names i n a b o x a n d d r a w i n g t h e Subject  school,  mimeographed l e t t e r  that  c h i l d r e n who r e t u r n e d s i g n e d  elementary  g r o u p were  c h i l d r e n i n the  the  school.  the  were  old  testing  and were  normal  however,  of  as  act-  grade  c h i l d r e n who  contained a  typ-  ages.  Stimuli  There styrofoam tures  of  were  objects, the  styrofoam  varied  i n the  sets  of  stimulus  two d i m e n s i o n a l f l a t  three dimensional f l a t  representation al  three  was  a c c o m p l i s h e d by  objects. following  color  three  styrofoam  styrofoam  set (red,  objects.  contained yellow  dimensional  objects  photographing the  Each stimulus ways;  objects;  and  pic-  Pictorial three  objects  and b l u e ) ,  dimensionwhich form  33  (eg.  triangle,  were  circle  and s q u a r e ) ,  The d i m e n s i o n s  of  3 inch square,  3 inch triangle  The r e l e v a n t and i n the  three  dimension f o r  small size  styrofoam.  1  inches  by  clear  plastic.  k  5/8  inches  representation  scaled  The b a c k g r o u n d f o r  the  ture  displayed  third  size  relationships  were  26 set  objects  the  objects for  The f l a t the  each  level  contained  three  down b y  diameter.  was  cut  2  f r o m •§• i n c h  dimensional objects  illustrations  was  objects  stimulus  grey the  were  of  in  the  of r e d , yellow  and t h e  objects  p i c t u r e d was  set.  T h e r e were  dimensionality.  i n a stimulus  inches  thin, pic-  1/3,  dimension of  of  were  small).  objects  mounted on c a r d b o a r d and s e a l e d  photographs  i n each  large  medium s i z e  s t r o n g p r i m a r y hues  among t h e  medium a n d  and 3 i n c h c i r c l e  objects  three  Appendix C c o n t a i n s  The c o l o r s u s e d were  one  side,  form i n the  inch. of  (large,  d i m e n s i o n a l and f l a t  each  The p h o t o g r a p h s  3 5/8  torial  the  and s i z e  Table  angle  of  and  blue.  the  pic-  photographed. retained. three  The  There  stimulus,  2 lists  all  sets;  the  set.  Procedure  The i n s t r u c t i o n m a n u a l f o r m a n u a l was section  and changes  difficulty less  followed  levels  difficult  orders discussed to  a n d was  presented  first.  stant.  T h e r e were  after  in trial  stimulus  each  characteristic  three  trials  L e v e l IV Level III,  i n Appendix A.  s c o r i n g changes  presented  o n one  presented  for  GEBST i s  were  objects  characteristic.  except  the  tasks  with  were  Level  IV  next  section.  Level III  consisted  of  the  two  III,  other  one f o r  more d i f f i c u l t objects  i n the  in this  subject. It  i n Level  noted  This  was  grouping  each  held  con-  stimulus  a n d were  differed  Two  o n two  thus stimulus  34  2  Table Stimulus  Circles  Objects  Squares  Triangles  2 large  yellow  2  large  yellow  2  large  yellow  2 large  red  1  large  red  1  large  red  2 large  blue  1  large  blue  1  large  blue  1  medium y e l l o w  1  medium y e l l o w  1  small  1  small  2 medium  yellow  1 medium r e d 1 medium b l u e 2 small  yellow  1 -small red 1  small  blue  yellow  yellow  35 characteristics T h e r e were  with the  again  characteristics in  order. to  and a g a i n  18  receiving ional,  that  each of  to  the  i n three  under  just  one  by  the  room from t h e the  The f e l t  h e l d the  daycare  the  dimensional s t i m u l i , six  with  two  dimens-  tested  T h e same  styrofoam  table  out  of  the  five  each subject  age  performed  i n d i v i d u a l l y , and a l l The t e s t i n g  objects  was d o n e  experimenter placed  i n the  sat  on a h e a v y  exact  followed  admin-  in a  separate  at  table  a  felt  cloth.  p o s i t i o n the  for  all  child  groups,  except  "game"  was  played  the  same  The e x p e r i m e n t e r  sat  opposite  and the  of  sight  table of  the  the  When t e s t i n g  behind the  The s u b j e c t s  the  t e s t s were  on  level.  sight  and thus  p r o c e d u r e was  where  When u s i n g t h e  the  i n each o f  trials  sat  on t o p .  out  combination of  experimenter and s u b j e c t  cloth  kept  once,  A l l s t i m u l i were  center  on p i l l o w s  were  tested  Identical  floor  floor.  was  child.  at  assigned subjects  same e x p e r i m e n t e r .  opposite  them.  trial  six  s c h o o l c l a s s r o o m and the  placed  a different  dimensionality.  Each subject istered  was  combinations  with  with p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l i .  A subject  18  sel-  group,  a n d s t i m u l u s d i m e n s i o n a l i t y was r e p l i c a t e d groups,  trials  arbitrarily  arbitrarily  t r i a l o r d e r s w i t h i n a n age  and s i x  stimulus  The o r d e r o f  group r e c e i v e d  m a t e r i a l was  constant.  three  obtain  selected test  the  t r i a l o r d e r s were  i n L e v e l IV  test  held  on one t r i a l .  but  E a c h c h i l d i n an age  Dimensionality of  the  so  not followed  i n Level III  trials.  trials  were h e l d c o n s t a n t  t h e m a n u a l was  ected of  three  remaining characteristic  the  c h i l d , b o t h on  stimulus materials,  subject at  o n a mat w i t h  the  by  when n o t  center  the  the  in  p l a c i n g them on c h a i r s  daycare  the  use, below  material  was  experimenter.  classification  arrangements  on L e v e l I V w e r e  dia-  36  grammed i m m e d i a t e l y was  recorded by  were  told  wanted that  the  to  go  s c o r i n g as  experimenter  together," if  No f u r t h e r  experimenter  each  the  was  not  at  l e m w o u l d be  school  was  to  the  game.  do i t ,  Between next  GEBST p r i o r  the  on L e v e l  to  this  to III  c h i l d r e n and  together  the  pair objects  by w a r n i n g s u b j e c t s  the  of  thanking  It  was  when t h e y  observed  IV.  continuation  bit  experimenter  was  on L e v e l  IV.  the  a little  it  exper-  belong."  When t h e  investigation  on L e v e l  When  and L e v e l IV  game was  ones  they  consisted  closely.  and the  the  subject.  o r how t o d o i t ,  the  III  subjects  about  way y o u t h i n k  of  look  performance  a little  given  Level  The  "Put  Level III  part  to  attempted  with  this  studying  and encouragement  would have  avoided  task  way  a trial.  complicated.  instructions  trial.  strategy  interfered  the  was  completed  them t o g e t h e r  given,  subjects  correct  that  "Put  and they  a few  egy  child  it  the  the  said that  administered  the  was  h e l p was  after  different  were  this  imenter r e p l i e d ,  subjects  the  know how c h i l d r e n p l a y e d  questioned  that  after  of  This this  was  strat-  hoped t h i s  started  prob-  Level  IV  different.  Scoring  Each s u b j e c t ' s the  GEBST w i t h  following  omitted  as  in  investigation.  this  there six  was  points  changes  this  the  g r o u p i n g was  level  was  i n the  two  c o u l d be scoring  and i n c l u d i n g a s c o r e  exceptions. easy f o r  Level III  a maximum o f that  too  scored according  points  obtained  was  9»  the  on e a c h  on L e v e l I V .  of  Level II  w h i c h was  age  scored  over  to  was  rules  of  completely  range  of  subjects  exactly  as  in  trial  three  the  to  give  trials.  T h e m a n u a l was a correct  sort  4  the  tested manual;  a maximum o f  There followed o n one  were up  to  concept.  37  A  score  error sort  of  was  10  o n a two on two  concept  concepts,  not  comprehended.  two  concepts  was  a maximum o f  points  with  assigned  A  but  the  scores.  III  were  score  could  have  trials IV.  Level III  ing  in a clear  effects  measure.  for  ance  was  on each  was  scored  trial.  obtained  three  of  III  was  six  III  if  all  subjects  with  these  separately  this  choice  two r e a s o n s on L e v e l  any  III  There 36  each  were  each  and L e v e l  36  occurred that  combined. those  the  a  The  on  task  I V was  The  points.  that  an i d e n t i c a l  II,  subject.  IV  from  Level  Level  effects  confounded that  of  effects  different  characteristics. of  for  and on L e v e l  scores  on  concerned  scores  and t h e  the  sort  trials.  score  overwhelmed  correct  objects.  s c o r i n g was  a total  one  concepts  T h u s a maximum o f  over  area  a  two  all  produce  of  the  of  qualitatively  presented  of  and  to  interrelationships  numerically  paradigm and t h e It  was  12  scoring scales  were  measure  assigned  a correct  o c c u r r e d on L e v e l III  was  The manual combined t h e  two d i f f e r e n t  on L e v e l  11  concept  to  on L e v e l  on L e v e l I V w o u l d h a v e  of  on one  interrelationships  made i n t h e  and L e v e l IV t o  maximum t o t a l These  the  score  sort  assigned  I V c o u l d be change  Level  of  points  12  The f i n a l total  the  score  a correct A  sort.  utilizing  on L e v e l  to  Level  result-  choice  characteristic  subject's  perform-  IV.  Design  T h e r e were of  this  four  sources  study:  stimulus  istics,  subject  factors  For  purpose  of  the  the  of  factors were  data  age  variance were  which determined  dimensionality  and  and i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t  analysis,  subjects  were  the  design  characterdifferences.  nested  under  age  and s t i m u l u s  dimensionality  and c r o s s e d  arrangement  characterized  teristics.  This  same d e s i g n  characterizes  analyses the  were  necessary  two a n a l y s e s  section.  color,  form,'  both Level III  for  Level III  have p r e v i o u s l y  T h e same  L e v e l IV t a s k .  is  subjects  In the  performed the  characteristics.  The s t i m u l u s  L e v e l TV r e f e r  the  size-form  to  choice  A color-size  is  choice  Is  is  stant.  was  in  of  subjects  an e x t e n s i o n  of  there  by  this  not  secondary  analysis  rather  Statistical  Analysis ulus  of  variance  dimensionality,  interactions variable  in  of  stimulus  these  this  identically  created  grouping  school  or school  the  class.  variable,  and s u b j e c t s  treatment  groups:  used  three  subjects  Five  in  the  is  held  for  1 A  constant,  size  as  size  is  constant held  a n d was  than a n a l y s i s  .  for  choice.  held  interest  were  i n Figure  is  was  the  con-  analysed  of  variance.  significance subject  treated i n one  distinct  according  to  two  as  a  age,  groups  placement was to  of  stim-  and  the  categorical  g r o u p were  age  a r b i t r a r i l y assigned  dimensional,  the  paradigm  form  Stimulus dimensionality were  and  as  test  A l l subjects  i n age.  task  symbols  for  Analysis  to  Age  separate  "scoring"  a choice  color  characteristic,  factors.  analysis.  classified by  was  by  i n the  present  by form  Two  characteristics  was  c o l o r as  symbolized of  III,  The  The r e a s o n s  Level III  characteristic  symbolized  and a c o l o r - f o r m c h o i c e Sex  IV  characteristic  symbolized  IV.  charac-  1.  and L e v e l IV.  been d i s c u s s e d  On L e v e l  stimulus  in Figure  and L e v e l  d i a g r a m on L e v e l  and s i z e .  with  a one  dimensional or  thus  were  thus  in their  pre-  treatment of  the  three  pictorial  39  F—' Age  Cell  Stimuli  Stimuli  Charact-  Dimensionality  Size n=  eristics  1  1 2 . Pictorial  (  Dimensional  3  j. D i m e n s i o n a l  1 3  :—  Color Form  —-  _6 6  Size  Color Form Size  5.  6  6  1  Color  —  '  1  |  I  ]  1—  6 6  .  Form  6  Size  6  Color  _  .  _ i — —  —  -|  _—  — -  6  —  6  Form  ~  Size  7  _!  Color  i  6  6* 6  Form  1  Size  1  ! 1  ~'  6  90  Fig.  1.  Diagram o f  the Research  Design.  40  representation. ensionality. also of  Each  Stimulus  a treatment  stimulus  received  but  variable,  only  scores  only  characteristic but  characteristics.  acteristics formance  subject  all  (color,  subjects  A subject  GEBST was  the  type  form  of  all  received  Modified  dependent  stimulus  and s i z e )  received  thus  one d i m e n s i o n a l i t y .  on t h e  one  was  three  all  dim-  types  three  char-  classification  variable  in  per-  this  investigation. The e f f e c t s and  the  regression  Overall,  made t o  by  with the as  sex  The a n a l y s i s  the  In h i s analysis.  It  was  of  of  the  that  effect  sex,  Estimates  the  of  into  procedures  five  as  selected variable  for  In  three  o r d e r i n g the  subject  be  to  test  age,  the  were  the  following  the was  other cell of  varsize.  age  to  studied. of  regression  significance  those  of  interactions.  ordering of  for  of  regression  and t h e i r  adjusted  and  analysed  methods  i n v o l v i n g an a p r i o r i effect  was  The e f f e c t s  for  variable  described  continuous  No a t t e m p t  variable  groupings.  and can  of  could not  continuous  least  variance  program r e q u i r e d e q u a l  age  o r d e r i n g and i g n o r i n g those  The s t r a t e g y  sex  followed  a continuous  m e t h o d was  each  of  sex  with  1968;  methods.  performance  r e q u i r e d the  analysis  (Cohen,  the  and  analysed  analysis  i n regard to  0verall(l969)  The t h i r d  were  studies,  regression  variance  age  variable,  o c c u r r e d i n some c e l l s .  variance  of  variables,  conventional  squares  of  a continuous  Recent  sexes  variance  a step-down  effects. in  the  analysis  study,  variable  two  frequence  arbitrarily levelled  analysis  the  noted  as  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  analysis the  these  least  u n e q u a l numbers o f  be  of  control c e l l  subjects*  treated  analysis.  have  19&9)  accomplished  iables  age  interactions  squares  be  of  the  preceding  it  it.  independent  variables  of  this  study  41  was  adapted  first,  then  Overall(l969).  from the  experimental factors,  mental i n t e r a c t i o n s actions.  and f i n a l l y  all  The r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s  of  the  two  in  the  analysis,  not been  The o r g a n i s m i c v a r i a b l e s  levels  of  the  though  previously  GEBST. interest  tested with  organismic  tested  interactions,  experi-  organismic and e x p e r i m e n t a l  was  performed s e p a r a t e l y  A total centered the  were  of  35  variables  on o n l y  analysis  of  the  were  ones  variance.  for  intereach  entered  which had  42  Chapter  4  Results  Two s e p a r a t e analysis  analyses  of  variance  m o d e l was u s e d f o r L e v e l I I I  refers  to  sional  s t i m u l i and p i c t o r i a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  sional  stimuli.  color,  form and s i z e .  age  age  variable  groupings  Age  of  there  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and g r a p h i n g the cult  for  3 year  ceiling  effect  perfect  scores.  did receive  this  Level III  it  effect is  significant  to  sort  by  subjects  illustrated  in Figure  size  refers  to  of  five  of  of  the  arbit-  for  age  levels.  of  of  It  color.  diffi-  and  a  receiving  dimensionality  A g r a p h o f means 3.  age  variance,  olds  6 and'7  by  J,  Table  was m o s t  4 year  5»  one  were  effect  Level III  variable  only  variance,  may be  seen  for that  on d i m e n s i o n a l i t y  significantly  t h a n by form o r  the  was  analysis  significantly was  dimen-  significant  that  Level III,  It  three  characteristic  analysis  seen  dimen-  individuals  characteristic  performance d i d not vary  pictures  three  occurred for  e x c e p t when s o r t i n g p i c t u r e s .  thus  less difficult  occurred with  the  (c)  As a r e s u l t  may b e  old subjects,  interaction  subject  of  all  (D)  two  Each subject  was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y  means,  A statistically interaction  of  variable  tested.  performance.  then  the  same  GEBST a n d t h e n r e - ^  dimensional s t i m u l i ,  (A) i s  The  "dimensionality"  one d i m e n s i o n a l i t y ,  The summary t a b l e that  three  subjects  only  u n d e r AD, b u t  indicates  ANOVA t a b l e ,  The t e r m " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c "  and r e c e i v e d  nested  of  performed.  the  for  the  In the  of  peated  rary  L e v e l IV.  were  more  difficult  43  Table  3  'Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f • C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l I I I  Source  Age  df  4  (A)  MS  F  5.4643**  1.1333  2  .  2  . 3111  A X D  8  .  A X C  8  .1445  D X C  4  .3556  3.0000*  16  .1889  1.5938  75  .2074  150  .1185  Dimensionality Characteristics  (D) (G)  A X D X C Individuals IT(AD)  *p<  .05  * * p < . 01  l(AD)  1778  .8571  2.6250  1778  .8571  •  1.2188  44  Fig. the  2.  Effects  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  Age  on L e v e l  III.  Performance  Scores  with  Pictorial  5  J  Dimensionality-  F i g . 3- K e a n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e S c o r e s w i t h t h e I n t e r a c t i o n o f S t i m u l u s D i m e n s i o n a l i t y and S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on L e v e l III.  46  The summary t a b l e indicates  that  on L e v e l IV of  age  the  effect  less  least  ing  of  the  test  difficult  7 year  that  choice  next  were  Bonferroni  test  the  difference  ure  5.  It  of  size,  (size  5  basis  from  used  to  the  seen  There  portrays  of  is  statistically  i n Table 5  that  the  as  age  effect  age.  that  The  a  and task  ceiling  that  effect  with a  subject size  significant  a basis  or color  (color compare means  for  choice  sorts  had a  the  from  varysortings. of were (form  choice  constant).  The  significance'of  illustrated  scores  of  mean s c o r e s  form o r c o l o r  classification  the  not  o c c u r r e d when s u b j e c t s and form  of  III.  o r form  characteristic  different  subject  illustrates  constant)  size  effect  4,  old subjects  a statistically  color  5 visually  sorts,  between  significantly  was  3 year  in  Level  Table  graph i l l u s t r a t e s  for  olds. of  Figure  mean s c o r e s  was  may be  This  means f r o m a c h o i c e  Lowest  classification  case there  characteristics.  constant).  in  for  variance,  4 illustrates  w i t h an i n c r e a s e  i n the  4 indicates  form o r c o l o r based  of  performance.  of  significant  was m o s t d i f f i c u l t  graph i n F i g u r e  highest,  IV a n a l y s i s  a statistically  difficult  subjects  The b a r  Level  The g r a p h i n F i g u r e  i n L e v e l IV a s  Table effect  scores.  IV the  became  was  was  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  on L e v e l it  there  of  sorts  in  Fig-  resulted  size  or  form  performance  con-  sorts. It  is  trasting choice with its  not  size,  for  possible  to  c o l o r and form  their  basis  of  analysis  of  variance  relevance  to  this  characteristic  compare  classification  on L e v e l  IV a s ^ s u b j e c t s  classification. but  area.  predominated  is  Figure  included i n this  The g r a p h i n F i g u r e i n the  classification  were  6 was  given  not  section  a  obtained  because  6 illustrates performance  of  which of  Table  4  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o f C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l IV  Source  Age ( A ) Dimensionality Characteristics  df  F  4  ' 43.9685  2  5.8037  1.1583  '2  8.4704  3.4012*  (D) (C)  MS  ;  8.7755**  A XD  8  4.3407  .8664  A XC  8  10.8824  4.3698**  D XC  4  2.2926  .9206  16  2.7880  1.1195  75  5.0104  A X D XC Individuals  IT(AD)  *P<.05 **P<.OI  l(AD) •  150  2.4904  48  9.50 - i -  Age  Fig. the  4.  Effects  Levels  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  Age  on L e v e l  IV.  Performance  Scores  with  9.00 J 8.75  A  8.50 J  8.25  g  o o  A  8.00.  CO  § •• 7.75 -  0)  .7.50 -  • Size or  Fig. the  Form  Color  or Color  5 . Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Effects  of  Characteristics  Performance  on L e v e l  IV.  Size or  Scores  Form  with  Table  5  Mean C o m p a r i s o n o f S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on L e v e l IV u s i n g B o n f e r r o n i T e s t w i t h a 95% C o n f i d e n c e  Contrast  Means  Compared  Confidence Lower  Limits  1  Size-Color  vs.  Size-Form  -.1603  2  Form-Color vs.  Size-Form  .0286  3  Size-Qolor  Form-Color  * P<.05  vs.  the Interval  -.3825  Interval Upper  Limits  .9825  1.1714* .7603  Age 3 4 5 6 7 Size  for  F i g . 6. the F i v e  a concept  to  34567  34567 3 45 6 7  a a or Color Sort  Form o r C o l o r Sort  Preferred or F i r s t Selected Ages T e s t e d on L e v e l IV.  One s u b j e c t n o t s o r t performed.  b Four subjects perform t h i s t r i a l .  3 4 56 7 3 456 7 b  tabulated  not  as  tabulated  b o r Form Sort  Characteristics  a perfect  as  " Size  all  two-  unable  52;  subjects a  i n Level  particular  eristics, eived the an  on t h e  color.  i n age,  sorts  Table  Figure  choices  sorts  were of  i n age. at  the  is  results either not from  test  the  of  age  youngest scores  trend  of  size  It  6.  of  with  with of  all  all  as  means  a  basis  occur  or  characterform-based  seen  that  Figure  between  with  different  7  perthe  characteristics.  a size-form  sort  performance  Size-color  classification  by  stimulus  classification  classification  or a form-color sort.  but  performance  A mean c o m p a r i s o n w i t h  c a n be  graph  demon-  old subjects in  size.  in  The  three  Size  effect  o l d performance  of  occurred  characteristics.  the  of  preferred over  increase  of  with  use  The g r a p h  3 year  with  size  i n the  o r form  subjects.  rec-  selection  sorts  different  interaction  different  indicated  i n the  effect.  charact-  subjects  use  color-based  making  of  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  pattern  old subjects.  choice  an i n c r e a s e  o c c u r r e d because  sort  sorts.  use  subjects  score  increased  performance  lower  in significantly  form-color  choice,  occurred for  in significantly a size-color  a slight  interaction  compared 3 y e a r  shown i n T a b l e  result  of  significant  3 year  Bonferroni  this  i n age  formance  the  The g e n e r a l  statistically  same r e g u l a r  and age  This  that  significantly  that  the  a g e s f o r m was m o s t o f t e n  interaction  the  tested  6 reflects  consideration  With a choice  all  characteristics of  color  classification  an i n c r e a s e  illustrates  was  the  and a c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e c r e a s e  except f o r  age  Figure  tasks.  and a d e c r e a s e d  the  similar  years  into  choice  7 illustrates  istic  with  take  4 indicated  IV w i t h  strates  4  color  number o f  tabulated.  not  classification,  in  is  classification  an i n c r e a s e  Level  The t o t a l  With a form versus  form-based  of  does  versus  increase  with  choice  but  size  IV.  than  sorts  performances  did  10.0  J  Age  Levels  F i g . 7. Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e S c o r e s w i t h t h e I n t e r a c t i o n o f Age a n d S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n L e v e l IV.  fable  6  Mean C o m p a r i s o n o f S t i m u l u s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r t h e 3 Y e a r Age G r o u p on L e v e l IV u s i n g t h e B o n f e r r o n i T e s t w i t h a 95% C o n f i d e n c e Interval  Contrast  Means  Confidence  Compared Lower  Limits  Limits  5.3303*  .3918  ,:5.7194*  Size-Color  vs.  S i z e -- F o r m  2  Form-Color  vs.  S i z e -- F o r m  •  3  Size-Color  vs..  Form-- C o l o r  -3.8916  .05  Upper  .0027  1.  *p<  Interval  2.2749  55  One o f effect were  the  of dimensionality  not  significant  explanation ance in  main purposes  of  the  8.  unexpected  was  was  not  performance  expected  to  there  on L e v e l  significant  means  Figure  9.  scores  on a l l  Size  difference  strated  was  to of  three  that  there  for  The  of  with  results  the  the  graph  identical  following Pictorial  total  the  perform-  a bar  almost  dimensional. but  the  To a i d i n  were  two  mean  forced  interaction  form  sorts  however, to  but  on L e v e l IV  types  ,  mat-  difference  by  some  regression  of  these  characteristics.  III  of  age  was  as  these  variables  the  The purpose  the  mean  significant  Level  with  was  with  III.  demon-  IV a l l o w e d  by a test  The  in Level  and t h i s  stimulus of  a  in  on L e v e l , , I I I .  a continuous  variables  with  lower  problem as  to  not  non-  difficulty  used  was  graphed  not  c o u l d be a v o i d e d  analysis  subject  interactions  same  subjects.  p r e f e r r e d dimension so  the  sorts  form i n L e v e l I I I  for  effect  are  T h i s was  the  character-  in slightly  types.  not  this  explanation,  resulted  was  sort  following:  interactions  stimulus  this  difficult  squares  the  effect,  To a i d i n t h e  o c c u r r i n g on L e v e l  the  subject,  interaction  significant  occurred i n p i c t o r i a l size  IV,  another  Least  the  study  mean c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  a statistically  dimensionality  be v e r y  stimuli  of  for  such as  A subject  of  was  IV.  versus  problem i n L e v e l  cance  performance.  illustrated  and t h r e e  to  significant.  significant  ial  the  scores  was  or L e v e l IV.  be more d i f f i c u l t  by d i m e n s i o n a l i t y  choice  result,  two d i m e n s i o n a l ,  On L e v e l I I I istic  Level III  This graph i l l u s t r a t e s  stimuli;  erial  investigation  each dimension i s  mean c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  this  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  on e i t h e r  on L e v e l IV f o r  Figure  of  a  pictor-  subject. the  signifi-  variable, each  sex  other,  and  dimensionality  and  regression  analysis  9.00 H  1.75  -I  8.50  J  8.25  -  ra  o 8.00 _ 1  CO  I  7.75  -  7.50  H  7.25  j Pictorial 2 Dimensionality  Fig. the  8.  Effects  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  Dimensionality  Performance  on L e v e l  IV.  Scores  with  Color  Sort  Form o r Color Sort Size Form  Pictorial,  Fig. the  9.  2 Dimensionality-  Mean C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Interaction  Characteristics  of  or Sort  A—a—A—A  T 3  Performance  Scores  S t i m u l u s D i m e n s i o n a l i t y and  on L e v e l  IV.  fii  with  Stimulus  &  was  to  extend  findings  8 only  significance  though  all  the  of  i n the  affecting  of  sex  IV.  the  the  interactions  were  highly  when a g e  was  ponds in  to  Figure  treated  an age the  7 to  not a s i g n i f i c a n t sex  were  age  variance not  a  III  results or  as  significant  on L e v e l I I I ,  that  as with  a continuous the  a n d none  analysis  Table  a n d none  of  of  8 indicates  interaction, of  variable  regression  obtained with analysis  the  Sex  variance  the  and t h i s  on L e v e l  interactions  on  analysis,  v a r i a n c e ; w h i c h was  interaction effects.  variable  significant.  S e x was  treated  categorically.  the  of  y and  summarized  i n Level  produced s i m i l a r analysis  Table  model.  variable  performance  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  show  regression  significant  significant  f i n d i n g i n the  In  significant.  8 shows a g e  Age was  variance.  a d d i t i o n a l terms are  i n the  classification  corresponding to  of  only  Subject  a result  icance  of  regression analysis.  Summary T a b l e Level  for  categorically  factor the  tests  subject.  treated  continuous  analysis  7 indicates  age  whether  the  terms were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e  Table was  of  signifcorresgraphed IV  was  involving  T a b l e ?«Summary o f S t e p w i s e R e g r e s s i o n o f Independent V a r i a b l e P r e d i c t i n g C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Performance on L e v e l I I I  Variable  df  F  Age (A)  1/234  19.4879*  Sex (s)  Urn  .5120  A X S  1/234  .4819  2/234  .9940  2/234  1.8222  S X D  2/234  1.1747  S X c  2/234  .2108  16/234  1.4096  ' A X Dimension (D) A X Characteristic  A l l higher order  a  *  (c)  interactions  ct  A l l t h r e e and f o u r f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n s were t e s t e d as a group and were s t i l l n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  p<.01  Table  8  t  Summary o f S t e p w i s e R e g r e s s i o n o f Independent V a r i a b l e P r e d i c t i n g C l a s s i f i c a t i o n P e r f o r m a n c e on L e v e l IV  Variable  df  F-  Age ( A )  1/234  40.9907*  Sex  (S)  1/234  2.1981  AX  S  1/234  .1238  2/234  2.0897  2/234  5.5573*  S XD  2/234  .0464  S Xc  2/234  .3560  16/234  .4644  A X D i m e n s i o n (D) A X Characteristic  All  higher  a  *  order  (c)  interactions  9 .  A l l t h r e e a n d f o u r f a c t o r i n t e r a c t i o n s were t e s t e d a s a g r o u p a n d were s t i l l n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  P<.01  61  Chapter  5  Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s  The  effects  of stimulus dimensionality  a n d age were  concerns  of this  investigation.  la relating  of  dimensionality  the  resiilts  bilities  lus of  on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  on e i t h e r  (Sigel  middle  class  Shapiro(l966)  those not  well  will  from  actual  given  This  conclusion i s  paper  objects  1958;  Swayze,  therefore  1968;  Falk,  1967;  One s t u d y  the r e s u l t affect  of this  that  Sigel &  could  and a l l  status  Gibson,  1963;  1968).  Stevenson  was  of Sigel &  o f the  Alternative  of  subjects  dimensionality  Etaugh & Van S i c k l e ,  and Tanaka,  perform  effect  t o much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e  1968;  stimu-  task.  According to the r e s u l t s  1966;  cited  performance  investigation  stimulus  possi-  the  subjects  by  effect  subjects. cited  in  this  1971;  Everett  & McBee,  explanations  suggested.  One a l t e r n a t i v e  explanation  t h e GEBST a s a n i n s t r u m e n t  erences  are several  dimensionality  to the socioeconomic contrary  effect  or p i c t o r i a l representation  stimulus  homes.  (Dornbush & W i n n i c h ,  & Armstrong,  result.  negro  the  major  was n o t s u p p o r t e d  There  a classification  the n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t  c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d  IV.  supports  class  A significant  middle c l a s s  Shapiro(1966)  of  1966)  reported middle  objects.  or Level  not s i g n i f i c a n t l y  subjects  with  performance  unexpected  supported by the r e s u l t s  were  are  this  & Shapir,  dimensionality  equally  Level III  for explaining  previously  Hypothesis  the  in classification  i s concerned with  sensitive  performance  enough  the  suitability  t o measure  due t o d i f f e r e n c e s  the in  diff-  stimulus  dimensionality. was  postulated  t o have  investigation, crimination ination  reflect  at  from  this  a n a r e a where  "procedure  trial  was s t a r t e d  scoring scale  was e x t e n d e d  t h e GEBST  f o r use i n  investigation,  it  seemed  some  This  rather  subjects  and e r r o r  seemed  that  there  to occur  initially  but  s o l u t i o n f o r a one-concept  sort.  jects  perceive  of a  sort of  and q u i c k l y  these  tion.  arrange  performances  Inhelder trial  ship  instantaneously.  ent  and e r r o r  scores. ality  affects  sionality Level  could  to explain  IV, subjects  chose  obscure  response  stages  factors  sequence relationthat  with  subdiffer-  performance that  different  to the inherent design  factors  classifica-  dimension-  The t a s k  of dimen-  o f t h e GEBST.  two c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s size.  or a  results.  the non-significance  between  Both  a new s c o r i n g s c a l e  produce  would be c o l o r v e r s u s  paradigm and response  sort.  researcher  i n the  sub-  one-concept  for  d i d not indicate  might  c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d  an example  choice  may n o t b e r e f l e c t e d  task  Other  of the entire  classification  performance,  eventually  the developmental  i s s u g g e s t e d by t h i s  classification  possibility  score  to perception  investigation  classification  A third  ing;  It  and t h i s  Though t h i s  different  At  groupings  may b e w o r k i n g a t d i f f e r e n t  dimensions,  t h e same  & Piaget(1964) d i s c u s s e d  from  jects  the s t i m u l i f o r a one-concept  would r e c e i v e  i n the  t o be w o r k i n g  or p a i r i n g procedure,  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s  still  scored r e -  would r e a c h t h e c o r r e c t could immediately  exam-  adequately  than the f i n i s h e d  seemed  dis-  After  the scoring procedure d i d not  performance.  this  i n order to increase  a t the top end o f the s c a l e .  o f grouping"  F o r example,  a primitive  investigation  an a t t e n u a t e d  o f performance  the subjects'  sults.  this  and the s c a l e  of data  may e x i s t  actual  Before  for  i s thus  sorta  determined by t h e paradigm  due t o d i m e n s i o n a l i t y .  The e f f e c t s  63  of  dimensionality  example,  a subject  pictorial was  on p e r f o r m a n c e was  representation.  presented,  the  the  stimuli  size.  this  presented  istics. "  There  subject  in this  could also  III  should present  studied  easy  variability  that  assess ponse  whether factors  tially ment of  design due  replicate  procedures  method It  Because  in this  of  was  factors  have the  dimensionality,  this  investigation  was a l s o there  found that  was  little  the  the  measure  example  measure  the  between  all  task  "ceiling  desthe  was  so  effect."  GEBST o b s c u r e d  w o u l d be  necessary  employing a l t e r n a t i v e results  of  just  of  the  re-  "character-  interactions  i n the  it  whether  unusual score.  classification scores  number o f  most  variance  scores  To  res-  to  par-  measure-  o c c u r r e d as  i n the  scores  scoring scale  performance  affected  the  such scores.  that  total  very  scores, had the  of  This restricted the  were  performance  performance  o c c u r r e d because  extreme  inherent  color.  pictorial  particularly  the  size  would not  in sorting  however  o b s c u r e d due t o  determine  trial  the  with  c o l o r and  "clear"  a "clear"  for  a  function  variance.  changing  the  a  investigation,  p o o r o r good c l a s s i f i c a t i o n cally  give  such as  to  to  on t h i s  some u n d e t e c t e d  cribed.  if,  p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l i by  not  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  variables  between  investigation, be  obscured  categorization  encountered  dimensionality Level  choice  score  T h e GEBST d o e s  variables  c o u l d be  perform s i z e  classified  performance  difficulty  by  to  When t h e  subject  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n flect  unable  scores  an  effect  of  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  i n the  large  out  scores  sample, of  resultant  drasti-  direction  d i d not adequately  existed  grouped.  exceptionally  a group i n the  performance  With the  closely  could  reflect and  thus  proportion variability  to  64  within  g r o u p s due t o  would appear l e s s .  extreme  A significant  thus  b e m a s k e d b y a few  cell  was  due t o  very  one  extreme  regards  age  range,  was  small  level  of  (only  ance  explanation  the  six  effects  of  of  with was  olds  subjects  ages  and most  of of  the the  heterogeneous, c l a s s  stated  that  subjects  and a l s o  seems  4 year  presented  analysis  ated  the  problem of  analyses  the  variance. to  T h o u g h many p o s s i b l e  the  existed,  age  been  testing  time  occurred  in  i n performthe  age  range  with a l l  as  almost  At  the  the  range  groups  of so  entire  teachers  abilities. it  was  grouping,  were  and  All  thought  A least-squares  variable  Similar results  the  elementary  and c l a s s  a r b i t r a r y age on t h e  cell  d e t e r m i n e d p r i m a r i l y by  schools  status  that  selection  s i m i l a r over a l l ages.  "levelling"  with respect  indicate  a typical  sion  number,  " n " would have  problems t h a t  investigation.  groupings  corrected for  their  each  the  cooperating  subject  of  a  dimen-  group responded to  be d o n e was  to  of  in a  o l d s was  that  analysis  in  distortion  subjects  subject  came f r o m m i d d l e s o c i o e c o n o m i c  the  could  subjects  the  The g r a d u a l i n c r e a s e  ages  was  T h e number o f  c o u l d not  in this  school  in  increase  and a l a r g e  Method o f  participated  bias  ^number o f  sampling subjects:  3 a n d 4.  adequate.  the  groups  non-significance  i n e a c h age  i n c r e a s i n g age  characteristics  population  between  group v a r i a b i l i t y  The  the  selection.  The r e a s o n t h i s  subjects  selection  the  spores.  age  could further  w i t h more s u b j e c t s ,  score  3 year  between  stimulus dimensionality),  obtaining  variability  score.  and method o f  preferable. involved  extreme  s m a l l and t h i s  A f i n a l possible sionality  scores,  regreselimin-  which occurred obtained  in  both  age. reasons  were  offered  for  the  non-signifi-  65  cance  of dimensionality,  major  explanations.  gation, ance.  d i d not  to  explanation  p a r a d i g m on L e v e l  Though the  non-significant the  disregarded. was  effect  Hypothesis  factor  result  was  subject  2a  r e g a r d i n g the  III  the  and L e v e l IV.  by  A g e was  performance,  youngest  subjects  ject  there  supported  scores.  bute  as  as  was  nature began  older  III  the  as  well.  of  of  as  the  IV.  performance  the  noted  subjects  difficulty  with  L e v e l IV were  Though L e v e l  they  c o u l d do the  had a t  able  least  IV c o n t r i b u t e d  investigation factor  were  reported age the sub-  Hypothesis task  was  d i d not  because at  task. to  of  ease. Younger  feel able  all  the  the  per-  contritask simple Subjects subjects,  positive to  2a too  6 and 7 r e c e i v e d  been  almost  this  increasing  III  put  be  classifi-  manner:  subjects  were  they  that  on  scores.  that,  that  felt  if  on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  confident  they  could not  Subject  and w i t h  older  previous  investigation.  GEBST.  5»  GEBST.  variability.  this  following  ages  the  significant  The L e v e l  of  with  The r e s e a r c h e r task,  on t h e  of  two  age of  investi-  perform-  determine  this  most  scores  those  Level III  Level III  the  the  status  of  two  in this  design  to  results  i n performance  and L e v e l  subjects,  The use  L e v e l IV  test,  trials  on L e v e l  anticipated. of  some  subject  i n the  lowest  an i n c r e a s e  much i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t  who h a d g r e a t the  was  the  were  and s i m i l a r r e s u l t s  performance  received  of  the  classification  fect  used  inherent  results  effect  supported  classification  the  the  there  classification  socioeconomic  affected  easy f o r  as  attributed  & B e r m a n , 1963)  was  GEBST,  IV c o u l d o b s c u r e  (Graham, E r n h a r t , C r a f t  age  that  reflect  concerns  affecting  statistically  on b o t h L e v e l affecting  of  felt  F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o  an i m p o r t a n t  c a t i o n was  the  completely  The c h o i c e  explanations  researcher  The s c o r i n g o f  appear  The s e c o n d  this  do the  about first  information  concerning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n III  was i m p o r t a n t  For  this  jects. ject  reason It  performance,  i n creating  Level  III  a confident,  researcher postively  s h o u l d he r e t a i n e d  r e q u i r e d n o more t h a n f i v e  became  this  bored i n t h i s  length  even  minutes  of time,  felt  that  motivated  with  Level attitude.  the older  to administer.  sub-  No s u b -  a n d n o t one s u b j e c t  r  rejected  Level III as too simple. Subjects ability,  A range  subjects ability  the  were  o f performance  able  level  trials. trials  ages 3 t o 7 c l a s s i f i e d  to p a r t i a l l y  subjects  No s u b j e c t i n Level  objects  IV.  seemed  trial this  and e r r o r matching  concept the  i n this  sort  subject  egorize, time.  two-concept  on c e r t a i n Inhelder  investigation.  given  that  performance,  t o s e e what  were  was a b l e  A stage  as  to  classify  complete  in  to sort  two-concept  seemed  were  perceived  of the  alike,  1954)  next  a correct onewhen  with which t o  cat-  one c o n c e p t to be:  b y a few  at a  partial  and f i n a l l y  the  subjects  o f b e h a v i o r was d e n o t e d  and Piaget(1953,  utilized  to occur  appeared  sorts,  studied.  subjects  looked  on o n l y  that  this  described  that  two c o n c e p t s  order after  A similar pattern  & Piaget(1964)  and a f t e r  o n some  on a l l t h e  i n the performance  instantly.  o f t h e two c o n c e p t s  trials.  highest  sorts  unable  Some o f t h e y o u n g e s t  there  developmental then  level  the ages o f s u b j e c t s  o f two o b j e c t s  the subject  sorts,  and the  sorts  was c o m p l e t e l y  t o be done v i s u a l l y  perceived  ability  two-concept  two-concept  progressive  U s e o f GEBST i n t h e m a n n e r a p p l i e d  occurred almost  interrelations  t o make  of classification  seemed  The n e x t  t o complete  appropriate,  matching  however  the lowest  1 9 6 4 ) , was r e f l e c t e d  (inhelder & Piaget,  IV s t i m u l i w i t h  p e r f o r m some t r i a l s  I V , and no s u b j e c t  The d e v e l o p m e n t  subjects  existed:  able  was a b l e  i n Level  investigation  were  Level  by  as p r e c o n c e p t u a l , and  67  the  age  range  authors*  of  the  subjects  suggested range  Minor hypotheses of  their  could not  ect  two  one o f  Level  III  bility  the  to  procedure  the  aspects  presented  deduced from Results that  color  classes the  data  from  highest  size.  the  form-size  size  was  the  action  of  age  tenuous, 3 year  form  3 year or size.  the old  may b e  stimulus  was  to  sort  to  this  made t h i s  d i d not demonstrate  made. lb  base choices,  occurred trend  that  not  6)  the  intermore  scores one  of  of  the  different.  A  clearly  i n preference this  base  inference  performance  color  be  on w h i c h to  significantly  by  and  hypothesis  however  (Figure  of  t h a t were  t h a t when c o l o r was  characteristics  Older subjects  form  possible  characteristic  preference  performance  chose  the  than form,  In  of  could  characteristics  mean c h a r a c t e r i s t i c  preferred  (color,  support  of  sel-  varia-  The e f f e c t s  inferences  one  to  characteristics  i n f e r r e d from  difficult  demonstrated  subjects  not  able  T h e l o w e s t mean s c o r e s  characteristic  classification of  It  less  A comparison of  tabulation  was  IV minor  with analysis  stimulus  to  some  eliminated  minor hypotheses taken  and  classifications.  6 and 7  however  stimulus  occurred.  were  performance.  the  When s i z e  most d i f f i c u l t  old subjects  choices,  cated  easier  choice.  with  their  characteristics  support  C o l o r appeared  for  IV demonstrated  in analysis,  those  In Level  subjects  a g e s 5»  IV c o u l d be  mean s c o r e s  as  characteristics  stimulus  to  Level  with  classes.  of  and f o r m were  on t h a n  of  within  characteristics  performance.  basis  classification  problems  the  as  was  behaviors. of  analysed  Analysing  on L e v e l  affected  size)  effects  performance  significantly different  be  characteristics  i n performance.  variance  the  classification  clearly  perfect  investigation  preconceptual  related  interactions  hypotheses  for  in this  color  indito prefer-  68  ence  nor d i d they  between the  choices  3 year  or  of  this  It  c o l o r was  difference  c a n be  a less  d i d not  indicated  size  was  preference the  combined w i t h  form.  sort  Younger  choice. subjects  least  of  subjects  An a m b i g u o u s subjects  result  definitely  ambiguous  The f o l l o w i n g  suggestion  is  subjects  they  c o u l d be  that  selecting  perceived  the  size  made t h e as  a first  ordering task  and o v e r l o o k e d  the  size  preference  color-size between  choice.  hypothesis  of  on t h a n c o l o r  or  size  is  supported  presented  result  than i t  of  a significant  a more d i f f i c u l t  however  so s i m p l e  for  size  color.  subjects  Further  re-  explanation with  The y o u n g e s t This  was  categoriza-  interaction  size.  older  actually  Older  when p r e s e n t e d  by  size-color  speculation.  pure  a stimulus  and d i m e n s i o n a l i t y .  when  are  such a t e n t a t i v e  pictures  ages  Explanations  was  characteristic  support  all  color,  categorizing. as  clearly  a  stimulus occurred  subjects  supports  characteristic  to  of  the  base  sorts  form. 2b s t a t e d  w o u l d be m o s t d i f f i c u l t three  for  Level III  Minor hypothesis  with  basis  In  sorting  IV  color.  more d i f f i c i l t  older subjects  difficulty that  task  to  The t a s k  of  characteristics  had g r e a t  given.  easier  s e a r c h w o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o  on L e v e l  preferred  this  cult  4 years  d i d occur i n the  made f o r  the  for  characteristic  p r e f e r r e d dimension over  i n preference  tion  that  occur i n subjects  size  by  performance  postulated  difficult  selected  that  different  older.  Characteristic  older  significantly  form and c o l o r .  old subjects,  than form but age  demonstrate  that  size  based  with p i c t o r i a l representation  a n d two d i m e n s i o n a l o b j e c t s .  on L e v e l  III.  classifications  On L e v e l  and l e s s  This hypothesis  IV a s i g n i f i c a n t  diffiwas  dimensionality  by  69 characteristic could rest  interaction  with  the  In  Level  III  the  by  size.  In  Level  another torial Level  test  (this  the  I V was of  from  size-based  was  w o u l d be  exhibited  form  manner on a l l  results  formance  versus  on L e v e l  scores  characteristic Related  sorts  problems  task  on L e v e l  or  with  pic-  choice  in  occurring  presented III.  Level III,  The  and i t  classifications  but  the  on only  was  are  most  the  with  with  an i n c r e a s e  Ages k  choices.  could explain  the  to  III  the  than  lack  able 3h of  non-significance  variance  color  or  age,  to was  (age on the  form  there  between the  performance  Hypothesis  sub-  interaction:  on L e v e l IV  7 were  of  i n subject  scores  poor c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  On L e v e l  the  'more d i f f i c u l t  of  interaction  analysis  d i r e c t i o n of  i n performance  sort.  interaction  A significant  variables  w o u l d be  trial IV.  size  the  The y o u n g e s t s u b j e c t s  exceptionally  a size  two  stated  subjects,  sorts.  by  with  concerned with  smaller differences  teristic-based  similar  Jb  classifications  youngest  sorting  subjects'  The  IV.  representation.  o c c u r r e d between these  the  of  this  representation  the  that  characteristics.  Hypothesis  pictorial  for  and L e v e l  by  occurred with  that  III  size-based  GEBST),  age  size-based  the  the  Jb  procedures.  with  of  2b  with p i c t o r i a l  of  discussed  different  supported  and s t i m u l u s  sort  eliminated  Minor hypothesis  effect  for  to  i n Level  had a c h o i c e  c o u l d be was  The e x p l a n a t i o n  presented  The d i f f i c u l t y  difficulty  entirely  occur.  forced  IV a s u b j e c t  minor hypothesis  difficult  task  was  inherent design  statistically  ject  subject  representation  due t o  of  characteristic.  IV  Level  type  d i d not  charac3  years) trial  perform i n supported  variability  in  a by per-  of  the  age  by  f o r m was  the  preferred  interaction.  research  clearly  indicated  that  70  dimension when compared with color i n a l l but the youngest subjects (Corah, 1966;  Harris, Schaller & Mitter, 1970;  and Modreski & Goss, 1969). ed these findings.  1961;  Kagan & Lemkin,  The r e s u l t s of t h i s investigation support-  C o n f l i c t occurred i n the r e s u l t s of d i f f e r e n t r e -  searchers over the preference of color i n the youngest subjects. The data of t h i s investigation indicated that the youngest subjects preferred color i n preference to form as a basis of categorization. i l a r findings were reported (Corah, 1964; and Trabasso, Stave & Eichberg, 1 9 6 9 ) .  Suchman & Trabasso,  Sim-  1966;  Size was the l e a s t preferred  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c to use i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n tasks presented i n t h i s investigation.  This was supported by the r e s u l t s of Denney(l972b),  Kagan & Lemkin(l96l)5 and S i g e l ( l 9 6 4 ) .  The r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a -  t i o n support the findings of other research.  To adequately describe  the e f f e c t s of stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s an a l t e r n a t i v e task to Level I V would have to be developed where subjects did not have a choice between two stimulus c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  I t was t h i s choice paradigm,  i m p l i c i t i n the design of the GEBST that made response factors due to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s obscure. The r e s u l t s of the regression analysis supported the generally accepted f i n d i n g of Denney(l972a & 1 9 7 2 b ) , Everett & Armstrong(l968), and Harris, Schaller & Mitter(1970) that i n free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n tasks there are no s i g n i f i c a n t sex differences i n performance. I n summation, age i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g performance on a free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task.  The age range of t h i s i n v e s t i -  g a t i o n — 3 "to 7 years inclusive—seemed adequate to test the  perform-  ance of preconceptual c l a s s i f i c a t i o n behavior as described by Inhelder & Piaget(1964).  The sex of subjects d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t  71  classification this  area.  Size  a significant  appeared  base c l a s s i f i c a t i o n youngest  a f i n d i n g s u p p o r t e d by most r e s e a r c h  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and s i z e — w a s ance.  performance,  of  factor  on t h a n c o l o r o r f o r m ,  classification  a r e a and a l s o  the  the  performance  Level IV,  design  of  ensionality.  the  results  results  of  research. economic  of  stimulus  investigation.  What i s  effects  of  i n the  to  Two  occurring in this sufficiently  and the  GEBST,  choice  obscured  investi  reparadigm  some  of  as  the  results  of  in  this  stimulus  a indim-  & S h a p i r o ( 1 9 6 6 ) r e p o r t e d no s t i m u l u s d i m e n s i o n -  & Shapiro(1966)  has  research  stimulus dimensionality  seems n e c e s s a r y  Further research into status  the  to  investigation.  s u p p o r t most r e s e a r c h w h i c h v a r i e d  this  Sigel  applicability  the  area of  occurred with middle class of  contrary  factor  dimensionality.  i n the  task  Sigel  Dimensionality  tasks.  to  the  be a s i g n i f i c a n t  GEBST d i d n o t  i m p l i c i t i n the  d i d not  effect  the  results  subjects,  classification  ality  of  the  tested  Further research  vestigation  for  the  variability  of  not found to  made i n t h i s  s c o r i n g system  free  perform-  p a r t i c u l a r l y with  hypotheses  the  gation:  the  form  characteristic  T h i s was  seemed p l a u s i b l e  of  classification  performance.  explanations  flect  affecting  object—color,  subjects.  affecting this  stimulus  t o b e a much more d i f f i c u l t  S t i m u l u s d i m e n s i o n a l i t y was  in  the  in  area of  study  of  needed b e f o r e  The q u e s t i o n  This still  are contradictory the  effect  of  to  studied  and i t  young c h i l d r e n ' s this  arises all  explain that  other  seems  has g r e a t  cited  warranted.  practical on  conceptual  could adequately  and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  the  socio-  performance  investigation  stimulus dimensionality  could  subject's  stimulus dimensionality  not been f u l l y  the  subjects.  is  the  test dev-  72  elopment of a new free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n test or modification of two areas of the GEBST.  To use the GEBST a new scoring scale would need  to be developed which would assess the procedures used i n groupings as well as the f i n i s h e d c l a s s i f i e d arrangement. developed  A task needs to be  s i m i l a r i n d i f f i c u l t y to Level IV which would eliminate the  choice paradigm that occurred on Level IV.  A subject would then be  forced to sort on each dimension with each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c .  This type  of task d i d occur on Level I I I but these t r i a l s were too simple f o r most of the subjects i n t h i s investigation. The GEBST was very easy to administer, was enjoyed as a game by the young subjects, took a very short time to administer and was s u i t able f o r children ages 3 "to 7 years.  I t was f e l t by t h i s researcher  that free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n tests such as the GEBST could successfully be used to assess conceptual a b i l i t y In preconceptual children. Research i s required to develop a more suitable test.  Other investigators  have alluded to the advantages of a free c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task to assess conceptual a b i l i t y i n young c h i l d r e n but a standardized test f o r t h i s purpose has not yet been developed.  73  References  A l d r i c h , B. V. A study of complete o p e r a t i o n s .  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and P i a g e t ' s t h e o r y o f D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 1970, 31 (5-A),  No.2164. A n n e t t , M. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f i n s t a n c e s o f f o u r common c l a s s c o n c e p t s by c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . B r i t i s h Journal of Educational  Psychology, Asch,  1959,  29,  223-236.  H. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d a t t e m p t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n o f c l a s s i f i c a t o r y s t y l e among d i s a d v a n t a g e d p r e s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Dissertation  Abstracts,  1970, 3 l ( 5 - B ) , No.2949.  B e a r i s o n , D. J . , & S i g e l , I . E . Hierarchial attributes for categorization. P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , 1968, 2 7 , 147-153. B i j o u , S . , & B a e r , D.M. The l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d y o f c h i l d behavior. I n P. H . Mussen ( E d , ) , Handbook o f R e s e a r c h M e t h o d s i n C h i l d Development. New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , I 9 6 0 , 140-197. B o l l e s , M. M. The b a s i c o f p e r t i n e n c e : A study of the ance o f aments, dements and n o r m a l c h i l d r e n o f t h e age. Archives of Psychology, 1937, 212, 5-51. B r u n e r , J . S . , O l v e r , R. C o g n i t i v e Growth.  R., G r e e n f i e l d , P.M. et a l . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s ,  test same  Studies  in  1966, 154-167.  Cohen, J . M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n as a g e n e r a l d a t a - a n a l y t i c P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1968, 7 0 , 426-443. C o r a h , N. L. C o l o r and form i n c h i l d r e n ' s p e r c e p t u a l P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1964, 18, 313-316.  performmental  system.  behavior.  C o r a h , N. L . T h e i n f l u e n c e o f some s t i m u l u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n c o l o r and form p e r c e p t i o n i n n u r s e r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n . Child Development, 1966, 37, 205-211. C r o l l , W. L . Generalization i n a stimulus c l a s s i f i c a t i o n task. Stimu l u s s e l e c t i o n w i t h i n a n d among d i m e n s i o n s . Journal of E x p e r i mental C h i l d Psychology, 1970, 9 ( 2 ) , 227-238. D a s e n , P . R. Cross-cultural Piagetian research: A summary. o f C r o s s - C u l t u r a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1972, 3 ( l ) , '23-40.  Journal  Denney, N, W. A developmental study of free classification in children. Child Development, 1972, 4 3 , 221-232. Denney, N. W. Free classification in preschool children. opment, 1972, 43, 1161-1170.  Child Devel-  Devor, G. M., & Stern, C. Objects versus pictures in the instruction of young children. Journal of School Psychology, 1970, 8 ( 2 ) , 77-81. Dornbush, R. L., & Winnick, W. A. The relative effectiveness of stereometric and pattern stimuli in discrimination learning in children. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 301-302. Engle, P. L. Free recall of categorizable objects by Mexican American and Anglo American children after training. Dissertation Abstracts, 1972,  32(10-A), N 0 . 5 6 O 8 .  Ernhart, C. B., Graham, F. K., Eichman, P. L., Marshall, J. M., & Thurston, D. Brain injury in the preschool childj Some developmental considerationsj II. Comparison of brain injured and normal children. Psychological Monographs, 1963t 77,(lltWhole No.574). Etaugh, C. F., & Van Sickle, D. Discrimination of stereometric objects and photographs of objects by children. Child Development, 1971,  42,  1580-1582.  Everett, L. M. , & Armstrong, R. D. Responses for young children to two modes of presentation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1968, 14(4), 217-224. Falk, C. T. Object and pattern discrimination learning by young children as a function of availability of cues. Child Development, 1968, 3 9 , 923-931. Feldman, S. S. Children's understanding of negation as a logical operation in a classification task. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 29(7-B), No.2616. F l a v e l l , J, H. The Developmental Psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, New Jerseyj D. Van Nostrand, 1963. Furth, H. G. Piaget and Knowledge Theoretical Foundations. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jerseyj Prentic Hall, 1969. Gibson, E. J. Development of perception! Discrimination of depth compared with discrimination of graphic symbols. In J. C. Wright & J. Kagan (Ed.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1963, 28, No.2. Goldstein, K. , Scheerer, M. Abstract and concrete behavior, an experi mental study with special tests. Psychological Monographs, 1941, 5 3 , (2,Whole No.239).  Graham, F. K., Ernhart, C. B., Thurston, G., & Craft, M. Development three years after perinatal anoxia and other potentially damaging newborn experiences; Psychological Monographs, 1962, 76, (3,Whole No.522). Graham, F. K., Ernhart, C. B., Craft, M., & Berman, P.W. Brain injury in the preschool child 1 Some developmental considerations? I. Performance of normal children. Psychological Monographs, 1963, 77t (10,Whole No.573).. Graham, F. K., & Ernhart, C. B. Manual for the Graham-Ernhart Block Sort Test, unpublished test of the Collaborative Study of Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and other Neurological and Sensory Disorders of Infancy and Childhood, August, 1963. Hanfmann, E. , & Kasanin, J. A method for the study of concept formation. Journal of Psychology, 1937, 3-4, 521-540. Harris, L., Schaller, M. J., & Mitter, M. M..The effects of stimulus type on performance in color-form sorting task with preschool, kindergarten, first grade and third grade children. Child Development, 1970, 41, 177-191. Hunt, J. M. Intelligence and Experience.  New Yorkj Ronald Press, 1961.  Inhelder, B. Some aspects of Piaget's genetic approach to cognition. In W. Kessen and C. Kuhlman (Ed.), Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1962, 27, No.2. Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. The Early Growth of Logic in the Child. E. A. Lunzer and D, Paperet (Trans.), London 1 Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964. Jacobs, P. I., & Vandeventer, M. The learning and transfer of double classification skills by first graders. Child Development, 1971, 42, 149-159. Kagan, J., & Lemkin, J. Form, color and size in children's conceptual behavior. Child Development, 1961, 32, 25-28. Kofsky, E., & Osier, S. F. Free classification in children. Development, 1967, 38, 927-937.  Child  Modreski, R. A., & Goss, A. E. Young children's initial and changed names for form - color stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969» 8, 402-409. Nowak, S. M. The development and analysis of the effects of an instructional program based on Piaget's theory of classification. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 30(5-A), N0.I875.  Oleron, P., Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., & Greco, P. Experimental Psychology Its Scope and Method. T. Surridege (Trans.;, London* Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969, I65-I75. Olmsted, P., Parks, C., & Rickel, A. The development of classification skills in the preschool child. International Review of Education, 1970, l6(l) 67-80. ' Overton, W. F., & Brodzinsky, D. Perceptual and logical factors in the development of multiplicative classification. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6(l), 104-109. Overton, W. F., Wagner, J., & Dolinsky, H. Social class differences and task variables in the development of multiplicative classification. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1951-1958. Overall, J. E, Concerning least squares analysis of experimental data. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72, 311-322. Parker, R. K. Rieff, M. L., & Sperr, S. J. Teaching multiple classification to young children. Child Development, 1971* 42, 1779-1789. Piaget, J. The Child's Conception of Number. C. Gattegno and F. M. Hodgson (Trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952, 161-184. Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child. . New York: Basic Books, 1954.  M. Cook (Trans.),  Piaget, J. Logic and Psychology. Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1953. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. The Psychology of the Child. (Trans.), New York« Basic Books, 1969.  H. Weaver,  Price-Williams, D. R. Abstract and concrete modes of classification in a primitive society. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1962,  32, 50-61.  Reichard, S., Schneider, M., & Rappaport, D. The development of concept formation in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1944, 14, 156-161. Robinson, V. H. An investigation of the performance of kindergarten children on quantitative class inclusion tasks. Dissertation Abstracts, 1970, 31(^-A), N0.I63I. Sigel, I. E. Dominance of Meaning. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 195^, 85, 201-207. Sigel, I. E. The attainment of concepts. In M. L. Hoffman and L. W. Hoffman (Ed.), Review of Child Development and Research, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, 209-248.  77-  S i g e l , I. E., & Shapiro, H. Categorization behavior of lower and middle c l a s s Negro preschool children: Differences i n dealing with representation of f a m i l i a r objects. Journal of Negro Education, 1966, 35, 218-229.  Stevenson, H. W., & McBee, G. The learning of object and pattern d i s criminations by children. Journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology, 1958, 51, 752-754. Suchman, R. G., & Trabasso, T. Color and form preferences i n young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1966, 3, 177-187.  Swayze, J . L. Children's a b i l i t y to order picture sequences: A developmental study. Dissertation Abstracts, 1967» 28(3-B), No.1178-1180. Tanaka, M. N. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n concepts i n f i r s t grade c h i l d r e n : The e f f e c t of d i f f e r e n t methods of i n s t r u c t i o n . Dissertation Abstracts, 1968, 29(2-A), No.489. Trabasso, T., Stave, M., & Eichberg, R. Attribute preference and d i s crimination s h i f t s i n young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969, 8, 195-209. Vinacke, W. E.  The Psychology of Thinking.  New York: McGraw-Hill,  1952, 97-135. Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language. E. Hanfmann and G. Vakar (Ed. and Trans.), New York: The M.I.T. Press and John Wiley & Sons, 1962, 52-81. Wei, T. T. Piaget's concept of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : A comparative study of advantaged and disadvantaged young children. D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 1967, 2 7 ( l 2 - A ) , No.4143. Werner, H. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. Chicago: F o l l e t , 1948, 222-248. Whyte, L. A. The development of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a b i l i t y i n children below average i n t e l l i g e n c e . Dissertation Abstracts, 1970, 30(ll-A), No.4700. Wieman, R., & Guthrie, G./'M. The e f f e c t of age and c u l t u r a l f a m i l i a r i t y on children's categorizing responses. Journal of S o c i a l Psychology,  1972, 86, 299-308.  Youniss, J . C l a s s i f i c a t o r y schemes i n r e l a t i o n t o class i n c l u s i o n before and a f t e r t r a i n i n g . Human Development, 1971, 14, 171-183.  Appendix  Graham-Ernhart  Block  A  Sort  Test  Manual  79  4 - Y E A RP S Y C H O L O G I C A L  EXAMINATION MANUAL FOR T H E GRAHAM-ERNHART BLOCK SORT TEST (For Form PS-21) ....  THE COLLABORATIVE STUDY OF CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND OTHER NEUROLOGICAL AND SENSORY DISORDERS OF INFANCY AND CHILDHOOD  August 1963  4-YEAR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION  80  MANUAL FOR THE GRAHAM-ERNHART BLOCK SORT TEST (For Form PS-21)  Introduction The G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k Sort test has been included in the 4 - y e a r C O L R battery as a supplement to the Stanford-Binet ( F o r m L - M ) . It w i l l i n c r e a s e our s a m p l i n g of concept f o r m a t i o n through the use of a s o r t where m a t e r i a l s v a r y in c o l o r , s i z e and shape. D r . G r a h a m ' s p r e v i o u s work with this test indicates that it not only provides"a 'significant d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between b r a i n d a m a g e d and n o n - b r a i n damaged p r e s c h o o l e r s , but also that it adds to the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between these groups to a degree beyond that p o s s i b l e with the S t a n f o r d - B i n e t alone. (See T a b l e of R e f e r e n c e ) . The instructions presented here a r e a r e v i s i o n of G r a h a m ' s p r o c e d u r e . T h e o r i g i n a l manual has been a l t e r e d when it was deemed that such r e v i s i o n would better s e r v e the p u r p o s e s of the C O L R P r o j e c t without d i s t o r t i n g the essential c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the test. We wish to thank D r s . G r a h a m and E r n h a r t f o r t h e i r generous p e r m i s s i o n to p e r m i t C O L R use of the test, and D r . G r a h a m for h e r review of this r e v i s i o n . "  Materials The m a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t of 26 10mm. thick p l a s t i c b l o c k s i n v a r i o u s combinations of three c o l o r s (white, r e d and blue), three f o r m s ( c i r c l e , square and e q u i l a t e r a l triangle), and three s i z e s ( s m a l l , m e d i u m and l a r g e ) . A r e a s of the three f o r m s a r e approximately equal f o r each s i z e l e v e l . The s i z e l e v e l s a r e in the ratio of 1:2:3, the relevant d i m e n s i o n b e i n g the sides of the square and the t r i a n g l e and the d i a m e t e r of the c i r c l e . The exact dimensions a r e 22, 44 and 66 m m . for sides of the three s q u a r e s ; 33, 67 and 100 m m . f o r the sides of the three triangles;, and 25, 50 and 75 m m . f o r the d i a m e t e r s of the three c i r c l e s . Circles 2 l a r g e white 2 large red 2 l a r g e blue 2 m e d i u m white 1 medium red 1 m e d i u m blue 2 s m a l l white 1 small red 1 s m a l l blue  .  Squares 2 l a r g e white „ 1 large red 1 l a r g e blue 1 m e d i u m white  Triangles 2 l a r g e white 1 large red 1 l a r g e blue 1 m e d i u m white  1 s m a l l white •  1 s m a l l white  '  M a t e r i a l s for the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t test and n e c e s s a r y r e p l a c e m e n t p a r t s w i l l be furnished by the C e n t r a l Office.  General Administration Instructions  "~  1.  T h i s test is given as a whole. Other p r o c e d u r e s should not be interposed between t r i a l s o r l e v e l s . Such interposition, i f p r a c t i c e d , might p r o d u c e unknown i n t e r f e r e n c e with e s t a b l i s h i n g the p r o p e r s o r t i n g set.  2.  T h e G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k Sort test items a r e o r g a n i z e d into four l e v e l s . L e v e l III is always given f i r s t . Depending upon the c h i l d ' s p e r f o r m a n c e o n L e v e l III, either L e v e l II o r L e v e l I V , but not both, is given. G r a h a m ' s L e v e l I is not b e i n g used by the C O L R P r o j e c t , since it is anticipated that L e v e l I is not needed to p r o v i d e s a t i s f a c t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between subjects at the lower ranges.  3.  Throughout the test, the e x a m i n e r should avoid the use of p h r a s e s relevant to concepts of s i z e , shape, o r c o l o r in giving his i n s t r u c t i o n s ; e.g., "little ones," "blue b l o c k s , " " c i r c l e s . " Stick to use of p h r a s e s and words such as "look a l i k e , " "alike," "same," and "belong together."  4.  Since the same concepts a r e tested repeatedly, the e x a m i n e r should not indicate that a c o r r e c t r e sponse has o r has not been made, except on the three t r i a l s of L e v e l III. However, if the c h i l d , having made a c o r r e c t s o r t , then p r o c e e d s to build o r play at random with the blocks (thus d e s t r o y i n g the  - 1 -  August 1963  81  Manual for the Graham-Ernhart Block Sort Tost General A d m i n i s t r a t i o n I n s t r u c t i o n s . ( C o n t . )  sort) the examiner should, if possible, say before the sort is destroyed, "Is that the way you want them?", or, "Have you finishedputtinRtheblocksthat are the same together?", and proceed to score the sort in terms of the block placement at that point. 5.  If a child requests help, the examiner should repeat the instructions or say, "Just do the best you can."  6. Blocks not in use should be kept out of sight. 7. In scoring, verbal recognition is not counted. Onlythe child's nonverbal sorting behavior contributes to his score. 8. To avoid supplying extraneous cues, the examiner should hold all the required blocks in his hand before placing any of them on the table. 9. At all levels, each trial is presented only once. Administration and Scoring: Definitions:  A.  A group is two or more blocks which are adjacent to one another (they may or may not actually touch), and are spatially separated from other blocks. All blocks included in a trial may form a single group. The definition of group demands only that two or more blocks are together in a stack, row, or laving together. - Cm occasion a gruup of blocks may contain combinations of stacks o r rows, i.e., be both horizontally and vertically arranged.  B.  A subgroup is two or more blocks w i t h i n a group which are a l i k e in size, form or color, whichever d i mension^) is (are) being varied on a given trial. NOTE: The distinction in definition between a group and subgroup is critical to the scoring system and needs to be tho roughly understood. Blocks in a group may or may not be alike; the only essential requirement is that they be clustered. The definition of a subgroup implies that the group within which these like blocks are found includes other subgroups or misplacements. The blocks within a specific subgroup are.always alike by definition. Blocks constituting a subgroup must also be clustered. In Example I, the cluster of three blocks constitutes a group; the cluster of two blocks is also a group. Within the three block group is a subgroup of two circles which are alike in size. The two white blocks in the cluster of four form a subgroup. The cluster of four blocks forms an additional group. Example I:  B: R: W:  Blue Red White  In Example II the cluster of three blocks is a group; so are the two clusters of two blocks each. Example II:  - 2 -  August 1963  M a n u a l f o r the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k S o r t  82  Test  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring. (Cont.) In E x a m p l e III, the t h r e e b l u e c i r c l e s w i t h i n t h e group o f f i v e c o n s t i t u t e s a subgroup o f t h r e e b l o c k s . O t h e r b l o c k s i n the d i a g r a m a r e e x t r a n e o u s to t h i s e x a m p l e . W  E x a m p l e UI:  )  F i n a l l y , n o t e t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r b l o c k m a y b e l o n g to m o r e t h a n o n e s u b g r o u p . In E x a m p l e I V , t h e m i d d l e b l u e s q u a r e f o r m s a s u b g r o u p of s q u a r e s w i t h the b l o c k o n i t s left and a l s o f o r m s a s u b g r o u p of two b l u e b l o c k s w i t h the b l o c k o n i t s r i g h t . In t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e t h e s u b g r o u p i s f o r m e d o n t h e b a s i s o f s h a p e , i n the s e c o n d on the b a s i s of c o l o r . Example IV:  C.  A leftover b l o c k i s o n e n o t a d j a c e n t to a n y o t h e r b l o c k . leftover blocks.  D.  Misplacements a r e b l o c k s w i t h i n a g r o u p s o p l a c e d t h a t t h e y f o r m n o s u b g r o u p . T h e y a r e n o t s i m i l a r to b l o c k s n e x t to t h e m i n t h e g r o u p , i n t e r m s o f t h e c o n c e p t s b e i n g s o r t e d ( s h a p e , c o l o r , o r s i z e ) . In E x a m p l e III, t h e w h i t e b l o c k a n d t h e r e d b l o c k i n t h e 5 b l o c k g r o u p a r e m i s p l a c e m e n t s .  T h e b l o c k s c a l l e d e x t r a n e o u s i n E x a m p l e III are  L e v e l I I I : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring 1.  T h e t a s k i s to s o r t s i x b l o c k s i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s o f t w o i d e n t i c a l b l o c k s . T h e b l o c k s u s e d a n d t h e o r d e r s i n w h i c h they a r e p l a c e d on the t a b l e b e f o r e the c h i l d a r e g i v e n b e l o w . T h e o r d e r of p l a c e ment i s s p e c i f i e d f r o m the e x a m i n e r ' s p o i n t of v i e w as he s i t s o p p o s i t e the c h i l d . T r i a l 1: S i x l a r g e c i r c l e s Red White  Blue  Red  White  Blue  Child  Examiner T r i a l 2: S i x w h i t e c i r c l e s Small Medium  Small  Large  Medium  Large  Child  o  oO  Examiner T r i a l 3: S i x l a r g e w h i t e b l o c k s Circle Square  Triangle  Circle  Square  Triangle  Child  Examiner August 1963  M a n u a l f o r tho G r a h a m - E r n h a r t l U o c k S o r t T e s t  0  ,  ;  Level I I I : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring, (Cont.) 2.  A f t e r the b l o c k s h a v e been p l a c e d i n a r o w o n t h e t a b l e , s a y " P u t t h e o n e s t h a t ( a r e a l i k e , a r e the s a m e , o r b e l o n g ) t o g e t h e r . " This i n s t r u c t i o n c a n be r e p e a t e d as n e c e s s a r y .  3.  A c o m p l e t e l y c o r r e c t s o r t on a*given t r i a l c o n s i s t s of p a i r i n g the i d e n t i c a l b l o c k s w i t h each o t h e r . Such a s o r t e a r n s t w o p o i n t s .  4.  A p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t s o r t on a g i v e n t r i a l i s o n e w h e r e t h e s o r t i s i n c o m p l e t e b u t w h e r e t h e c o n c e p t i s a p p a r e n t b o t h i n t h e s o r t i n g b e h a v i o r a n d i n t h e f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t . A s o r t w i t h only o n e o r t w o m i s p l a c e m e n t s o r l e f t o v e r s o r a s o r t in w h i c h two i d e n t i c a l b l o c k s a r e p l a c e d t o g e t h e r but a p a r t f r o m the r e m a i n i n g blocks a r e e x a m p l e s o f p a r t i a l s o r t s . Note that the d e f i n i t i o n of a p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t s o r t includes the s p e c i f i c a t i o n that the e x a m i n e r m u s t see s o m e e v i d e n c e of concept c o n t r o l in the s o r t i n g b e h a v i o r p r i o r to the f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t . T h i s c l i n i c a l c r i t e r i o n has been added to a v o i d t h e c r e d i t i n g o f f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s w h e r e t w o i d e n t i c a l b l o c k s h a p p e n b y c h a n c e t o e n d up c l o s e r to e a c h o t h e r t h a n they a r e to o t h e r b l o c k s . A p a r t i a l l y c o r r e c t s o r t e a r n s o n e p o i n t .  5.  Examples of Level III, T r i a l 3 s o r t s . F o r the p u r p o s e s of s c o r i n g , s t a c k i n g o r p l a c i n g b l o c k s i n a r o w w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d e q u a l l y c o r r e c t .  Correct  sort;  earns two points.  Correct  sort;  earns two points.  Partially correct sort; earns one point. Partly correct bec a u s e one g r o u p p a i r s i d e n t i c a l m a t e s , even though there are four misgrouped blocks.  D.  P a r t l y c o r r e c t s o r t ; e a r n s one point. There are only two m i s p l a c e m e n t s (the two t r i a n g l e s ) .  P a r t l y c o r r e c t s o r t ; e a r n s one point. T h e r e a r c only two m i s p l a c e m e n t s (the t w o t r i a n g l e s ) .  - 4-  A u g u s t 1963  84  Manual f o r the G r a h a m - K r n h a r t Block Sort T e s t L e v e l I I I : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring. (Cont.)  Partly correct sort. There is one misplacement and one leftover (the two triangles).  I n c o r r e c t sort; zero points. Three blocks are misplaced and one is leftover.  I n c o r r e c t sort; zero points. There is a joined identical pair, but they are not spatially discrete from the other four misgrouped blocks. 6. To encourage more discrete grouping on subsequent trials at this and other levels, additional instructions and demonstration are given following each of the trials at this level: A. If the child achieves a two-point sort and has arranged the blocks into three discrete groups say, "Fine," and go on to the next trial. B. If the child achieves a two-point sort but has not arranged the blocks into three discrete groups (for example, stacking all six blocks into a single pile, or a single row) say, "Fine, these two are alike, and these two are alike, and these two 'are alike" as you separate the groups. C. If the child achieves partial or no credit say, "Let me show you. These two are alike, and these two are alike, and these two are alike," as you rearrange the blocks into three separate groups. Do not allow the child another try at the same trial after it has been demonstrated. 7. Maximum score on Level III is six p o i n t s . Administration C h o i c e - P o i n t  1. If the child's score on Level III is two points or less, administer Level II. In this case Level IV is not administered and no credit for it is given. 2. If the child's score on Level III is more than two points, administer Level IV and give the child an automatic credit of 9 points for Level II. L e v e l I I : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring  1. The child's task at this level is to choose the mate to the block held by the examiner from the three blocks placed before him. The block the child is to match is held about one foot above the middle, of the three blocks on the table, and the examiner says, "Point to the one that looks just like this one." - 5 -  August 1963  Jiual  f o r the ( i r a h a m - E r n h a r t Block S o r t  Test  Level I I : A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring. (Cont.) 2.  T h e o r d e r o f tho b l o c k s p l a c e d o n the t a b l e f o r e a c h t r i a l a r e s p e c i f i e d f r o m t h e e x a m i n e r ' s p o i n t o f v i e w a s he s i t s o p p o s i t e the c h i l d f a c i n g h i m . T r i a l 1:  On the t a b l e : 3 l a r g e c i r c l e s ; H o d White Blue K x a n i i n e r ' s o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n : Blue Red White  T r i a l 2:  On the t a b l e : 3 w h i t e c i r c l e s : S m a l l Medium E x a m i n e r ' s o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n : S m a l l Large  T r i a l 3:  On t h e t a b l e : 3 l a r g e w h i t e b l o c k s : C i r c l e E x a m i n e r ' s o r d e r of p r e s e n t a t i o n : S q u a r e  Large Medium  Square Triangle  Triangle Circle  3.  E v e r y e f f o r t s h o u l d be m a d e t o e n s u r e h a v i n g the c h i l d ' s a t t e n t i o n b e f o r e e a c h r e q u e s t f o r h i m t o p o i n t . Once g i v e n , a n i n c o r r e c t p o i n t s h o u l d b e a c c e p t e d a t f a c e v a l u e .  4.  Each c o r r e c t m a t c h e a r n s one p o i n t , m a k i n g a m a x i m u m s c o r e o f t h r e e p e r t r i a l and a t o t a l m a x i m u m of nine points f o r Level I I .  5.  I f c h i l d i s c r e d i t e d w i t h t h e f u l l 9 p o i n t s o n L e v e l I I , a d m i n i s t e r L e v e l TV a s p a r t o f t h e t e s t . H o w e v e r , the p o i n t s e a r n e d o n L e v e l I V s h o u l d n o t b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s c o r e f o r s u m m a r y s h e e t p u r p o s e s , b u t w i l l be a n a l y z e d a t a f u t u r e d a t e .  L e v e l IV: 1.  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring  The task f o r each t r i a l of L e v e l I V i s to s o r t the nine b l o c k s , w h i c h on any g i v e n t r i a l v a r y a l o n g two of t h r e e p o s s i b l e d i m e n s i o n s (size, c o l o r , and f o r m ) into g r o u p s o f l i k e b l o c k s .  General Instructions The i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e the s a m e f o r each of the t h r e e t r i a l s . The b l o c k s used i n a g i v e n t r i a l a r e s p r e a d o u t o n t h e t a b l e i n random o r d e r . T h e b l o c k s s h o u l d b e s p r e a d o v e r a r o u g h l y o v a l a r e a , n o t i n a r o w . The e x a m i n e r says, " N o w put the ones that (are a l i k e , a r e the s a m e , o r belong) t o g e t h e r . " B l o c k s to be u s e d f o r s p e c i f i c t r i a l s a r e as f o l l o w s : T r i a l 1:  C o l o r and s i z e v a r y w i t h f o r m h e l d c o n s t a n t . Use n i n e c i r c u l a r b l o c k s w i t h one o f each s i z e and c o l o r .  T r i a l 2:  C o l o r and f o r m v a r y w i t h s i z e held constant. Use nine l a r g e b l o c k s w i t h one of each f o r m and c o l o r .  T r i a l 3:  Size and f o r m v a r y w i t h c o l o r h e l d c o n s t a n t . U s e n i n e w h i t e b l o c k s w i t h one o f e a c h s i z e and f o r m .  S c o r i n g of L e v e l IV takes o n l y f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t into account. B y f o l l o w i n g the r u l e s b e l o w , the n u m b e r of e r r o r s o n a g i v e n t r i a l c a n b e d e t e r m i n e d . S i n c e i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e e x a m i n e r w i l l have these r u l e s w e l l enough in m i n d , e s p e c i a l l y In h i s e a r l y use o f the t e s t , i t is m a n d a t o r y that the e x a m i n e r sketch the f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t on each t r i a l , and then s c o r e i t l a t e r .  Scoring Rules A . A n y group o f b l o c k s w h i c h a r e a l l a l i k e o n o n e o f t h e v a r i e d c o n c e p t s i s c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t . B . A n y subgroup o f t h r e e b l o c k s i s a l w a y s c o r r e c t . C . Subgroups o f t w o b l o c k s a r e c o u n t e d a s e r r o r s (one p o i n t p e r b l o c k ) i f :  - 6 -  A u g u s t 1963  86  M a n u a l f o r the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t Block Sort T e s t L e v e l IV:  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S c o r i n g . ( C o n t . )  1. 2.  the group c o n t a i n s a m i s p l a c e m e n t , o r the g r o u p w h i c h c o n t a i n s the s u b g r o u p o f t w o b l o c k s i s c o m p o s e d o f o n l y t h r e e b l o c k s .  Note:  G r o u p s o f t h r e e b l o c k s w h i c h a r e n o t a l l a l i k e and w h i c h c o n t a i n two s u b g r o u p s o f t w o b l o c k s p e r s u b g r o u p a r e e r r o r s by r u l e C2- T h e y c o n s t i t u t e t h r e e e r r o r p o i n t s , one f o r e a c h b l o c k , (see E x a m p l e C, p. 8).  D.  Subgroups of o n l y two b l o c k s a r e c o r r e c t i f a l l o t h e r b l o c k s i n the g r o u p also f o r m and t h e g r o u p c o n s i s t s o f m o r e t h a n t h r e e b l o c k s .  subgroups,  E.  L e f t o v e r s and m i s p l a c e m e n t s  F.  T y p i c a l l y , s o r t i n g by f o u r - y e a r - o l d s is o n the b a s i s o f one v a r i e d c o n c e p t o r the o t h e r , o r s o m e u s e o f b o t h c o n c e p t s . T h u s , one g r o u p m a y b e f o r m e d h a v i n g b l o c k s o f t h e s a m e c o l o r , a n d a n o t h e r g r o u p i n the s a m e t r i a l w i l l c o n t a i n b l o c k s o f t h e s a m e f o r m o r s i z e . I t i s p o s s i b l e b u t r a r e f o r a c h i l d to p r o d u c e a p e r f e c t s o r t o n b o t h c o n c e p t s . T o d o s o , e v e r y b l o c k m u s t p a r t i c i p a t e s i m u l taneously in two s u b g r o u p i n g s . T h i s c a n be a c h i e v e d w i t h a 3 x 3 m a t r i x in w h i c h b l o c k s o f one concept f o r m the r o w s , and b l o c k s r e p r e s e n t i n g the o t h e r c o n c e p t f o r m the c o l u m n s . It c a n a l s o be achieved w i t h t h r e e stacks f o r m e d on the b a s i s of one concept w i t h the second concept d e m o n s t r a t e d by u n i f o r m p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n stacks i n a l l t h r e e s t a c k s .  G.  E r r o r s o n a g i v e n t r i a l m a y r a n g e f r o m 0 t o 9. T h e y s h o u l d b e c o n v e r t e d t o p o i n t s t o w a r d t h e total r a w s c o r e by use of the table b e l o w . M a x i m u m r a w s c o r e p o i n t s p o s s i b l e on a g i v e n t r i a l i s t e n . M a x i m u m r a w s c o r e c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f L e v e l I V to t o t a l r a w s c o r e is 30.  count one e r r o r p e r b l o c k .  (2-concepts s o r t e d simultaneously) (Ordinary perfect sort)  ,  E r r o r s on a t r i a l 0 0  Raw Score f o r the t r i a l 10 9  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1  9  0  Scoring Examples T h i s s e c t i o n of s c o r i n g e x a m p l e s s h o u l d be s t u d i e d c a r e f u l l y p r i o r to s c o r i n g o f a c t u a l p r o t o c o l s . You may find it helpful to c o l o r the sketches. A d d i t i o n a l e x a m p l e s of d i f f i c u l t s c o r i n g p r o b l e m s w i t h c o m m e n t a r y w i l l be added as o u r p r o j e c t e x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h i s t e s t a c c u m u l a t e s . In the e x a m p l e s b e l o w , the l e t t e r s R, W, and B a r e u s e d f o r the t h r e e c o l o r s — r e d , w h i t e , and b l u e . L a r g e , m e d i u m and s m a l l size is i n d i c a t e d b y the r e l a t i v e s i z e of the d r a w i n g s . A l l e x a m p l e s a r e d r a w n as if a r r a n g e d on a h o r i z o n t a l p l a n e , b u t these a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y be p r o d u c e d by s t a c k s o r b y a three d i m e n s i o n a l p a t t e r n i n v o l v i n g both h o r i z o n t a l and v e r t i c a l g r o u p s . Example A.  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . Nine e r r o r s . The s u b g r o u p of two w i t h i n the t h r e e g r o u p is not c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t ( r u l e s C i and C2>- O t h e r e r r o r s a r e f o u r l e f t o v e r s a n d a p a i r e d m i s p l a c e m e n t ( r u l e E ) .  - 7-  August  1963  M a n u a l f o r the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k S o r t T e s t Level IV:  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring. (Cont.)  E x a m p l e B.  C o l o r and F o r m P r o b l e m . N i n e e r r o r s . The two t w o - m e m b e r subgroups of l i k e f o r m a r e p a r t of a g r o u p c o n t a i n i n g m i s p l a c e m e n t s (rule C ^ >1 \  W  \ E x a m p l e C.  w  R  v..  J  C o l o r and F o r m P r o b l e m . N i n e e r r o r s . Two t w o - b l o c k sub r o u p s in a g r o u p of o n l y t h r e e b l o c k s a r e not c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t b y r u l e Co. Remaining blocks scattered.  E x a m p l e D.  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . Six e r r o r s . The group of three is c o n s i d e r e d c o r r e c t by r u l e A. T h e r e m a i n i n g b l o c k s a r e l e f t o v e r s ( r u l e E) o r p a i r e d m i s p l a c e m e n t s ( r u l e E ) .  0  R R W R E x a m p l e E.  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . Six e r r o r s . F o u r l e f t o v e r s and two m i s p l a c e m e n t s . r u l e B.  The subgroup of three blue c i r c l e s is c o r r e c t by  R  E x a m p l e F.  C o l o r and F o r m P r o b l e m . F i v e e r r o r s . T h e two g r o u p s of t w o a r e c o r r e c t b y r u l e A . T h e e r r o r s a r e the g r o u p o f f i v e m i s p l a c e ments.  - 8 -  A u g u s t 1963  88  M a n u a l f o r the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k S o r t T e s t Level  IV:  Administration and Scoring.  E x a m p l e G:  (Cont.)  C o l o r and S i z e P r o b l e m . F i v e e r r o r s . Five l e f t o v e r s . N o t e t h a t t h e g r o u p o f f o u r b l o c k s h a s b e e n a r r a n g e d i n t o t w o s u b g r o u p s each c o n t a i n i n g two b l o c k s of l i k e c o l o r and one s u b g r o u p of t w o b l o c k s of l i k e s i z e . T h e two m i d d l e b l o c k s have been s o r t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on both c o n c e p t s . G r o u p of f o u r c o r r e c t b y r u l e D.  B)  /  r  E x a m p l e H.  >  \  C o l o r and S i z e P r o b l e m . ' F i v e e r r o r s . T h r e e l e f t o v e r s and a p a i r of m i s p l a c e m e n t s . T h e m i d d l e g r o u p of f o u r b l o c k s is c o r r e c t b y r u l e s B a n d D. T h i s g r o u p i n v o l v e s o n e s u b g r o u p s o r t e d b y c o l o r , a n o t h e r s u b g r o u p s o r t e d by s i z e , and one b l o c k s o r t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on b o t h b a s e s .  R  ® W E x a m p l e I:  F o r m and Size P r o b l e m . F o u r e r r o r s . One l e f t o v e r , o n e m i s p l a c e m e n t , a n d o n e p a i r e d m i s p l a c e m e n t . q u a l i f i e s b y r u l e A ; t h e c o r r e c t s u b g r o u p o f t h r e e b y r u l e B.  o. Example J:  The c o r r e c t group of two  A  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . F o u r e r r o r s . Two l e f t o v e r s , two m i s p l a c e m e n t s , Rules A and B make the o t h e r five b l o c k s c o r r e c t .  - 9-  August 1 9 6 3  M a n u a l f o r tho G r a h a m - E r n h a r t Level IV:  89  Block Sort Test  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Scoring. (Cont.)  E x a m p l e K.  C o l o r and S i z e P r o b l e m . F o u r e r r o r s . The two s u b g r o u p s of t h r e e on the l e f t side of the r o w (with one b l o c k s o r t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on both c o n c e p t s ) a r e c o r r e c t b y r u l e B. The t w o - m e m b e r s u b g r o u p o f b l u e c i r c l e s is i n c o r r e c t b y r u l e C and t h e o t h e r t w o b l o c k s a r e m i s p l a c e m e n t s ( r u l e E ) .  \  E x a m p l e L.  R  Size and C o l o r P r o b l e m . T h r e e e r r o r s . A l l l e f t o v e r s . The groups of t h r e e a r e c o r r e c t by r u l e A.  W  0  Example M:  C o l o r and F o r m P r o b l e m . T h r e e e r r o r s . The e r r o r s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a g r o u p o f t h r e e w h i c h c o n t a i n s a s u b g r o u p o f t w o and a m i s p l a c e m e n t (rule C^). The r o w - g r o u p of six b l o c k s contains two subgroups of t h r e e , and o n e s u b g r o u p o f t w o , w i t h t w o b l o c k s i n t h e r o w s o r t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y o n t w o c o n cepts and hence h a v i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n two s u b g r o u p i n g s . Tbe e n t i r e r o w - g r o u p is c o r r e c t by r u l e s B and D.  E x a m p l e N.  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . T w o e r r o r s . A m i s p l a c e m e n t and a l e f t o v e r . The t w o - m e m b e r t h r e e - m e m b e r s u b g r o u p b y r u l e B.  groups are c o r r e c t by rule A;  The  R  - 10 -  A u g u s t 1963  90  Manual f o r the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t Block Sort T e s t Level  IV:  Administration and Scoring.  E x a m p l e O.  (Cont.)  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . One e r r o r . (Rule E). T h e o t h e r s c o r r e c t by r u l e A.  R W  E x a m p l e P.  F o r m and Size P r o b l e m . Z e r o e r r o r s . . The t w o - m e m b e r square g r o u p and the t h r e e - m e m b e r t r i a n g l e g r o u p a r e c o r r e c t b y r u l e A. The r o w of f o u r b l o c k s i s c o r r e c t b y r u l e s B and D. It i n c l u d e s a s u b g r o u p o f t h r e e c i r c l e s and a n o t h e r of t w o b l o c k s of l i k e s i z e . y  A  E x a m p l e Q.  F o r m and Size P r o b l e m . Z e r o e r r o r s . T h r e e - b l o c k subgroups a r e always c o r r e c t (rule B) and t w o - b l o c k subgroups a r e c o r r e c t i n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e t h e y f i t r u l e D.  • E x a m p l e R.  C o l o r and Size P r o b l e m . Z e r o e r r o r s . An example of a perfect s o r t involving s o r t i n g simultaneously on both concepts. a r e s i x s u b g r o u p s o f t h r e e b l o c k s , a l l c o r r e c t b y r u l e s B and F.  - 11 -  August  There  1963  i a n u a l f o i the G r a h a m - E r n h a r t B l o c k S o r t T e s t  VI  Table of References r n h a r t , C . B., G r a h a m , [''ranees K., & T h u r s t o n , D. " R e l a t i o n s h i p o f N e o n a t a l A p n e a to D e v e l o p m e n t a t Three Years. AMA Arch. N e u r o l . ; 1960, 2, 5 0 4 - 5 1 0 . r a h a m , F r a n c e s K., & B e r m e n , P h y l l i s \V. " C u r r e n t S t a t u s o f B e h a v i o r T e s t s f o r B r a i n D a m a g e i n I n f a n t s a n d P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . " Amer. J . O r t h o p s y c h i a t . , 1 9 6 1 , 3 1 , 7 1 3 - 7 2 7 . • r a h a m , F r a n c e s K., E r n h a r t , C . B., T h u r s t o n , D., & C r a f t , M a r g u e r i t e . " D e v e l o p m e n t T h r e e Y e a r s a f t e r . P e r i n a t a l A n o x i a and o t h e r P o t e n t i a l l y D a m a g i n g N e w b o r n E x p e r i e n c e s . " P s y c h o l . Monogr., 1 9 6 2 , 7 6 , No. 3 (Whole No. 522). T  - 12 -  A u g u s t 1963  Appendix B  Consent Form  Letter  Appendix  Pictorial  C  Representational  Stimuli  Pictorial  representational  stimuli—scale  2/3  actual  size  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099940/manifest

Comment

Related Items