UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Memory and metamemory in hyperactive children MacDonald, Mary Ann 1990

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A1 M32.pdf [ 6.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100553.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100553-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100553-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100553-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100553-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100553-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100553-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100553-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100553.ris

Full Text

Memory and Metamemory i n Hyperactive C h i l d r e n By Mary Ann MacDonald B.A., The U n i v e r s i t y of Windsor, 1976 B.S.W., The U n i v e r s i t y of Windsor, 1977 .S.W., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH November 1990 © Mary Ann MacDonald, COLUMBIA 1990 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) i i A b s t r a c t Memory and metamemory were examined i n 30 h y p e r a c t i v e and 30 nonhyperactive c h i l d r e n matched on age, grade, and IQ (as measured by the Vocabulary and the Block Design s u b t e s t s o£ the WISC-R), w i t h i n the context of a broad range o£ t a s k s . The f i v e t asks i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s study were: (a) a p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, (b) a fee l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g task, a v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task, (c) a word g e n e r a t i o n task, (d) and (e) an o b j e c t span and r e c a l l t a s k . Previous r e s e a r c h has demonstrated c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y i n the performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n on memory t a s k s . They have been shown to perform as w e l l as normal c h i l d r e n on tasks of cued r e c a l l , p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s f o r meaningful words, and on t e s t s of r e c o g n i t i o n memory. They are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from normal c h i l d r e n by t h e i r poor performance on ta s k s of uncued r e c a l l , p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g f o r s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d words, and i n a d d i t i o n , o f t e n d i s p l a y performance decrements when task demands i n c r e a s e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are l e s s e f f i c i e n t i n metamemory knowledge and s k i l l s than normal c h i l d r e n . These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with the p r o p o s a l t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrate on memory tasks may r e s u l t from a d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to e f f i c i e n t l y engage i n metamemory processes. i l l The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study g e n e r a l l y had more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n with r e c a l l on a l l the t a s k s . These i n c l u d e d t e s t s of both v e r b a l and non-v e r b a l memory, sh o r t and long-term memory, and p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. F u r t h e r , they d i d not d e r i v e a memorial b e n e f i t , as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d , when g e n e r a t i n g t h e i r own r e c a l l items, or when r e c a l l i n g v i s u a l s t i m u l i t h a t could be more e a s i l y v e r b a l l y encoded than o t h e r s . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s demonstrated t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s by performing as w e l l as the normal s u b j e c t s on the r e c a l l of read words i n the word g e n e r a t i o n task, and on the r e c a l l of the low and medium l e v e l of l a b e l a b i l i t y items i n the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n t a s k . A l s o , the r e c a l l performance of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y between a no - s t r a t e g y and a provided s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n on the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task. Moreover, there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s on the r e c o g n i t i o n memory t e s t of the f e e l i n g -of-knowing tas k . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t with the previous i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of memory performance i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The present f i n d i n g s f u r t h e r extend the past r e s e a r c h by demonstrating s e l e c t i v e memory d e f i c i t s i n the hy p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s t h a t are c o n s i s t e n t with d e f i c i t s i n metamemory a b i l i t i e s . The p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t metamemory s k i l l s are i m p l i c a t e d i n the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated i n t h i s study i s f u r t h e r supported by the d i f f i c u l t y they experienced i n d e s c r i b i n g how they remembered the task items. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s when attempting to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t they used to a i d r e c a l l . The s t r a t e g i e s they d e s c r i b e d , r e l a t i v e to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , tended to be vague and p o o r l y d e f i n e d . These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t there may be both q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way i n which h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n use s t r a t e g i e s . In summary, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , r e l a t i v e to normal c h i l d r e n , seem to be d e f i c i e n t i n both t h e i r metamemory knowledge and the a b i l i t y to monitor and c o n t r o l t h e i r memory performance. Questions a d d r e s s i n g whether these c h i l d r e n cannot or do not employ these s k i l l s were i n t r o d u c e d . The c l i n i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s were co n s i d e r e d and recommendations were made f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . V Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of t a b l e s v i i L i s t of f i g u r e s v i i i 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 2. L i t e r a t u r e Review 7 2.1 Metacognltion 7 2.2 Metacognltion and C o g n i t i o n 9 2.3 Memory and Metamemory 12 2.4 C o g n i t i v e F u n c t i o n i n Hyperactive C h i l d r e n 17 2.5 Memory and Metamemory i n Hyperactive C h i l d r e n 21 2.6 Summary 34 2.7 Purpose of the Present Study. ....35 3. General Methods 37 3.1 Subjects 37 3.2 Subject Assessment Procedure 38 3.3 T e s t i n g and Schedule 42 3.4 Re s u l t s of Subject Assessment 43 4. Task 1: P r o s p e c t i v e Memory 47 4.1 R a t i o n a l e 47 4.2 Methods 52 4 . 3 R e s u l t s 56 4.4 D i s c u s s i o n 62 5. Task 2: Feeling-of-Knowing 66 5.1 R a t i o n a l e 66 5.2 Methods 68 5.3 R e s u l t s 72 5.4 D i s c u s s i o n 76 6. Task 3: V i s u a l R e t e n t i o n 80 6.1 R a t i o n a l e 80 6.2 Methods 84 6.3 R e s u l t s 85 6.4 D i s c u s s i o n ...88 v i 7. Task 4: Word Generation 91 7.1 R a t i o n a l e 91 7.2 Methods 93 7.3 R e s u l t s 95 7.4 D i s c u s s i o n 100 8. Task 5: Object Span and R e c a l l 105 8.1 R a t i o n a l e 105 8.2 Methods 106 8.3 R e s u l t s 110 8.4 D i s c u s s i o n 115 9. General D i s c u s s i o n 120 10. References 141 11. Appendices 153 Appendix A: Consent Form 153 Appendix B: CPRS-R 154 Appendix C: CTRS-R 155 Appendix D: DSM-III-R C h e c k l i s t 156 Appendix E: Parent's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 157 Appendix F: Table of Means f o r Tests of Gender E f f e c t s 159 v i i L i s t of Tables Table 1. Mean scores of the d i a g n o s t i c groups on s c r e e n i n g and d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s 46 Table 2. P r o s p e c t i v e memory t a s k : Comparison of the mean r e c a l l of the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d and examiner-generated items i n the two s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s (own and provided) by the two s u b j e c t groups 58 Table 3. Feeling-of-knowing t a s k : Memory performance as a f u n c t i o n of s u b j e c t group 73 Table 4. Object span and r e c a l l t a s k : Memory performance as a f u n c t i o n of s u b j e c t group I l l Table 5. Comparison of sex d i f f e r e n c e s on the s c r e e n i n g and d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s and the dependent v a r i a b l e s of the study tasks i n the h y p e r a c t i v e and c o n t r o l group 130 v l l l L i s t of F i g u r e s F i g u r e 1. P r o s p e c t i v e memory task: Comparison of the mean r e c a l l of the s u b j e c t groups as a f u n c t i o n of s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n 59 Fi g u r e 2. P r o s p e c t i v e memory task: Comparison of the mean r e c a l l of the s e l f - and examiner-generated items as a f u n c t i o n of the s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n 61 Fi g u r e 3. V i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task items 82 Figure 4, v i s u a l re tent ion task: comparison of. the aean r e c a l l of the s u b j e c t groups as a f u n c t i o n of item l a b e l a b i l i t y . . . . .86 Fig u r e 5. Word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k : Comparison of the mean r e c a l l of the s u b j e c t groups as a f u n c t i o n of item type 97 Fig u r e 6. Object span and r e c a l l t a s k : Comparison of the observed d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g y use i n the two s u b j e c t groups 113 1 1. INTRODUCTION H y p e r a c t i v i t y i s one of the most p r e v a l e n t c h i l d h o o d b e h a v i o r a l d i s o r d e r s o c c u r r i n g i n 3-5% of a l l c h i l d r e n (Barkley, 1981, 1989; T a y l o r , 1986; T r i t e s , 1979). I t r e s u l t s i n widespread and d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s on behavior, emotion, c o g n i t i o n , and academic performance. The d i f f i c u l t y h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n experience with academic achievement i s the c l i n i c a l concern t h a t u n d e r l i e s t h i s study. Hyperactive c h i l d r e n are d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e i r underachievement i n s c h o o l , even when of normal or s u p e r i o r i n t e l l i g e n c e (Barkley, 1981; Douglas, 1983; Weiss, Hechtman, Perlman, Hopkins, & Wener, 1979; Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas, & Nemeth, 1971). Kinsbourne and Caplan (1979) drew a d i s t i n c t i o n between l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e and l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s of c o g n i t i v e power t h a t may be h e l p f u l i n understanding the c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . C h i l d r e n with a c o g n i t i v e s t y l e d i s o r d e r w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y as a r e s u l t of the way i n which they apply themselves to a task, whereas c h i l d r e n with a c o g n i t i v e power d i s o r d e r experience s p e c i f i c d e f i c i t s i n a b i l i t y . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d i f f i c u l t i e s with s u s t a i n e d a t t e n t i o n , i m p u l s i v i t y , and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n , which t y p i c a l l y r e s u l t i n an impulsive c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (Douglas, 1974, 1983). The q u a l i t y of t h e i r s c h o o l work f l u c t u a t e s , t h e i r response l a t e n c i e s are s h o r t e r than those of normal c h i l d r e n , and they make many e r r o r s of 2 c a r e l e s s n e s s (Douglas, 1972; Kinsbourne & Caplan, 1979). By c o n t r a s t , c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s , such as d y s l e x i a , w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y with c o g n i t i v e power, such as g r a s p i n g a p a r t i c u l a r concept. Hyperactive c h i l d r e n , u n l i k e c h i l d r e n with l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s of c o g n i t i v e power, show no s i g n of a s t r u c t u r a l d e f i c i t ( T a y l o r , 1986), and do not demonstrate a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c p a t t e r n of i n t e l l e c t u a l d e f i c i e n c i e s t h a t would d i s t i n g u i s h them from other c h i l d r e n ( B o h l i n e , 1985). Researchers and teachers d e s c r i b e the performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n as being i n c o n s i s t e n t . Both teachers and parents r e p e a t e d l y say of these c h i l d r e n , "I know he can do i t " , and "He can do i t one day, and then not the next" (Douglas, 1980; Q u e n v i l l e , p e r s o n a l communication, September, 1986). This t h e s i s i s concerned with the performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n on t a s k s of memory and metamemory. Metamemory r e f e r s to the monitoring of one's own memory, and i t i s p a r t of the broader area of metacognition, which i s the monitoring of one's own c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s . These two areas of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n have been s e l e c t e d because they w i l l permit me to demonstrate t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not experience d i f f i c u l t y with t h e i r c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y ( i n t h i s case memory), but r a t h e r t h a t they experience d i f f i c u l t y assuming an a c t i v e r o l e when performing a c o g n i t i v e task (metamemory), a d i f f i c u l t y t h a t would r e s u l t i n a f a i l u r e to a p p l y e f f i c i e n t l y the a b i l i t i e s which they do have. 3 The r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory and metamemory w i l l be examined because (a) memory plays a primary r o l e i n a l l l e a r n i n g , (b) there i s a l a r g e body of developmental data demonstrating t h a t c h i l d r e n who a c t i v e l y organize and rehearse m a t e r i a l (a metamemory f u n c t i o n ) perform b e t t e r on memory tasks than c h i l d r e n who do not ( F l a v e l l , 1971; Hagen, 1971), (c) metacognitive d e f i c i e n c i e s such as a f a i l u r e to engage i n metamemory a c t i v i t i e s are f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as a f a c t o r i n poor academic performance ( F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y , Mackinnon, & Wall e r , 1985), and (d) there are many examples i n the l i t e r a t u r e of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s f a i l u r e to p l a n , monitor, and check t h e i r performance oh c o g n i t i v e tasks (Campbell, Douglas, & Morgenstern, 1971; Douglas, 1980; Tant & Douglas, 1982). The d i f f i c u l t y h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n experience with academic t a s k s may be a f a i l u r e to assume an a c t i v e and r e f l e c t i v e r o l e when performing a task . The review of the r e l e v a n t l i t e r a t u r e w i l l be d i v i d e d i n t o four s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t of these ( S e c t i o n 2.1) presents a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of metacognition and the r o l e t h a t metacognltive processes are b e l i e v e d to p l a y i n the performance of c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . The second s e c t i o n (2.2) examines the subset of metacognition t h a t i s the focus of t h i s study; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the r o l e of metamemory i n the performance of memory t a s k s . The purpose of t h i s summary i s to equip the reader with an understanding of these concepts, as they w i l l subsequently be proposed as a framework f o r understanding the c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v e 4 c h i l d r e n . In the t h i r d s e c t i o n (2.3), I review the l i t e r a t u r e on the c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Many re s e a r c h e r s agree t h a t the primary d e f i c i t s of h y p e r a c t i v i t y are with s u s t a i n e d a t t e n t i o n , impulse c o n t r o l , and s e l f -r e g u l a t i o n (Barkley, 1989, Douglas, 1972). Douglas (1980) has suggested t h a t , i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s manifest themselves not onl y i n impulsive behavior, but a l s o i n an impulsive c o g n i t i v e s t y l e . T h i s impulsive c o g n i t i v e s t y l e r e s u l t s i n secondary d e f i c i t s i n c o g n i t i v e t a s k s r e q u i r i n g organized, p l a n f u l , r e f l e c t i v e e f f o r t , and e f f e c t i v e use of s t r a t e g i e s . In the f o u r t h s e c t i o n (2.4), s t u d i e s of memory and metamemory f u n c t i o n i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l be reviewed. There have been s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the memory f u n c t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , but there i s a p a u c i t y of r e s e a r c h on metamemory i n these c h i l d r e n . The memory data suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n perform as w e l l as normal c h i l d r e n on many memory t a s k s . They a r e , however, d i s t i n g u i s h e d from normal c h i l d r e n by t h e i r poor performance on tasks such as uncued r e c a l l and p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g of s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d words. In a d d i t i o n , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n o f t e n d i s p l a y performance decrements when task demands i n c r e a s e . These f i n d i n g s have l e d many r e s e a r c h e r s to suggest t h a t the kinds of memory tasks t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y with are tasks which c o u l d be made e a s i e r by o r g a n i z i n g or 5 c a t e g o r i z i n g the m a t e r i a l to be remembered. There i s evidence t h a t the p r o c e s s i n g s k i l l s and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h w e l l - o r g a n i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of new l e a r n i n g i n memory — p r o c e s s e s known as metamemory-- are f r e q u e n t l y inadequate i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Many s t u d i e s have examined the c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n of hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and s e v e r a l of these have suggested that d e f i c i e n t metacognitive processes are a f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to the performance d e f i c i t s demonstrated by these c h i l d r e n on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s tenuous, however, as metacognitive processes have been i m p l i c a t e d o n l y as a r e s u l t of d e s c r i p t i v e data such as obs e r v a t i o n s of the c h i l d ' s behavior d u r i n g the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , or i n t e r r o g a t i n g the c h i l d a f t e r the task has been completed. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between metamemory and memory has not been examined i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , although there have been two s t u d i e s comparing memory and metamemory i n " i m p u l s i v e " and " r e f l e c t i v e " c h i l d r e n . These s t u d i e s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l n more d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n 2.5. The purpose of the present study i s to examine memory and metamemory processes i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r non-hyperactive peers w i t h i n the context of a broad range of t a s k s . At t h i s e a r l y stage i n r e s e a r c h , a d i v e r s i t y of tasks i s necessary i n order to d e f i n e the nature of the c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The f i v e s p e c i f i c tasks that w i l l be i n v e s t i g a t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s a r e : (a) a p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, (b) a fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g task, (c) a v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task, (d) a word g e n e r a t i o n task, and (e) an o b j e c t span and r e c a l l t a s k . I t i s a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l c o n t r i b u t e a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . In a d d i t i o n , i t i s hoped t h a t i t w i l l suggest d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , and p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c l i n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n , such as the development of t r a i n i n g programs that c o u l d be used i n the classroom. 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 M e t a c o g n i t i o n Metacognition i s second-order c o g n i t i o n . I t i s the a b i l i t y to t h i n k about our t h i n k i n g , to r e f l e c t upon our own c o g n i t i v e a c t i o n s . I t i n c l u d e s both knowledge about our c o g n i t i v e processes and the a b i l i t y to monitor and r e g u l a t e one's own l e a r n i n g . M e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s are thought to p l a y an important r o l e i n many types of c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y , i n c l u d i n g memory (Brown, 1975; F l a v e l l , 1970; F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977), r e a d i n g (Baker & Brown, 1981), r e a d i n g comprehension ( F l a v e l l , 1981; Markman, 1979), s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n ( F l a v e l l , 1971), and a t t e n t i o n ( M i l l e r & Weiss, 1981). F l a v e l l (1970, 1979, 1985), one of the f i r s t p s y c h o l o g i s t s to e l a b o r a t e the concept of metacognition, saw i t as comprising the two processes d e s c r i b e d above --knowing about our own knowing, on the one hand, and the a b i l i t y to monitor and r e g u l a t e our c o g n i t i v e processes, on the other. He made t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n when he p a r t i t i o n e d metacognition i n t o metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive e x p e r i e n c e . For example, i f you sense t h a t you w i l l not remember the three t h i n g s t h a t your mother t o l d you to t e l l the teacher when you a r r i v e at s c h o o l (meta-knowledge), you r e a l i z e t h a t you r e q u i r e a s t r a t e g y to help you remember them (meta-experience). Employing a s t r a t e g y such as 8 r e p e a t i n g the to be remembered items to y o u r s e l f on the way to s c h o o l i s one way to improve your r e c a l l . F l a v e l l viewed meta-knowledge as having three primary components: knowledge about (a) persons (knowledge t h a t you are b e t t e r at a r i t h m e t i c than your f r i e n d ) , (b) tasks (your knowledge t h a t some tasks are more d i f f i c u l t than o t h e r s , f o r example t h a t r e c a l l i s more d i f f i c u l t than r e c o g n i t i o n ) , and (c) s t r a t e g i e s (knowing t h a t metacognitive s t r a t e g i e s such as r e h e a r s a l can be used to monitor c o g n i t i v e progress on a memory t a s k ) . T h i s kind of knowledge about persons, t a s k s , and s t r a t e g i e s f o s t e r s meta-experiences which encourage us to monitor our c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . F l a v e l l (1979) has suggested t h a t we are more l i k e l y to engage i n metacognitive processes when a c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y i s novel or d i f f i c u l t than when the task i s o v e r l e a r n e d and h a b i t u a l . In these l a t t e r cases metacognitive processes are l i k e l y bypassed. When t r y i n g to complete a demanding novel task, we g e n e r a l l y need to c o n c e n t r a t e , plan ahead, and move step-by-step, e v a l u a t i n g our performance at each stage. We may r e f l e c t upon other s i m i l a r problems t h a t we s o l v e d i n the p a s t . We may experience d i f f i c u l t y at one stage, and sense t h a t a d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y might prove more e f f e c t i v e . These are examples of what F l a v e l l r e f e r r e d to as meta-experience, as monitoring our c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t y . 9 2.2 M e t a c o g n l t i o n and C o g n i t i o n There i s a vague and perhaps a r b i t r a r y d i s t i n c t i o n made between c o g n i t i o n and metacognition. T h i s i s due i n p a r t to both the newness and the broad use of the c o n s t r u c t "metacognition". The term has yet to be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d and t d e l i m i t e d . The goal of c o g n i t i v e theory i s to i d e n t i f y the mental s t r u c t u r e s and mental processes of human i n t e l l i g e n c e . M e tacognltion may p l a y an important r o l e i n the l a t t e r of these two. I t may be both a form of knowledge and a form of experience t h a t u n d e r l i e s and enhances the a b i l i t y to l e a r n . The c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n f o r c o g n i t i o n posed by metacognition i s : Do we l e a r n more e f f e c t i v e l y when we know how to l e a r n ? The concepts of f l e x i b i l i t y and r e f l e c t i o n i nherent i n metacognition and metacognitive s k i l l s have important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g and development. Meta c o g n l t i o n has most o f t e n been d e s c r i b e d w i t h i n an i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g model of c o g n i t i o n . Such a model a t t r i b u t e s important o p e r a t i o n s to a c e n t r a l processor or e x e c u t i v e system capable of performing an i n t e l l i g e n t e v a l u a t i o n of i t s own o p e r a t i o n s . Bobrow and C o l l i n s (1975), i n t h e i r e l a b o r a t i o n of the f u n c t i o n s of the e x e c u t i v e processes, i n c l u d e f u n c t i o n s such as s e l e c t i n g the best s t r a t e g y , monitoring and keeping t r a c k of the e f f i c i e n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of ongoing p r o c e s s i n g , checking to see whether the task has been completed, and updating 10 c u r r e n t s t r a t e g i e s to meet changes i n task demands. These are the same processes d e s c r i b e d by Brown (1975, 1987) and F l a v e l l (1970, 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982, 1985) as metacognition. These d e s c r i p t i o n s suggest that e x e c u t i v e and metacognitive processes are not d i s t i n c t , and that i n an i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g model, metacognitive f u n c t i o n s are l a b e l e d e x e c u t i v e . Brown, Br a n s f o r d , F e r r a r a , and Campione (1983) and Case (1978) have suggested t h a t metacognitive processes, l i k e e x e c u tive processes, perform a f u n c t i o n a l r o l e i n c o g n i t i o n , and t h a t they enable the c h i l d to use c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s to i n c r e a s e f u n c t i o n a l c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y . In an i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g framework, the a t t e n t i o n a l resources t h a t can be a l l o c a t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r task are l i m i t e d . Using a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y , such as a mnemonic a i d , can g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n -p r o c e s s i n g t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l can manage on a p a r t i c u l a r memory ta s k . I f , f o r example, when attempting to remember a l i s t of items you think of a word t h a t w i l l help you to remember the f i r s t l e t t e r of each word, and then put the words you thought up together i n t o a sentence (such as, "ROY Go B r i n g In V i o l e t s " f o r R-O-Y-G-B-I-V, the order of the c o l o r s , red, orange, yel l o w , green, blue, i n d i g o , and v i o l e t i n the c o l o r spectrum), you are u s i n g a mnemonic device known as v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n ( P r e s s l e y , Borkowski, & O ' S u l l i v a n , 1985). The i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g demands of the task are reduced, 11 i n c r e a s i n g your f u n c t i o n a l c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y to process i n f o r m a t i o n . Research has demonstrated that even young c h i l d r e n are able to employ these procedures to reduce task demands or to improve t h e i r performance on c o g n i t i v e tasks ( F l a v e l l , Beach, & Chinsky, 1966; Keeney, Cannizzo, & F l a v e l l , 1967; K a r m i l o f f - S m i t h , 1979b; M i l l e r & B i g i , 1977 [ c i t e d i n Meichenbaum, D., Burland, G.L., & Cameron, L. (1985)]; Moynahan, 1973). Many metacognitive techniques are e f f e c t i v e i n improving c o g n i t i v e performance. Keeney, Cannizzo, and F l a v e l l (1967) explored the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between metacognitive s k i l l s and performance on a v i s u a l memory tas k . The c h i l d r e n i n the study were d i v i d e d i n t o two groups depending upon whether or not they had spontaneously used v e r b a l r e h e a r s a l i n an e a r l i e r study. In t h i s study of v i s u a l memory, those who had rehearsed performed s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e t t e r than those who had not. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a f t e r the task was completed, the authors i n s t r u c t e d the non-rehearsing group to reh e a r s e . On a subsequent t e s t , the performance of t h i s group improved to the l e v e l of the group which had rehearsed spontaneously. These f i n d i n g s support t h a t metacognitive s t r a t e g i e s such as r e h e a r s a l can optimize performance on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , and th a t t h e i r employment can be encouraged with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . Whereas metacognitive s k i l l s are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of c h i l d r e n who experience academic success ( A t t w e l l , 1968; Borkowski, 1985), metacognitive d e f i c i e n c i e s are f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as a f a c t o r i n poor academic performance ( F o r r e s t -P r e s s l e y , Mackinnon, & W a l l e r , 1985). The c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a n c e l n performance observed among c h i l d r e n with s i m i l a r a p t i t u d e s may be a f u n c t i o n a l v a r i a n c e , due i n p a r t to d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . I f l e a r n i n g i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l , d e f i c i t s i n a b i l i t y w i l l not be the s o l e determinant of a l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d ' s s t a t e of l e a r n i n g . Knowledge d e f i c i e n c i e s , s t r a t e g i c d e f i c i e n c i e s , and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l a l l i n f l u e n c e academic success. I f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are i n t e l l e c t u a l l y capable, but d e f i c i e n t i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to monitor t h e i r performance and to e f f e c t i v e l y employ s t r a t e g i e s , they w i l l s t r u g g l e to achieve a c a d e m i c a l l y . M o n i t o r i n g s k i l l s are important competencies f o r c h i l d r e n to a c q u i r e as they have been shown to have a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on l e a r n i n g e f f e c t i v e n e s s (Baker & Brown, 1981; Brown, 1978; F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y & W a l l e r , 1984). 2.3 Memory and Metamemory Lear n i n g i s determined, i n p a r t , by how w e l l or e l a b o r a t e l y i n f o r m a t i o n has been encoded at the time of i t s p r e s e n t a t i o n . Metamemory s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s , such as the v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n method d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r f o r remembering the c o l o r spectrum, enhance r e t e n t i o n by o r g a n i z i n g the way i n which Information w i l l be s t o r e d i n memory. Events t h a t are processed r a p i d l y , i n an i s o l a t e d , unorganized manner would be expected to r e s u l t i n poor r e c a l l (Hagen, 197.1; K a i l & S i e g e l , 1977). 13 Metamemory, l i k e metacognition, i n c l u d e s both knowledge and experience. Brown (1975), f o l l o w i n g F l a v e l l (1970, 1979, 1985), c a l l e d metamemory knowledge the knowledge t h a t we have about our own memory, and f u r t h e r , suggested that i t and metamemory experience u n d e r l i e the a p p l i c a t i o n of s t r a t e g i c behavior. The f i n d i n g t h a t good memorizers are more aware of t h e i r memories and i t s l i m i t a t i o n s than bad memorizers (Yussen & Berman, 1981) suggests the importance of metamemory knowledge and experience f o r memory performance. Metamemory s t r a t e g i e s are a c t i o n s or plans used to encode, s t o r e , or r e t r i e v e i n f o r m a t i o n . Brown (1975) d e s c r i b e d the d e l i b e r a t e a p p l i c a t i o n of s k i l l s f o r remembering as "knowing how to know". Metamemory s t r a t e g i e s i n c l u d e r e p e t i t i o n , r e h e a r s a l , meaningful o r g a n i z a t i o n (e.g., s e a r c h i n g f o r a semantic r e l a t i o n among items), h i e r a r c h i c a l a l l o c a t i o n ( s t u d y i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n order of i t s importance), d i f f e r e n t i a l a l l o c a t i o n (expending more e f f o r t t o study the m a t e r i a l t h a t i s not yet l e a r n e d ) , imagery e l a b o r a t i o n (making up i n t e r a c t i n g images t h a t i n c l u d e the t o - b e - l e a r n e d items), v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n (e.g., making up a s t o r y to i n c l u d e the to-be-remembered item), and keyforward ( s u r v e y i n g what i s to be l e a r n e d , q u e s t i o n i n g one's s e l f , and reviewing the important m a t e r i a l ) ( P r e s s l e y , Borkowski, & O ' S u l l i v a n , 1985). Metamemory s t r a t e g i e s owe t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s to the f a c t t h a t they organize i n f o r m a t i o n r a t h e r than l e a v i n g i t d i s j o i n t e d (Bower, 1970). 14 As a consequence, r e c a l l i s both more o r d e r l y and more complete. A l a r g e body of developmental data i n d i c a t e s t h a t normal young c h i l d r e n , by about age 5, a l r e a d y know much about t h e i r own memory (metamemory), and i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t they know how to use e x t e r n a l memory a i d s (something or someone who w i l l remind them) to improve t h e i r memory performance ( F l a v e l l , Beach, & Chinsky, 1966; F l a v e l l , F r i e d r i c h s , & Hoyt, 1970; K r e u t z e r , Leonard, & F l a v e l l , 1982; Markman, 1979; Moynahan, 1973; Newcomb, Rogoff, & Kagan, 1977; S a l a t a s & F l a v e l l , 1976a; Yussen & Levy, 1975). F l a v e l l , Beach, and Chinsky (1966) compared the performance of c h i l d r e n aged f i v e , seven, and ten years on a metamemory task . A l l of the c h i l d r e n i n the study were shown p i c t u r e s of seven f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s on each of s e v e r a l t r i a l s . The experimenter po i n t e d to a subset of the p i c t u r e s , i n s t r u c t i n g the c h i l d to remember them i n sequence. Two p i c t u r e s were shown on the f i r s t t r i a l , three on the second t r i a l , up to a s e r i e s of f i v e p i c t u r e s , or u n t i l a t r i a l was f a i l e d . R e c a l l was t e s t e d a f t e r each t r i a l . S ubjects were scored as having rehearsed i f the experimenter observed "any speech he could hear or l i p read". The percentage of c h i l d r e n who rehearsed the p i c t u r e s i n c r e a s e d from 10% among the 5-year o l d s to 60% among the 7-year o l d s to 85% among the 10-year o l d s . Moynahan (1973), i n a study of the development of knowledge about the e f f e c t of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n upon f r e e r e c a l l , asked 1 s t, 3rd, and 5th grade students to p r e d i c t how d i f f i c u l t i t would be to r e c a l l p a i r s of c a t e g o r i z e d and non-categorized p i c t u r e l i s t s . She used stimulus cards with e i t h e r four p i c t u r e s from the same categor y ( i . e . , f u r n i t u r e , animals, body p a r t s ) or four u n r e l a t e d p i c t u r e s on each c a r d . The s u b j e c t s were shown two cards at a time, one c a t e g o r i z e d and one non c a t e g o r i z e d . They were asked to name the items on each car d , and then asked which card would be e a s i e r to remember i f the card was removed and he or she would have to remember as many of the items as p o s s i b l e . Subjects were shown 11 p a i r s of cards i n a l l . A f t e r a l l 11 judgements had been made, the s u b j e c t s were shown each p a i r of cards a g a i n , were reminded of t h e i r c h o i c e s , and then asked why they thought the chosen l i s t was e a s i e r to remember. Moynahan assumed t h a t metamemory knowledge (an awareness of the f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ) would improve c h i l d r e n ' s r e c a l l of the c a t e g o r i z a b l e l i s t s compared to t h e i r performance on u n r e l a t e d l i s t s . R e c a l l i n c r e a s e d with age, and more items were r e c a l l e d from the c a t e g o r i z e d l i s t . When asked to e x p l a i n t h e i r c h o i c e , 3rd, and 5th grade students more f r e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d to c a t e g o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s than d i d the l s t - g r a d e r s . K r e u t z e r , Leonard, and F l a v e l l (1982) i n an i n t e r v i e w study asked c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n , or i n grades 1, 3, or 5 how they would be c e r t a i n t h a t they c o u l d remember to b r i n g t h e i r i c e skates to sc h o o l the next day. They were then asked how many ways they c o u l d t h i n k of to remember. Although the number and v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s the s u b j e c t s suggested i n c r e a s e d with age, they found that even the k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n c o u l d produce a metamemory s t r a t e g y when asked to do so. C h i l d r e n i n the 3rd and 5th grades d e s c r i b e d a l a r g e r number and a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s than d i d c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n or i n grade one. A d d i t i o n a l l y , there was an in c r e a s e with age i n the type of s t r a t e g y chosen. Although a l l s u b j e c t s chose e x t e r n a l memory cues r a t h e r than t h e i r own i n t e r n a l memory processes, there was a developmental i n c r e a s e i n the number of p l a n f u l s t r a t e g i e s chosen. The olde r s u b j e c t s were more l i k e l y to suggest t h a t the skates c o u l d be placed i n a bag the n i g h t b e f o r e , or by the door as a reminder i n the morning, whereas the younger s u b j e c t s were more l i k e l y to suggest a s k i n g someone to remind them. S t r a t e g i c behavior develops g r a d u a l l y i n young c h i l d r e n , and by age e i g h t , most c h i l d r e n have d i s p l a y e d a wide v a r i e t y of mnemonic s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s . The s t u d i e s d i s c u s s e d above, and others ( F l a v e l l et a l . , 1982; Markman, 1979; Rogoff et a l . , 1974; S a l a t a s & F l a v e l l , 1976a; Yussen & Levy, 1975) c o n s i s t e n t l y demonstrate a developmental p r o g r e s s i o n i n the q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y of s t r a t e g y use, and they a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t metamemory s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s improve memory performance. Older c h i l d r e n use a gr e a t e r v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s than do younger c h i l d r e n , and they appear to use them i n more f l e x i b l e and s o p h i s t i c a t e d ways. 17 2 .4 C o g n i t i v e F u n c t i o n i n Hyperactive C h i l d r e n Since S t i l l (1902) f i r s t d e s c r i b e d the d i s o r d e r commonly known as h y p e r a c t i v i t y , there have been numerous changes both i n terminology and i n the core symptoms b e l i e v e d to c o n s t i t u t e the d i s o r d e r . H y p e r a c t i v i t y was p o o r l y d e s c r i b e d , with many u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d symptoms, u n t i l the e a r l y 1970s when Douglas (1972) proposed i n a t t e n t i o n and i m p u l s i v i t y as the most pre-eminent and l o n g - l a s t i n g symptoms th a t d i s t i n g u i s h h y p e r a c t i v i t y from other c h i l d h o o d d i s t u r b a n c e s . A general acceptance of t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n was e v i d e n t i n the D i a g n o s t i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental D i s o r d e r s (DSM-III; American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1980) d i a g n o s t i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v i t y as A t t e n t i o n a l D e f i c i t D i s o r d e r with H y p e r a c t i v i t y (ADD-H), and continues with the c u r r e n t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v i t y as A t t e n t i o n D e f i c i t - H y p e r a c t i v i t y D i s o r d e r (AD-HD) i n DSM-III-R (American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1987). One of the secondary d i s a b i l i t i e s a r i s i n g from h y p e r a c t i v i t y i s poor academic f u n c t i o n i n g (Douglas, 1980b). By B a r k l e y ' s (1981) estimate, 80% of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y academic d e f i c i t s . A s i g n i f i c a n t academic d e f i c i t occurs when a c h i l d i s underachieving compared to expected grade l e v e l i n one or more areas of academic f u n c t i o n i n g , d e s p i t e normal i n t e l l i g e n c e (Barkley, 1981). In a Montreal sample, Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas, and Nemeth (1971) re p o r t e d t h a t by age 12, 70% of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n had f a i l e d one grade, and 20% had f a i l e d two grades. Cantwell 18 and S a t t e r f i e l d (1978) r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s i n a Los Angeles sample, s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t 76% of the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n t h a t they examined where underachieving i n at l e a s t two academic s u b j e c t s . The data c o n s i s t e n t l y show t h a t , although h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are not d i s t i n g u i s h e d from normal c h i l d r e n on c o g n i t i v e measures such as i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , they demonstrate r a t h e r s u r p r i s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n a c t u a l academic achievement, assessed by grades and numbers of years f a i l e d i n s c h o o l (Lambert & Sandoval, 1980; Minde, Lewin, Weiss, L a v i g e u r , Douglas, & Sykes, 1971; Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas, & Nemeth, 1971) The d i f f i c u l t y t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n experience with academic achievement i s a f u r t h e r concern because i t does not seem to be attenuated by treatment with s t i m u l a n t medications. The e f f e c t of s t i m u l a n t drugs upon academic performance i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n has been a matter of c o n t r o v e r s y f o r over 15 y e a r s . Most r e s e a r c h e r s agree t h a t s t i m u l a n t medications r e l i e v e the b e h a v i o r a l symptoms f o r many c h i l d r e n , but t h e i r impact on academic performance i s l e s s c e r t a i n (Barkley, & Cunningham, 1978; Douglas, 1975, 1978; Gadow, 1983). Stimulant drugs have not proven e f f e c t i v e i n h e l p i n g h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n cope with more complex c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , and seem to have had l i t t l e b e n e f i t on academic performance i n the classroom ( A l l y o n , Layman, & Kandel; Ba r k l e y , & Cunningham, 1978; G i t t l e m a n - K l e i n & K l e i n , 1976; Rapoport, Quinn, Bradbard, R i d d l e , & Brooke, 1974; R i e , R i e , Stewart, & Ambuel, 1976a, 1976b). I t i s 19 Important to note, however, t h a t some authors have demonstrated improvement i n the l a b o r a t o r y i n tasks such as p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g (Dalby, Kinsbourne, Swanson, & Sobel, 1977; Douglas, Barr, O ' N e i l l , & B r i t t o n , 1986), a r i t h m e t i c computations (Douglas et a l . , 1986) and s p e l l i n g and o r a l r e a d i n g (Pelham, 1983). An understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between pharmacotherapy and academic performance i s s t i l l , however, some way o f f . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n are impulsive a c a d e m i c a l l y : they work i n a manner t h a t i s unplanned and d i s o r g a n i z e d , they tend to make many e r r o r s of c a r e l e s s n e s s , and they o f t e n f a i l to monitor and check t h e i r performance (Campbell et a l . , 1971; Douglas, 1980; Tant & Douglas, 1982) I t has been suggested t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have a d e f i c i e n c y i n metacognition, i n the i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l mechanisms that would enable them to d i r e c t , guide, and focus a t t e n t i o n a l processes (Barkley, 1985; Douglas, 1980; Douglas & P e t e r s , 1979; T a y l o r , 1986). D e f i c i t s i n a t t e n t i o n would be expected to r e s u l t i n d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the a b i l i t y to organize behavior i n p u r p o s e f u l , g o a l - o r i e n t e d ways, and i n a f a i l u r e to apply d e l i b e r a t e s t r a t e g i c e f f o r t i n c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . An a t t e n t i v e , r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d monitors and c o n t r o l s a t t e n t i o n , d e f i n e s and c l a r i f i e s the nature of a task, generates the means of s o l u t i o n , and monitors progress, e r r o r s , and s u c c e s s . C h i l d r e n who lack s k i l l s i n these d e l i b e r a t e o p e r a t i o n s tend to have problems on tasks and l n s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n , p l a n f u l n e s s , and s e l f -r e g u l a t i o n . Research has shown th a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n make more impulsive e r r o r s and more e r r o r s of commission than c o n t r o l groups of non-hyperactive c h i l d r e n (Benezra, 1980, Douglas, 1980; Yussen, 1985), and t h a t they are l e s s l i k e l y to s e l f -c o r r e c t t h e i r work (Hoy, Weiss, Minde, & Cohen, 1978). A f t e r a number of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , Douglas (1978) concluded that many of the e r r o r s that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n make are e r r o r s of c a r e l e s s n e s s r a t h e r than e r r o r s of understanding. T y p i c a l l y , t h e i r performance on academic tasks i s h i g h l y v a r i a b l e , and they are n o t o r i o u s f o r f a i l i n g to make c o n s i s t e n t use of i n f o r m a t i o n and s k i l l s they are known to possess (Douglas, 1983). I n v e s t i g a t i o n s of metacognition i n c h i l d r e n may a i d i n understanding the p e r p l e x i n g academic behavior of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Authors such as F l a v e l l (1970, 1979. 1985) and Brown (1975, 1987) have emphasized the d i f f e r e n c e between knowledge that i s gained a u t o m a t i c a l l y and knowledge t h a t must be a c q u i r e d by e x e r c i s i n g s e l f - c o n s c i o u s , d e l i b e r a t e , and s t r a t e g i c a l l y a p p l i e d e f f o r t . To cope s u c c e s s f u l l y with knowledge t h a t must be a c q u i r e d e f f o r t f u l l y , the i n d i v i d u a l must work m e t h o d i c a l l y through a s e r i e s of e x e c u t i v e o p e r a t i o n s . The d i f f i c u l t y t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n experience with academic tasks has s e r i o u s consequences for t h e i r p o t e n t i a l to achieve i n the school system. The long-term outcomes f o r 21 these c h i l d r e n are not encouraging (Weiss & Hechtman, 1986). Most w i l l achieve below t h e i r a b i l i t y i n s c h o o l . The impulsive, unorganized way they approach c o g n i t i v e tasks p o i n t s to s e r i o u s impairments i n h i g h e r - o r d e r , metacognitive f u n c t i o n i n g . These are d e f i c i t s i n organized, p u r p o s e f u l , g o a l - o r i e n t e d behaviors, and they are l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n a f a i l u r e to evaluate the s p e c i f i c task demands, to apply d e l i b e r a t e s t r a t e g i c e f f o r t on tasks t h a t would be made e a s i e r by these i n t e r v e n t i o n s , and to monitor the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these methods. 2.5 Memory and Metamemory i n Hyperactive C h i l d r e n Memory i s a complex c o g n i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n between the events to be remembered and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and c o n t r o l p r o c e s s e s . D e f i c i t s may occur at any stage i n the o p e r a t i o n of t h i s complex process. There i s s u r p r i s i n g l y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h on h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s metacognitive c o n t r o l processes while performing a memory task. T h i s i s s u r p r i s i n g because of the c o n s i d e r a b l e data t h a t m onitoring processes are c e n t r a l to l e a r n i n g (Baker & Brown, 1981; F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y & Waller, 1984), and more s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t metamemory processes a i d memory ( F l a v e l l , 1970; F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977; Brown, 1974). As noted e a r l i e r , c h i l d r e n by about age e i g h t are able to employ an a r r a y of s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s to make the most e f f i c i e n t use of t h e i r memory c a p a c i t y . In t h i s s e c t i o n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory and 22 metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l be reviewed, beginning with an examination of t h e i r memory f u n c t i o n . The data suggest that although h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not experience d i f f i c u l t y with many memory t a s k s , they have more d i f f i c u l t y than t h e i r normal peers on tasks of uncued r e c a l l (Weingartner e t . a l , 1980), on p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e l e a r n i n g f o r non-meaningful p a i r s of words (Benezra, 1980), and on some memory tasks when the demands of the task increase (Benezra, 1980; P e t e r s , 1977; Spr i n g , Y e l l e n , & Greenberg, 1976; Swanson & Kinsbourne, 1979). In a d d i t i o n , there i s evidence t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not use p r o c e s s i n g time e f f i c i e n t l y ( A i n, 1980; Ba r k l e y , 1977). An examination of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and metamemory w i l l f o l l o w . There i s a p a u c i t y of data on metamemory i n hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , although many r e s e a r c h e r s i n v e s t i g a t i n g c o g n i t i o n i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have suggested metacognition (Barkley, 1981, 1985; Douglas, 1972, 1978, 1983; Douglas & P e t e r s , 1979; K e n d a l l , 1985; Melchenbaum & Goodman, 1971; Tant & Douglas, 1982) and metamemory (Benezra, 1980; Douglas, 1983) as d e f i c i e n t processes i n these c h i l d r e n . These s p e c u l a t i o n s have been based on b e h a v i o r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s d u r i n g the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , and the f i n d i n g t h a t task performance i s g e n e r a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . An o u t l i n e of obs e r v a t i o n s made by these i n v e s t i g a t o r s (Benezra, 1980; Douglas, 1983) w i l l be presented, with the su g g e s t i o n that r e s e a r c h l o o k i n g at metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l 23 be necessary to e s t a b l i s h t h i s l i n k . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n perform as w e l l as normals on many memory t a s k s . In a review of the l i t e r a t u r e , Douglas (1983) rep o r t e d no d e f i c i t s i n the f o l l o w i n g : r e c o g n i t i o n , cued r e c a l l , d i g i t s forwards and backwards, and p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g (PAL) of meaningful word p a i r s . Thus, h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n appear to have some memory a b i l i t i e s i n the normal range, but i t should not be concluded that they do w e l l on a l l tasks of memory. Weingartner et al.(1980) compared the performance of hy p e r a c t i v e and normal s u b j e c t s on tasks of cued and uncued r e c a l l . On t h i s task s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d to l i s t e n to 20 se t s of three words each. Ten of these s e t s i n c l u d e d two words that were s e m a n t i c a l l y r e l a t e d and one word that was d i f f e r e n t (e.g., peas, sp i n a c h , c a r ) , and the other 10 se t s contained two words that were a c o u s t i c a l l y r e l a t e d and one word t h a t was d i f f e r e n t (e.g., man, fan, c h a i r ) . Subjects were then i n s t r u c t e d to i d e n t i f y the word i n each s e t that d i d not belong, and were t o l d t h a t they were expected to remember these words l a t e r . The experimenter c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s by r e p e a t i n g the c o r r e c t word aloud. A f t e r a b r i e f d i s t r a c t o r task, the s u b j e c t s were t e s t e d f o r cued and uncued r e c a l l . For cued r e c a l l , the experimenter read one of the two r e l a t e d words i n each of the 20 s e t s , a s k i n g the c h i l d to name the other word of th a t p a i r . For uncued r e c a l l they were asked to remember as many of they could of the words t h a t they had named. The r e s u l t s showed that the hyperactive' s u b j e c t s were d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the normal s u b j e c t s by t h e i r poor performance on uncued r e c a l l of both a c o u s t i c a l l y and s e m a n t i c a l l y processed words, although by c o n t r a s t , there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the groups on the cued r e c a l l t a s k . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , when the cues were provi d e d , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were able to remember almost as w e l l as the normal s u b j e c t s . Benezra (1980) examined v e r b a l and nonverbal memory i n h y p e r a c t i v e , r e a d i n g d i s a b l e d , and normal c h i l d r e n . Although there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the h y p e r a c t i v e and the normal group on most of her measures (e.g, d i g i t s forward, d i g i t s backward, r e c a l l of a word l i s t , or cued r e c a l l of m e a n i n g f u l l y r e l a t e d words), she found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the h y p e r a c t i v e and normal groups on a PAL task i n v o l v i n g s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d words. This f i n d i n g i s important i n t h a t i t suggests t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s have more d i f f i c u l t y than normals i n forming meaningful a s s o c i a t i o n s among u n r e l a t e d words. On tasks of cued r e c a l l and PAL of meaningful words, u n l i k e tasks of uncued r e c a l l and PAL of nonmeaningful words, the task items are organized i n a way t h a t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e r e t r i e v a l . The e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p between items on these tasks p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l r e t r i e v a l cues, thereby p l a c i n g l e s s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the l e a r n e r to develop a method f o r o r g a n i z i n g the items d u r i n g the encoding pr o c e s s . Thus, the f i n d i n g s from the s t u d i e s by 25 Weingartner et a l . , (1980) and by Benezra (1980) suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n may encode i n f o r m a t i o n l e s s e f f i c i e n t l y than t h e i r normal peers, and i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t they may use weak and i n e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e t r i e v a l . Mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s may permit the c h i l d to form a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the items to be remembered, and thus would i n c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d of r e t r i e v a l . Evidence from s e v e r a l s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s t hat h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i f f e r from normal s u b j e c t s on some memory tasks when the task demands i n c r e a s e . By way of i l l u s t r a t i o n , Swanson and Kinsbourne (1979) used a c a t e g o r i z a t i o n l e a r n i n g task to study l e a r n i n g and memory In h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n who r e c e i v e d s t i m u l a n t medication or placebo. Subjects were shown s l i d e s of animals, one animal at a time. As they watched each s l i d e the c h i l d r e n were t o l d i n which of four zoos the animal l i v e d . The s u b j e c t s were then t e s t e d f o r t h e i r memory of the animal-zoo a s s o c i a t i o n s , by showing the animals again and a s k i n g them to name the c o r r e c t zoo f o r each one. Each c o r r e c t response was v e r b a l l y r e i n f o r c e d by the experimenter and each e r r o r was c o r r e c t e d . T h i s procedure was repeated over s e v e r a l t r i a l s u n t i l the c h i l d reached a c r i t e r i o n of two e r r o r l e s s r e c i t a t i o n s . The r e s u l t s with the untreated s u b j e c t s are r e l e v a n t to the present study. The authors found l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between h y p e r a c t i v e and c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n on i n i t i a l l e a r n i n g , but noted a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the performance of the two groups d u r i n g l a t e r t r i a l s when the task requirements i n c r e a s e d . Although both groups continued to improve over each a d d i t i o n a l t r i a l , the h y p e r a c t i v e group showed dimi n i s h e d improvement on the l a t e r t r i a l s compared to the e a r l i e r t r i a l s , a p a t t e r n not observed i n the normal s u b j e c t s . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e d more t r i a l s than the normal s u b j e c t s to l e a r n the a s s o c i a t i o n s . S p r i n g , Y e l l e n , and Greenberg (1976) found a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between h y p e r a c t i v e and normal s u b j e c t s on an extended v e r s i o n of the d i g i t span t e s t , although such a d i f f e r e n c e has not been observed on the usual a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h i s task (Benezra, 1980; Douglas, 1972). The customary v e r s i o n i s the D i g i t Span s u b t e s t of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (1974). In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , a sequence of d i g i t s i s read aloud by the experimenter and the s u b j e c t i s r e q u i r e d to repeat the sequence immediately. On each p r e s e n t a t i o n an a d d i t i o n a l d i g i t i s added to the sequence, u n t i l the s u b j e c t f a i l s a given l e n g t h two times. The extended v e r s i o n employed by Spring et a l . (1976) i n v o l v e d a d m i n i s t e r i n g the spans at each l e v e l three times, using d i f f e r e n t d i g i t sequences each time. The score was the mean span of the three c o n s e c u t i v e t r i a l s . On the standard v e r s i o n of the task, the d i g i t sequence does not change, but r a t h e r i s added to on each t r i a l . The s u b j e c t i s a f f o r d e d the b e n e f i t of r e p e t i t i o n of the d i g i t -- an advantage not provided i n the extended v e r s i o n . 27 Whereas Benezra (1980) found no d i f f e r e n c e s between h y p e r a c t i v e and normal s u b j e c t s on the free r e c a l l of a l i s t c omprising 12 u n r e l a t e d words, Pete r s (1977) observed a c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e using a l i s t c o n t a i n i n g 34 t a r g e t s . Douglas (1983) has suggested that the apparent d i s c r e p a n c y between these two s t u d i e s may be due to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the demands of the t a s k s . Memory tasks such as the one employed by Pete r s (1977) in c r e a s e the task demands placed on the s u b j e c t , thus i n c r e a s i n g the p r o c e s s i n g demands and the need f o r s t r a t e g i c e f f o r t . Douglas (1984), a f t e r completing many s t u d i e s of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , agreed with Swanson and Kinsbourne's (1979) c l a i m t h a t there may be a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the way h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n perform complex memory problems compared with normal c h i l d r e n , and added that the d e f i c i t i s observed even when these c h i l d r e n are we l l - m o t i v a t e d . She concluded that f o r hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , d e f i c i t s found on memory tasks can probably be a t t r i b u t e d to a f a i l u r e to i n v e s t s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t i n committing the i n f o r m a t i o n to memory. Another problem t h a t has been observed i n the t e s t behavior of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i s that they do not use study time as e f f i c i e n t l y as normals do (Ain, 1980). For example, on a task i n which s u b j e c t s are r e q u i r e d to encode and match p i c t o r i a l s t i m u l i , h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e longer encoding and matching times i n order to o b t a i n the accuracy l e v e l s of normal c o n t r o l s (Ain, 1980). B a r k l e y (1977) observed t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , d u r i n g a v i s u a l memory task, spent l e s s time viewing a f i l m and were more a c t i v e while i t was being shown than were c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . This p o i n t s to a l e s s e f f i c i e n t use of study time by hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s d i s c u s s e d above suggest that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not demonstrate the metamemory knowledge and s k i l l s observed i n other c h i l d r e n of s i m i l a r age and i n t e l l i g e n c e . L e a r n i n g to some extent i s determined by how w e l l or e l a b o r a t e l y i n f o r m a t i o n i s encoded. Information that i s processed r a p i d l y , i n an i s o l a t e d r a t h e r than i n an organized f a s h i o n , i s apt to be r e c a l l e d p o o r l y i f at a l l . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may have developed a p a r t i a l or incomplete grasp of some concepts and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s which would enhance t h e i r memory performance. Fur t h e r r e s e a r c h , such as the present study, comparing memory and metamemory, w i l l be necessary to determine i f the d e f i c i e n c i e s observed on these s e l e c t e d memory tasks i s due to d e f i c i e n t metamemory proce s s e s . Although l i t t l e i s known about h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and metamemory, there are two s t u d i e s which have examined metamemory i n impulsive c h i l d r e n (Borkowski, Peck, Reid, & Ku r t z , 1983; S i e g e l , K i r a s i c , & K i l b u r g , 1973). While i t cannot be assumed that h y p e r a c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n are e q u i v a l e n t , f i n d i n g s t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have an impulsive c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (Campbell, Douglas, & Morgenstern, 1971) suggest t h a t the outcomes of these s t u d i e s may prove 29 r e l e v a n t to s t u d i e s with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The Campbell et a l . (1971) study with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l be di s c u s s e d f i r s t , f ollowed by the two s t u d i e s of metamemory i n impulsive c h i l d r e n . Campbell et a l . (1971) i n v e s t i g a t e d c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s i n hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n order to determine i f these c h i l d r e n who were impulsive b e h a v i o r a l l y were a l s o impulsive c o g n i t i v e l y . Kagan (1966) suggested t h a t one f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to a c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g i s c o g n i t i v e tempo. He developed a number of measures such as the Matching F a m i l i a r F i g u r e s Test (MFFT), a v i s u a l matching t e s t , to assess c o g n i t i v e tempo i n c h i l d r e n . He found two d i s t i n c t types of c o g n i t i v e tempo which he r e f e r r e d to as impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e . Kagan's f i n d i n g s show t h a t , compared to r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n , impulsive c h i l d r e n had sh o r t e r r e a c t i o n times, made a l a r g e r number of e r r o r s , and had a tendency t o respond immediately with l i t t l e c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s . Campbell et a l . (1971) used Kagan's (1966) measures to compare the c o g n i t i v e tempos of h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n and found s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s : the h y p e r a c t i v e group was more impulsive than the normals, had s h o r t e r response l a t e n c i e s , and made more e r r o r s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , they r e p o r t e d a f i n d i n g s i m i l a r to Benezra's (1980) and Pe t e r s ' (1977), s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s made more e r r o r s of commission than the normal s u b j e c t s . S-iegel, K i r a s l c , and K i l b u r g (1973) employed a v i s u a l memory task with r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive preschool c h i l d r e n i n order to compare r e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r items that r e q u i r e d d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s . They used two decks of 80 cards each, a p r e s e n t a t i o n and a t e s t deck. On each of the cards i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n deck was a drawing of a f a m i l i a r animal or o b j e c t . On each of the cards i n the t e s t deck there were two drawings, one from the p r e s e n t a t i o n deck and one novel drawing. The s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to look at the cards i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n deck, one at a time, at t h e i r own pace. During the next p a r t of the task, the experimenter showed the s u b j e c t s the cards i n the t e s t deck, one at a time, and i n s t r u c t e d them to point to the p i c t u r e that they had seen b e f o r e . The t e s t deck was made up of four groups of 20 cards each i n order to t e s t four l e v e l s of d i f f i c u l t y : from p a i r s d i f f e r i n g by onl y a minor f e a t u r e to p a i r s d i f f e r i n g i n s t y l e and major f e a t u r e s . Compared to the r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n , the impulsive c h i l d r e n made fewer c o r r e c t r e c o g n i t i o n c h o i c e s , and had more d i f f i c u l t y r e c o g n i z i n g the d i f f i c u l t items. The two groups d i d not d i f f e r , however, on the easy d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s . The authors a t t r i b u t e d the i n f e r i o r performance of the impulsive s u b j e c t s on the d i f f i c u l t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s to a tendency to perform a l e s s thorough and d e t a i l e d f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s of the s t i m u l i . A tendency to choose h a s t i l y , before examining a l l the f e a t u r e s , would be expected to r e s u l t i n poorer performance on d i f f i c u l t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s i r r e s p e c t i v e of memory a b i l i t y . 31 Borkowski, Peck, Reid, and Kurtz (1983) were I n t e r e s t e d i n whether r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r s t r a t e g i c behavior on memory t a s k s . They employed a s o r t / r e c a l l r e a d i n e s s task which was made up of three decks of 15 p i c t u r e s each. The p i c t u r e s i n each deck could be grouped i n t o c a t e g o r i e s such as animal,, c l o t h i n g , or body p a r t s . The c h i l d r e n were handed each deck of 15 p i c t u r e s and i n s t r u c t e d to do "whatever they l i k e d to help them remember the p i c t u r e s when they could no longer see them". When the s u b j e c t s i n d i c a t e d r e a d i n e s s to r e c a l l , the p i c t u r e s were taken away, and they were asked to name as many of the items as they could remember. During the study p e r i o d , the experimenter scored the c h i l d ' s s t r a t e g i c behavior on a s i x - p o i n t s c a l e that ranged from r e h e a r s a l to c l u s t e r i n g . C l u s t e r i n g was deemed to be the most h e l p f u l s t r a t e g y i n t h i s task. The impulsive c h i l d r e n i n the study showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y poorer r e c a l l than the r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n , and i n a d d i t i o n , they r e c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower scores on the s t r a t e g y measure. In an attempt to understand why d i f f e r e n c e s i n c o g n i t i v e tempo were r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g i c behavior, the authors proceeded to measure metamemory knowledge. They used a metamemory q u e s t i o n n a i r e on which c h i l d r e n were asked about t h e i r knowledge of the c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own memories. They found a s i z e a b l e d i f f e r e n c e between the metamemory scores of impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n , with r e f l e c t i v e s s c o r i n g higher, and furthermore, found t h a t 32 metamemory scores could p r e d i c t s t r a t e g i c behavior. These f i n d i n g s suggest that impulsive c h i l d r e n , d e f i c i e n t i n metamemory knowledge, have d i f f i c u l t y knowing how and when to use s t r a t e g i c s k i l l s . An important q u e s t i o n that remains unanswered i s whether h y p e r a c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n do not r a t h e r than cannot employ these s k i l l s . Observations of hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s behavior d u r i n g task performance and the v a r i a b l e nature of t h e i r performance suggest t h a t they can use s t r a t e g i e s , although they may use them i n l e s s powerful ways than normal c h i l d r e n . Douglas (1983), i n reviewing her many s t u d i e s with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , remarked that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s performance on c o g n i t i v e tasks improves when an a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e (parent or teacher) i s present, when c h i l d r e n are t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y r a t h e r than i n a group, and when rewards or response c o s t s are used to encourage c o r r e c t performance. She r e f e r r e d to t h e i r a b i l i t y to perform tasks under these c o n d i t i o n s as t h e i r hidden knowledge. When Benezra (1980) observed t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n her study had d i f f i c u l t y remembering the u n r e l a t e d word p a i r s , but not the r e l a t e d word p a i r s , she asked both groups how they had t r i e d to remember the word p a i r s . Whereas 52% of the normal s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d using an e l a b o r a t e r e h e a r s a l s t r a t e g y , only 30% of the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i d so. To i l l u s t r a t e , f o r the p a i r " f i s h - g a t e " , an e l a b o r a t e r e h e a r s a l s t r a t e g y r e p o r t e d i n t h i s study was, 33 "When you go f i s h i n g you see a gate around the pond". By c o n t r a s t , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s more f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d t r y i n g to remember by simple r e p e t i t i v e r e h e a r s a l of the p a i r s . A t y p i c a l response by a h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t was, "I t r i e d to keep the words i n my head". The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study had r e p o r t e d using s t r a t e g i e s , but the ones they employed were not as e l a b o r a t e or e f f e c t i v e as the ones chosen by the normal s u b j e c t s . I t has been suggested that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are immature and that t h e i r performance on c o g n i t i v e tasks such as memory tasks lags two or three years behind t h e i r normal peers (Douglas, 1983). L i k e the younger c h i l d r e n d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n the developmental s t u d i e s , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n seem to have a d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r knowledge of s t r a t e g i e s , and about how and when to use them. Brown and DeLoache (1978) observed that mature memorizers, i n c o n t r a s t , tend to employ a v a r i e t y of mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s whenever f e a s i b l e . Brown (1975) suggested t h a t i t i s t h i s i n t e n t i o n to use an a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g y t h a t i s d e f i c i e n t i n the young c h i l d , and not a s p e c i f i c memory s k i l l . Research i n v e s t i g a t i n g memory and metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l be necessary to determine whether t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s true of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n as w e l l . 2.6 Summary H y p e r a c t i v i t y i s a widespread d i s o r d e r which r e s u l t s i n adverse e f f e c t s on many aspects of a c h i l d ' s f u n c t i o n i n g . One area of concern i s the d i f f i c u l t y h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrate on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , as i t can r e s u l t i n poor academic performance. This aspect of the d i s o r d e r i s problematic i n view of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s : i t i s s u b t l e and d i f f i c u l t to d e f i n e , i t i s observed i n s p i t e of normal i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y , and i t can r e s u l t i n profound long-term consequences such as sc h o o l f a i l u r e . H yperactive c h i l d r e n seem to experience d i f f i c u l t y assuming an a c t i v e r o l e when performing a c o g n i t i v e task, a r o l e which r e q u i r e s them to plan ahead, to r e f l e c t on what has been done and what should be done next, and to u t i l i z e a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s to enhance performance. T h e i r f a i l u r e to engage i n these metacognitive a c t i v i t i e s may be an important f a c t o r i n the d i f f i c u l t y they experience with complex c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . On tasks of memory, h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n perform as w e l l as t h e i r normal peers when the requirement f o r s t r a t e g i c e f f o r t i s minimal. They experience more d i f f i c u l t y than t h e i r peers on complex t a s k s , and on simple tasks when the demands are i n c r e a s e d . T h e i r t e s t behavior i s s i m i l a r to younger c h i l d r e n ' s who do not memorize d e l i b e r a t e l y . 35 2.7 Purpose of The Present I n v e s t i g a t i o n The main aim of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s to examine the performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n on tasks of memory and metamemory i n order to determine the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r metamemory and memory performance. Memory and metamemory are s e l e c t e d f o r study i n view of the s u b s t a n t i a l r o l e t h a t memory plays i n l e a r n i n g , the la r g e body of developmental data t h a t has demonstrated that c h i l d r e n by age e i g h t use a v a r i e t y of mnemonic s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s , because metamemory s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s have been shown to a i d memory performance, and because h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have been shown to perform w e l l on some memory tasks and p o o r l y on o t h e r s . There i s a p a u c i t y of data d e s c r i b i n g metamemory processes i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have made in f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n s that metacognitive processes may be the p o s s i b l e locus of the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n experience with l e a r n i n g , but few s t u d i e s have d i r e c t l y i n v e s t i g a t e d these p r o c e s s e s . I t i s expected that t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l help to d e s c r i b e metamemory processes as they r e l a t e to memory f u n c t i o n i n these c h i l d r e n . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may demonstrate metamemory d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r a number of reasons. One reason i s that they may have poor knowledge of t h e i r own memory c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s . I f so, they would not know that they don't know something, and would be l e s s I n c l i n e d 36 to engage i n s t r a t e g i c behavior to improve t h e i r knowledge. A second reason i s that they may know that they don't know something but may lack the s k i l l s that could enhance t h e i r knowledge, e i t h e r because these s k i l l s are not produced spontaneously, or because they have not been adequately learned or p r a c t i c e d . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may be using metamemory s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s , but they may do so l e s s e f f i c i e n t l y than normal c h i l d r e n . There i s evidence that they use simple s t r a t e g i e s such as r o t e r e h e a r s a l , but many metamemory s k i l l s and s t r a t e g i e s r e q u i r e e f f o r t f u l p r o c e s s i n g , and h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n may not be capable of, or motivated to expend the necessary e f f o r t . M e t a c o g n i t i v e phenomena, such as metamemory, may have important treatment i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . If t h i s study i d e n t i f i e s f a c t o r s that i m p l i c a t e a d e f i c i e n c y i n metamemory i n these c h i l d r e n , then i t may suggest treatment s t r a t e g i e s which c o u l d be developed and t r i e d i n attempts to t r a i n these s k i l l s . 37 3 . General Methods In t h i s s e c t i o n I w i l l d i s c u s s the methods common to the f i v e t asks i n t h i s study. The methods and procedures s p e c i f i c to each of the tasks w i l l be d i s c u s s e d s e p a r a t e l y . 3 . 1 Subjects Males and females between the ages of e i g h t and twelve years were t e s t e d . E i g h t year olds were the youngest age group t e s t e d because i t was necessary to assume t h a t the normal s u b j e c t s were capable of metamemory knowledge and monitor i n g . A l l s u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d from the p u b l i c s c h o o l s of Surrey, B r i t i s h Columbia. Subjects were e n l i s t e d through a general l e t t e r and consent form sent home to the parents of a l l of the students i n s i x sch o o l s i n Surrey, a s k i n g f o r both h y p e r a c t i v e and non-hyperactive c h i l d r e n who would be i n t e r e s t e d i n t a k i n g p a r t i n a study of l e a r n i n g and memory (see Appendix A). A p i l o t study c a r r i e d out i n the Surrey p u b l i c s c h o o l s o f f e r e d p r e l i m i n a r y i n f o r m a t i o n on the numbers of h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s l i k e l y to vo l u n t e e r to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a study of t h i s k i n d . S i x sch o o l s were chosen i n order to ensure a l a r g e enough group of hy p e r a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s . The p a r t i c i p a n t s d i d not r e c e i v e remuneration of any s o r t f o r t a k i n g p a r t i n the study. In the present study, 2800 l e t t e r s and consent forms were sent home with the students and 536 completed consent 38 forms were r e t u r n e d . Sixty-one of the comleted forms were excluded because the respondents d i d not meet the age c r i t e r i a f o r the study. The remaining 475 forms i n c l u d e d 68 which I n d i c a t e d t h a t the c h i l d was h y p e r a c t i v e , and 407 which i n d i c a t e d that the c h i l d was not h y p e r a c t i v e . Subjects were excluded i f they were i n a s p e c i a l education c l a s s f o r d i s a b i l i t i e s i n c l u d i n g v i s u a l or hearing impairments, language-processing problems, gross n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s , and mental r e t a r d a t i o n , or i f t h e i r IQ f e l l below the average s u b t e s t score of 9-11 on two su b t e s t s of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale f o r C h i l d r e n -Revised (WISC-R, 1974). Twelve of the p o t e n t i a l h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were excluded because the c h i l d was i n a s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n c l a s s , and two were excluded because the c h i l d was r e c e i v i n g s t i m u l a n t medication. None of the non-hyperactive respondents were excluded f o r these reasons. When a form was retu r n e d by a parent i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h i s or her c h i l d i s h y p e r a c t i v e , the c h i l d was assessed f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y , and assigned to the h y p e r a c t i v e group i f he or she met the d i a g n o s t i c c r i t e r i a l i s t e d i n S e c t i o n 3.2. Twenty-four c h i l d r e n were excuded from p a r t i c i p a t i n g because they d i d not reach the d i a g n o s t i c c r i t e r i a f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y . The 30 c h i l d r e n who met these c r i t e r i a formed the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t group. When a form was retu r n e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a c h i l d i s not h y p e r a c t i v e , the c h i l d r e c e i v e d the same d i a g n o s t i c assessment as the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , so as to preclude 39 the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s group. This group of 407 respondents was d i v i d e d i n t o s i x groups a c c o r d i n g to s c h o o l , and then was f u r t h e r d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g to grade and age. T h i s provided a small pool of s u b j e c t s f o r each grade and age i n the s c h o o l . For every h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t i n c l u d e d i n the study, a c o n t r o l s u b j e c t was chosen randomly from the same grade/age pool of s u b j e c t s i n h i s or her s c h o o l . 3.2 Subject Assessment Procedure As noted above, a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study were assessed f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y . B a r k l e y (1981, 1987, 1988b) developed d i a g n o s t i c c r i t e r i a , now widely accepted, to i d e n t i f y h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . These c r i t e r i a , almost i d e n t i c a l to those of the DSM-III-R (1987) he helped to c o n s t r u c t , are as f o l l o w s : (a) Parent/teacher complaints of i n a t t e n t i o n , i m p u l s i v i t y , r e s t l e s s n e s s , and poor compliance and poor s e l f - c o n t r o l ; (b) A score on a s t a n d a r d i z e d r a t i n g s c a l e of h y p e r a c t i v e behavior of at l e a s t two standard d e v i a t i o n s above the mean f o r normal c h i l d r e n ; (c) Reported age of onset of symptoms by age 5 or 6; (d) D u r a t i o n of symptoms of a t l e a s t 6 months; and (e) An IQ of at l e a s t 70 to preclude mental r e t a r d a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g measures were completed before the s e s s i o n s with the c h i l d i n order to determine s u b j e c t s e l e c t i o n : 1. The Parent's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was administered by 40 telephone (see Appendix E ) . At t h i s time parents were asked to complete a parent's r a t i n g s c a l e . The Parent's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i n c l u d e d i n order to exclude s u b j e c t s (a) who have not shown h y p e r a c t i v e behaviors f o r longer than 6 months; (b) who are developmentally delayed ( S a t t l e r [1982] d e s c r i b e s developmental d e l a y as a slowness i n r e a c h i n g the developmental landmarks i n the absence of CNS damage); (c) who have experienced a recent p e r s o n a l or f a m i l i a l trauma ( w i t h i n the past s i x months) that might account f o r t h e i r behavior (such as, d i v o r c e , i l l n e s s , or death), and (d) who are t a k i n g s t i m u l a n t medications, or other medications t h a t might i n f l u e n c e t h e i r performance. 2. The Conners' Parent's R a t i n g Scale (CPRS-R, Conners, 1978) was sent home from s c h o o l with the c h i l d (see Appendix B). The CPRS-R was used i n t h i s study because i t i s the most commonly used parent r a t i n g s c a l e i n r e s e a r c h with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n (Barkley, 1988b). The r e v i s e d 48-item s c a l e was used as i t i s the s c a l e with the best normative data (B a r k l e y , 1987). The 48 items have been f a c t o r analyzed to e i g h t f a c t o r s , i n c l u d i n g an Impulsive-Hyperactive f a c t o r . Normative data on the CPRS were c o l l e c t e d on 750 c h i l d r e n (Barkley, 1988b), and the s c a l e has been shown to d i s c r i m i n a t e h y p e r a c t i v e from non-h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . 3. The Conners' Teacher's Rati n g Scale (CTRS-R, Conners, 1978) was completed by the c h i l d ' s classroom teacher (see Appendix C). The CTRS-R was used because i t 41 too i s the most commonly used teacher r a t i n g s c a l e i n re s e a r c h with h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The r e v i s e d 28-item s c a l e was used i n t h i s study because i t provided a l l the items f o r the Hyperactive f a c t o r , and a s i m i l a r format and s c o r i n g to the CPRS. The items were f a c t o r analyzed, and 10 items load on to the Hyperactive f a c t o r . The s c a l e has a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y among teacher r a t e r s , and i d e n t i c a l s c a l e s used i n s i m i l a r environments have y i e l d e d high c o r r e l a t i o n s , i n d i c a t i n g a high degree of r e l i a b i l i t y (Goyette, Conners, and U l r i c h , 1978). Ex t e n s i v e normative data are a v a i l a b l e on the CTRS-R (Barkley, 1988b). The two Conners' s c a l e s were used i n order to assess the presence of h y p e r a c t i v e symptoms i n more than one s e t t i n g . An assessment by s e v e r a l informants a c r o s s s e v e r a l s e t t i n g s i s d e s i r a b l e . The reason f o r assessment i n more than one s e t t i n g i s to ensure p e r v a s i v e h y p e r a c t i v i t y . S i t u a t i o n - s p e c i f i c h y p e r a c t i v i t y may be observed f o r a number of reasons, and by i t s e l f would not be reason f o r a d i a g n o s i s of h y p e r a c t i v i t y (Barkley, 1982, 1987; Schachar, R u t t e r , & Smith, 1983). 4. The H y p e r a c t i v i t y C h e c k l i s t (a c h e c k l i s t of the 14 symptoms recommended by the D i a g n o s t i c and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual of Mental D i s o r d e r s (DSM-III-R, 1987) i n d i a g n o s i n g A t t e n t i o n a l D e f i c i t - H y p e r a c t i v i t y D i s o r d e r AD-HD ( h y p e r a c t i v i t y ) was completed by the c h i l d ' s teacher (see Appendix D). The DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t was i n c l u d e d f o r two reasons: f i r s t , to provide converging data with the Conners' 42 s c a l e s ; and second, because the c u t o f f score f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y was e s t a b l i s h e d through a c l i n i c a l f i e l d t r i a l . A l l of the s u b j e c t s i n the h y p e r a c t i v e group obtained a score of 15 or g r e a t e r (the recommended c u t - o f f f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y ; Conners, 1978) on the h y p e r a c t i v i t y items of the two Conners' s c a l e s (CPRS-R and CTRS-R), and a score of 8 or gr e a t e r on the DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t of symptoms of h y p e r a c t i v i t y (the recommended c u t o f f f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y ; DSM-III-R, 1987). The normal s u b j e c t s had mean r a t i n g s on the two Conners' s c a l e s of l e s s than f i v e , and on the DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t of l e s s than t h r e e . 3.3 T e s t i n g Environment and Schedule Subjects were t e s t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y , i n an o f f i c e i n t h e i r own s c h o o l s , by one of two female examiners. A l l s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n four s e s s i o n s , each l a s t i n g from one h a l f hour to one and a h a l f hours, and each separated by two to three days. In the f i r s t s e s s i o n with the c h i l d the f o l l o w i n g assessment measures were a d m i n i s t e r e d : (a) Block Design (a performance s u b t e s t of the WISC-R, and (b) Vocabulary (a v e r b a l s u b t e s t of the WISC-R. The two s u b t e s t s of the WISC-R were i n c l u d e d i n order to o b t a i n both a v e r b a l and a performance measure of i n t e l l i g e n c e . The Vocabulary t e s t i s a v e r b a l t e s t , and i s con s i d e r e d to be an e x c e l l e n t estimate of general i n t e l l i g e n c e (median l o a d i n g of g =.80, [ S a t t l e r , 43 1982]), and the Block Design, a performance t e s t , i s the best measure of general i n t e l l i g e n c e among the performance measures of the WISC-R (median l o a d i n g of g =.73, [ S a t t l e r , 1982]). In the second s e s s i o n the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task was adm i n i s t e r e d . T h i s task was administered by i t s e l f as the c h i l d was expected to remember s i x t h i n g s throughout the scho o l day, and should not see the examiner (a p o t e n t i a l r e c a l l cue), again d u r i n g t h a t day. In the t h i r d s e s s i o n the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t task and the ob j e c t span task were a d m i n i s t e r e d . In the f o u r t h s e s s i o n the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g (FOK) and the v i s u a l memory tasks were a d m i n i s t e r e d . Half of the s u b j e c t s i n the study r e c e i v e d the four s e s s i o n s i n the above order, and h a l f r e c e i v e d s e s s i o n s three and four i n reverse order ( i . e . , Sessions 1, 2, 4, and 3), i n an attempt to c o n t r o l f o r any e f f e c t t h a t may r e s u l t from the order of the t a s k s . 3.4 R e s u l t s of Subject Assessment In terms of the d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s , a sample of males and females, ages 8 to 12 y e a r s , was s e l e c t e d from the respondents to a l e t t e r r e q u e s t i n g v o l u n t e e r s to take p a r t i n a study of l e a r n i n g and memory. S p e c i f i c a l l y , s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g way, (a) f i r s t , s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the study i f they met the age c r i t e r i a (b) second, the Parent's Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was 44 administered to the parents of these c h i l d r e n , (c) the remaining group, of more than 50 p o t e n t i a l l y h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s and a l a r g e r group of normal c h i l d r e n , were administered the CPRS-R, CTRS-R, and the DSM-III-R C h e c k l i s t . Those meeting the c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n as hy p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 3.2 were assigned to the h y p e r a c t i v e group. T h i s group of 30 s u b j e c t s was matched a c c o r d i n g to age, grade, and IQ (as measured by the Vocabulary and Block Design s u b t e s t scores on the WISC-R) to a group of 30 s u b j e c t s who met the c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the normal group. The 30 s u b j e c t s i n the h y p e r a c t i v e group ranged i n age from 8 to 12 yea r s , with a mean age of 10 years and two months. T h e i r grade placements i n sch o o l ranged from grades two to seven. There were 26 males i n t h i s group and four females. The mean scores on the assessment c r i t e r i a were as f o l l o w s : 21.23 on the CTRS-R, 19.26 on the CPRS-R, 9.93 on the DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t , 10.60 on the Vocabulary s u b t e s t of the WISC-R, and 10.77 on the Block Design s u b t e s t of the WISC-R. The 30 s u b j e c t s i n the normal group ranged i n age from 8 to 12 y e a r s , with a mean age of 9 years and 11 months. T h e i r grade placements i n s c h o o l , l i k e the h y p e r a c t i v e group, ranged from grades two to seven. There were nine males and 21 females i n t h i s group. The mean scores on the assessment c r i t e r i a were as f o l l o w s : 4.33 on the CPRS-R, 2.53 on the CTRS-R, .73 on the DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t , 11.26 45 on the Vocabulary s u b t e s t of the WISC-R, and 10.97 on the Block Design s u b t e s t of the WISC-R. D e s c r i p t i v e data on the two groups i s presented i n Table 1. I t should be noted t h a t i n the a n a l y s i s of these and a l l other data obtained i n t h i s study, the alpha l e v e l was s e t at .05 ( t w o - t a i l e d ) . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups on age, grade, and IQ (as measured by the Vocabulary and Block Design s u b t e s t s of the WISC-R), the v a r i a b l e s used i n matching ( a l l ts(58) <1). The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n were r a t e d as more h y p e r a c t i v e than the c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n on the h y p e r a c t i v i t y f a c t o r of the CPRS-R (t(58) =14.52, p <.01), on the CTRS-R (t(58) = 18.65, p <.01), and on the DSM-III-R c h e c k l i s t (t(58) = 18.06, p_ < .01). There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the sex r a t i o of the two s u b j e c t groups (p_ >.15). This d i f f e r e n c e was unintended and r e s u l t e d from the number of s u b j e c t s who vol u n t e e r e d f o r the study, and from the matching of groups on the age, grade, and IQ v a r i a b l e s . I t should be noted, however, t h a t the sex r a t i o of the h y p e r a c t i v e group i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h i s p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e between the groups w i l l be addressed s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n S e c t i o n 9.1. 46 Table 1. Mean Scores of the D i a g n o s t i c Groups on Screening and D e s c r i p t i v e V a r i a b l e s V a r i a b l e : Hyperactive C o n t r o l Mean SD Mean SD Age (years - mos.) 10-2 16.43 9-11 15.11 Grade 4.06 1.46 4.00 1.31 H y p e r a c t i v i t y f a c t o r on the CPRS-R 19.26 4.83 4.33 2.89 CTRS-R 21.23 4.40 2.53 3.28 DSM-III-R 9.93 2.13 0.73 1.79 WISC-R - Vocabulary 10.60 2.06 11.26 1.53 WISC-R - Block Desian 10.77 1.92 1 0-97 1.03 47 4. Task 1: P r o s p e c t i v e Memory 4.1 R a t i o n a l e P r o s p e c t i v e memory i s memory f o r f u t u r e events. When attempting to remember to perform some fu t u r e a c t i o n , such as r e t u r n i n g a l i b r a r y book, you are engaging i n p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. R e t r o s p e c t i v e remembering, by c o n t r a s t , i s memory of a past event, f o r example, remembering where you l e f t the book t h a t you want to r e t u r n . Meacham (1982) has suggested t h a t what d i f f e r e n t i a t e s these two types of memory i s the a c t i v e r o l e a person must assume i n order to engage i n p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. P r o s p e c t i v e remembering r e q u i r e s planned a c t i o n i n order that the f u t u r e a c t i o n s w i l l be performed. Planned a c t i o n i s an example of metamemory, and i t r e q u i r e s an i n d i v i d u a l to engage i n a number of o p e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a t t e n t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , and m o nitoring b e h a v i o r s , a l l of which r e q u i r e an a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t . There have been s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of p r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t s of these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s suggest t h a t c h i l d r e n from a young age can v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e ways to remember a f u t u r e event (Kreutzer et a l . , 1975), t h a t p r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n c h i l d r e n i s f a c i l i t a t e d by e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues (Meacham & Colombo, 1980), and t h a t c h i l d r e n can s t r a t e g i c a l l y monitor time i n order to remember to perform a f u t u r e event (Ceci & Bronfenbrenner, 1985). Although p r o s p e c t i v e remembering has 48 not been examined i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , many authors have d e s c r i b e d the f a i l u r e of these c h i l d r e n to engage i n planned, organized a c t i o n (Barkley, 1985; K e n d a l l , 1985; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971; Tant & Douglas, 1982). Very young c h i l d r e n would not be expected to be competent at p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. Because they do not yet monitor time, t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are s t r u c t u r e d around d a i l y r o u t i n e s , such as bedtime and mealtimes, which provide them with important e x t e r n a l cues f o r memory. Meacham and Leiman (1982) make a d i s t i n c t i o n between h a b i t u a l remembering such as t h i s , and e p i s o d i c remembering, which i s remembering i n f r e q u e n t l y performed a c t i o n s . As c h i l d r e n develop, they are a f f o r d e d more and more freedom to choose t h e i r a c t i o n s , and i t i s l i k e l y a t t h i s time t h a t they begin to engage i n p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. Kreutzer et a l . (1975) i n t e r v i e w e d c h i l d r e n i n grades k i n d e r g a r t e n , one, t h r e e , and f i v e , to determine what they knew about t h e i r own memories. In one task of p r o s p e c t i v e memory, they asked the c h i l d r e n how they c o u l d remember to b r i n g t h e i r skates to s c h o o l the next day. As w e l l , they asked the c h i l d r e n how many d i f f e r e n t ways they c o u l d think of to remember t h e i r s k a t e s . The authors found a developmental i n c r e a s e i n the number, v a r i e t y , and p l a n f u l n e s s of the responses. Even the c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n were able to t h i n k of some way they could remember, but t h i r d and f i f t h grade s u b j e c t s produced more responses than the younger s u b j e c t s , and produced a g r e a t e r 49 v a r i e t y of responses. Furthermore, the responses o f f e r e d by the o l d e r s u b j e c t s were more e x p l i c i t l y p l a n f u l than those of the younger s u b j e c t s ; e.g., s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the skates could be placed i n a bag the n i g h t before or l e f t near the door where they would be seen the next morning. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , s u b j e c t s of a l l ages chose e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues such as u s i n g the s k a t e s , a note, or t h e i r parent to remind them, r a t h e r then r e l y i n g on t h e i r own i n t e r n a l memory proce s s e s . Meacham and Colombo (1980) were i n t e r e s t e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the p r o s p e c t i v e memory c a p a c i t y i n d i c a t e d by the i n t e r v i e w data of Kreutzer et a l . (1975), and c h i l d r e n ' s a c t u a l performance on a p r o s p e c t i v e memory task. Meacham and Columbo (1980) assigned s i x - and e i g h t -year o l d s u b j e c t s to e i t h e r an e l a b o r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n i n which they were provided with an e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue by the experimenter, or a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n i n which no such cue was p r o v i d e d . The s u b j e c t s , who engaged i n a s h o r t game with the experimenter, were I n s t r u c t e d at the beginning of the game to remind the experimenter to open a s u r p r i s e box when they f i n i s h e d the a c t i v i t y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i n the e l a b o r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n , the experimenter placed a clown d o l l on the t a b l e and s a i d , "Here, t h i s clown w i l l h e l p you remind me to open the box. What w i l l you t h i n k of when you see the clown?" Although there was no d i f f e r e n c e between the performance of the s i x and e i g h t year o l d s , there was a 50 s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two c o n d i t i o n s , demonstrating that e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues f a c i l i t a t e p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. Whereas 75% of the c h i l d r e n i n the e l a b o r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n remembered to remind the examiner about the box, o n l y 52% of the c h i l d r e n i n the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n remembered. The authors c o n j e c t u r e d t h a t c h i l d r e n , when attempting to remember f u t u r e events, may be l e a r n i n g to t h i n k s t r a t e g i c a l l y i n ways t h a t w i l l f a c i l i t a t e r e t r o s p e c t i v e remembering. How c h i l d r e n develop the a b i l i t y to monitor t h e i r memory and subsequently remember some event i s u n c l e a r . A recent study c a r r i e d out by C e c i and Bronfenbrenner (1985) prov i d e s some evidence about the c o n d i t i o n s under which t h i s kind of s t r a t e g i c memory monitoring i s f a c i l i t a t e d . They t e s t e d 10 and 14 year o l d s u b j e c t s i n e i t h e r a f a m i l i a r (home) or an u n f a m i l i a r ( l a b o r a t o r y ) s e t t i n g , and i n s t r u c t e d them to bake cupcakes, p l a c e them i n the oven by a s p e c i f i e d time, and remove them 30 minutes l a t e r . During the task s u b j e c t s were o f f e r e d u n l i m i t e d use of a video game, from 15 minutes before the cupcakes were to go i n t o the oven u n t i l a f t e r the baking p e r i o d was over. The authors measured s t r a t e g i c time-monitoring d u r i n g the task and found a s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the type of s t r a t e g i c m o n itoring employed i n the two c o n t e x t s . The c h i l d r e n i n the home s e t t i n g were more l i k e l y to use a s o p h i s t i c a t e d , t i m e - c o n s e r v i n g s t r a t e g y than the s u b j e c t s i n the l a b o r a t o r y . There was l i t t l e evidence of s t r a t e g i c time-monitoring i n the l a b o r a t o r y . T h i s study p r o v i d e s evidence t h a t i n a f a m i l i a r s e t t i n g , c h i l d r e n as young as 10 years of age can employ s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t r a t e g i e s to remember f u t u r e events. Hyperactive c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y with planned a c t i o n s , with behaving i n p l a n f u l , organized, and g o a l -d i r e c t e d ways. Parents and teachers o f t e n say t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y on memory tasks t h a t r e q u i r e them to remember a number of items, such as a c h a i n of commands, i n which the c h i l d i s asked to remember to do more than one t h i n g a t some time i n the f u t u r e (Barkley, 1981). However, l i t t l e i s known about how h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n perform on tasks of p r o s p e c t i v e memory, and whether or not they engage i n s t r a t e g i e s which would f a c i l i t a t e t h e i r performance. A p r o s p e c t i v e memory task has been chosen f o r the present study i n order to t e s t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s c a p a c i t y to perform planned f u t u r e a c t i o n s . To keep the s u b j e c t s i n t e r e s t e d and motivated i n the task and to make the task r e a l i s t i c , s e l f - as w e l l as examiner-generated items are used. In most l a b o r a t o r y experiments, the experimenter p r o v i d e s the items the c h i l d w i l l be asked to remember. L i t t l e i s known about how these c h i l d r e n might perform on items t h a t are s e l f - g e n e r a t e d . I t i s expected t h a t both the h y p e r a c t i v e and the normal c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study w i l l be more l i k e l y to remember a s e l f - g e n e r a t e d item. The p a r t i c i p a n t s should be more l i k e l y to remember the 52 Items i f they employ a s t r a t e g y to a i d memory. In order to determine i f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n can produce t h e i r own s t r a t e g y , and i f they can use one when i t i s s u p p l i e d to f a c i l i t a t e remembering, d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s are used. 4.2 Methods In the f i r s t phase of the task a l l of the s u b j e c t s were asked to s p e c i f y three items ( o b j e c t s or a c t i v i t i e s ) t h a t they would l i k e to remember to do d u r i n g the day of the t e s t . A f t e r the c h i l d named three items, the examiner provided the s u b j e c t s with three items t h a t they were asked to remember to do i n a d d i t i o n to the three they had a l r e a d y chosen. These three items were i d e n t i c a l f o r a l l of the s u b j e c t s i n the study; s p e c i f i c a l l y , the c h i l d r e n were asked to (a) pick up n o t i c e s i n the o f f i c e at r e c e s s , (b) put a note i n Ms. Q's (a teacher i n the school) mailbox a t lunchtime, and (c) at the end of the day w r i t e tomorrow's date on the blackboard i n t h e i r classroom. The s u b j e c t s were asked to suggest t h e i r own three items f i r s t , as a r e s u l t of p i l o t work i n which s u b j e c t s had d i f f i c u l t y g e n e r a t i n g t h e i r own items when the examiner's items had been presented f i r s t . The three examiner-generated items were chosen because (a) they d i d not i n v o l v e the examiner (a p o t e n t i a l r e c a l l cue), (b) t h e i r r e t e n t i o n c o u l d be assessed o b j e c t i v e l y and without a s k i n g the c h i l d i f the items were remembered, and (c) they were u n l i k e l y to o v e r l a p with the s u b j e c t ' s items. Classroom teac h e r s were c o n s u l t e d to ensure t h a t the c h i l d was not classroom monitor on the t e s t day and t h e r e f o r e p o t e n t i a l l y i n charge of w r i t i n g the date on the blackboard. A s s e s s i n g whether or not the c h i l d remembered to perform the three items they chose, such as remembering to r e t u r n a l i b r a r y book, o f t e n r e q u i r e d checking with the a p p r o p r i a t e s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l . Only items t h a t c o u l d be v e r i f i e d i n terms of r e c a l l were i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s e s . In the second phase of the task s u b j e c t s were randomly assigned to two groups. The examiner o f f e r e d one group a s t r a t e g y to help them to remember the s i x items, and asked the other group to generate t h e i r own s t r a t e g y . Half of the s u b j e c t s i n the s t r a t e g y - o f f e r e d group were given s i x e l a s t i c s to wear on t h e i r w r i s t d u r i n g the day as an e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue. The other h a l f of the s t r a t e g y -o f f e r e d group were asked to i n s t r u c t a puppet as t h e i r s t r a t e g y . The e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue was chosen as a s t r a t e g y as a r e s u l t of the f i n d i n g t h a t a l l of the s u b j e c t s i n an i n t e r v i e w study suggested using e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues to f a c i l i t a t e remembering (Kreutzer et a l . , 1975). The puppet s t r a t e g y was chosen because Brown (1987) suggested t h a t one reason t h a t a c h i l d may have d i f f i c u l t y f o l l o w i n g an i n s t r u c t i o n i s t h a t the d i r e c t i v e has not been made e x p l i c i t f o r the c h i l d . She suggested t h a t by a s k i n g the c h i l d to teach a puppet, the examiner ensures not o n l y t h a t the c h i l d has heard and understood the i n s t r u c t i o n s , but 54 t h a t they are made e x p l i c i t f o r the c h i l d . The s u b j e c t s i n the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d s t r a t e g y group were asked to generate t h e i r own s t r a t e g y i n order to remember the s i x items. The examiner introduced t h i s task by t e l l i n g the c h i l d t h a t she i s i n t e r e s t e d i n how c h i l d r e n remember t h i n g s , and t h a t "Together we are going to think of s i x t h i n g s f o r you to t r y to remember today. Would you l i k e to do t h a t ? " The examiner i n s t r u c t e d the c h i l d as f o l l o w s : " F i r s t I want you to think of three t h i n g s t h a t you want to remember to do today while you are at s c h o o l . Do you sometimes come to sc h o o l with t h i n g s i n your head t h a t you are t r y i n g to remember to do that day? For example, you might want to remember to b r i n g your money to the o f f i c e f o r hamburger day. You t h i n k of three t h i n g s now, and I w i l l w r i t e them down." Next, the examiner provided the c h i l d with three a d d i t i o n a l t h i n g s to remember. The c h i l d was i n s t r u c t e d as f o l l o w s : "Now I am going to give you three more t h i n g s t h a t I would a l s o l i k e you to remember to do today. Please l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y so t h a t you remember what they a r e . I would l i k e you t o : 1. Pick up n o t i c e s i n the o f f i c e at r e c e s s . Do you know where the n o t i c e s are u s u a l l y put? The n o t i c e s w i l l have your te a c h e r ' s name on them and the d i v i s i o n of your classroom, so t h a t you w i l l know they are f o r you. 2. Put t h i s note i n a Ms. Q's mailbox a t lunch time. Do you know where Ms. Q's mailbox i s ? You can put i t i n there by y o u r s e l f (the examiner giv e s the note with Ms. Q's name on i t to the c h i l d ) . 3 . At the end of the day p r i n t tomorrow's date on the blackboard i n your classroom. I've asked your teacher, and i t ' s OK f o r you to do t h i s . " In the s t r a t e g y phase of the task, s u b j e c t s were assigned to one of the two s t r a t e g y groups: s e l f - g e n e r a t e d or o f f e r e d s t r a t e g y . The s e l f - g e n e r a t e d group were asked: "What are some ways t h a t you can remember these s i x t h i n g s ? Which one of these w i l l work best f o r you? How w i l l you use t h i s method to remember?" In the o f f e r e d s t r a t e g y group s u b j e c t s were assigned to e i t h e r the e l a s t i c s sub-group or the puppet sub-group. The e l a s t i c s sub-group were given s i x e l a s t i c s with i n s t r u c t i o n s on how these might work to help them to remember. The examiner i n s t r u c t e d the c h i l d as f o l l o w s : "I'm going to help you remember these t h i n g s by g i v i n g you a s t r a t e g y . I'm going t o give you s i x e l a s t i c s to put on your w r i s t . They should remind you of the s i x t h i n g s you want to remember to do today. As you remember each t h i n g you can take one e l a s t i c o f f your w r i s t and you w i l l see how many more t h i n g s you s t i l l want to remember. Do you understand?" The puppet group were i n s t r u c t e d as f o l l o w s : "I'm going to help you remember these t h i n g by g i v i n g you a s t r a t e g y . I want you to e x p l a i n these s i x t h i n g s t h a t you have t o remember to my puppet Mr. Dolphin, so t h a t he can remember them a l s o . Remember th a t he doesn't have a very good 56 memory, 3 0 he w i l l need to hear them s e v e r a l ' t i m e s i n order to remember them. You can say your s i x th i n g s to Mr. Dolphin i n any order that you l i k e . You begin, and i f you need help remembering them I ' l l h e lp you". 4.3 R e s u l t s The main measures of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s task are (a) the r e c a l l i n the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d and examiner-offered s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s , and (b) the r e c a l l of the s e l f - and examiner-generated items as a f u n c t i o n of h y p e r a c t i v i t y , s t r a t e g y , and any i n t e r a c t i o n s between these. A n c i l l a r y measures of i n t e r e s t are the number and type of s t r a t e g i e s generated by the h y p e r a c t i v e and normal s u b j e c t s i n the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s between the e l a s t i c s and puppet s t r a t e g i e s were assessed f i r s t . The main e f f e c t of the two examiner-o f f e r e d s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s ( e l a s t i c s and the puppets) on r e c a l l was not s i g n i f i c a n t and there was no i n t e r a c t i o n between the item type ( s e l f - or examiner-generated) and the two examiner-offered s t r a t e g i e s . T h e r e f o r e , the two s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s were c o l l a p s e d to form one s t r a t e g y -o f f e r e d c o n d i t i o n . T h i s provided a f u l l y c r o s s e d f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n with two between-subjects f a c t o r s ( s u b j e c t group and s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n ) , and one w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s f a c t o r (type of item). A three f a c t o r a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d out. The mean r e c a l l of s e l f - g e n e r a t e d and provided items, as a 57 f u n c t i o n of s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n and s u b j e c t group, are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 2. The r e c a l l data r e v e a l e d (a) a r e l i a b l e main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t group, such t h a t the c o n t r o l group r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more items than the h y p e r a c t i v e group (means of 5.49 vs 3.43; F ( l , 5 8 ) = 64.63, p_ <.01), (b) a m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n , ( i n c l u d e d here because i t i s p o t e n t i a l l y important to f u t u r e research) such t h a t the items were more l i k e l y to be r e c a l l e d i n the examiner provided s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n versus the own s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n , (means of 4.71 vs 4.21; F ( l , 5 8 ) = 3.78, p_ =.06), and (c) a r e l i a b l e main e f f e c t of item type, such that the examiner-generated items were more l i k e l y to be r e c a l l e d than the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items (means of 4.76 vs 4.16; F ( l , 5 8 ) =7.15, p_ =.01). Most i n t e r e s t i n g and important are the two i n t e r a c t i o n s , (a) a s i g n i f i c a n t double i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t group and s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n ( F ( l , 5 8 ) = 8.97, p_ =.01), and (b) a s i g n i f i c a n t double i n t e r a c t i o n between item type and s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n (F(1.58) = 5.74, p_ =.02). The l o c a t i o n of the former i n t e r a c t i o n can be seen i n F i g u r e 1. Te s t s of simple main e f f e c t s show t h a t f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t advantage i n r e c a l l of the provided s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n over the s u b j e c t ' s own s t r a t e g y ( F ( l , 5 8 ) = 24.30, P <.01). For the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , there was no d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c a l l i n the two s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s (p_ >.15). These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e group were able to use a s t r a t e g y , when i t was pr o v i d e d , to a i d r e c a l l . Being Table 2. P r o s p e c t i v e Memory Task: Comparison of the Mean R e c a l l of the S e l f - g e n e r a t e d and Examiner-generated Items i n the Tvo S t r a t e g y C o n d i t i o n s (own and provided) by the Tvo Subject Groups S t r a t e g y C o n d i t i o n Item Type Hyperactive C o n t r o l Mean SD Mean SD Own s t r a t e g y examiner-generated 1.43 .81 2.81 .54 s e l f -generated 1.37 .72 2.81 .54 Provided S t r a t e g y examiner-generated 2.43 .65 2.86 .36 s e l f -qenerated 1.64 .93 2.50 .52 LU CC CO LU O CC LU CD 3 2 1 0 Hyperactive Group Control Group OWN PROVIDED STRATEGY CONDITION Figure 1 Prospective Memory Task Comparison of the Mean Recall of the Hyperactive and Cohtrol Groups as a Function of Strategy Condition 60 provided a s t r a t e g y d i d not seem to be p a r t i c u l a r l y important to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . The source of the i n t e r a c t i o n between item type and s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n can be seen l n F i g u r e 2. Tests of simple main e f f e c t s show t h a t there was an advantage of the provided over the generated items under the provided s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n (£(1,58) = 1.97, p =.05), but not under the own s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n (p >.15). These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t r e c a l l of the examiner-generated items was enhanced when s u b j e c t s were provided with a s t r a t e g y . There was no i n t e r a c t i o n between the type of item r e c a l l e d and the s u b j e c t group. The three-way I n t e r a c t i o n of s u b j e c t group, item type and s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n was a l s o not s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l of the s u b j e c t s i n the s e l f - g e n e r a t e s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n were asked to d e s c r i b e how they would remember the s i x r e c a l l items. I t f o l l o w s , of course, t h a t the use of memory a i d s should y i e l d higher r e c a l l . The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s v e r b a l i z e d elements of a s t r a t e g y more o f t e n than the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s (a F i s h e r exact p r o b a b i l i t y t e s t was used to compare these f r e q u e n c i e s , p =.01). A l l of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s i n the study d e s c r i b e d a s t r a t e g y they co u l d use, while o n l y 44% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were able to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t they c o u l d use to a i d r e c a l l . The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s s a i d t h a t they would use r e h e a r s a l (25%), an e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue (a l i s t ) (69%), and a mnemonic a i d (6%) to remind them. A l l of the 61 Q LU LU fc= UL O cc LU CO 3.0 2.5 2.0 < o LU OC co 1.5 1.0 Generated Item Provided Item OWN PROVIDED STRATEGY CONDITION Figure 2. Prospective Memory Task Comparison of the Mean Recall of Self -and Examiner- generated Items as a Function of Strategy Condition 62 h y p e r a c t i v e group who d e s c r i b e d a s t r a t e g y , s a i d they would use a l i s t and 43% of these s a i d they would a l s o use r e h e a r s a l . More than h a l f (56%) of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , even with c o n s i d e r a b l e probing, were unable to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t they c o u l d use to a i d r e c a l l . When asked how they would remember the items to be r e c a l l e d , a t y p i c a l response was " I ' l l j u s t remember". One p o s s i b l e reason f o r the s u p e r i o r r e c a l l observed f o r the c o n t r o l group r e l a t i v e to the h y p e r a c t i v e group i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n may be these d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g i c behavior. 4.4 D i s c u s s i o n The r e s u l t s of the present study i n d i c a t e t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t y with p r o s p e c t i v e remembering than c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s of comparable age, grade, and IQ. Looking more c l o s e l y at the way h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n approached the task, i t was ev i d e n t t h a t , unless provided with a s t r a t e g y , they f a i l to use s t r a t e g i e s , and tend to r e l y to a g r e a t e r extent on b e l i e v i n g t h a t they w i l l j u s t remember. In order to ga i n a b e t t e r understanding of the present f i n d i n g s , s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e sources of the d i f f i c u l t y encountered by the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were c o n s i d e r e d . There was the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s performed p o o r l y because of a t t e n t i o n a l and m o t i v a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . The task was designed to minimize the e f f e c t s of I n a t t e n t i o n or d i s i n t e r e s t . Because h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s 63 do s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r i n the examiner provided s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n , the d i f f e r e n c e s c o u l d not be e x p l a i n e d by s o l e l y by i n c r e a s i n g f a t i g u e or l o s s of a t t e n t i o n over time. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s seem to have some d e f i c i t i n the development of metamemory s k i l l s . L e f t to t h e i r own resources they do not t h i n k about using a s t r a t e g y to a i d r e c a l l . However, when provided with a s t r a t e g y , t h e i r performance, although not a t the l e v e l of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y enhanced. T h i s d e f i c i t resembles the p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i t d e s c r i b e d by Brown and DeLoache (1978) and F l a v e l l (1970). A c h i l d with t h i s d e f i c i e n c y may know how to use a s t r a t e g y to mediate performance on a c o g n i t i v e task, but does not spontaneously produce the s t r a t e g y when necessary. By c o n t r a s t , c h i l d r e n with m e d i a t i o n a l d e f i c i e n c i e s f a i l to use s t r a t e g i e s even when they are a v a i l a b l e . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , young normal c h i l d r e n a l s o experience p r o d u c t i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s on memory tasks (Brown, 1978). I t may be t h a t i n terms of metamemory s k i l l s , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n resemble younger normal c h i l d r e n . T h i s r e s u l t , which suggests a p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i t , i s an o b s e r v a t i o n a l s o made by Tant and Douglas (1982) i n t h e i r study of p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g behavior i n h y p e r a c t i v e and nonhyperactive c h i l d r e n . They observed t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n seem to have l e s s e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s a v a i l a b l e to them at the o u t s e t than normal c h i l d r e n do. The f i n d i n g s from the present study f u r t h e r extend t h i s r e s u l t by 64 demonstrating t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n can use a s t r a t e g y when i t i s provided, to a i d memory. In terms of the type of r e c a l l item, i t i s unclear why the s u b j e c t s i n both groups were more l i k e l y to r e c a l l the examiner-generated items than the items they had generated themselves. I t seemed reasonable t h a t s u b j e c t s would remember more of t h e i r own items. One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t when asked to t h i n k of three t h i n g s they wanted to remember to do, the items produced by the s u b j e c t s may have d i f f e r e d i n terms of t h e i r s a l i e n c e to the s u b j e c t . They may have had d i f f i c u l t y g e n e r a t i n g three t h i n g s t h a t i t was important f o r them to remember to do. The s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items on t h i s task are confounded with t h e i r source, thus c o n f i n i n g the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s . T h i s w i l l be examined i n d e t a i l i n another task i n t h i s study (the word ge n e r a t i o n task) i n which i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to compare the r e c a l l performance of s u b j e c t and examiner generated r e c a l l items. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study pose some i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s . For example, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s seem to be d e f i c i e n t i n metamemory awareness. They had d i f f i c u l t y d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y t h a t they c o u l d use to a i d t h e i r r e c a l l . Being a b l e to v e r b a l l y r e p o r t how they w i l l remember suggests t h a t s u b j e c t s are aware of the task demands, and are engaging i n c o g n i t i v e s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n a c t i v i t y such as p l a n n i n g and m o n i t o r i n g . Perhaps c h i l d r e n can use s t r a t e g i e s e f f e c t i v e l y without being able to d e s c r i b e them, or even being aware that they are using them. Not enough i s known about how the self-awareness of memory s t r a t e g i e s a f f e c t s s t r a t e g i c behavior. 66 5. Task 2: Feeling-of-Knowing 5.1 R a t i o n a l e When a c h i l d says, "I can't think of the answer r i g h t now, but I know I know i t . I know I would recognize i t i f I saw i t " he or she i s making a judgement t h a t an item i s i n memory, even though i t cannot be r e a d i l y r e c a l l e d . F e e l i n g -of-knowlng judgements, such as these, are examples of metamemory knowledge, of f a c t s t h a t we know about our own memories. When we make fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements we are monitoring our own memories, determining what i s known or not known, and making a d e c i s i o n about whether or not an item can be r e c a l l e d . Hart (1965) found t h a t f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements are good p r e d i c t o r s of what i s or what i s not i n memory. He asked a group of s u b j e c t s g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n q u e s t i o n s . A f t e r each q u e s t i o n they were asked to make a f e e l i n g - o f -knowing judgement, yes or no, about whether or not they f e l t they knew the c o r r e c t answer to the q u e s t i o n . A f t e r making the judgements, the s u b j e c t s were asked the same questions a g a i n , t h i s time as a f o r c e d choice r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t . He found t h a t the r e c o g n i t i o n performance was s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f o r the n o n r e c a l l e d Items about which the s u b j e c t s had made "yes" fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements. His s u b j e c t s were accurate judges of what they could and co u l d not re c o g n i z e , of what they knew and what they d i d not know. 67 Wellman (1977) was i n t e r e s t e d i n whether c h i l d r e n were capable of memory monitoring such as the fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g experience. I n v e s t i g a t i o n s of memory and metamemory In c h i l d r e n , as d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , had demonstrated t h a t c h i l d r e n engage i n s t r a t e g i c behavior to a i d memory ( F l a v e l l et a l . , 1966), and a l s o t h a t they know about the b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s of memory s t r a t e g i e s (Kreutzer et a l . , 1975). I t was not c l e a r , however, i f c h i l d r e n knew about the c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own memories. Wellman employed a s i m i l a r task to the one used by Hart (1965), with r e c a l l , judgement, and r e c o g n i t i o n phases, i n order to i n v e s t i g a t e the fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g i n c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n , grade one, and grade three age. During the r e c a l l and judgement phases, the c h i l d r e n were shown and asked to name p i c t u r e s of 30 f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s . They were asked to make two judgements about the o b j e c t s t h a t they c o u l d not name; a seen judgement, i f they had seen the item b e f o r e , and a fe e l l n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgement, the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t they would r e c o g n i z e the name i f they heard i t . R e c o g n i t i o n f o r names was t e s t e d a f t e r t h i s . He found t h a t even the judgements of the c h i l d r e n i n k i n d e r g a r t e n were more acc u r a t e than chance. There was a dramatic i n c r e a s e with age i n the c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o p r e d i c t which unnamed o b j e c t s they would and would not be able to r e c o g n i z e , with the t h i r d graders most l i k e l y to judge that they could r e c o g n i z e an item's name i f they judged t h a t they had seen i t (r=.82). 68 L i t t l e i s understood about what h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n know about t h e i r own memory a b i l i t i e s . A f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g task i s used i n the present study to assess metamemory knowledge i n order to determine i f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n know about the c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r own memories. They may not make acc u r a t e judgements about whether a response i s c o r r e c t or not, and i n a d d i t i o n , they may not monitor memory i n an organized, p l a n f u l way. An in a c c u r a t e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g would Increase the f a l l i b i l i t y of t h e i r memory system. A person who does not have an accurate i n d i c a t o r might continue to search memory f o r an item t h a t has been f o r g o t t e n or perhaps never l e a r n e d , or might not p e r s i s t i n attempting to remember something t h a t c o u l d be r e c a l l e d with g r e a t e r e f f o r t or a d i f f e r e n t kind of search s t r a t e g y . As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n Benezra's (1980) study, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d not d e s c r i b e using as many or as e l a b o r a t e memory s t r a t e g i e s as d i d the normal s u b j e c t s . While metamemory knowledge may not be necessary for the employment of memory s t r a t e g i e s , F l a v e l l (1971) has suggested t h a t a c h i l d ' s knowledge of memory may f a c i l i t a t e a f l e x i b l e and s o p h i s t i c a t e d use of memory s t r a t e g i e s . 5.2 Methods Th i s task c o n s i s t s of four s t a g e s : r e c a l l ( i n c l u d i n g c onfidence r a t i n g s about r e c a l l a c c u r a c y ) , a b s o l u t e f e e l i n g -of-knowing judgements, r e l a t i v e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements, and r e c o g n i t i o n ( i n c l u d i n g confidence r a t i n g s about r e c o g n i t i o n a c c u r a c y ) . T h i s procedure invokes two changes to the fee l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g (FOK) task employed by Hart (1965). The f i r s t change i s to the abs o l u t e FOK judgements which were r a t e d on a s i x - p o i n t o r d i n a l s c a l e , r a t h e r than as a yes/no judgement. This change, recommended by Nelson (1984), i s intended to improve on the accuracy of the yes/no judgements, which i n d i c a t e only the presence or absence of FOK accuracy. The second change i s i n the a d d i t i o n of r e l a t i v e FOK judgements. R e l a t i v e judgements are paired-comparison FOK judgements f o r the n o n r e c a l l e d items. They permit a rank o r d e r i n g of a l l of the FOK judgements made f o r the n o n r e c a l l e d items. T h i s rank o r d e r i n g of FOK judgements was compared with the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t . The higher an item i s i n the FOK rank order, the higher should be i t s l i k e l i h o o d of being c o r r e c t i n the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t . During the r e c a l l phase s u b j e c t s were asked g e n e r a l i n f o r m a t i o n q u e s t i o n s , u n t i l s i x e r r o r s were made. The que s t i o n s f o r t h i s task were taken from J u n i o r T r i v i a , the j u v e n i l e v e r s i o n of T r i v i a l P u r s u i t . A f t e r each q u e s t i o n the c h i l d r e n were asked to make a confidence r a t i n g about t h e i r r e c a l l accuracy. T h i s r a t i n g was made on a s i x - p o i n t s c a l e ("How sure am I t h a t my answer i s c o r r e c t ? " , where 6=certain t h a t my answer i s c o r r e c t , and l = c e r t a i n that my answer i s not correct). The examiner e x p l a i n e d the s i x -p o i n t s c a l e to the c h i l d , and gave the c h i l d two p r a c t i c e q u e s t i o n s to ensure t h a t the c h i l d understood how to use the s c a l e . T h i s f i r s t FOK judgement measures metamemory knowledge, t h a t i s , the a c c u r a c y of the s u b j e c t ' s own judgement about whether or not the answer g i v e n i s c o r r e c t , I t i s then p o s s i b l e t o determine the a c c u r a c y of the metamemory knowledge of the h y p e r a c t i v e group, compared t o the normal group. The a c c u r a c y of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s metamemory knowledge has not been a s s e s s e d by p r i o r r e s e a r c h . A f t e r s i x r e c a l l e r r o r s were made, the c h i l d r e n were asked t o make a b s o l u t e FOK judgements. These a b s o l u t e judgements p e r t a i n t o the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c o g n i t i o n . The s u b j e c t s were not t o l d t h a t t h e s e s i x items were ones t h a t t h e y had r e c a l l e d i n c o r r e c t l y . For each of the s e n o n r e c a l l e d i t e m s , the s u b j e c t s were asked t o judge the l i k e l i h o o d of b e i n g a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e the c o r r e c t answer from a group of a l t e r n a t i v e s c o n s i s t i n g of the t a r g e t response and f o u r l u r e s . The a b s o l u t e FOK judgements were made on a s i x - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e ("How s u r e am I t h a t I c o u l d r e c o g n i z e the c o r r e c t answer?", where 6=certaln that could r e c o g n i z e the c o r r e c t answer, and l=certain that I could not recognize the correct answer). T h i s measure a s s e s s e s metamemory knowledge by comparing the a c c u r a c y of the FOK judgements about r e c o g n i t i o n w i t h the a c c u r a c y of the r e c o g n i t i o n . S u b j e c t s must make a judgement about whether or not t h e y w i l l r e c o g n i z e an answer when t h e y see i t , even though t h e y cannot c u r r e n t l y r e c a l l i t . To make such a judgement, s u b j e c t s must mo n i t o r memory and ask themselves questions such as, "Have I heard of t h i s before? Have I ever used i t or seen i t ? " On t h i s task a r e l i a b l e metamemory knowledge i s i n d i c a t e d when there i s a high degree of correspondence between the absolute FOK judgements and subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n . R e l a t i v e FOK judgements -- p a i r e d comparisons of the n o n r e c a l l e d items -- were a l s o made. Using the s i x n o n r e c a l l e d items, the s u b j e c t s were asked to make f e e l i n g -of-knowing judgements f o r each of the 15 p o s s i b l e p a i r s (Nelson, McSpadden, Fromme, & M a r l a t t , 1986). The v a l i d i t y of the FOK rank order obtained from these comparisons i s assessed by comparing i t with the subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n performance. T h i s measure e v a l u a t e s metamemory knowledge by a s s e s s i n g the accuracy of the s u b j e c t ' s rank o r d e r i n g . T h i s task i s more d i f f i c u l t than the a b s o l u t e judgements i n t h a t s u b j e c t s must not o n l y assess t h e i r a b i l i t y to r e c o g n i z e an item t h a t they c o u l d not r e c a l l , but they must a l s o be able to d i s t i n g u i s h d i f f e r e n c e s between the c e r t a i n t y of t h e i r FOK f o r these items. With the r e l a t i v e FOK judgements, i t i s p o s s i b l e to determine i f h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are able to a c c u r a t e l y c a l i b r a t e t h e i r metamemory knowledge. The a b i l i t y to a p p r a i s e one's own memory i n t h i s way may be a necessary antecedent to making a judgement that the m a t e r i a l to be l e a r n e d i s s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l known, or t h a t more st u d y i n g i s r e q u i r e d . A f t e r completing both r e l a t i v e and absolute FOK judgements, the c h i l d r e c e i v e d the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t f o r each 72 of the 6 missed q u e s t i o n s . The examiner read the qu e s t i o n and the f i v e c h o i c e s to the c h i l d i n a d d i t i o n to l a y i n g them on the t a b l e i n f r o n t of the c h i l d . Ratings concerning the s u b j e c t ' s degree of confidence l n the accuracy of the answer were obtained on the r e c o g n i t i o n responses using the same s i x - p o i n t s c a l e used f o r the r e c a l l phase. These r a t i n g s are employed i n order to determine guessed responses. Guessing on the r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t w i l l a f f e c t the FOK accuracy s c o r e . 5.3 R e s u l t s For each of the fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g r a t i n g s , the median r a t h e r than the mean score was c a l c u l a t e d , because the FOK judgements were made on an o r d i n a l s c a l e (see Nelson, 1984). The main measures of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s task are (a) number of c o r r e c t answers r e c a l l e d (before the c h i l d makes s i x e r r o r s ) , (b) a b s o l u t e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g r a t i n g s and subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n , (d) r e l a t i v e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g rankings and subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n , and (d) r e c o g n i t i o n f o r n o n - r e c a l l e d items, and the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g f o r the recogn i z e d items. A summary of the r e s u l t s i s presented i n Table 3. R e c a l l There was a s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e i n the number of q u e s t i o n s the s u b j e c t s answered c o r r e c t l y before they 73 Table 3. Feeling-of-Knowing Task: Memory Performance as a F u n c t i o n of Subject Group Dependent V a r i a b l e Hyperactive C o n t r o l R e c a l l (mean number of items r e c a l l e d ) SD 8.57 4.83 12.80 5.79 Confidence i n r e c a l l Median confidence d u r i n g r e c a l l SD Accuracy of confidence i n r e c a l l (mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s ) SD 5.27 .98 r = .51 .63 4 .86 1.21 r = .79 .67 Absolute f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g (FOK) Median FOK rank f o r n o n r e c a l l e d items 4 SD 1 Accuracy of confidence i n r e c o g n i t i o n (mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s ) r = SD 38 27 08 43 3.24 1.49 r = .06 .65 R e l a t i v e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g Accuracy of confidence i n r e c o g n i t i o n (mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s ) r = SD .02 .55 02 62 R e c o g n i t i o n (mean number of items recognized) 3.43 3.21 SD 1.28 1.24 Confidence i n r e c o g n i t i o n Median confidence d u r i n g r e c o g n i t i o n 5.12 4.10 SD .92 1.24 Accuracy of confidence i n r e c o g n i t i o n (mean of c o r r e l a t i o n s ) r = .36 r = .30 SD .64 ._62_ 74 f a i l e d to answer s i x items ( t ( 5 8 ) , =3.08, p <.01). The mean number of items c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d by the h y p e r a c t i v e and c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were 8.6 and 12.8, r e s p e c t i v e l y . Confidence i n R e c a l l The two groups d i d not d i f f e r i n terms of t h e i r degree of confidence i n the c o r r e c t n e s s of the r e c a l l e d items (means of 4.86 and 5.27 f o r the c o n t r o l and h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; t(58) = 1.40, p >.15). The accuracy of the confidence f o r one item r e l a t i v e to another item was a l s o assessed. T h i s addresses the q u e s t i o n of whether r e c a l l i s more l i k e l y to be c o r r e c t f o r an answer accompanied by high confidence than f o r an answer accompanied by low c o n f i d e n c e . For each c h i l d a Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n was computed between the confidence i n each of the r e c a l l e d answers and the c o r r e c t n e s s of the answers. The r e s u l t s show t h a t there was a group d i f f e r e n c e f o r confidence-judgement accuracy f o r one item r e l a t i v e to another item, (£(58) = 3.02, p =.01). For the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , as the FOK i n c r e a s e d , c o r r e c t n e s s of r e c a l l a l s o i n c r e a s e d . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were not as a c c u r a t e at making these metacognitive judgements. Absolute Feeling-of-Knowing The median degree of FOK f o r n o n r e c a l l e d items was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r the two s u b j e c t groups, (means of 3.24 and 4.38 f o r the c o n t r o l and h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; ( t ( 5 8 ) =3.17, p. <.01). The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were more c o n f i d e n t than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s when a s s e s s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t they could r e t r i e v e v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n from long term memory. The accuracy of the a b s o l u t e FOK was a l s o t e s t e d . This was d e f i n e d i n terms of a c o r r e l a t i o n between the a b s o l u t e FOK r a t i n g s and r e c o g n i t i o n , and was computed f o r each s u b j e c t . The r e s u l t s show t h a t there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the accuracy of the absolute FOK judgements about the r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t y (t(58)•= .91, p >.15). R e l a t i v e F e e l i n g - o f Knowing R e l a t i v e FOK accuracy was d e f i n e d i n terms of the c o r r e l a t i o n between the c h i l d ' s r e l a t i v e FOK ranking of the n o n r e c a l l e d items and the subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n . The r e s u l t s show th a t there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a b i l i t y to make metacognitive judgements about r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s (t(58) = .02, p >.15). Re c o g n i t i o n R e c o g n i t i o n was above the chance value of 1.2 f o r both of the s u b j e c t groups, and i t d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r the two groups (t(58) = .69, p >.15). This i s c o n s i s t e n t with past f i n d i n g s t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from normal c h i l d r e n i n r e c o g n i t i o n memory (Douglas, 1983). The FOK accuracy was a l s o t e s t e d f o r the r e c o g n i z e d 76 Items. T h i s was d e f i n e d i n terms of the c o r r e l a t i o n between the s u b j e c t ' s FOK rankin g f o r confidence i n r e c o g n i t i o n and the a ccuracy of the r e c o g n i t i o n . There were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the a b i l i t y to make these metacognitive judgements about the r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s (t(58) = .37, p_ >.15). 5 . 4 D i s c u s s i o n The r e s u l t s of the present study i n d i c a t e t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i f f e r from normal c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to make accurate judgements about t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t y . In a d d i t i o n , the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study were more c o n f i d e n t than normals i n t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s . The two groups d i d not d i f f e r , however, i n the accuracy of the judgements they made about subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t y , or i n t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n performance. This suggests t h a t the groups d i f f e r i n terms of the accuracy of t h e i r metamemory knowledge, although these d i f f e r e n c e s are a p p a r e n t l y c o n f i n e d to c e r t a i n kinds of memory. Feeling-of-knowing judgements about memory are judgements about metamemory knowledge, the knowledge we have about our own memory. Feeling-of-knowing i s a necessary component both i n models of memory r e t r i e v a l and i n gen e r a l t h e o r i e s of memory s e a r c h i n g . I t i s a l s o p r e d i c t i v e of memory performance (Hart, 1965). Prev i o u s s t u d i e s with c h i l d r e n have shown t h a t good memorizers are more aware of 77 t h e i r memory c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s than are poor memorizers ( F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977; Yussen & Berman, 1981). The hyperactive children, r e l a t i v e to the normal children in t h i s study, were not as accurate at making these metacognitive judgements about their r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s . They were more confident in their r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s than the normal children were, but they did not do as well on the r e c a l l t e s t . To be useful, a feeling-of-knowing judgement must be accurate. Inaccurate feeling-of-knowing assessments would result in i n e f f i c i e n c i e s in the memory system. For example, a person might continue to search memory for things never learned, or might not per s i s t in an e f f o r t to remember information that with a few more t r i e s , or a new kind of r e t r i e v a l search, would eventually be remembered. The amount of time that people w i l l continue to search memory for a p a r t i c u l a r item w i l l be determined by their f e e l i n g -of-knowing for that item. When the hyperactive children made confident judgements about their feeling-of-knowing for the r e c a l l e d items, they were indicating their certainty in the accuracy of their r e c a l l . If their feeling-of-knowing judgements about r e c a l l had been more accurate, indicating less c e r t a i n t y that an item was correct, they may have expended further time and e f f o r t at r e t r i e v a l . When subjects make a judgement about the l i k e l i h o o d of subsequent recognition, they are monitoring their memory (Hart, 1965). They survey what they remember in order to 78 a r r i v e a t a judgement about t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t y . The f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g about r e c o g n i t i o n r e f l e c t s the s u b j e c t ' s a p p r a i s a l t h a t a n o n r e c a l l e d item w i l l be r e c o g n i z a b l e d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t at present i t cannot be r e t r i e v e d (Hart, 1965, 1967). In order f o r t h i s metamemory process to be deemed a c c u r a t e , a c o r r e l a t i o n must e x i s t between the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgement and the r e c o g n i t i o n of an item. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study tended to be o v e r c o n f i d e n t , r e l a t i v e to the normal c h i l d r e n , when a s s e s s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c o g n i z i n g the n o n r e c a l l e d items, but there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the accuracy of these metamemory judgments about t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s . N e ither group demonstrated an a b i l i t y to make these metacognitive judgements about r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s . The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i d not d i f f e r from the normal c h i l d r e n i n t h i s task i n e i t h e r the accuracy of t h e i r f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements about r e c o g n i t i o n , or by t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n performance, d e s p i t e t h e i r overconfidence i n t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s . I t would appear from t h i s f i n d i n g , t h a t f o r h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , there i s an important d i f f e r e n c e between r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n memory. Th i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with previous data t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do not d i f f e r from t h e i r normal peers on t e s t s of r e c o g n i t i o n memory (Douglas, 1982). One e x p l a n a t i o n may be t h a t the demands of r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n are d i f f e r e n t . The o r g a n i z a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l to be learned and the development of r e t r i e v a l schemes p l a y 79 a l a r g e r r o l e i n r e c a l l than i n r e c o g n i t i o n t e s t i n g ( K i n t s c h , 1977; Wellman, 1977). S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n are p o s s i b l e . There may be a d e f i c i e n c y i n the way h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n encode i n f o r m a t i o n , thus making r e t r i e v a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c a l l , more d i f f i c u l t . I t may be t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s have more d i f f i c u l t y i n monitoring t h e i r memories, i n t h e i r search f o r cues about what they know. R e t e n t i o n o f t e n exceeds r e c a l l , so search i s important to memory performance. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , l i k e the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study, young c h i l d r e n perform more p o o r l y on r e c a l l than on r e c o g n i t i o n memory (Brown, 1975b). This suggests t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , r e l a t i v e to t h e i r same age peers, may be delayed i n t h e i r metamemory development. Research i n d i c a t e s t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge of memory p l a y s an important r o l e i n a c c u r a t e memory monitoring ( F l a v e l l , 1970, 1979, 1985), and l n a d d i t i o n t h a t i t p r e d i c t s s t r a t e g i c behavior ( F l a v e l l , 1971; Borkowski, et a l . , 1983). For example, ac c u r a t e f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements may be a necessary antecedent to making a judgement t h a t the m a t e r i a l to be le a r n e d i s s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l known, or t h a t more study time i s r e q u i r e d . One h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t c o u l d be addressed by f u t u r e r e s e a r c h , i s t h a t t e a c h i n g h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n f a c t s about t h e i r memories might have a gen e r a l enhancing e f f e c t on t h e i r performance. 80 6. Task 3: V i s u a l R e t e n t i o n 6.1 R a t i o n a l e The present study i s an attempt to r e p l i c a t e an e a r l i e r study (MacDonald, 1987) c a r r i e d out on a s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n . In the p r i o r study, the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task was administered to a group of h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n to determine i f there were d i f f e r e n c e s between these two groups on the r e c a l l of v i s u a l s t i m u l i . The f i n d i n g s from t h i s study were i n t e r e s t i n g because they showed not onl y r e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n memory performance, but they a l s o suggested d i f f e r e n c e s between these two groups i n metamemory moni t o r i n g . I w i l l d e s c r i b e the e a r l i e r study f i r s t . Based on the f i n d i n g s of t h i s f i r s t study, an addendum was made to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the task . T h i s a d d i t i o n i s an attempt to c o l l e c t f u r t h e r data on metamemory monitoring of t h i s t a s k . In the o r i g i n a l study, the v i s u a l s t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d of 15 l i n e drawings of shapes presented on an index c a r d . Some of the shapes are f a m i l i a r to c h i l d r e n , such as a t r i a n g l e , and some are u n f a m i l i a r : a l l the s t i m u l i were excerpted from the Memory f o r Designs t e s t (1965). P r i o r to the study, 100 non-hyperactive s c h o o l c h i l d r e n were given a xerox page of the 15 shapes and were asked to provide a name f o r each shape. Based on these f i n d i n g s , the shapes were grouped a c c o r d i n g t o l a b e l a b i l i t y i n t o three groups of four shapes each. The shapes i n the low l a b e l a b i l i t y group were given the same name by 33% of the c h i l d r e n , the shapes i n the medium l a b e l a b i l i t y group were given the same name by 66% of the c h i l d r e n , and the shapes i n the high l a b e l a b i l i t y group were given the same name by 80% of the c h i l d r e n . These 12 shapes became the s t i m u l i t h a t were used i n the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task with the h y p e r a c t i v e and normal s u b j e c t s (see F i g u r e 3). The remaining three shapes were not i n c l u d e d because they were r a r e l y given the same name, and i n some cases the c h i l d r e n d i d not name them at a l l . The s t i m u l i i n t h i s task had been s e l e c t e d to r e p r e s e n t three l e v e l s of " l a b e l a b i l i t y " , the degree to which they could be v e r b a l l y encoded. By i n c l u d i n g t h i s l a b e l a b i l i t y f a c t o r i t was p o s s i b l e to compare memory performance with metamemory mo n i t o r i n g . Items which were easy to l a b e l would be more l i k e l y to be r e c a l l e d than items which were d i f f i c u l t to l a b e l . V e r b a l encoding, i n t h i s case naming the v i s u a l s t i m u l i , i s a s k i l l which was expected to enhance memory performance. The t o t a l number of shapes r e c a l l e d , and the number of shapes r e c a l l e d from each of the l a b e l a b i l i t y c a t e g o r i e s , were measured. R e c a l l was assessed r a t h e r then r e c o g n i t i o n because of the high p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t s u b j e c t s would be able to r e c o g n i z e most or a l l of the items. Analyses i n d i c a t e d t h a t the normal c h i l d r e n r e c a l l e d more items o v e r a l l than d i d the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Importantly, there was an i n t e r a c t i o n between the r e c a l l performance of the two groups and the l a b e l a b i l i t y f a c t o r , such t h a t the normal s u b j e c t s Low Items Level of label abifity Medium Items 82 ken* \ru~v Q ti • F i g u r e 3. V i s u a l Retention Task Items 83 r e c a l l e d more of the high l e v e l items, but an e q u i v a l e n t number of medium and low items, than d i d t h e i r h y p e r a c t i v e c o u n t e r p a r t s . A f t e r the task, the s u b j e c t s were questioned about how they remembered the shapes. The normal s u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d u s i n g a s t r a t e g y more o f t e n than the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d , and i n almost a l l cases the s t r a t e g y r e p o r t e d was naming or l a b e l l i n g the shapes. In the present study s u b j e c t s were again questioned a f t e r the task . In a d d i t i o n to "How d i d you remember the ones you remembered?, they were asked "Did you use a method to help you remember? The examiner a l s o recorded t e s t behavior such as naming the shapes out loud. These changes were made to the e a r l i e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to determine i f s u b j e c t s name the v i s u a l s t i m u l i , and f u r t h e r , i f they w i l l be able to d e s c r i b e using a s t r a t e g y . P r i o r data suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n w i l l be l e s s l i k e l y to use mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s , and i n a d d i t i o n , w i l l be unable to e x p l a i n how they went about t r y i n g to remember the items. They may f a l l to r e t r i e v e because the i n f o r m a t i o n i s not encoded i n memory i n a way th a t w i l l h e lp them to remember. Metamemory s t r a t e g i e s , such as l a b e l l i n g the shapes, enhance the l i k e l i h o o d of r e c a l l . H yperactive c h i l d r e n may be employing memory s t r a t e g i e s and yet be unable to a r t i c u l a t e them. When the use of a s t r a t e g y can be made v e r b a l l y e x p l i c i t , i t i s more l i k e l y to be e f f e c t i v e f o r the c h i l d (Brown, 1987). 84 6.2 Methods The s u b j e c t s were shown 12 v i s u a l s t i m u l i (shapes), one at a time. The r a t e of p r e s e n t a t i o n was subject-paced. The i n s t r u c t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : "I'm going to show you 12 ca r d s . On each card i s a p i c t u r e of a shape. I'd l i k e you to look a t each card and t r a c e the shape with your f i n g e r " . (Subjects were asked to t r a c e the shape to ensure that they attended to the s t i m u l i ) . "You can take as long as you l i k e to look at each shape. You l e t me know when you are ready to go on to the next one. When you have looked at a l l 12, I'm going to take them away, and ask you to draw as many as you can remember. Do you understand the i n s t r u c t i o n s ? Do you have any q u e s t i o n s ? " A f t e r a one-minute d i s t r a c t i o n task i n which the examiner asked the s u b j e c t s what c l a s s they were i n before coming to be t e s t e d , the s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d to draw the shapes they were able to r e c a l l . The c h i l d r e n drew the shapes on i n d i v i d u a l papers the same s i z e as the t e s t c a r d s . Subjects were gi v e n up to 30 minutes to complete the r e c a l l t a s k . The number of items r e c a l l e d i n each of the l a b e l a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s , and the s e r i a l p o s i t i o n of the r e c a l l e d items were recorded. C o r r e c t r e c a l l was scored by two examiners u s i n g the Memory f o r Designs s c o r i n g c r i t e r i a . When the r e c a l l task had been completed, s u b j e c t s were asked the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n s : "How d i d you remember the ones you remembered?", and "Did you use a method to help you remember?" In a d d i t i o n the examiner recorded t e s t behavior such as naming the shapes out loud. 6.3 R e s u l t s The main measure of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s task i s the number of items r e c a l l e d i n each of the l a b e l a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . S e r i a l p o s i t i o n of the items r e c a l l e d was a l s o assessed. A n c i l l a r y measures of i n t e r e s t are responses obtained from the q u e s t i o n i n g a f t e r the t a s k . These questions were in c l u d e d to determine i f h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e u s i n g a s t r a t e g y to f a c i l i t a t e r e c a l l , and i f they do, are there d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s t r a t e g i c methods d e s c r i b e d by the two groups. A two-factor repeated measures a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d out to compare the r e c a l l performance under the three l a b e l a b i l i t y c o n d i t i o n s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d (a) a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t group, such t h a t the c o n t r o l group r e c a l l e d more items than the h y p e r a c t i v e group (means of 5.30 vs 4.23; F ( l , 5 8 ) = 6.20, p_ =.02), (b) a r e l i a b l e main e f f e c t of item category, such t h a t the high l e v e l items were more l i k e l y to be r e c a l l e d than the low or medium l e v e l items (F(2,116) = 25.85, p_ <.01), and most important, (c) a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between the l e v e l of the item l a b e l a b i l i t y and the s u b j e c t group (F(2,116) = 4.19, p. =.02) . In terms of the i n t e r a c t i o n between the item l e v e l and the s u b j e c t group, the l o c a t i o n of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d i n F i g u r e 4. Tests of simple main e f f e c t s show Q LU —J _ l < O LU CC CO LU tz O CC LU GO 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 4. Hyperactive Control LOW MEDIUM HIGH LEVEL OF ITEM LABELABILITY Visual Retention Task Comparison of the Mean Recall of the Hyperactive and Control Groups as a Function of Item Labelability 87 t h a t the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s r e c a l l e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more of the high l e v e l items than the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s group d i d (F (1,58) = 14.33, p =.01). The ease with which these h i g h l y l a b e l a b l e v i s u a l items c o u l d be v e r b a l l y encoded was a b u i l t i n s t r a t e g y t h a t should enhance r e c a l l . However, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d not seem to b e n e f i t from t h i s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t group d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the low and medium l e v e l items. In terms of the s e r i a l p o s i t i o n of r e c a l l e d items, the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d o n l y the main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t group ( F ( l , 5 8 ) = 5.48, p =.02). N e i t h e r the main e f f e c t of s e r i a l p o s i t i o n , nor the i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t groups and s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s , was s i g n i f i c a n t (both Fs <1). A l l of the s u b j e c t s were questioned about t h e i r s t r a t e g y use on the t a s k . A c h i - s q u a r e a n a l y s i s of these f r e q u e n c i e s r e v e a l e d t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s l i k e l y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s to d e s c r i b e using a s t r a t e g y to a i d r e c a l l , (with Yates c o r r e c t i o n , x 2 ( l ) = 15.27, p =.01). The m a j o r i t y of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s (83%) s a i d they used a s t r a t e g y , while o n l y 30% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s claimed to have done so. When asked what method they used to remember, onl y 33% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s who d e s c r i b e d a s t r a t e g y s a i d they named the shapes, while 93% of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s who had d e s c r i b e d a s t r a t e g y d e s c r i b e d naming the shapes. The remainder of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d a vague form of v i s u a l i z a t i o n , f o r example, "I c l o s e d my eyes to get a 86 p i c t u r e of i t " . Two of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s (7%) s a i d they remembered the order of the items.In a d d i t i o n , 17% of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s who named the shapes, s a i d they a l s o used r e h e a r s a l . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , who were not able to d e s c r i b e using a s t r a t e g y , t y p i c a l l y o f f e r e d g e n e r a l and p o o r l y d e f i n e d e x p l a n a t i o n s , such as, "I j u s t looked at the p i c t u r e s good and I remembered", "I put them i n my b r a i n , and "I j u s t t r i e d to remember them". By c o n t r a s t , the responses provided by the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were more s p e c i f i c , such as, "I s t a r t o f f with the easy ones. Some of the shapes were not f a m i l i a r so I memorized them by g i v i n g the shapes a name. Then I t e l l myself to remember the names of these shapes, t h a t t h i s w i l l be hard f o r me". Both h y p e r a c t i v e and c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s produced i n t r u s i o n s on r e c a l l , although t h i s d i f f e r e n c e f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e , (mean of .50 f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group vs .03 f o r the c o n t r o l group; £(58) =1.90, p_ >.05). 6 .4 D i s c u s s i o n The r e s u l t s of t h i s task i n d i c a t e t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i f f e r from normal c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r performance on a v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task, and f u r t h e r , t h a t these d i f f e r e n c e s may be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n metamemory development. The r e c a l l a b i l i t y of the two groups d i f f e r e d as a f u n c t i o n of item l a b e l a b i l i t y , a f e a t u r e t h a t should f a c i l i t a t e remembering. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s f a i l e d to r e c o g n i z e t h a t naming would a i d t h e i r r e c a l l performance. In a d d i t i o n , they were not able to o f f e r a v e r b a l e x p l a n a t i o n of how they went about remembering the items. An a l t e r n a t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s would be t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d not a t t e n d adequately to the s t i m u l u s items. However, i n an attempt to c o n t r o l f o r the e f f e c t s of a t t e n t i o n on t h i s t a sk, a l l of the s u b j e c t s were asked to t r a c e each shape as i t was presented. In a d d i t i o n , A i n (1980) demonstrated t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e longer encoding time than normal s u b j e c t s on r e c a l l t a s k s . In an attempt to ensure t h a t t h i s c o n d i t i o n was met, the p r e s e n t a t i o n of items i n t h i s task was s u b j e c t paced. R e t r i e v a l of the items of low and medium l e v e l l a b e l a b i l i t y d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h the c o g n i t i v e performance of these two groups. However, when items were easy to l a b e l v e r b a l l y , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y r e l a t i v e to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . The h i g h l y l a b e l a b l e items produced an enhancement i n performance i n o n l y the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . T h i s suggests the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d not v e r b a l l y encode the v i s u a l s t i m u l i . The d i f f e r e n c e s observed between these two groups suggest some d i s r u p t i o n i n the encoding processes i n the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . There was no main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t group and no i n t e r a c t i o n f o r the s e r i a l p o s i t i o n of the r e c a l l e d items. T h i s may be due to the item type s i n c e the t e s t items were not presented i n the same s e r i a l order to every s u b j e c t . In terms of s t r a t e g y use, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y , and i n a d d i t i o n , t h e i r e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r how they remembered the Items were vague and p o o r l y d e f i n e d . They seem to process and encode i n f o r m a t i o n l e s s e f f e c t i v e l y , using o n l y weak s t r a t e g i e s o none at a l l . These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n need to be taught more e f f e c t i v e encoding s t r a t e g i e s t h a t might t r a n s l a t e i n t o more e f f e c t i v e performance. 91 7. Task 4: Word Generation 7.1 R a t i o n a l e The g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g and powerful phenomenon of memory i l l u s t r a t e d by Slamecka and Graf (1978). They found t h a t words that were s e l f - g e n e r a t e d were b e t t e r remembered than when the i d e n t i c a l words were presented f o r memorization by the experimenter. Furthermore, the s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r study demonstrated a high degree of accuracy d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between i n t e r n a l l y ( s e l f ) generated and e x t e r n a l l y (experimenter) presented items. The a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e between these two types of items r e q u i r e s people to a c c u r a t e l y monitor t h e i r own memory. In order to compare the memory f o r i n t e r n a l l y and e x t e r n a l l y generated items, these c o n d i t i o n s must be equated f o r item d i f f i c u l t y and ease of r e c a l l . T h i s i s accomplished by us i n g i d e n t i c a l items f o r the two c o n d i t i o n s . The s u b j e c t does not f r e e l y choose the s e l f -generated words, but r a t h e r i s c o n s t r a i n e d i n h i s or her response, e n s u r i n g the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a p r e d i c t a b l e response w i l l be made. A word g e n e r a t i o n task may provide u s e f u l data about memory and metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Slamecka and Graf (1978) o f f e r the f o l l o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the ge n e r a t i o n e f f e c t : g e n e r a t i n g items r e q u i r e s more c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t than being provided with an item, and the e f f o r t expended should i n c r e a s e the memorability of the item. I f 92 h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are capable of g e n e r a t i n g items on t h i s task, then they should remember more of the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d words. On the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, n e i t h e r the h y p e r a c t i v e nor the c o n t r o l group r e c a l l e d more of the s e l f -generated items r e l a t i v e to the examiner-generated items, as was a n t i c i p a t e d , and i n f a c t there was a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . A p o s s i b l e reason f o r t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t the two types of items may have d i f f e r e d i n terms of t h e i r s a l i e n c e to the s u b j e c t or i n t h e i r Inherent s t r u c t u r e . For example, two of the examiner-generated items, the envelope and the n o t i c e s to be picked up a t r e c e s s , were a s s o c i a t e d with an e x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cue. In t h i s word g e n e r a t i o n task, the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d and examiner-generated items are equated i n terms of t h e i r memorability, thus i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e to determine i f there are group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t . If the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s do not show the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t , i t may not be f o r lack of t h e i r e f f o r t , but r a t h e r t h a t they may have d i f f i c u l t y d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between s e l f -generated and examiner-generated items once these items are i n memory. Johnson, T a y l o r , and Raye (1977), i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of memory f o r i n t e r n a l l y and e x t e r n a l l y generated events, suggested t h a t e r r o r s i n memory, such as i n t r u s i o n s i n r e c a l l , may r e f l e c t a f a i l u r e to monitor the source of a memory t r a c e . I n v e s t i g a t o r s of memory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have r e p e a t e d l y noted the l a r g e number of i n t r u s i o n s made by these c h i l d r e n (Benezra, 1980; 93 Campbell et a l . , 1971; Douglas, 1980; Yussen, 1985) . The source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n phase of the genera t i o n task a l l o w s me to assess whether h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y m o nitoring the source of these memory items. 7.2 Methods The m a t e r i a l s f o r t h i s task c o n s i s t e d of two l i s t s (designated as Form A and B), each of which contained a random arrangement of 12 generate and 12 read items. Any item t h a t was a read item on Form A was a generate item on Form B. To i l l u s t r a t e , Form A began with a generate item (a milkshake f l a v o r : c h o c o l a t e - v ) , f o l l o w e d by a read item (a type of flower: d a f f o d i l - r o s e ) , and so on. On Form B the generate and read items were i n re v e r s e order to Form A, beginning with a read item (a milkshake f l a v o r : c h o c o l a t e -v a n i l l a ) , f o l l o w ed by a generate item (a type of flower: d a f f o d i l - r ) . T h i s task c o n s i s t e d of three phases: generate/read, r e c a l l , and source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , the examiner asked two d e s c r i p t i v e questions of the s u b j e c t s a f t e r the task had been completed. The generate/read phase began with the f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t s : "The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h i s task are t r i c k y , so please l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y . We w i l l p r a c t i c e before you begin to make sure t h a t you understand. I have a l i s t of 24 groups of t h i n g s . A f t e r each group of th i n g s on my l i s t , i s the name of one t h i n g i n t h a t group. 94 Then my l i s t w i l l g ive me a l e t t e r , which i s the f i r s t l e t t e r f o r the name of a second t h i n g i n that group. We're going to take turns naming the second t h i n g t h a t c o u l d be i n each of these 24 groups. You guess one, then I w i l l t e l l you one. Repeat the one that I t e l l you aloud so t h a t I know that you heard i t c o r r e c t l y . When we are a l l f i n i s h e d , I'm going to ask you to name aloud as many of the t h i n g s t h a t you and I named as you can remember." Repeating the provided word aloud equates the generate and repeat c o n d i t i o n s f o r a r t i c u l a t o r y a c t i v i t y , and ensures the examiner that the word was heard a c c u r a t e l y . The s u b j e c t ' s responses were recorded i n w r i t i n g by the examiner. The r e c a l l t e s t was given immediately a f t e r completing the generate/read phase. The examiner i n s t r u c t e d the c h i l d as f o l l o w s : "Now I want you to say aloud as many of the t h i n g s t h a t you and I named as you can remember. I t doesn't matter what order you say them i n . " The examiner recorded i n w r i t i n g the items that the c h i l d r e c a l l e d . The number of provided items t h a t the c h i l d named was the r e c a l l f o r e x t e r n a l l y p rovided items. The r e c a l l score f o r the s e l f -generated items was based on the p r o p o r t i o n of the s u b j e c t ' s s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items t h a t matched the examiner's input l i s t . A f t e r the r e c a l l task was completed, the examiner asked the c h i l d to d i s c r i m i n a t e the source of each item remembered ( i . e . , generate versus r e a d ) . The i n s t r u c t i o n s were as f o l l o w s : " Do you remember when we d i d t h i s , sometimes you named a t h i n g , and sometimes I named i t . I'm going to read 95 you the ones you remembered, and I'd l i k e you to t e l l me i f i t was one t h a t you named, or one that I named." T h i s permitted an estimate, based the r e c a l l e d items, of the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to d i s c r i m i n a t e the source of the o r i g i n a l input items. A f t e r the task was completed the examiner asked the s u b j e c t two q u e s t i o n s : "How many of the t h i n g s d i d you t h i n k you would be able to remember?" and "How d i d you remember the ones you remembered?" These questions were designed to gather f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n that might a i d i n e x p l a i n i n g the present f i n d i n g s , and a d d i t i o n a l l y , might guide f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . They may help to answer questions such as: Do h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n d i f f e r from non-h y p e r a c t i v e ones i n t h e i r knowledge of t h e i r own memory span? Are they able to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t they used to r e c a l l the items? The items are organized i n t h i s task i n s e v e r a l ways t h a t c o u l d a i d r e c a l l ; c ategory (the group of t h i n g s ) , cue (the f i r s t t h i n g i n the group), and s e l f -generated items ( h a l f of the items to be remembered are chosen by the s u b j e c t ) . I am i n t e r e s t e d i n whether the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e any of these as a i d s to memory. 7.3 R e s u l t s The main measures of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s task are (a) the p r o p o r t i o n of generate and read items r e c a l l e d , (b) the accuracy of the source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of the r e c a l l e d items, and (c) the occurrence of i n t r u s i v e e r r o r s . The p r o p o r t i o n 96 (out of 12) of times that a s u b j e c t generated an item other than the one intended by the examiner was a l s o obtained i n t h i s t a s k : such items were excluded from analyses of r e c a l l and source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n performance. There were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the p r o p o r t i o n of c o r r e c t l y generated items (the mean f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s was .92, and f o r the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s was .93; t <1). A n c i l l a r y measures of i n t e r e s t were obtained from the q u e s t i o n i n g of the s u b j e c t s a f t e r the task had been completed. These questions were not asked p r i o r to the task because they may have i n t e r f e r e d with the performance on the t a s k . I f f o r example, the c h i l d s t a t e s t h a t he or she w i l l be able to r e c a l l f i v e items, a f t e r f i v e are r e c a l l e d , l i t t l e e f f o r t may be made to r e c a l l a d d i t i o n a l items. A two-factor a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d out to compare the r e c a l l performance i n the two item c o n d i t i o n s (generate and r e a d ) . The mean p r o p o r t i o n of items r e c a l l e d , averaged a c r o s s the two item c o n d i t i o n s , was .34 f o r the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , and .27 f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s ( F ( l , 5 8 ) =4.75, p_ =.03). Averaging a c r o s s the s u b j e c t groups, there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the r e c a l l of generate and read items, such t h a t s u b j e c t s were more l i k e l y to r e c a l l the former (F_(l,58) =24.33, p_ <.01). The i n t e r a c t i o n between s u b j e c t groups and item type, was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t ( F ( l , 5 8 ) =10.68, p_ =.01). The l o c a t i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown i n F i g u r e 5. Tests of simple main e f f e c t s showed t h a t the two groups d i f f e r e d i n the 97 Q LU I _ l < o LU CC CO be O Q_ O CC Q_ .50 .40 .30 .20 .10 0 Hyperactive Group Control Group GENERATE READ Figure 5. TYPE OF ITEM Word Generation Task Comparison of the Mean Recall of the Hyperactive and Control Groups as a Function of Item Type 98 r e c a l l of the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items, 1F_(1,58) =18.05, p <.01). There were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s u b j e c t groups i n the r e c a l l of the read items. Thus the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , u n l i k e the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d not show the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t . T h i s i s a meaningful r e s u l t because, f o r normals, there i s a memorial b e n e f i t a s s o c i a t e d with g e n e r a t i n g (Slamecka & Graf, 1978). These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t there may be a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n the way that the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s and c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s process the items at i n p u t . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s do not seem to d e r i v e the memorial b e n e f i t from g e n e r a t i n g an item t h a t the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s do. To answer the accuracy of the source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t e s t , two values were computed f o r every c h i l d who r e c a l l e d at l e a s t three generate and at l e a s t three read items (n=16 c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s and n=10 h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s ) . One value was the p r o p o r t i o n of generate items c o r r e c t l y c a l l e d generated, and the other was the p r o p o r t i o n of read items c o r r e c t l y c a l l e d read. The s u b j e c t groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l the source of the input item, with the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s making the more ac c u r a t e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s , ( F ( l , 2 4 ) = 5.82, p =.02). The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , r e l a t i v e to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g the source of the r e c a l l e d items. T h i s r e s u l t i s compatible with the f i n d i n g t h a t they do not show the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t , and suggests t h a t d u r i n g encoding they d i d not 99 d i s t i n g u i s h between the source o£ the item to be processed. In comparison with c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y more i n t r u s i o n s i n r e c a l l (means of 1.80 versus 0.13; t(58) = 3.11, p_ .01). The f a i l u r e of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s to demonstrate the g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t , and i n a d d i t i o n , the d i f f i c u l t i e s they show with accuracy of source d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and the higher frequency of t h e i r i n t r u s i o n e r r o r s , together suggest a d e f i c i t at the l e v e l of encoding. T h i s could be a d e f i c i e n c y i n the depth t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n i s processed, or i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to s t o r e the i n f o r m a t i o n i n an organized manner. The s u b j e c t s were asked to p r e d i c t how many items they thought they would remember, and t h i s p r e d i c t e d r e c a l l was compared to the a c t u a l r e c a l l i n order to assess the accuracy of s u b j e c t s ' metamemory knowledge. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , r e l a t i v e to the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , o v e r - p r e d i c t e d t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t y , (t(58) = 4.11, p_ <.01). T h e i r mean p r e d i c t e d r e c a l l was 11.5 items, while t h e i r a c t u a l r e c a l l was 6.5 items. The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , however, were more accurate p r e d i c t o r s of t h e i r own memorial a b i l i t i e s . The d i f f e r e n c e between the 8.8 items t h a t they p r e d i c t e d t h a t they would r e c a l l , and the 8.1 items t h a t they a c t u a l l y r e c a l l e d , was not s i g n i f i c a n t (t >1). For each group, a Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n was computed between the p r e d i c t e d r e c a l l and the a c t u a l r e c a l l ( f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group, r =.261, and f o r the c o n t r o l group, r =.368). A Z - t e s t , used 100 to compare t h e groups, r e v e a l e d no d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e s e c o r r e l a t i o n s . A l l of the s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study were asked about t h e i r s t r a t e g y use on the task. A chi-square a n a l y s i s of these f r e q u e n c i e s r e v e a l e d that the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t y d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y t h a t they used to a i d r e c a l l , (with Yates c o r r e c t i o n , x 2 ( l ) = 11.32, p <.01). When asked what method they used to remember, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y . Only seven (23%) of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d using a s t r a t e g y , such as r e h e a r s a l , awareness of the category, and remembering the cue word. One s u b j e c t was aware of the recency e f f e c t , " I t ' s e a s i e r to remember when they're near the end because they're s t i l l i n your mind." The remainder of the s u b j e c t s provided e x p l a n a t i o n s such as, "I was t h i n k i n g f a s t " , "I t r i e d to keep them i n my head, and "I j u s t thought back". Twenty-three of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s (77%) d e s c r i b e d s t r a t e g i e s which i n c l u d e d r e h e a r s a l (8), remembering the cat e g o r y (10), and remembering the word cue (5). An example of an e x p l a n a t i o n o f f e r e d by t h i s group was, "I t r i e d to remember the one you s a i d , type of flower. You s a i d d a f f o d i l , and I s a i d r o s e " . In a d d i t i o n many of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s demonstrated knowledge of the memorial b e n e f i t accrued when the r e c a l l items were s e l f - g e n e r a t e d . 7 . 4 D i s c u s s i o n The r e s u l t s of t h i s task demonstrate that h y p e r a c t i v e 101 c h i l d r e n have more d i f f i c u l t y than normal c h i l d r e n with r e c a l l on a word g e n e r a t i o n t a s k . The r e c a l l a b i l i t y of the two groups d i f f e r e d on the r e c a l l of s e l f - g e n e r a t e d words, but d i d not d i f f e r on the r e c a l l of words t h a t had been prov i d e d . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g the source of the r e c a l l e d items, made more i n t r u s i o n e r r o r s , and o v e r - p r e d i c t e d t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s . Furthermore, they had c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y t h a t they used to a i d r e c a l l . In g e n e r a l , the r e s u l t s of t h i s task are c o n s i s t e n t with the proposal that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have d e f i c i t s i n t h e i r metamemory a b i l i t i e s . S e v e r a l sources f o r t h i s problem are p o s s i b l e , however. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , by o v e r - p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t y , demonstrated d i f f i c u l t y r e l a t i v e to the normal s u b j e c t s with knowledge of t h e i r own memory c a p a c i t y . T h i s suggests t h a t they might a l s o be unaware t h a t i t would be e a s i e r to r e c a l l a word th a t was s e l f - g e n e r a t e d . An a d d i t i o n a l source of the problem might be how w e l l the i n f o r m a t i o n was encoded at the time of p r e s e n t a t i o n . I f the items were processed o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l l y , or i n a r a p i d , i s o l a t e d , unorganized manner, poor r e c a l l would be expected. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s demonstrated t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s by performing as w e l l as the normal s u b j e c t s on r e c a l l of the examiner-generated words. They do not b e n e f i t , however, as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s do, from g e n e r a t i n g t h e i r own words. T h i s suggests a l i m i t i n g 102 c o n d i t i o n f o r the generat i o n e f f e c t . Although the ge n e r a t i o n e f f e c t may r e s u l t from the p r i o r r e c a l l and gre a t e r c o g n i t i v e e f f o r t a s s o c i a t e d with the generated items, i t may a l s o be necessary t h a t s u b j e c t s are aware of the b e n e f i t of ge n e r a t i n g items. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had d i f f i c u l t y i d e n t i f y i n g the source of the items on t h i s task, a d i f f i c u l t y which may have d e r i v e d from an i n a b i l i t y to monitor the memory t r a c e . I t f o l l o w s that t h i s problem co u l d have been attenuated by the knowledge t h a t generated items would be e a s i e r to r e c a l l because the type of p r o c e s s i n g t h a t these items underwent d u r i n g input should have conformed to t h i s knowledge. At any r a t e , t h i s s u g g e s t i o n w i l l r e q u i r e f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t metamemory s k i l l s are i m p l i c a t e d i n the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated on t h i s task i s f u r t h e r supported by the d i f f i c u l t y they experienced i n d e s c r i b i n g how they remembered. These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with the hypotheses of B a r k l e y (1985), Douglas (1980), and T a y l o r (1986) who have suggested t h a t these c h i l d r e n f a i l to apply s t r a t e g i c s k i l l s on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , s k i l l s which would be expected to enhance r e c a l l . Some of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study d e s c r i b e d u s i n g s t r a t e g i e s , but compared to the normal c h i l d r e n , they d e s c r i b e d weak and l e s s e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . T h i s i n a b i l i t y to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y i s c o n s i s t e n t with a pr o d u c t i o n d e f i c i e n c y (Brown & DeLoache, 1978; F l a v e l l , 1970), a f a i l u r e to produce a s t r a t e g y when necessary. 103 Torgesen (1977) has suggested that when c h i l d r e n f a l l on a memory task, i t may not be memory processes that are being measured, but r a t h e r metamemory processes, an i n a b i l i t y to adapt to the demands of the task by employing a c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s . O v e r a l l the data seem to suggest that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have a d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r metamemory a b i l i t i e s r e l a t i v e to the group of c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . A number of problems c o u l d account f o r t h i s d e f i c i t , however. For example, problems with metamemory knowledge, such as over-p r e d i c t i n g memory c a p a c i t y , or not knowing t h a t a s e l f -generated word w i l l be e a s i e r to r e c a l l , would be expected to a f f e c t memory performance. C l e a r l y , by o v e r - p r e d i c t i n g t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are demonstrating a d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s area not observed i n normal c h i l d r e n . Problems can a l s o a r i s e from d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l and the type of p r o c e s s i n g that occur at i n p u t . The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ' s f a i l u r e to a c c u r a t e l y i d e n t i f y the source of the r e c a l l e d items, and the number of i n t r u s i v e e r r o r s they made d u r i n g r e c a l l suggests some problem a t t h i s l e v e l as w e l l . One e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s f i n d i n g i s t h a t these c h i l d r e n are p r o c e s s i n g the to be r e c a l l e d Items i n an i s o l a t e d and unorganized manner. F a i l u r e to produce and use s t r a t e g i e s e f f i c i e n t l y poses an a d d i t i o n a l disadvantage on tasks r e q u i r i n g e f f o r t f u l encoding and r e t r i e v a l . H yperactive c h i l d r e n have a demonstrated d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s area that may be due to a 104 p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i e n c y . The r e s u l t s of t h i s task pose some i n t e r e s t i n g q u e s t i o n s , and demonstrate the need f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to c l a r i f y the l e v e l of the metamemory d e f i c i t demonstrated by these c h i l d r e n . 105 8. Task 5: Object span and R e c a l l 8.1 R a t i o n a l e T h i s task i s an attempt to r e p l i c a t e F l a v e l l , F r i e d r i c h s , and Hoyt, (1970). I t i s in c l u d e d because i t provides i n f o r m a t i o n about two d i f f e r e n t types of memory phenomena: the s u b j e c t ' s knowledge of h i s or her own memory (metamemory knowledge), and the p r o d u c t i o n and employment of s t r a t e g i e s such as naming and r e h e a r s a l (metamemory m o n i t o r i n g ) . In a developmental study that i n c l u d e d s u b j e c t s from nursery s c h o o l , k i n d e r g a r t e n , second grade, and f o u r t h grade, F l a v e l l et a l . (1970) found t h a t f o r a l l four age groups, the number of o b j e c t s that the s u b j e c t s p r e d i c t e d they would be able to r e c a l l was gr e a t e r than the number a c t u a l l y r e c a l l e d . The d i f f e r e n c e between these two spans, however, was s h a r p l y reduced i n the ol d e r s u b j e c t s because a c t u a l span had i n c r e a s e d , and p r e d i c t e d span had decreased. R e c a l l r e a d i n e s s -- the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to assess t h a t a group of items was memorized s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l to r e c a l l them p e r f e c t l y -- a l s o showed a marked improvement with age. Older s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e d q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and p o s s i b l y q u a l i t a t i v e l y from the younger s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r use of s t r a t e g i e s . The younger c h i l d r e n used s t r a t e g i e s l e s s f r e q u e n t l y than the ol d e r s u b j e c t s , and when they d i d employ a s t r a t e g y , g e n e r a l l y naming, i t appeared that i t occurred spontaneously, r a t h e r than being employed i n an e x p l i c i t way as an a i d to memory. The ol d e r s u b j e c t s used 106 naming s t r a t e g i c a l l y . H yperactive and non-hyperactive s u b j e c t s may d i f f e r i n t h e i r knowledge of the c a p a b i l i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e i r memories, and i n t h e i r use of s t r a t e g i e s on memory t a s k s . T h i s sequence of tasks -- p r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span, a c t u a l o b j e c t span, and memorization and r e c a l l -- allows f o r the p a r t i t i o n i n g of these two c l a s s e s of metamemory. T h i s makes i t p o s s i b l e to assess and i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c metamemory d e f i c i t s , i n a d d i t i o n to a s s e s s i n g and i d e n t i f y i n g a general d e f i c i t i n metamemory. Each p a r t of the sequence was designed by F l a v e l l et a l . (1970) to provide i n f o r m a t i o n about an aspect of memory. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d ' s p r e d i c t e d and a c t u a l memory span was s t u d i e d to assess the c h i l d ' s knowledge of h i s or her own memory c a p a c i t i e s . The c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to r e c a l l the p i c t u r e s e r i e s on the t h i r d phase of the task, memorization and r e c a l l , was s t u d i e d i n order to assess another aspect of the c h i l d ' s knowledge, knowledge about the r e t r i e v a b i l i t y of c u r r e n t l y processed items. In a d d i t i o n , the examiner recorded the s u b j e c t ' s study and r e c a l l behavior (use of a s t r a t e g y ) , d u r i n g the memorization and r e c a l l phase. 8.2 Methods The t e s t i n g sequence of t h i s task, i d e n t i c a l f o r a l l the s u b j e c t s , was (a) p r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span, (b) o b j e c t span, and (c) memorization and r e c a l l . The f i r s t phase of the task, p r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span, 107 employed a cardboard s t r i p with the p i c t u r e s of 10 o b j e c t s on i t . The p i c t u r e s were black and white l i n e drawings of f a m i l i a r , concrete o b j e c t s such as a camera and a b e l l . Each p i c t u r e was covered by an opaque window that could be opened to r e v e a l the o b j e c t underneath. This enabled the c h i l d to observe one o b j e c t without viewing the other o b j e c t s on the s t r i p a t the same time. The p i c t u r e s of o b j e c t s used i n t h i s task were taken from the Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary Tes t - R e v i s e d , (PPVT-R, 1981). During the i n i t i a l phase, the c h i l d r e n were asked to p r e d i c t t h e i r memory span. Each s u b j e c t was shown one o b j e c t on the s t r i p while the examiner s a i d the name of the o b j e c t . The examiner then covered the p i c t u r e and asked the s u b j e c t i f he or she c o u l d name the o b j e c t aloud from memory. The same procedure was repeated f o r two o b j e c t s , with the examiner emphasizing t h a t the o b j e c t s must be r e c a l l e d i n order, from l e f t t o r i g h t . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n process continued, with one o b j e c t being added each time, u n t i l the s u b j e c t i n d i c a t e d t h a t the s e r i e s was now too long to r e c a l l . The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r the s e r i e s of three p i c t u r e s or more was: "Do you t h i n k you c o u l d remember n words ( p o i n t s to a s t r i p of n p i c t u r e s ) i f I s a i d each of them once and then covered them up?" A s u b j e c t ' s o b j e c t span i s the l o n g e s t s e r i e s of o b j e c t names (to a maximum of 10) t h a t the s u b j e c t t h i n k s he or she would be able to r e c a l l c o r r e c t l y . The second phase of the task, a c t u a l o b j e c t span, was 108 a d m i n i s t e r e d i n t h e s a m e m a n n e r a s t h e D i g i t S p a n s u b t e s t of the W I S C - R . The i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h i s phase were as f o l l o w s : " I ' m going to read aloud some names of f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s and then ask you to say them back to me i n the same order that I s a i d them. L e t ' s t r y one before we s t a r t to make sure you understand". The examiner began with a s e r i e s of three o b j e c t s (e.g., b i c y c l e - t r e e - c o m p u t e r ) . The s u b j e c t was i n s t r u c t e d to t r y to repeat each s e r i e s i n c o r r e c t order. I f the s u b j e c t f a i l e d a sequence, a second t r y was given with another sequence of the same l e n g t h . The s u b j e c t ' s a c t u a l o b j e c t span i s the longest s e r i e s r e c a l l e d c o r r e c t l y . The t h i r d phase of the task, the memorization and r e c a l l phase, used three s t r i p s s i m i l a r to the one used i n the f i r s t phase of the t a s k . A l l three s t r i p s had p i c t u r e s of 10 d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t s on them. In a d d i t i o n , there was a s i m i l a r s t r i p of 3 items used i n a p r a c t i c e t r i a l . T h i s phase was timed. Before t h i s phase began, s u b j e c t s were asked to name the o b j e c t s i l l u s t r a t e d i n 33 p i c t u r e s of o b j e c t s to ensure t h a t they knew the o b j e c t ' s name. If s u b j e c t s d i d not know the name of any of the o b j e c t s , the examiner provided the name. A l l of the o b j e c t s t h a t the s u b j e c t s were subsequently asked to study and r e c a l l were drawn from t h i s s e t of 33. The s u b j e c t was then shown a s t r i p with 3 o b j e c t s on i t as a p r a c t i c e t r i a l . The i n s t r u c t i o n s to the s u b j e c t on t h i s t r i a l were: "Now the p i c t u r e s w i l l be hidden. Under 109 each of these covers i s a p i c t u r e of an o b j e c t . I'd l i k e you to look at each p i c t u r e , one at a time, but you can look at each one as many times as you l i k e . When you're sure you know them a l l by heart, l e t me know, but be c a r e f u l not to t e l l me you're ready to remember them u n t i l you're sure you know them a l l by heart, i n the r i g h t order, from l e f t to r i g h t . " The examiner, by p o i n t i n g , demonstrated the order f o r the c h i l d . Three t e s t t r i a l s f o l l o w e d . The procedure was i d e n t i c a l to the p r a c t i c e t r i a l . A d i f f e r e n t s e r i e s of 10 p i c t u r e s was presented on each of the three t r i a l s . The number of p i c t u r e s c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d was recorded. In a d d i t i o n , study behavior -- naming, r e h e a r s a l , a n d g e s t u r i n g -- was monitored d u r i n g the t h i r d phase of the task to determine i f the s u b j e c t s were employing a s t r a t e g y as an a i d to memory. Naming was recorded i f the s u b j e c t named the obj e c t a l o u d . Rehearsal was recorded i f the c h i l d repeated the names of the o b j e c t s . G e s t u r i n g was recorded i f the c h i l d made a v i s i b l e gesture such as, p o i n t i n g to each o b j e c t , u s i n g the f i n g e r s to remember the o b j e c t s by a s s i g n i n g an o b j e c t to a f i n g e r , and d u r i n g r e t r i e v a l , p o i n t i n g t o the space on the t a b l e where the p i c t u r e s had been. A f t e r the task was completed the s u b j e c t s were asked i f they had used a s t r a t e g y to help them remember the o b j e c t s , and i f they had, to d e s c r i b e the s t r a t e g y used. By c a t e g o r i z i n g the examiner's o b s e r v a t i o n s i n t o three groups 110 i t was p o s s i b l e to o b t a i n data on the number and v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s used. In a d d i t i o n , i t was p o s s i b l e to compare the c h i l d ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s with the examiner's o b s e r v a t i o n s . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may be observed to use s t r a t e g i e s even i f they do not d e s c r i b e using them. 8.3 R e s u l t s The main measures of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s study are (a) the d i f f e r e n c e between the p r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span and the a c t u a l o b j e c t span, (b) the number of t r i a l s i n the memorization and r e c a l l phase on which the s u b j e c t r e c a l l e d a l l of the items c o r r e c t l y and i n order, (c) the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of p e r f e c t r e c a l l t r i a l s and study time, and (d) the f r e q u e n c i e s of the three study p e r i o d b e h a v i o r s . The r e s u l t s of ( a ) , (b), and (c) are d i s p l a y e d i n Table 4. An a n c i l l a r y measure i s the responses obtained from the q u e s t i o n i n g about s t r a t e g y use. A two-factor a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was c a r r i e d out to compare the s u b j e c t groups under the two r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n s ( p r e d i c t e d and a c t u a l ) . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d (a) no main e f f e c t f o r s u b j e c t groups, (b) a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of the r e c a l l c o n d i t i o n , such that s u b j e c t s p r e d i c t e d that they would r e c a l l more items than they a c t u a l l y d i d ( F ( l , 5 8 ) = 77.82, p_ <.01), and (c) no i n t e r a c t i o n . The s u b j e c t groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r r e c a l l r e a d i n e s s , the c h i l d ' s judgement of when the items were s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l memorized to r e c a l l them a l l I l l Table 4. Object Span and R e c a l l Task: Memory Performance as a F u n c t i o n of Subject Group V a r i a b l e Hyperactive C o n t r o l Mean SD Mean SD Object span P r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span 7.3 2.26 7.1 2.22 A c t u a l o b j e c t span 4.4 .74 4.1 .73 D i f f e r e n c e between a c t u a l and p r e d i c t e d span 2.9 3.0 R e c a l l r e a d i n e s s (number of t e s t s c o r r e c t ) .6 1.8 P e r f e c t score on three t e s t s ( i n percent) 10.0 37.0 Study time ( l n seconds) 109.49 172.97 112 p e r f e c t l y , (mean f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group 0.60, and f o r the c o n t r o l group 1.8; t(58) = 3.93, p_ <.01). T h i r t y - s e v e n percent of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s scored p e r f e c t l y on the three t e s t s , whereas the performance of only 10% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s was e r r o r l e s s . In a d d i t i o n , the s u b j e c t groups d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r study time. The mean s e l f - t i m e d study p e r i o d f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group was 110 seconds, while the mean length of the study time f o r the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s was 173 seconds, (t(58) =3.16, p. =.01). T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n study time i s one f a c t o r t h a t most l i k e l y c o n t r i b u t e d to the s u p e r i o r r e c a l l performance observed i n the c o n t r o l group. A Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n was computed f o r each group to assess the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of t e s t s c o r r e c t and the mean study time, ( f o r the h y p e r a c t i v e group, r =.353, and f o r the c o n t r o l group, r = .382). A Z - t e s t , used to compare the groups, showed no d i f f e r e n c e s (Z =.129, p_ =.45). For both groups, as study time i n c r e a s e d , the number of t e s t s c o r r e c t i n c r e a s e d . In terms of the observed study b e h a v i o r s , there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the recorded use of naming or gestures d u r i n g the study p e r i o d s , ( F i s h e r exact p r o b a b i l i t y t e s t s were used to compare these f r e q u e n c i e s ) . There were group d i f f e r e n c e s , however, i n the observed use of r e h e a r s a l , such t h a t the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were more l i k e l y to rehearse the items d u r i n g memorization (p_ =.01). These f r e q u e n c i e s are d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e 6. The f i n d i n g t h a t the s u b j e c t groups d i d not d i f f e r i n 113 CO H O LU —3 CD ZD CO O r— rx O D_ O rx o_ 100 Figure 6. Hyperactive Group Control Group NAMING GESTURE REHEARSAL Object Span and Recall Task Comparison of Observed Differences in Strategy Use in the Hyperactive and Control Groups 114 t h e i r observed use of naming and gestures, and f u r t h e r , that 100% of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s and 97% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were observed to use at l e a s t one of these s t r a t e g i e s d u r i n g memorization, i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n view of the c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e observed between the groups i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t was used to a i d r e c a l l , ( x a ( l ) =13.90, p_ =.01). Only 37% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were able to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y , compared with 100% of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . These data suggest t h a t the hy p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were e i t h e r not aware that they were using s t r a t e g i e s , or, t h a t they were using naming and gestures n o n - s t r a t e g i c a l l y . In terms of the d e s c r i b e d s t r a t e g i e s , 20% of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d using r o t e r e h e a r s a l , and the remainder (17%) d e s c r i b e d a more s t r a t e g i c r e h e a r s a l , such as chunking the items and t e s t i n g themselves u n t i l they were sure they knew them a l l . One c h i l d was able to demonstrate using r e h e a r s a l , but had d i f f i c u l t y e x p l a i n i n g the method v e r b a l l y . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , some of the ways i n which these s t r a t e g i e s were used would be expected to have an adverse e f f e c t on memorization and r e c a l l . For example, one s u b j e c t rehearsed the l i s t from r i g h t to l e f t and then from l e f t to r i g h t , an obvious d e t e r r e n t to r e c a l l i n g the words i n one order. The s t r a t e g i e s r e p o r t e d by the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s were ro t e r e h e a r s a l (20%), s t r a t e g i c r e h e a r s a l with chunking and s e l f - t e s t i n g (57%), and v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n (20%). An 115 example of the l a t t e r was, "I made a sentence which i n c l u d e d a l l the words...*let the g i r l i n the c a r . . . ' " . Another p o s s i b l e reason f o r the s u p e r i o r r e c a l l a b i l i t y of the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s i n t h i s task, i n a d d i t i o n to the len g t h of study time, may be these d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g i c behavior. 8 . 4 D i s c u s s i o n The r e s u l t s of the present study i n d i c a t e t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are d i s t i n g u i s h e d from normal c h i l d r e n by t h e i r performance on a memorization and r e c a l l task, and suggest t h a t these d i f f e r e n c e s may be a t t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s l n metamemory development. In terms of one aspect of metamemory knowledge, a c c u r a t e l y judging one's own memory span, the h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n d i d not d i f f e r . Both groups i n t h i s study o v e r - p r e d i c t e d t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of F l a v e l l , et a l . (1970) t h a t even the 4th grade s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r study o v e r p r e d l c t e d t h e i r memory spans. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s demonstrated more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , however, with metamemory monit o r i n g , with t h e i r a b i l i t y to judge when they had memorized a group of items long enough to r e c a l l them p e r f e c t l y . Two a d d i t i o n a l r e s u l t s o f f e r f u r t h e r support f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n metamemory mo n i t o r i n g . F i r s t , the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s took a longer time than d i d the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s to study the o b j e c t s d u r i n g the r e c a l l phase of the 116 t a s k . Second, there w e r e o b s e r v e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e c a l l s t r a t e g i e s employed by the two groups, and c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups i n the s u b j e c t ' s own d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i r s t r a t e g i c behavior d u r i n g the t a s k . In terms of the r e g u l a t i o n of study time, the task demands i n t h i s task were c o n s i d e r a b l e . The s u b j e c t s had been i n s t r u c t e d to r e c a l l a l l of the items, and to do so i n order. T h i s r a i s e s the q u e s t i o n of the monitoring and subsequent r e g u l a t i o n of the p r o c e s s i n g time, which Is task r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . I f the i n f o r m a t i o n i s not s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l known, more time should be devoted to s t u d y i n g . By i n c r e a s i n g e f f o r t , the c h i l d i n c r e a s e s the chances f o r success. Knowledge of the memory system most l i k e l y stems from t h i s s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g o f one's own memory. Leonesio and Nelson (1990), i n t h e i r study of metamemory judgements, d e s c r i b e d t h i s s e l f - m o n i t o r i n g as c r i t i c a l f o r p r o v i d i n g input i n t o s e l f - d i r e c t e d c o n t r o l process such as the a l l o c a t i o n of study time. Prev i o u s s t u d i e s have shown that there i s an important r e l a t i o n s h i p between the amount of e x e c u t i v e c o n t r o l and the l e v e l of the c o g n i t i v e performance on r e c a l l tasks (Brown, et a l . , 1979; Brown & DeLoache, 1978). S u c c e s s f u l l e a r n e r s have been shown to spontaneously monitor as they read and s t u d i e d a t e x t (Peterson, B r a n s f o r d , M o r r i s , & S t e i n , 1980). The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t with Douglas' (1983) hypothesis t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n seem to f a i l to i n v e s t s u f f i c i e n t e f f o r t i n committing i n f o r m a t i o n to memory 117 on r e c a l l t a s k s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study performed s i m i l a r l y to the younger s u b j e c t s i n the F l a v e l l et a l . study (1970). They had a tendency to terminate the study p e r i o d before they were ready to r e c a l l a l l the items. One e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are d e f i c i e n t i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to monitor t h e i r c u r r e n t s t a t e of l e a r n i n g , to assess whether the i n f o r m a t i o n i s memorized w e l l enough to begin r e c a l l . There were c o n s i d e r a b l e group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e c a l l s t r a t e g i e s observed by the examiner. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s task were observed to use naming and g e s t u r e s , although not r e h e a r s a l , as f r e q u e n t l y as the . c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . There may be a q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e i n how these two s u b j e c t groups employed s t r a t e g i e s i n t h i s t a s k . For example, F l a v e l l et a l . (1970), observed t h a t the younger s u b j e c t s i n t h e i r study used naming, but t h a t f u n c t i o n a l l y , i t may have been spontaneous r a t h e r than d e l i b e r a t e l y s t r a t e g i c . Chi (1976) has a l s o observed t h a t naming does not n e c e s s i t a t e subsequent r e h e a r s a l . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s p r o p o s a l . The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n were observed to use r e h e a r s a l l e s s f r e q u e n t l y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , and they a l s o had more d i f f i c u l t y with c o r r e c t r e c a l l . In terms of d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y , there were s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the two s u b j e c t groups. The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f i c u l t y e x p l a i n i n g how they remembered. Although c h i l d r e n may be capable of 118 using s t r a t e g i e s without being able to v e r b a l l y d e s c r i b e them, i t i s c l e a r t h a t a p a r t i c u l a r c o g n i t i v e problem i s understood when the c h i l d i s able to use a s t r a t e g y a p p r o p r i a t e l y , and i n a d d i t i o n , can d i s c u s s i t s use. An assumption of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t h a t accurate memory monitoring and s t r a t e g i c awareness lead to s t r a t e g i c behavior and to enhanced performance on a r e c a l l t a s k . The present r e s u l t s suggest t h a t memory monitoring, measured by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s e l f - t i m e d study p e r i o d s , d i d have a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on r e c a l l . The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s s t u d i e d longer, and they obtained p e r f e c t r e c a l l on a gr e a t e r number of the t e s t s than d i d the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , memory monitoring should lead to s t r a t e g i c behavior. The f a i l u r e of h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s to engage i n s t r a t e g i c behavior on c o g n i t i v e tasks has been observed before (Weingartner et a l . , 1980). The group d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s task i n observed ( r e h e a r s a l ) and d e s c r i b e d s t r a t e g i e s i n d i c a t e q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t r a t e g i c behavior. Yet the o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t both groups used naming and gestures d u r i n g memorization, suggests that there may be q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e as w e l l . Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may be using s t r a t e g i e s d u r i n g memorization, a l b e i t with l e s s awareness than normal c h i l d r e n , and i n l e s s e f f i c i e n t ways. An awareness of r e c a l l l i m i t a t i o n s may not lead to inc r e a s e d s t r a t e g i c behavior i f the c h i l d i s l a c k i n g i n knowledge about s t r a t e g i e s . Moreover, the c h i l d may not know how to adapt a general s t r a t e g y r u l e to a s p e c i f i c 119 c o g n i t i v e task. O r n s t e i n , Naus, and L i b e r t y , (1975) found that young c h i l d r e n o f t e n f a i l to execute t h e i r r e h e a r s a l processes c o r r e c t l y , f o r example, they rehearse each item s e p a r a t e l y r a t h e r than i n a group. Hyperactive c h i l d r e n may be e x p e r i e n c i n g some of these f u n c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s with t h e i r s t r a t e g i c a p p l i c a t i o n on r e c a l l t a s k s . C l e a r l y , not enough i s known about how memory knowledge and monitoring e f f e c t study behavior, and how they lead to s t r a t e g i c behavior. Questions f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h w i l l i n c l u d e determining the c h i l d ' s knowledge of a v a i l a b l e s t r a t e g i e s , and whether or not they have learned when and how to c o r r e c t l y execute the process. 9.1 General D i s c u s s i o n The purpose of t h i s study was to examine memory and metamemory processes i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r non-hy p e r a c t i v e peers, w i t h i n the context of a broad range of memory t a s k s . In general the r e s u l t s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t with the proposal t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n have d e f i c i t s i n t h e i r metamemory a b i l i t i e s . These are d e f i c i t s i n (a) t h e i r knowledge of t h e i r memory a b i l i t y , (b) t h e i r a b i l i t y to evaluate the s p e c i f i c task demands and to monitor t h e i r performance, and (c) t h e i r a b i l i t y to apply s t r a t e g i c e f f o r t on tasks t h a t would be made e a s i e r by these i n t e r v e n t i o n s . T h e i r f a i l u r e to engage i n metamemory a c t i v i t i e s may be an important f a c t o r i n the d i f f i c u l t y they experience on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . Past s t u d i e s have shown t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are impulsive a c a d e m i c a l l y . They work i n a manner t h a t i s unplanned and d i s o r g a n i z e d , make many e r r o r s of c a r e l e s s n e s s , arid o f t e n f a i l to monitor and check t h e i r performance (Hoy et a l . , 1978). They experience d i f f i c u l t y on c o g n i t i v e tasks t h a t r e q u i r e organized, p l a n f u l , and r e f l e c t i v e e f f o r t (Barkley, 1989; Campbell et a l . , 1971; Douglas, 1980; Tant & Douglas, 1982; T a y l o r , 1986). Research has demonstrated c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a b i l i t y i n the performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n on memory t a s k s . They have been shown to perform as w e l l as normal c h i l d r e n on tasks of cued r e c a l l , p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g f o r 121 meaningful words, and on t e s t s of r e c o g n i t i o n memory (Douglas, 1982). They d i f f e r , however, from normal c h i l d r e n by t h e i r poor performance on tasks of uncued r e c a l l (Weingartner et a l . , 1980), and p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s l e a r n i n g for s e m a n t i c a l l y u n r e l a t e d word p a i r s (Benezra, 1980). In a d d i t i o n , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n o f t e n d i s p l a y performance decrements when task demands inc r e a s e (Benezra, 1980; Pe t e r s , 1977; Spring et a l . , 1979; Swanson & Kinsbourne, 1979). Some r e s e a r c h e r s have hypothesized that the d i f f i c u l t y h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrate on c o g n i t i v e tasks i s a f u n c t i o n a l d e f i c i t , r e s u l t i n g from the ways i n which they apply themselves to the task (Barkley, 1981; Douglas, 1972, 1978, 1983; Douglas & P e t e r s , 1979; K e n d a l l , 1985, Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971; Tant & Douglas, 1982). There i s evidence that the p r o c e s s i n g s k i l l s and e f f o r t r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h w e l l organized r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n memory, processes known as metamemory, are f r e q u e n t l y inadequate i n these c h i l d r e n . (Benezra, 1980; Douglas, 1983). D e f i c i t s i n r e f l e c t i v e a c t i o n and e f f o r t f u l use of s t r a t e g i e s would be expected to r e s u l t In performance d e f i c i t s . Metamemory, which i n v o l v e s both memory knowledge and memory moni t o r i n g , performs a f u n c t i o n a l r o l e i n l e a r n i n g and memory. The data c o n s i s t e n t l y i n d i c a t e t h a t metamemory processes a i d memory (Brown, 1974; F l a v e l l , 1970; F l a v e l l & Wellman, 1977). Good memorizers are more aware of t h e i r memory and i t s l i m i t a t i o n s than bad memorizers (Yussen & 122 Berman, 1981), and m o n i t o r i n g p r o c e s s e s a r e c e n t r a l t o l e a r n i n g (Baker & Brown, 1981; F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y & Waller, 1984). The r e s u l t s of the present study suggest that h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n are l e s s e f f i c i e n t i n metamemory knowledge and s k i l l s than normal c h i l d r e n comparable to them on age, grade, and IQ (as measured by the scores obtained on the Vocabulary and Block Design s u b t e s t s of the WISC-R). These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with the proposal t h a t the d i f f i c u l t i e s h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrate on memory tasks may r e s u l t , at l e a s t i n p a r t , from a d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to e f f i c i e n t l y engage i n metamemory proce s s e s . In terms of r e c a l l , the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study g e n e r a l l y had more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l c h i l d r e n with r e c a l l on a l l of the t a s k s . These i n c l u d e d t e s t s of both v e r b a l and non-verbal memory, sh o r t and long-term memory, and p r o s p e c t i v e remembering. F u r t h e r , they d i d not d e r i v e a memorial b e n e f i t , as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d , when g e n e r a t i n g t h e i r own r e c a l l items, or when r e c a l l i n g v i s u a l s t i m u l i t h a t c o u l d be more e a s i l y v e r b a l l y encoded than o t h e r s . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s , however, demonstrated t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s by performing as w e l l as the normal s u b j e c t s on the r e c a l l of read words i n the word g e n e r a t i o n task, and on the r e c a l l of the low and medium l e v e l of l a b e l a b i l i t y items i n the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task. A l s o , the r e c a l l performance of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e d 123 s i g n i f i c a n t l y between the n o - s t r a t e g y and the pr o v i d e d -s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n s i n the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task . Moreover, there were no group d i f f e r e n c e s on the r e c o g n i t i o n memory t e s t i n the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g task. These r e s u l t s are c o n s i s t e n t with the previous i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of memory performance i n h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d e s c r i b e d above. In a d d i t i o n , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study f u r t h e r extend t h i s r e s e a r c h by demonstrating s e l e c t i v e memory d e f i c i t s i n the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s t h a t are c o n s i s t e n t with d e f i c i t s i n metamemory a b i l i t i e s . Looking more c l o s e l y at the r e s u l t s , s e v e r a l sources f o r these s e l e c t i v e d e f i c i t s l n memory performance are p o s s i b l e . In terms of metacognitive knowledge, the two groups i n t h i s study d i f f e r e d i n the accuracy of t h e i r metamemory knowledge i n r e l a t i o n to t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s , but they d i d not d i f f e r i n the accuracy of the judgements made about t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n memory. For example, on two of the tasks (word g e n e r a t i o n and f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g ) , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y than d i d the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s with e s t i m a t i n g t h e i r memory span, although on the o b j e c t span and r e c a l l t a sk, both groups o v e r p r e d i c t e d t h e i r r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s . Problems with metamemory such as o v e r - p r e d i c t i n g r e c a l l a b i l i t i e s , or not knowing t h a t a generated item w i l l be e a s i e r to r e c a l l , would be expected to a f f e c t memory performance. There were no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n the accuracy of the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements about r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t i e s , and no group d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s task 124 in r e c o g n i t i o n performance. The demands of r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n are d i f f e r e n t , however, and metamemory knowledge may p l a y a more important r o l e i n r e c a l l , i n which search and r e t r i e v a l are c r i t i c a l . The data from the word g e n e r a t i o n and the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task are i n t e r e s t i n g because of the observed i n t e r a c t i o n s between the s u b j e c t groups and the item type i n the r e c a l l performance of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s . On the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task, f o r example, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s don't seem to be able to take advantage of the a d d i t i o n a l encoding f a c t o r a v a i l a b l e i n the high l e v e l items. The c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s seem to have picked up on t h i s , and consequently, t h e i r r e c a l l performance i s b e t t e r f o r the high items than f o r the low and medium l e v e l items. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s do as w e l l as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s with r e c a l l of the read items on the word ge n e r a t i o n task, but they have more d i f f i c u l t y on the r e c a l l of the s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items. Both groups r e c a l l more of the generated items, but only the c o n t r o l group n o t i c e a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n r e c a l l between the two types of items. Something about g e n e r a t i n g an item themselves has provided the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s with a memorial advantage on t h i s task not r e a l i z e d by the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s . An e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e w i l l depend on f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . Metamemory knowledge u n d e r l i e s memory monitoring and s t r a t e g y use on memory tasks (Brown, 1975; F l a v e l l , 1970, 125 1979, 1981). The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study had more d i f f i c u l t y , r e l a t i v e to the normal c h i l d r e n , i n t h e i r a b i l i t y to monitor the c u r r e n t s t a t e of t h e i r memory. This type of memory monitoring i s important f o r p r o v i d i n g input i n t o s e l f - d i r e c t e d c o n t r o l processes, such as e v a l u a t i n g task demands, the r e g u l a t i o n of study time, and the d e l i b e r a t e use of s t r a t e g i e s (Leonesio & Nelson, 1990). In the o b j e c t span and r e c a l l task, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s terminated the study p e r i o d before they could r e c a l l a l l the items, which suggests that they had d i f f i c u l t y m o n itoring the c u r r e n t s t a t e of t h e i r l e a r n i n g . F u r t h e r , i n the FOK task, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were not as accurate as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s at making metacognitive judgements about the accuracy of t h e i r r e c a l l . I f t h e i r f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g judgements about r e c a l l had been more a c c u r a t e , i n d i c a t i n g l e s s c e r t a i n t y t h a t an item was c o r r e c t , they may have expended f u r t h e r time and e f f o r t , at r e t r i e v a l . The p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t metamemory s k i l l s are i m p l i c a t e d l n the d i f f i c u l t i e s t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated l n t h i s study i s f u r t h e r supported by the d i f f i c u l t y t h a t they experienced i n d e s c r i b i n g how they remembered. These f i n d i n g s are c o n s i s t e n t with the hypotheses of B a r k l e y (1985), Douglas (1980), T a y l o r (1986), and Weingartner et a l . , (1980) who have suggested t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n f a l l to a p p l y s t r a t e g i c s k i l l s on c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , s k i l l s which would be expected to enhance r e c a l l . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s had more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s when 126 attempting to d e s c r i b e a s t r a t e g y t h a t they used to a i d r e c a l l . When they d i d d e s c r i b e s t r a t e g i e s , they tended to o f f e r e x p l a n a t i o n s t h a t were vague and p o o r l y d e f i n e d . For example, on the word g e n e r a t i o n task they were not as l i k e l y as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s to d e s c r i b e r e h e a r s a l or an awareness of the b e n e f i t provided by the category or the cue word. F u r t h e r , on the o b j e c t span and r e c a l l task, although both groups d e s c r i b e d using r e h e a r s a l , the h y p e r a c t i v e group was l e s s l i k e l y to v e r b a l i z e a s t r a t e g i c method, such as r e h e a r s a l with a s e l f - t e s t or v e r b a l e l a b o r a t i o n . The data from the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task suggest t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n may have a p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i e n c y (Brown & DeLoache, 1978; F l a v e l l , 1970) i n r e l a t i o n to s t r a t e g y use. They had more d i f f i c u l t y than the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s at ge n e r a t i n g a s t r a t e g y , but they c o u l d use one when they were t r a i n e d t o , to mediate t h e i r r e c a l l performance. T h i s f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with Douglas' (Douglas, 1978, 1984; Tant & Douglas, 1982) hypothesis t h a t the s t r a t e g i c d e f i c i t observed i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i s t h i s d i f f i c u l t y i n spontaneously producing a s t r a t e g y when necessary. I t i s important to note, however, t h a t although the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n s t r u c t e d i n a s t r a t e g y performed b e t t e r than those who were not i n s t r u c t e d , they d i d not perform at the l e v e l of normal c h i l d r e n . A p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i e n c y may not o f f e r a s u f f i c i e n t e x p l a n a t i o n of the group d i f f e r e n c e s observed on t h i s t a s k . I t w i l l be necessary to provide the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n with 127 reasonable t r a i n i n g and p r a c t i c e i n s t r a t e g y use before a more c o n c l u s i v e e v a l u a t i o n can be made. There may be both q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way i n which h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n use s t r a t e g i e s . The h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study d i d not d e s c r i b e s t r a t e g i e s as o f t e n as d i d the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n , there i s some evidence from t h i s . s t u d y t h a t even when they are using s t r a t e g i e s , h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n may use them i n l e s s e f f i c i e n t ways than do normal c h i l d r e n . On the o b j e c t span and r e c a l l task, the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were observed to use naming and g e s t u r i n g , but not r e h e a r s a l , as f r e q u e n t l y as the . c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Although t h i s suggests t h a t they were r e p e a t i n g the items, i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence t h a t they were doing so i n t e n t i o n a l l y . Some of the ways t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were observed to use s t r a t e g i e s would be expected to have an adverse e f f e c t on r e c a l l . One s u b j e c t mentioned e a r l i e r , rehearsed the l i s t from l e f t to r i g h t and then from r i g h t to l e f t , an obvious d e t e r r e n t to r e c a l l i n g the items l n order. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with an o b s e r v a t i o n made by Benezra (1980), t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n her study had more d i f f i c u l t y d e s c r i b i n g a s t r a t e g y , and when they d i d , the ones they d e s c r i b e d were not as e l a b o r a t e or as e f f i c i e n t as the ones chosen by the normal c h i l d r e n . These data suggest t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n may be using s t r a t e g i e s , although with l e s s awareness, and i n l e s s e f f i c i e n t ways than the normal 128 c h i l d r e n . There are t h e o r e t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h i s theory that i t i s d e f i c i e n c i e s i n metamemory a b i l i t i e s t h a t are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the s e l e c t i v e memory d e f i c i t s observed i n the performance of the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study. It c ould be argued t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n were not a t t e n d i n g to the t a s k s , and were not i n t e r e s t e d , or as we l l motivated as the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s . Attempts were made i n t h i s study to keep the s u b j e c t s w e l l motivated. On the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, f o r example, s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items were i n c l u d e d i n a d d i t i o n to the examiner-generated items. I t i s important to note, however, t h a t Douglas (1984) observed t h a t d e f i c i t s occurred on c o g n i t i v e tasks even when the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were w e l l motivated. The number of i n t r u s i o n s made on the word g e n e r a t i o n task suggests that the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s were not simply r u s h i n g through the task. I t i s improbable t h a t u n i n t e r e s t e d s u b j e c t s would make the e f f o r t to make i n t r u s i o n s . A l s o , the o b s e r v a t i o n on the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task, t h a t the h y p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s d i d s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r , i n the s t r a t e g y provided c o n d i t i o n , argues a g a i n s t t h i s theory. Most Important though, the r e c a l l d i f f i c u l t i e s demonstrated by the hy p e r a c t i v e s u b j e c t s i n the v i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task would not have been r e s t r i c t e d to onl y the high l e v e l items. Although i t seems obvious t h a t a t t e n t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s w i l l a f f e c t memory performance, the d i f f e r e n c e s observed between the hy p e r a c t i v e and the normal s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study could not 129 be e x p l a i n e d s o l e l y by i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t e n t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n , and i n t e r e s t i n the h y p e r a c t i v e group. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the sex r a t i o s of the two s u b j e c t groups i s a contending hypothesis f o r the group d i f f e r e n c e s observed i n t h i s study. As noted e a r l i e r , the r a t i o of males to females was higher i n the h y p e r a c t i v e group (26:4) than i n the c o n t r o l group (9:21). I w i l l address t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y i n two ways, f i r s t , s t a t i s t i c a l l y , by t e s t i n g f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s on the dependent measures of the present study. Second, I w i l l d e s c r i b e the metamemory s t u d i e s c i t e d i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n which a l s o examined sex d i f f e r e n c e s on t h e i r dependent measures. H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 were used to compare the male and female s u b j e c t s i n each of the groups on the s c r e e n i n g and d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s and the main dependent v a r i a b l e s of the f i v e t a s k s . The r e s u l t s of these t e s t s , which d i d not Ind i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t sex d i f f e r e n c e s , are summarized i n Table 5. One of these t e s t s , the s c r e e n i n g and d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s f o r the c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s , was m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p =.07). Follow-up t - t e s t s on these data i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s , w i t h i n the c o n t r o l group, between the scores of the female and male s u b j e c t s on the CPRS-R and on the Vocabulary s u b t e s t of the WISC-R. On the CPRS-R, the female s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d a mean score of 5.0, and the male s u b j e c t s r e c e i v e d a mean score of 2.9 (t(28) = 2.02, p_ =.05). Both of these score are w e l l below the c u t o f f f o r h y p e r a c t i v i t y which i s 15.0, and w i t h i n the c r i t e r i a f o r 130 Table 5 . comparison of sex D i f f e r e n c e s on the s c r e e n i n g and D e s c r i p t i v e V a r i a b l e s and the Dependent V a r i a b l e s of the Study Tasks i n the Hyperactive and C o n t r o l Group Dependent V a r i a b l e s Hyperactive C o n t r o l F F P. Screening and d e s c r i p t i v e v a r i a b l e s .909 .491 2.400 .067 P r o s p e c t i v e memory task .205 .816 .447 .644 Feeling-of-knowing task .109 .989 2.146 .096 V i s u a l r e t e n t i o n task 1.762 .158 1.644 .194 Word g e n e r a t i o n task .533 .799 .477 .841 O b j e c t s p a n a n d r e c a l l task .948 .453 1.976 .129 Note: See Appendix F f o r t a b l e of means f o r t e s t s of gender e f f e c t s 131 nonhyperactive c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s used i n t h i s study. On the Vocabulary s u b t e s t of the WISC-R, the mean score of the male s u b j e c t s was 12.3, and the mean score of the female s u b j e c t s was 10.8 (t(28) =2.72, p =.02), both of which were ac c e p t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h i s study. A d d i t i o n a l evidence which argues a g a i n s t the hypothesis t h a t sex d i f f e r e n c e s between the groups were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e s u l t s observed i n t h i s study can be found i n the s t u d i e s of memory and metamemory i n normal c h i l d r e n . Two of the three s t u d i e s d e s c r i b e d i n d e t a i l i n S e c t i o n 2.3 of t h i s study ( F l a v e l l , et a l . , 1966; Moynahan, 1973) t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s , and found no main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t sex on any of the dependent measures. The t h i r d study ( K r e u t z e r , et a l . , 1982) equated the groups on sex r a t i o and d i d not t e s t f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s . The F l a v e l l et a l . , study (1966) examined age d i f f e r e n c e s i n spontaneous r e h e a r s a l on a v i s u a l memory task. T h e i r s u b j e c t s were 10 males and 10 females i n each of three age groups, f i v e , seven, and ten y e a r s . They compared the s u b j e c t s by age and sex on t h e i r r e c a l l s cores and v e r b a l r e h e a r s a l and found a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t of age. To remind the reader, the s u b j e c t s d i f f e r e d from age f i v e t o seven i n whether or not they engaged i n r e h e a r s a l , and from age seven t o ten i n the amount of r e h e a r s a l used. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the male and the female s u b j e c t s on these measures. Moynahan (1973) a l s o examined the i n f l u e n c e of the s u b j e c t ' s age i n her study of the e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n on r e c a l l . The s u b j e c t s i n her study were 24 males and 24 females i n each of three age groups ( s i x , nine, and eleven) She t e s t e d the e f f e c t of the s u b j e c t ' s age and sex on three dependent measures (a) p r e d i c t i o n of whether a c a t e g o r i z e d or u n c a t e g o r i z e d group of items would be e a s i e r to r e c a l l , (b) r e c a l l performance, and (c) the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the cards chosen. She found t h a t s u b j e c t s were more l i k e l y to remember the c a t e g o r i z e d items, t h a t r e c a l l i n c r e a s e d with age, and t h a t the o l d e r c h i l d r e n were more aware t h a t c a t e g o r i z i n g would a i d r e c a l l . She found no main e f f e c t of the s u b j e c t ' s sex on any of these measures. Other s t u d i e s c i t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n a l s o t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s (Markman, 1979; Newcomb, et a l . , 1977; S a l a t a s F l a v e l l , 1976a) and found no main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t sex on the dependent measures. Two s t u d i e s were c i t e d i n S e c t i o n 2.5 i n which metamemory was s t u d i e d i n impulsive c h i l d r e n (Borkowski, et a l . , 1983; S i e g e l , e t a l . , 1973). Both of these s t u d i e s t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s and found no main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t sex on the dependent measures of the study. The f i r s t of these two s t u d i e s , Borkowski et a l . , (1985), examined s t r a t e g y use i n impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n . They t e s t e d 33 impulsive and 31 r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n (15 males i n each group and the remainder females) and t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s on the three dependent measures (a) o b s e r v a t i o n s of s t r a t e g y use, (b) r e c a l l , and 133 (c) a metamemory s c o r e . They found t h a t the e f f e c t of the s u b j e c t ' s sex was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t on a l l of the dependent measures. S i e g e l et a l . (1973) s t u d i e d r e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r items t h a t r e q u i r e d d i f f e r i n g l e v e l s of f e a t u r e a n a l y s i s l n r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n . The s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study were i l r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n (5 females and 6 males) and 10 impulsive c h i l d r e n (5 females and 5 males). The authors found t h a t the two groups d i d not d i f f e r on t h e i r r e c o g n i t i o n memory of the e a s i e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s , but t h a t the impulsive c h i l d r e n had more d i f f i c u l t y on the d i f f i c u l t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s . They t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s on the dependent measures, r e c o g n i t i o n of the easy and d i f f i c u l t items, and a l s o on the r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y s c a l e used to d i s c r i m i n a t e the groups. They found t h a t there were no d i f f e r e n c e s between the male and female s u b j e c t s on any of these measures. In terms of the s t u d i e s c i t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o the tasks used i n t h i s study, o n l y three s t u d i e s t e s t e d f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s . S t u d i e s of p r o s p e c t i v e remembering by Meacham and Colombo (1985) and Ce c i and Bronfenbrenner (1985) were d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 4.1, and the Wellman (1977) study of the FOK i n c h i l d r e n was d i s c u s s e d i n s e c t i o n 5.1. Meacham and Colombo (1985) s t u d i e d 76 c h i l d r e n , 38 i n k i n d e r g a r t e n and 38 i n grade two, although they d i d not s p e c i f y the sex r a t i o of these two groups. They found no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of the s u b j e c t ' s sex on the 134 dependent measure on t h i s task (remembering to remind the examiner to open a s u r p r i s e box). Ce c i and Bronfenbrenner (1985) s t u d i e d p r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n 10 and 14 year o l d s u b j e c t s i n two types of s e t t i n g s (a home and a l a b o r a t o r y ) and on two types of tasks (baking cupcakes and charg i n g a b a t t e r y ) . They t e s t e d 96 c h i l d r e n , 48 i n each of the two age groups, with an equal number of males and females i n each group. They assessed f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s on a l l of the dependent measures i n t h e i r study (context, type of task, and s t r a t e g i c time monitoring d u r i n g the t a s k ) . They found no s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s of s u b j e c t sex i n t h e i r 10 year o l d s u b j e c t s , although there was one s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g with the 14 year o l d s u b j e c t s . The male 14 year o l d s u b j e c t s , when i n the l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g , engaged i n l e s s s t r a t e g i c m o nitoring i n the b a t t e r y task than i n the baking task, a d i f f e r e n c e not observed i n the 14 year o l d female s u b j e c t s . There was, however, no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t of s u b j e c t sex on the r e s u l t s of the o v e r a l l s t r a t e g i c m o nitoring a c r o s s these two c o n d i t i o n s . Wellman (1977) i n a developmental study of the FOK experie n c e , s t u d i e d 24 k i n d e r g a r t e n c h i l d r e n (14 females and 10 males), 24 grade one c h i l d r e n (14 females and 10 males), and 36 grade three c h i l d r e n (17 females and 19 males). He observed a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e with age i n the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to make these metacognitive judgements about subsequent r e c o g n i t i o n a b i l i t y . There was no main e f f e c t or 135 i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t of the s u b j e c t ' s sex on any of the dependent measures. The t e s t s f o r sex d i f f e r e n c e s c a r r i e d out i n the present study, and the above mentioned s t u d i e s with normal and impulsive c h i l d r e n , (except f o r the one f i n d i n g by Ce c i and Bronfenbrenner, 1985), do not i n d i c a t e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n metamemory would be expected as a f u n c t i o n of the s u b j e c t ' s sex. Thus i t would appear t h a t the group d i f f e r e n c e s observed i n the present study between h y p e r a c t i v e and c o n t r o l s u b j e c t s d i d not r e s u l t from sex d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups. In summary, h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n seem to be d e f i c i e n t i n both t h e i r metamemory knowledge and i n the a b i l i t y to monitor and c o n t r o l t h e i r memory performance. A c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n t h a t emerges from t h i s r e s e a r c h , i s whether h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n cannot or do not employ these metamemory s k i l l s . Some r e s e a r c h e r s have suggested t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , r e l a t i v e t o t h e i r normal peers, are immature i n terms of t h e i r development (Barkley, 1989; Douglas, 1983). General immaturity of c o g n i t i v e development may e a s i l y a f f e c t the a b i l i t y or i n c l i n a t i o n t o pursue l e a r n i n g i n a s t r u c t u r e d and a c t i v e way. T h i s p r o p o s a l i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study i n r e l a t i o n to metamemory development. Metamemory s t u d i e s have r e l i a b l y demonstrated a developmental p r o g r e s s i o n i n metamemory s k i l l s ( F l a v e l l e t a l . , 1970; Kreutzer et a l . , 1982; Markman, 1979; S a l a t a s & F l a v e l l , 1976a; Rogoff et a l . , e 136 1974; Yussen & Levy, 1975). Older c h i l d r e n use a g r e a t e r v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s than do younger c h i l d r e n , and they appear to use them i n more f l e x i b l e and s o p h i s t i c a t e d ways. L i k e the younger normal s u b j e c t s i n the p r e v i o u s l y reviewed s t u d i e s , the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study o f t e n f a i l e d to produce s t r a t e g i e s , or the ones they employed were not as e l a b o r a t e or e f f i c i e n t as the ones chosen by the normal c h i l d r e n . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , when i n s t r u c t e d i n s t r a t e g y use, as i n the p r o s p e c t i v e memory task i n t h i s study, the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n demonstrated t h a t they could use the s t r a t e g y t o enhance r e c a l l performance. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study pose some i n t e r e s t i n g questions r e g a r d i n g (a) the extent t o which these metamemory problems are unique to h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , and (b) whether or not t r a i n i n g c o u l d a l l e v i a t e these d e f i c i t s . A r e l a t i v e absence of metamemory s k i l l s has been observed i n young, slow, l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d , and r e t a r d e d l e a r n e r s (Bauer, 1979, Brown, 1974; Brown & Camplone, 1984; Brown, Camplone & Day, 1981a, Campione & Brown, 1977; Torgesen 1982). E l d e r l y s u b j e c t s have a l s o been shown to use o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s and c l u s t e r i n g l e s s f r e q u e n t l y and l e s s e f f i c i e n t l y than do younger a d u l t s (Craik & Masani, 1967). I n e f f i c i e n c i e s i n the use of p r o c e s s i n g s k i l l s on memory tasks may be a p p l i c a b l e to a range of p o p u l a t i o n s who have been observed to underachieve. Research such as t h i s study, examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory and metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n , holds 137 promise f o r a p p l i e d programs i n rem e d i a t i o n . M e t a c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s have had a pronounced impact on e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h . They are f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d as a f a c t o r i n poor academic performance (Campione, 1987; F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y et a l . , 1985). Recent s t u d i e s have suggested that t r a i n i n g programs i n metacognitive s k i l l s can lead to s t a b l e improvements i n academic achievement i n both average ( F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y et a l . , 1985), and i n below average s u b j e c t s (Belmont & B u t t e r f i e l d , 1977; Brown & Campione, 1978; Brown, Campione & Day, 1981a; Campione & Brown, 1977; Campione, 1987). Brown and B a r c l a y (1976) t r a i n e d c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t age groups to use mnemonic s t r a t e g i e s , and subsequently observed improvements i n memory performance and memory mon i t o r i n g . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the o l d e r c h i l d r e n i n t h i s study maintained the s t r a t e g y use one year f o l l o w i n g the t r a i n i n g , and f u r t h e r , they were able to t r a n s f e r the use of these s t r a t e g i e s t o new s i t u a t i o n a l demands and to outperform u n t r a i n e d c h i l d r e n (Brown, Campione, & B a r c l a y , 1979). St u d i e s such as t h i s demonstrate the p o t e n t i a l f o r i n s t r u c t i o n - b a s e d improvement i n performance. The b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g i n t h i s area may be f r a g i l e , however. Researchers and educators have been e q u a l l y f r u s t r a t e d by c h i l d r e n who are capable of l e a r n i n g m etacognitive s k i l l s , but who seem unable t o r e t a i n , t r a n s f e r , or g e n e r a l i z e the s k i l l s beyond the s p e c i f i c task s i t u a t i o n i n which they were le a r n e d (Campione, 1987; 138 K e n d a l l & Wilcox, 1980: Meichenbaum & Asarnov, 1979). The data seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t although t r a i n i n g s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g i e s has a b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t on the performance of a c o g n i t i v e t ask, the e f f e c t s are task s p e c i f i c , and f r a g i l e . The most e f f e c t i v e have been attempts to teach c h i l d r e n to make a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l more e x p l i c i t (Brown, 1987; Campione; 1987; Meichenbaum, 1974). The promise of t h i s r e s e a r c h i s tha t c h i l d r e n might be able t o generate and employ t h e i r own r u l e s i n order to i n s t r u c t themselves. T h i s suggests t h a t metacognitive t r a i n i n g might take place at a deep l e v e l , a l e v e l which might make i t p o s s i b l e f o r these s k i l l s to g e n e r a l i z e beyond the s p e c i f i c task demands. Many ques t i o n s remain unanswered about how metacognitive s k i l l s might be t r a i n e d to improve c o g n i t i v e performance. Although s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g has been shown to i n c r e a s e e f f i c i e n c y i n c o g n i t i v e t a s k s , i t has not been shown to e l i m i n a t e the d i f f e r e n c e s between normal l e a r n e r s and under a c h i e v e r s . Important q u e s t i o n s remain concerning the d u r a b i l i t y and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the i n s t r u c t e d r o u t i n e s . I t i s important to note t h a t remedial programs, such as s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g , cannot be expected to e l i m i n a t e the d i f f e r e n c e s between h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and non-hyperactive c h i l d r e n . There are other sources of comparative d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t remain u n t r e a t e d . Given t h a t h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n do experience a v a r i e t y of metacognitive problems though, i t seems obvious t h a t t r a i n i n g attempts should i n c l u d e a metacognitive component. 139 There have been few p r i o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h a t have s y s t e m a t i c a l l y examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p between memory and metamemory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . The r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest three main d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . F i r s t , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c h i l d ' s knowledge about c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t i e s , such as the c a p a c i t i e s and l i m i t a t i o n s of memory and subsequent s t r a t e g y use, i s s t i l l u n c l e a r . The dearth of syst e m a t i c data i n the area of metamemory knowledge p o i n t s to the n e c e s s i t y f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h before g e n e r a l i z e d c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn about the e f f e c t of memory knowledge on the a b i l i t y to r e g u l a t e and monitor memory pr o c e s s e s . Teaching c h i l d r e n f a c t s about memory may have a gen e r a l enhancing e f f e c t on t h e i r performance. Second, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h may a i d i n c l a r i f y i n g the l e v e l of the p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t t h a t these c h i l d r e n demonstrate. It cannot yet be determined i f the memory d i f f i c u l t i e s observed i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n i n v o l v e a l l l e v e l s of memory p r o c e s s i n g , or i f the d e f i c i t s are s e l e c t i v e , f o r example, t o encoding or search or r e t r i e v a l . T h i s may a i d i n f o r m u l a t i n g hypotheses t h a t can address important questions concerning whether or not s t r u c t u r a l problems are i m p l i c a t e d i n the r e c a l l d e f i c i e n c i e s observed i n hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . L a s t , the r e s u l t s of t h i s study suggest a number of d i r e c t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n terms of s t r a t e g y use i n hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . I t w i l l be necessary to determine the c h i l d ' s knowledge of a v a i l a b l e s t r a t e g i e s , and whether or 140 not they have learned when and how to c o r r e c t l y execute the process. R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been done on the a c q u i s i t i o n of s t r a t e g i c knowledge and s k i l l s . Systematic r e s e a r c h i n t h i s area w i l l be primary to the development of e f f e c t i v e remedial programs. 141 10. References Ai n , M. (1980). The e f f e c t s of s t i m u l u s n o v e l t y on viewing time and p r o c e s s i n g e f f i c i e n c y i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y . A l l y o n , T., Layman, D., & Kandel, H. (1975). A b e h a v i o r a l -e d u c a t i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e to drug c o n t r o l i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d Behavior A n a l y s i s , 8, 137-146. American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n (1987). D i a g n o s t i c and  s t a t i s t i c a l manual of mental d i s o r d e r s (3rd ed. r e v i s e d ) . Washington, DC: Author. American P s y c h i a t r i c A s s o c i a t i o n (1980). D i a g n o s t i c and  s t a t i s t i c a l manual of mental d i s o r d e r s (3rd ed.) Washington, DC: Author. A t t w e l l , A.A. (1968). P r e d i c t i o n of 5th grade achievement from k i n d e r g a r t e n t e s t and r a t i n g d a t a . E d u c a t i o n a l  and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 28, 457-463. Baker, L., & Brown, A.L. (1981). Metacognltion and the r e a d i n g p r o c e s s . In D. Pearson (Ed.), A handbook of  r e a d i n g r e s e a r c h , (pp. 319-353). New York: Plenum Pr e s s . B a r k l e y , R.A. (1977). The e f f e c t s of methylphenidate on v a r i o u s types of a c t i v i t y l e v e l and a t t e n t i o n i n h y p e r k i n e t i c c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d  Psychology, 5, 351-369. Ba r k l e y , R.A. (1981). Hyperactive c h i l d r e n : A handbook f o r  d i a g n o s i s and treatment. New York: G u i l f o r d . B a r k l e y , R.A. (1982). S p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s f o r d e f i n i n g h y p e r a c t i v i t y i n c h i l d r e n . In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances i n c l i n i c a l c h i l d psychology (pp. 137 -180). New York: Plenum. Barkley, R.A. (1985). The s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n : Developmental changes, drug e f f e c t s , and s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a t i o n . In R. McMahon & R.Peters (Eds.), Childhood d i s o r d e r s : Behavioral-developmental  approaches (pp. 218-243). New York: Brunner/Mazel. 142 B a r k l e y , R.A. (1987). The assessment of A t t e n t i o n D e f i c i t -H y p e r a c t i v i t y D i s o r d e r . B e h a v i o r a l Assessment, 9, 207-233. B a r k l e y , R.A. (1988b). C h i l d behavior r a t i n g s c a l e s and c h e c k l i s t s . In M. R u t t e r , H. Tuma, & I. Lann (Eds.), Assessment and d i a g n o s i s l n c h i l d psychopathology (pp. 113-115). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Barkley, R.A. (1989). A t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t - h y p e r a c t i v i t y d i s o r d e r . In E.J.Mash & R.A. Ba r k l e y (Eds.), The  treatment of c h i l d h o o d d i s o r d e r s (pp. 39-72). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Barkley, R.A., & Cunningham, C E . (1978). Do s t i m u l a n t drugs improve the academic performance of h y p e r k i n e t i c c h i l d r e n ? C l i n i c a l P e d i a t r i c s , 17, 85-92. Bauer, R.H. (1979). Memory, a c q u i s i t i o n , and categor y c l u s t e r i n g i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l  of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 27, 365-383. Belmont, J.M. & B u t t e r f i e l d , E.C. (1977).The i n s t r u c t i o n a l approach to developmental c o g n i t i v e r e s e a r c h . In R.V. K a i l , J r . , and J.W. Hagen (E d s . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on the  Development of Memory and C o g n i t i o n (pp. 437-477). H i l l s d a l e , N J . : Erlbaum. Benezra, E. (1980). V e r b a l and nonverbal memory i n h y p e r a c t i v e , r e a d i n g d l s a b l e d f and normal c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y , Montreal. Bobrow, D.G., & C o l l i n s , A. (1975). R e p r e s e n t a t i o n and understanding; S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e s c i e n c e . New York: Academic P r e s s . B o h l i n e , D.S. (1985). I n t e l l e c t u a l and a f f e c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of A t t e n t i o n D e f i c i t D i s o r d e r e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . 18, 604-608. Borkowski, J.G. (1985). Signs of i n t e l l i g e n c e : S t r a t e g y g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and metacognition. In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of r e f l e c t i o n i n c h i l d r e n (217-243). Orlando, F I . : Academic P r e s s . Borkowski, J.G., Peck, V.A., Reid, M.K., & Ku r t z , B.E. (1983). I m p u l s i v i t y and s t r a t e g y t r a n s f e r : Metamemory as mediator. C h i l d Development, 54, 459-473. 143 Bower, G.H. (1970). A n a l y s i s of a mnemonic d e v i c e . Amerlean  P s y c h o l o g i s t . 58/ 496-510. Brown, A.L. (1974). The r o l e of s t r a t e g i c behavior i n r e t a r d a t e memory. I n t e r n a t i o n a l Review of Research  i n Mental R e t a r d a t i o n . 7, 19-26. Brown, A.L. (1975). The development of memory, knowing, knowing about knowing and knowing how to know. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances l n C h i l d Development and Behavior (Vol.10, pp.103-152). New York: Academic P r e s s . Brown, A.L. (1978). Development, s c h o o l i n g and the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge about knowledge. In R. C. Anderson, R. S p i r o , & W. Montague (Eds.), S c h o o l i n g and  the a c q u i s i t i o n of knowledge (pp. 148-176). H i l l s d a l e , , NJ.: Erlbaum. Brown, A.L. (1987). M e t a c o g n i t i o n , e x e c u t i v e c o n t r o l , s e l f -r e g u l a t i o n , and other mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert, & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.) , Meta c o g n i t i o n ,  m o t i v a t i o n , and understanding (pp. 65-116). H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. Brown, A.L., & B a r c l a y , C. (1976). The e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g s p e c i f i c mnemonics on the metamnemonic e f f i c i e n c y of r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 47, 71-80. Brown, A.L., B r a n s f o r d , J.D., F e r r a r a , R.A., & Campione, J.C. (1983). L e a r n i n g , remembering and understanding. In J.H. F l a v e l l & E.M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of  c h i l d psychology ( V o l . 3, pp.515-529). New York: Wiley. Brown, A.L., & Campione, J.C. (1978). P e r m i s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s from the outcome of t r a i n i n g s t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e development r e s e a r c h . Q u a r t e r l y Newsletter of the  I n s t i t u t e f o r Comparative Human Development. 2, 46-53. Brown, A.L. & Campione, J.C. (1984). Three faces of t r a n s f e r : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r e a r l y competence, i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , and i n s t r u c t i o n . In M.E. Lamb, A.L. Brown, & B. Rogoff ( E d s . ) , Advances i n developmental  psychology (Vol.3, pp 143-192). H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. Brown, A.L., Campione, J . C , & B a r c l a y , C R . (1979). T r a i n i n g s e l f - c h e c k i n g r o u t i n e s f o r e s t i m a t i n g t e s t -r e a d i n e s s : G e n e r a l i z a t i o n from l i s t l e a r n i n g to prose r e c a l l . C h i l d Development. 50, 501-512. Brown, A.L., Campione, J . C , & Day, J.D. (1981a). Learning to l e a r n : On t r a i n i n g students t o l e a r n from t e x t s . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher, 10, 14-21. 144 Brown, A.L., & DeLoache, J.S. (1978). S k i l l s , p l a n s , and s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . In R.S. S i e g l e r (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s  t h i n k i n g : What develops? (pp. 3-36). H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. Campbell, S.B., Douglas, V.I., & Morgenstern, G. (1971). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e s i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and the e f f e c t of methylphenidate. J o u r n a l of C h i l d Psychology and  P s y c h i a t r y , 12, 55-67. Camplone, J.C. (1987). M e t a c o g n i t i v e components of i n s t r u c t i o n a l r e s e a r c h with problem l e a r n e r s . In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.), M e t a c o g n l t i o n , m o t i v a t i o n  and understanding (pp. 117-140). H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. Campione, J.C. & Brown, A.L. (1977). Memory and metamemory development i n educable r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . In R.V.Kail J r . & J.W.Hagen (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on the development  of memory and c o g n i t i o n (pp. 367-406). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. C a n t w e l l , D.P. & S a t t e r f i e l d , J.H. (1978). The prevalence of underachievement i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of  P e d i a t r i c Psychology, 3, 168-171. Case, R. (1978). I n t e l l e c t u a l development from b i r t h to adulthood: A n e o - P i a g e t i a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In R.S . S i e g l e r (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s t h i n k i n g ; What develops? (pp.37-72) H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. C e c i , S.J., & Brofenbrenner, U. (1985). Don't f o r g e t to take the cupcakes out of the oven: P r o s p e c t i v e memory, s t r a t e g i c time m o n i t o r i n g , and co n t e x t . C h i l d  Development, 56, 152-164. C h i , M.T.H. (1976). Short-term memory l i m i t a t i o n s i n c h i l d r e n : C a p a c i t y or p r o c e s s i n g d e f i c i t s ? Memory  and C o g n i t i o n , 4, 559-572. C r a i k , F.I.M. & Masani, P.A. (1969). Age and I n t e l l i g e n c e d i f f e r e n c e s i n coding and r e t r i e v a l of word l i s t s . B r i t i s h J o u r n a l of Psychology, 60, 315-319. Dalby, J.T., Kinsbourne, M., Swanson, J.M., & Sobel, M.P. (1977). Hyperactive c h i l d r e n ' s underuse of l e a r n i n g time: C o r r e c t i o n by s t i m u l a n t treatment. C h i l d  Development, 48, 1448-1453. Douglas, V.I. (1972). Stop, look, and l i s t e n : The problem of s u s t a i n e d a t t e n t i o n and impulse c o n t r o l i n h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n . Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l  Sci e n c e, 4, 259-282. 145 Douglas, V.I. (1974). Sustained a t t e n t i o n and impulse c o n t r o l : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the handicapped c h i l d . In J.A. Swets, & L.L. E l l i o t (Eds.), Psychology and the  handicapped c h i l d (pp. 149-168). Washington, D C: U.S. O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n . Douglas, V.I. (1975). Are drugs enough? To t r e a t or t r a i n the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d . I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of Mental  Health, 4, 199-212. Douglas, V.I. (1978). Higher mental processes i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . In R.M.Knights & D.J.Bakker (Eds.), Treatment  of h y p e r a c t i v e and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n (pp. 65-91). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Douglas, V.I. (1980). Treatment and t r a i n i n g approaches to h y p e r a c t i v i t y : E s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r n a l or e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l ? In C.K.Whalen & B.Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive  c h i l d r e n (pp. 34-62) New York: Academic P r e s s . Douglas, V.I. (1980b). The p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes i m p l i c a t e d i n ADD. In L.M. Bloomingdale (Ed.), A t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t d i s o r d e r (pp. 147-162). Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum. Douglas, V.I. (1983). A t t e n t i o n a l and c o g n i t i v e problems. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Developmental n e u r o p s y c h i a t r y (pp. 280-329). New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Douglas, V.I. (1984). The p s y c h o l o g i c a l processes Implicated i n ADD. In L.M.Bloomingdale (Ed.), A t t e n t i o n D e f i c i t  D i s o r d e r : D i a g n o s t i c , c o g n i t i v e , and t h e r a p e u t i c  understanding (pp. 147-162). Jamaica, New York: Spectrum P u b l i c a t i o n s . Douglas, V.I. & P e t e r s , K.G. (1979). Towards a c l e a r e r d e f i n i t i o n of the a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . In G.A.Hale & M.Lewis (Eds.), A t t e n t i o n a l and  c o g n i t i v e development (pp. 173-248). New York: Plenum Pr e s s . Douglas, V.I., Barr, R.G., O ' N e i l l , M.E., & B r i t t o n , B.G. (1986). Short-term e f f e c t s of methylphenidate on the c o g n i t i v e , l e a r n i n g and academic performance of c h i l d r e n with a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t d i s o r d e r . J o u r n a l of  C h i l d Psychology and P s y c h i a t r y , 2 1 , 191-211. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1970). Developmental s t u d i e s of mediated memory. In H.W. Reese, and L.P. L i p s i t t ( E d s . ) , Advances i n c h i l d development and behavior (pp. 181-211). New York: Academic P r e s s . 146 F l a v e l l , J.H. (1970). Metacognitive aspects of problem-s o l v i n g . In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of  i n t e l l i g e n c e (pp. 121-159). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1971). What i s memory development the development of? Human Development. 14., 272-278. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1976). M e t a c o g n i t i v e aspects of problem-s o l v i n g . In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of  i n t e l l i g e n c e (pp.36-52). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J.M. Scandura, & C.J. B r a i n e r d (Eds.), S t r u c t u r a l / p r o c e s s  models of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245). Alphen aan den R i j n : S i j t h o f f S Noordhoft. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1979). Metacognition and c o g n i t i v e m o n i t o r i n g : A new area of c o g n i t i v e developmental i n q u i r y . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 34, 906-911. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1981). C o g n i t i v e m o n i t o r i n g . In W.P. Dickson (Ed.), C h i l d r e n ' s o r a l communication s k i l l s (pp. 35-60). New York: Academic P r e s s . F l a v e l l , J.H. (1982). On c o g n i t i v e development. C h i l d  Development, 53, 1-10. F l a v e l l , J.H. (1985). C o g n i t i v e Development. E n g l e c l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l . F l a v e l l , J.H., Beach, D., & Chinsky, J . (1966). Spontaneous v e r b a l r e h e a r s a l i n a memory task as f u n c t i o n of age. C h i l d Development. 37, 283-299. F l a v e l l , J.H., F r i e d r i c h s , A.G., & Hoyt, J.D. (1970). Developmental changes i n memorization p r o c e s s e s . C o g n i t i v e Psychology. 1 , 324-340. F l a v e l l , J.H., & Wellman, H.M. (1977). Metamemory. In R.V.Kail J r . & J.W.Hagen (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on the Development of Memory and, C o g n i t i o n (pp.3-34). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y , D.L. & W a l l e r , T.G. (1984). C o g n i t i o n ,  metacognition, and r e a d i n g (pp. 57-109). New York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y , D.L., MacKinnon, G.E., & Wall e r , T.G. (1985). M e t a c o g n i t i o n , c o g n i t i o n , and human performance (Vol.2, pp. 253-283), Orlando, F I . : Academic P r e s s . Gadow, K.D. (1983). E f f e c t s of s t i m u l a n t drugs on academic performance i n h y p e r a c t i v e and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 16 290-299. 147 G i t t e l m a n - K l e i n , R., & K l e i n , D. (1976). Methylphenidate e f f e c t s i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s . A r c h i v e s of General  P s y c h i a t r y . 3_3, 655-664. Goyette, C.H., Conners, C.K., & U l r i c h , R.F. (1978). Normative data on r e v i s e d Conners 1 Parent and Teacher Rating S c a l e . J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology, 6, 221-236. Hart, J.T. (1965). Memory and the fe e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g e x p e r i e n c e . J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 56, 208-216. Hoy, E., Weiss, G., Minde, K., & Cohen, N. (1978). The hy p e r a c t i v e c h i l d a t adolescence: Emotional, s o c i a l , and c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g . J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d  Psychology, 6, 311-324. Johnson, M.K., T a y l o r , T.H. & Raye, C.L. (1977). F a c t and fa n t a s y : The e f f e c t s of i n t e r n a l l y generated events on the apparent frequency of e x t e r n a l l y generated events. Memory and C o g n i t i o n , 5, 116-122. Kagan, J . (1966). R e f l e c t i o n and i m p u l s i v i t y : The g e n e r a l i t y and dynamics of conceptual tempo. J o u r n a l of Abnormal  Psychology, 71, 17-24. K a i l , R.V.Jr. & S i e g e l , A.W. (1977). The development of mnemonic encoding i n c h i l d r e n : From p e r c e p t i o n to a b s t r a c t i o n . In R.V.Kail J r . & J . W. Hagen (Eds.), P e r s p e c t i v e s on the development of memory and c o g n i t i o n (pp. 61-88). H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. K a r m i l o f f - S m l t h , A. (1979b). Problem-solving c o n s t r u c t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of c l o s e d r a i l w a y c i r c u i t s . A r c h i v e s of Psychology, 47, 37-59. Keeney, T.J., Cannizzo, S.R. & F l a v e l l , J.H. (1967). Spontaneous and induced v e r b a l r e h e a r s a l i n a r e c a l l t a s k . C h i l d Development, 38. 953-966. K e n d a l l , P.C. (1977). On the e f f i c a c i o u s use of v e r b a l s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n a l procedures with c h i l d r e n . C o g n i t i v e  Therapy and Research, 1 , 331-341. K e n d a l l , P . C , & B r a s w e l l , L. (1985). C o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r a l  therapy f o r impulsive c h i l d r e n . New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . 148 K e n d a l l , P.C. & Wilcox L. E. (1980). A c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l treatment f o r i m p u l s i v i t y : Concrete versus conceptual t r a i n i n g i n n o n - s e l f - c o n t r o l l e d problem c h i l d r e n J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology,, 48, 80-91. K i n t s c h , W. (1970). Learning, memory, and conceptual  pro c e s s e s. New York: Wiley. Kinsbourne, M. (1977). The mechanism of h y p e r a c t i v i t y . In M.E. Blaw, Q. Rapin, & M. Kinsbourne (Eds.), T o p i c s i n  c h i l d neurology (pp. 289-306). New York: Spectrum. Kinsbourne, M., & Caplan, P.J. (1979). C h i l d r e n ' s l e a r n i n g  and a t t e n t i o n a l problems. Boston: L i t t l e and Brown. K l a h r , D., & Wallace, J.G. (1976). C o g n i t i v e development: An  i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g view. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. K r e u t z e r , M.A., Leonard, C , & F l a v e l l , J.H. (1975). An i n t e r v i e w study of c h i l d r e n ' s knowledge about memory. Monographs of the S o c i e t y f o r Research i n C h i l d  Development, 40, S e r i a l No. 159. Kr e u t z e r , M.A., Leonard, C , & F l a v e l l , J.H. (1982). P r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n c h i l d r e n . In U. N e i s s e r (Ed.), Memory observed (pp. 343-348). San F r a n c i s c o : W.H.Freeman. Lambert, N.M., & Sandoval, J . (1980). The prevalence of l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s i n a sample of c h i l d r e n c o n s i d e r e d h y p e r a c t i v e . J o u r n a l of Abnormal C h i l d  Psychology, £, 33-50. Leoneslo, R.J. & Nelson, T.O. (1990). Metamemory judgements. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: L e a r n i n g . Memory and C o g n i t i o n . 16 . 464-470. MacDonald, M.A. (1987). [Short-term memory i n h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n ] . Unpublished raw data. Markman, E.M. (1979). R e a l i z i n g t h a t you don't understand: Elementary s c h o o l c h i l d r e n ' s awareness of i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s . C h i l d Development, 50, 643-655. Meacham, J.A., & Colombo, J . A. (1980). E x t e r n a l r e t r i e v a l cues f a c i l i t a t e p r o s p e c t i v e remembering i n c h i l d r e n . j o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l R e search/ XI, 299-301. Meacham, J.A., & Leiman, B. (1982). Remembering to perform f u t u r e a c t i o n s . In U. N e i s s e r (Ed.), Memory observed, (pp. 327-336). San F r a n c i s c o : W.H.Freeman. 149 Meichenbaum, D.H. (1974). C o g n i t i v e - behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . Morristown, NJ: General L e a r n i n g P r e s s . Meichenbaum, D.H., & Asarnow, J . (1979). C o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l m o d i f i c a t i o n and metacognitive develop-ment: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the classroom. In P.C. K e n d a l l & S.D. H o l l o n (Eds.), C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r -v e n t i o n s ( p p . 11-35). New York: Academic P r e s s . Meichenbaum, D.H., & Goodman, J . (1971). T r a i n i n g impulsive c h i l d r e n to t a l k to themselves. J o u r n a l of Abnormal  Psychology. 7_7, 115-126. Meichenbaum, D.H., Burland, G.L., & Cameron, L. (1985). M e t a c o g n i t i v e assessment. In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The  growth of r e f l e c t i o n In c h i l d r e n (pp.264-287). Orlando, F l . : Academic. M i l l e r , P.H., & Weiss, M .G. (1982). C h i l d r e n ' s and a d u l t ' s knowledge about what v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n . C h i l d Development, 53, 543-549. Mlnde, K., Lewin, D., Weiss, G . , L a v i g e u r , H., Douglas, V.I., & Sykes, E. (1971). The h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d i n elementary s c h o o l : A f i v e year c o n t r o l l e d follow-up. E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 3_8_, 215-221. Moynahan, E.D. (1973). The development of knowledge concerning the e f f e c t s of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n upon f r e e r e c a l l . C h i l d Development, 44, 238-246. N e i s s e r , U. (1982). Memory observed. San F r a n c i s c o : Freeman. Nelson, T.O. (1984). A comparison of c u r r e n t measures of the accuracy of Feeling-of-Knowing p r e d i c t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 95, 109-133. Nelson, T.O., & Narens, L. (1980). A new technique f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g the f e e l i n g - o f - k n o w i n g . Acta  P s y c h o l o g l c a , 46, 69-80. Nelson, T.O., McSpadden, M., Fromme, K., & M a r l a t t , G.A. (1986). E f f e c t s of a l c o h o l i n t o x i c a t i o n on meta-memory and on r e t r i e v a l from long-term memory. J o u r n a l of Experimental p s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l / i l l , 247-254. Newcombe, N., Rogoff, B., & Kagan, J . (1977). Developmental changes i n r e c o g n i t i o n memory f o r p i c t u r e s of o b j e c t s and scenes. Developmental Psychology, 13, 337-341. Pelham, W.E. (1981). A t t e n t i o n d e f i c i t s i n h y p e r a c t i v e and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . E x c e p t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n  Q u a r t e r l y . 2, 13-23. 150 Pelham, W.E. (1982). Childhood h y p e r a c t i v i t y : D i a g n o s i s , e t i o l o g y , nature and treatment. In R. G a t c h e l , A. Baum, & J . Singer (Eds.), C l i n i c a l psychology and b e h a v i o r a l  medicine: Overlapping d i s c i p l i n e s (pp.261-327). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. P e t e r s , K.G. (1977). S e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n and d i s t r a c t l b i 1 i t y  i n h y p e r a c t i v e and normal c h i l d r e n . Unpublished d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y . P r e s s l e y , G.M. (1985). Review of Borkowski's i n s i g h t s . In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of r e f l e c t i o n i n c h i l d r e n (pp. 82-101). Orlando: Academic P r e s s . P r e s s l e y , G.M., Borkowski, J.G. & O ' S u l l i v a n , (1985). Knowledge a c q u i s i t i o n f o r a p p l i c a t i o n . In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of r e f l e c t i o n i n c h i l d r e n , (pp. 9 6-137). Orlando, F l . : Academic P r e s s . Rapoport, J . , Quinn, P., Bradbard, G., R i d d l e , D., & Brooks, E. (1974). Imipramine and methylphenidate treatments of h y p e r a c t i v e boys. A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y , 30, 789-793. Rie, H.E., Rie, E.D., Stewart, S., & Ambuel, J.P. (1976a). E f f e c t s of r i t a l i n on underachieving c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l  of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology. AA, 250-260. Rie, H.E., R i e , E.D., Stewart, S., & Ambuel, J.P. (1976b). E f f e c t s of r i t a l i n on und e r a c h i e v i n g c h i l d r e n : A r e p l i c a t i o n . American J o u r n a l of O r t h o p s y c h i a t r y , 46, 313-322. Rogoff, B., & Gardner, W.P. (1988). Developing c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . In B. Rogoff & J . Lave (Eds.), Everyday c o g n i t i o n : I t ' s development l n s o c i a l c ontext (pp. 95-116). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. S a l a t a s , H . & F l a v e l l , J.H. (1976). R e t r i e v a l of r e c e n t l y l e a r n e d i n f o r m a t i o n : Development of s t r a t e g i e s and c o n t r o l s k i l l s . C h i l d Development, 47, 941-948. S a t t l e r , J.M. (1982). Assessment of c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e l l i g e n c e  and s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s . Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc. Schachar, R., R u t t e r , M., & Smith, A. (1981). S i t u a t i o n a l and p e r v a s i v e h y p e r a c t i v i t y . J o u r n a l of C h i l d psychology and P s y c h i a t r y , 22, 375-392. S i e g e l , A.W., K i r a s i c , K . C , & K i l b u r g , R.R. (1973). R e c o g n i t i o n memory i n r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n . C h i l d Development, 44, 651-656. 151 Slamecka, N.J. & Graf, P. (1978). The g e n e r a t i o n e f f e c t : D e l i n e a t i o n of a phenomenon. J o u r n a l of Experimental  Psychology: Human Le a r n i n g and Memory, A, 592-604. Spr i n g , c , Y e l l i n , A.M., Greenberg, L. (1976). E f f e c t s of imipramine and methylphenidate on perceptual-motor performance of h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . P e r c e p t u a l and  Motor S k i l l s , 43, 459-470. Swanson, J.M., & Kinsbourne, M. (1979). The c o g n i t i v e e f f e c t s of s t i m u l a n t drugs on h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n . In G.A. Hale & M. Lewis (Eds.), A t t e n t i o n and c o g n i t i v e  development (pp. 249-274). New York: Plenum P r e s s . Tant, J.L. & Douglas, V. I. (1982). Problem-solving i n h y p e r a c t i v e , normal, and r e a d i n g - d i s a b l e d boys. J o u r n a l  of Abnormal C h i l d Psychology, 10, 285-306. T a y l o r , E.A. (1986). Childhood h y p e r a c t i v i t y . B r i t i s h  J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , 149, 562-573. Torgeson, J.K. (1977). The r o l e of n o n - s p e c i f i c f a c t o r s i n the task performance of l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n : A t h e o r e t i c a l assessment. J o u r n a l of L e a r n i n g  D i s a b i l i t i e s . 10, 27-34. Torgesen, J.K. (1982). The study of short-term memory i n l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n . Advances i n L e a r n i n g and  and B e h a v i o r a l D i s a b i l i t i e s . I , 17-149. T r i t e s , R. (1978). The prevalence of h y p e r a c t i v i t y i n Ottawa, Canada. In R. T r i t e s (Ed.), H y p e r a c t i v i t y i n  c h i l d r e n (pp.29-52). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c ale f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d . New York: The P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o r p o r a t i o n . Weingartner, H., Rapoport, J.L., Buchsbaum, M.S., Bunney, W.E. J r . , E b e r t , M.H., Mikkelsen, E . J . , & Caine, E.D. (1980). C o g n i t i v e processes i n normal and h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d r e n and t h e i r response to amphetamine treatment. J o u r n a l of Abnormal Psychology. 89, 25-37. Weiss, G. & Hechtman, L.T. (1986). Hyperactive c h i l d r e n  grown Up. New York: G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Weiss, G., Hechtman, L.T., Perlman, T., Hopkins, J . , & Wener, A. (1979). H y p e r a c t i v e s as young a d u l t s : A c o n t r o l l e d p r o s p e c t i v e ten-year follow-up of 75 c h i l d r e n . A r c h i v e s of General P s y c h i a t r y , 36, 675-681. 152 Weiss, G., Minde, K., Werry, J.S., Douglas, V.I., & Nemeth, E. (1971). S t u d i e s on the h y p e r a c t i v e c h i l d . A r c h i v e s  of General P s y c h i a t r y . 24, Wellman, H.M. (1977). T i p of the tongue and f e e l i n g of knowing e x p e r i e n c e s : A developmental study of memory moni t o r i n g . C h i l d Development, 48., 12-21. Wellman, H.M. (1985). The o r i g i n s of metacognition. In D.L. F o r r e s t - P r e s s l e y , G.E. MacKinnon, & T.G. Waller (Eds.), M e t a c o g n i t i o n , c o g n i t i o n , and human performance (pp. 95-132). Orlando: Academic P r e s s . Wellman, H.M. (1985). The c h i l d ' s theory of mind: The development of conceptions of c o g n i t i o n . In S.R. Yussen (Ed.), The growth of r e f l e c t i o n i n c h i l d r e n (pp. 41-64). Orlando, F l . : Academic P r e s s . Yussen, S.R., & Berman, L. (1981). Memory p r e d i c t i o n s f o r r e c a l l and r e c o g n i t i o n i n f i r s t - , t h i r d - , and f i f t h -grade c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 17, 224-229. Yussen, S.R. & Levy, V.M. (1975). Developmental changes i n p r e d i c t i n g one's own span of short-term memory. J o u r n a l  of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 19, 502-508. Appendix ki THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 153 D e p a r t m e n t of P s y c h o l o g y 3 1 3 6 W e s t N U B V a n c o u v e r . B C . C a n a d a V 6 T IY7 _ As parent\guardlan of (name of the c h i l d ) I consent I do not consent to the above naned c h i l d engaging l n the procedure s p e c i f i e d on the attached l e t t e r , to be c a r r i e d out i n ny c h i l d ' s home school, during A p r i l and May, 1989, i n a research project supervised by Mary Mac Donald of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I understand that the data from my c h i l d w i l l be completely c o n f i d e n t i a l and anonymous. I c e r t i f y that I understand the procedures to be used and have explained them t o (name of the c h i l d ) The'child knows that he\she has the r i g h t to v i t h d r a v from the p r o j e c t any time, and that any complaint or questions about the project may be brought to the a t t e n t i o n of the researcher, Mary MacDonald, ox Dr. E r i c E i c h , Department of Psychology, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I think my c h i l d i s hyperactive and would l i k e hlm\her to take part l n the study I do not think my c h i l d i s hyperactive, but would l i k e hlmXher to take part l n the study I may obtain a copy of the r e s u l t s at the completion of the study by contacting: Mary MacDonald Department of Psychology U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Y7 Ch i l d ' s name: Name of c h i l d ' s school: Grade: Age: Parent's name: Parent's signature.; A p p e n d i x Bt P a r e n t ' s Questionnaire 154 M a / a a a f C M M Please answer til questions. Beside each item below, indicate the decree of (he problem by a check mirk (»0 Natal Aatfg f. Pick* U iNngt (Mil*, flngci*. hill. ctoMng). t> Saaay to tnim-uQ*. X fiobtomawMh making or lutaok^frtendi. 4. C«clU»to,lmpurii««. ft, Wantatonjntttnoa. ft. Swcka or chaw* (thumb; ckXMng; bUnkata). 7. Crto* ***ny or oflan. ft. CaJrtoM chip on Ma ahouioar. ft. OayoVMiw. 10. OMkulty In teaming. 11. RntWaa In tha "toulrmy" aanaa. It. Faartvt (of naw »«u»tloo«; naw poool* or ptaoaa; going to tchoofi. It, JUaNa*), invar* up and on tha go. 14. Oaatructfva. 1ft. Taite Pa* oratorlaa that aranltrua. 1ft. Shy. 17. Oat* Mo mora Iroubl* than ottara U J M to*. 1ft. Boaaka dif»*r*nU» from ©thar* »*m* ao* (baby talk; alvtterlng; hard to undartUM). 1ft. DanlaaauaUluMorbteRmottiara. Sft. Qw*rn(aoin*. ft. •toutaandautfcs. ft, Staata, Sft. OflajOfeadtefll c# ebaya but laaaajhaY*1. SM. W b n i a a a ^ t ^ e e ^ t a ^ b ^ a t o M ' . B k ^ e r t e ^ ftft. f ^ t o f t t M M n o t . ajm WmmMi 1  w^t 17. ft^aXaauthaia. ft*. UWatH to Map a laoatMva acBafty. ft*. fuH ft*. CMdtehetlaiiwrtuw(want*hatohaahowtdma—<:cltoft»:waad* eomteM ruaauranaaj. 9t» OtetracSJWtty or attention apan a arobtoak ft- T*fTn*iii. Sft. Mood changa* outeaJy and fraaecafy. M. r>OMlRaotoV>^^loao«n^Of iMtrtcttom. •ft. *Tg*teeon«taiiOy. Sft. Oo«Mrte^aJonga^»attbiog»it»ritaWfc 17. ftaaAytruat/atadtoanofta. Sft. DiatetoolharcMdnM. Sft. tUatcafyaA unhappy cMM. 40. rvoblaraa with aaiino (poor appaMte: ve batwaan bnaa). 41. Stomach acna*. 4ft. Ptoblama with ateap (canH tal) asteap; vp too aartr, up In tha nlghQ. 4ft, Othar achat and pains. 44. Vomftingornautaa. 4ft, faate chaatad In taJRffr drcto. 4ft, Boast* and brag*. 47. tataaMbapuanad around. 4ft. Bowal problama (TraquanUy tooaa; Irregular habfta: oonaUpalton). / 155 Appendix Cl Conners Teacher Rating Scale Nana of c h i l d - Grade Date of e v a l u a t i o n Please answer a l l quest ions. Beside each i tem, indicate the degree of the problem by a check mark. not at just a pret ty very ftll l i t t l e much much 1. Rest less in the "squirmy" sense, , 2. Makes Inappropriate noises when he shouldn ' t . ;  3. Demands aust be met lamedlatelv. ; 4. Acts "smart" (iapudent P f g a g c y ) t . _ 5. Teaper outbursts and unpredictable behavior .  6.Overly sens i t i ve to c r l t l c l s a . 7 . D i s t r a c t i b i l l t y or a t tent ion span a problem. P,Disturbs other c h i l d r e n . 9,Daydreffi»g, IQ.Pouts and sulks. , 11.Mood changes q u i c k l y «nd d r a s t i c a l l y , ; 121 Quarrelsome. > 13.8ubBissive a t t i tude toward authority. 14. R e s t l e s s , always "up and on the go" . 15. E x c i t a b l e , impuls ive. 16. Excessive demands fo r teacher 's a t t e n t i o n . 17. Appears to be unaccepted bv group. 16.Appears to be e a s i l y l ed by other children. 19. Mo sense of f a i r p l a v . , 20. Appears to lack l e a d e r s h i p . 21. F a i l s to f i n i s h th ings that he s t a r t s . 22. C h i l d i s h and Iraature. 23. Denies mistakes or Manes others. ; :  24. Does not get along v e i l with other children. _ _ 25. Uncooperative with classmates. 26. E a s i l y f rustrated i n e f f o r t s . 27. Uncooperative with teacher. 2 9 . D i f f i c u l t y In learning. 156 Appendix Di DSH-III-R Check 1 lo t for a t t e n t i o n * ! - d e f i c i t Hyperact iv i ty -Disocder (1) Often f idge ts v l t h hands or feet or squirms ln sea t . (2) Has d i f f i c u l t y reaaining seated vhen required to do s o . (3) Is e a s i l y d i s t r a c t e d by extraneous s t i m u l i . (4) Has d i f f i c u l t y ava i t ing turn in gases or group s i t u a t i o n s . (5) Often b l u r t s out answers to quest ions before they have been completed. (6) Has d i f f i c u l t y fo l lowing through on i n s t r u c t i o n s frost others (not due to oppos i t iona l behavior or f a i l u r e of compensation), l e : f a i l s t o f i n i s h chores. (7) Has d i f f i c u l t y susta in ing a t tent ion i n tasks ox p lay a c t i v i t i e s . (8) Often s h i f t s from one uncompleted a c t i v i t y to another. (9) Has d i f f i c u l t y p laying q u i e t l y . (10) Often t a l k s excess ive ly . (11) Often in ter rupts ox intrudes on o t h e r s , l e : , but ts in to other c h i l d r e n ' s gases . (12) Often does not sees to l i s t e n to what i s being s a i d to h i * or her . (13) Often loses things necessaxy for t a s k s or a c t i v i t i e s at school or a t home ( l e : , t o y s , books, assignments). (14) Often engages ln p h y s i c a l l y dangerous a c t i v i t i e s without cons ider ing poss ib le consequences (not for the purpose af t h r i l l seek ing ) , i e : , runs Into s t ree t without l o o k i n g . Appendix It F a a i l y Information Questionnaire 1. My c h i l d has shown hyperactive behaviors f o r : less than s i x months s ix months or longer 2 . My c h i l d has been diagnosed as hyperact ive (At tent iona l d e f i c i t Hyperact iv i ty Disorder ADHD). yes no 3. There has been a recent trauma ln our fami ly which might account for my c h i l d ' s hyperactive behaviors ( l e . , d i v o r c e , i l l n e s s ) . yes no Please expla in If you wish: 4. I have concerns that ay c h i l d has exper ienced delays in development which are cont inuing to have a s u b s t a n t i a l e f f ec t h i s / h e r behavior . yes no Please exp la in i f you wish: 5. Hy c h i l d has other medical problems or c o n d i t i o n s ln add i t ion to the h i s / h e r h y p e r a c t i v i t y . yes Please exp la in i f you wish: 1 5 8 6. My c h i l d i s c u r r e n t l y taking medication for hyperac t iv i ty . yes no 7. My c h i l d i s in a s p e c i a l c l a s s . yes no Please describe i f you wish. 159 Appendix: F Table of Means for Tests of Gender Ef f e c t s Dependent Variables Control  Hyperactive Prospective memory task r e c a l l self-generated items SD r e c a l l examiner-generated items SD male n=9 2.80 .63 2.80 .42 female n=21 2.85 .37 2.60 .59 male n=26 1.88 .81 1.46 .81 female n=4 2.00 1.41 1.75 .96 Feeling-of-knowing task r e c a l l 15, .50 11, .45 8, .46 9, .25 SD 4. .14 6, .10 4, .99 4, .19 confidence in r e c a l l (median) 5. .33 4. .65 5, .27 5, .25 SD 1. .32 1, .13 .93 1, .50 absolute FOK (median) 3. .00 3, .35 4, .40 4. .25 SD 1, .12 1. .65 1, .33 * .87 recognition 3, .44 3, .10 3, .42 3, .50 SD 1. .42 1, .16 1, .36 .57 recognition FOK (median) 4, .61 3, .88 5, .08 5, .38 SD 1. .08 1, .25 .92 .95 .sual retention task r e c a l l - 4, .80 5, .40 : - 4 , .15 • 4, .75 SD 1, .61 2, .06 1, .40 .95 low l a b e l a b i l i t y items 1. .80 1. .30 1, .65 1, .00 SD .91 .73 .85 i .82 med. l a b e l a b i l i t y items i .90 1. ,45 .85 1, .50 SD .87 i .95 .83 1, .29 high l a b e l a b i l i t y items 2, .30 2, .70 1, .69 2, .25 SD < .68 1, .08 .68 .50 intrusions .00 .05 .46 .75 SD .00 .22 1, .39 .95 160 Word g e n e r a t i o n task ( p r o p o r t i o n s ) r e c a l l s e l f - g e n e r a t e d items .46 .46 i .31 .25 SD .10 .16 i .12 .26 r e c a l l examiner-generated items .23 .25 .26 .23 SD .17 .17 4 .19 .18 t o t a l r e c a l l .33 .34 t .27 .22 SD .11 .15 .10 .14 p r e d i c t e d r e c a l l .40 .35 .49 .42 SD .17 .16 .29 .21 i n t r u s i o n s .10 .15 2, .00 .75 SD .32 .49 3. .15 .50 Object span and r e c a l l task p r e d i c t e d o b j e c t span 7, .90 6 .70 7, .50 6, .25 SD 2, .18 2, .17 2, .37 .95 a c t u a l o b j e c t span 4, .80 4 .80 4, .35 4, .25 SD .79 .69 .68 .50 number of t e s t s c o r r e c t 1 .60 1 .85 .58 .75 SD 1, .43 1 .13 1, .02 1 .50 study, time 119 .80 199 .55 103, .21 150 .33 SD 58 .06 83 .43 70, .42 71 .79 

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.831.1-0100553/manifest

Comment

Related Items