UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Input-output modes and short-term memory for object sequences in grade I children Koopman, Peggy Rae 1968

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A2 K66.pdf [ 6.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104274.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104274-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104274-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104274-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104274-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104274-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104274-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104274-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104274.ris

Full Text

INPUT-OUTPUT MODES AND SHORT-TERM MEMORY FOR OBJECT SEQUENCES IN GRADE I CHILDREN by PEGGY RAE KOOPMAN B.A., Purdue University, 1962 M.S., University of I l l i n o i s , 1963 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Doctor of Education i n Educational Psychology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I ag ree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y pu rposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n -t a t i v e s . I t i s u nde r s t o od t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Depar tment n f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumb ia Vancouve r 8, Canada Date Copyright by Peggy Rae Koopman 1968 Chairman: Dr. R. N. Smith DISSERTATION ABSTRACT INPUT-OUTPUT MODES AND SHORT-TERM MEMORY FOR OBJECT SEQUENCES IN GRADE I CHILDREN Peggy Rae Koopman Ed.D. i n Educational Psychology The University of B r i t i s h Columbia May 1968 In the study of d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s i n learning and i n the diagnosis and remediation of learning d i s a b i l i -t i e s , much attention has been paid to the mode i n which material i s presented or becomes available (input), and to the form i n which response i s made (output). Following common prac t i c e , the input modes used i n this study are Auditory, V i s u a l , and Haptic ( t a c t i l e - k i n e s t h e t i c ) , and the output modes are Vocal and Motor. Different investigators have stressed e i t h e r the input modes o r the output modes as c r i t i c a l i n the develop-ment or amelioration of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Reports reaching the writer from teachers and c l i n i c i a n s have des-cribed learning problems that seem unexplainable i n terms of i v such input o r output e f f e c t s . This study advances and tests the proposition that, important as input and output modes may be separately i n accounting f o r children's performances, there are children f o r whom input and output modes operate i n t e r a c t i v e l y instead of (or as well as) independently. The task chosen f o r the experiment was one of memory for object sequences. I t involved presenting, under each of the three input conditions separately, sequences of f a m i l i a r objects increasing i n number from two to eight. The subjects were 90 Grade I Vancouver, B.C., children. Following each sequence, every subject was required to indicate the objects that had been presented. This was done independently under both vocal and motor output conditions. To increase r e l i a -b i l i t y , three sequences were presented at each sequence-length. Each c h i l d was given two r e p l i c a t i o n s on a l l input-output combinations, with an i n t e r v a l of two weeks. Scoring was designed to take account of both the length of sequence that a c h i l d could r e c a l l c o r r e c t l y , and the number and kinds of error that he made under each combination of input and output modes. The r e s u l t i n g scores were viewed as entries i n a four-factor experiment having two fixed factors (3 levels of Input and 2 le v e l s of Output) and two random factors (90 subjects and 2 r e p l i c a t i o n s ) . Standard ANOVA procedures reveal, as hypothesized, a highly s i g n i f i c a n t Subjects x Input x Output i n t e r a c t i o n . There i s also a highly s i g n i f i -cant Subjects x Input i n t e r a c t i o n and a less impressive but nonchance Subjects x Output i n t e r a c t i o n . Estimates of v a r i -ance components associated with each of these effects show the S x I x 0 i n t e r a c t i o n to account f o r about as much variance as the t o t a l of the two-way int e r a c t i o n s , giving a cl e a r i n d i c a t i o n of the po t e n t i a l importance of Input x Out-put combinations i n learning diagnoses. The scoring patterns of i n d i v i d u a l children were analyzed. Certain children were found to have performed par-t i c u l a r l y w ell or badly under s p e c i f i c combinations of input and output modes that seemed to be unrelated to whatever input or output strengths o r weaknesses they had. The implications of th i s i n t e r a c t i v e r o l e of input and output modes were explored and resulted i n recommendations f o r teachers and c l i n i c i a n s , as well as f o r further research. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 9 Input 10 Output . . 15 Input and Output 16 Interaction I 7 Statement of the Problem 18 I I I . METHOD 21 Sampling and Subjects. 21 Instruments. • 22 Scoring 24 Examiners 28 Equipment • • . 29 Data Analysis 31 IV. RESULTS 32 Discussion of the Model 32 Results 34 v i i CHAPTER PAGE V. DISCUSSION 42 Individual Performances 42 Subject A 47 Subject B 50 Subject C 53 Subject D . 56 Subject E. 58 Subject F. 62 Limitations and Suggestions f o r Further Research 63 REFERENCES 67 APPENDICES. 70 A. READING DIAGNOSIS FOR R.V. . . 71 B. PRETEST INSTRUCTIONS 74 C. GENERAL DIRECTIONS 76 D. ABBREVIATIONS USED ON TEST FORMS FOR OBJECTS . . 79 E. INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING EACH OF THE SIX TASKS. 80 F. ERROR TYPES AND NUMBER OF ERROR POINTS POSSIBLE ON EACH 86 Derivations of Scoring Formula and Procedures . . . . . . . • • 88 v i i i CHAPTER PAGE APPENDICES (Continued) G. FORM 1 AND FORM 2 OF 6 TASKS . . . . . . . . . . 90 H. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCORES WITHIN X TRAILS. . . . 102 I. RAW SCORES OF 90 SUBJECTS FOR SIX TASKS AND THEIR REPLICATIONS . 103 J . INDIVIDUAL MEANS OVER TRIALS FOR VOCAL AND MOTOR OUTPUT 106 K. INDIVIDUAL MEANS OVER TRIALS FOR AUDITORY, VISUAL, AND HAPTIC INPUT . 108 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Input-Output Effectiveness f o r R.V. . . . . . 6 I I . Subjects per Examiner . . . 28 I I I . Summary of Analysis of Variance f o r 90 Subjects . 35 IV. Input-Output Means f o r the 90 Subjects and 2 Replications 37 V. Consistency of Scores Over Replications Between A l l Four Examiners and Examiner Four Only. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 VI. Summary of Analysis of Variance of 45 Subjects (Tested by Examiner Four). . . . . 40 VII(a). Input f Output, and Input x Output Means f o r Subject A 47 (b) . Scores Made by Subject A under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 48 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject A . 4 8 VIII(a). Input, Output, and Input x Output Means f o r Subject B 50 (b) . Scores Made by Subject B under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 51 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject B 51 X TABLE PAGE IX(a). Input, Output, and Input x Output Means f o r Subject C . . . . . . . . 53 (b) . Scores Made by Subject C under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 53 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject C . . . . . . 54 X(a). Input, Output, and Input x Output Means f o r Subject D . 56 (b) . Scores Made by Subject D under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 57 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject D . . . . . . 57 XI(a). Input, Output, and Input x Output Means fo r Subject E . . . . . . 58 (b) . Scores Made by Subject E under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 59 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject E 59 XII(a). Input, Output, and Input x Output Means f o r Subject F 61 (b) . Scores Made by Subject F under Six Input-Output Conditions on Two Replications . . . 61 (c) . ANOVA Summary Table f o r Subject F . . . . . . 62 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Description of Stimulus and Response Conditions f o r Each of Six Input-Output Combinations . . • . 25 2. Display of Objects Shown to the Chi l d . . . . . . 29 3. Display Covered by the Box as Seen from the Examiner's Posi t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. Input-Output Related Word Recognition Techniques. . . . . . . . . . . . 73 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance which she received from Mr. Ware, P r i n c i p a l of S i r Matthew Begbie School, and Mrs. Maili n g , Head Teacher of Begbie Annex. I t was through t h e i r cooperation that the work of data c o l l e c t i o n was f a c i l i t a t e d . Mrs. Val Ann Morris and Miss Coral Smith, two fellow students, s a c r i f i c e d many hours of study to a s s i s t i n the c o l l e c t i o n of data. The writer expresses her thanks to them fo r t h e i r generosity. The writer i s also indebted to Dr. Seong Soo Lee f o r providing the analysis of variance program used to run the main analysis on the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's IBM 7044 f a c i l i t y . To the members of my committee, Dr. R. Mcintosh, Dr. G. Chronister, Dr. D. Kendall, Dr. O.A. Oldridge, Dr. J . Johnson, Dr. D. McKie, and Dr. R.N. Smith, chairman, go my thanks f o r t h e i r advice and car e f u l reading of the manuscript*. Two members of the committee deserve s p e c i a l thanks. Dr. D. McKie i n addition to o f f e r i n g valuable advice regar-x i i i ding s t a t i s t i c a l design and analysis, gave thoughtful c r i t i c i s m to the form and substance of the d i s s e r t a t i o n . F i n a l l y , a word of deep appreciation to Dr. R.N. Smith whose unending patience and wise counsel has done so much to encourage me throughout the planning and execution of this study. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For many years the attention of educators has been focused c l o s e l y on i n d i v i d u a l differences i n children. One of the results of thi s emphasis has been the emergence of the area of "learning d i s a b i l i t i e s " as requiring the application of diagnostic and remedial techniques. I t has been through i d e n t i f y i n g the s p e c i f i c problems of children with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s that we have gained new per-spectives into patterns of a b i l i t i e s that are related to success i n learning f o r a l l children. The d e f i n i t i o n of a learning disorder suggested i n the unpublished proceedings of the Conference on Learning Disorders at the University of Kansas Medical Center, 1964, sponsored by the U.S. O f f i c e of Education, i s : Children who have learning disorders are those who manifest an educationally s i g n i f i c a n t discrepancy between t h e i r estimated i n t e l l e c t u a l p o t e n t i a l and actual l e v e l of performance related to basic disorders i n the learning processes, which may or may not be accompanied by demon-stra b l e central nervous system dysfunction, and which are not secondary to generalized mental retardation, educational or c u l t u r a l deprivation, severe emotional disturbance, or sensory l o s s . (Proceedings, Learning Disorders Conference, 1964) This discussion w i l l consider the terms "disorder" and " d i s a b i l i t y " as synonymous. Although the former i s sometimes reserved for children with demonstrable neurolo-g i c a l involvement, the d i s t i n c t i o n i s not relevant to t h i s study. D i f f e r e n t i a l diagnosis i s the process by which edu-cators "zero i n " on d i s a b i l i t i e s i n order to focus upon what i s c a l l e d a primary d i s a b i l i t y . Assuming a hierarchy of a b i l i t i e s , ranging from simple to complex, the primary d i s a b i l i t y i s the simplest one which detectably interferes with the successful exercise of others which are more com-plex. The rationale f o r this analysis of d i s a b i l i t i e s i s that a c t i v i t i e s intended to ameliorate them can be success-f u l only i f the primary d i s a b i l i t i e s can be c a r e f u l l y de-lineated and t h e i r effects on children's learning s p e c i f i e d . To achieve an e f f e c t i v e diagnosis which leads to constructive remediation f o r a c h i l d with learning d i s a b i l i -t i e s , the teacher and the c l i n i c i a n must systematically observe the child's behavior i n both f a i l u r e and success s i t u a t i o n s . Decisions about diagnosis and remediation de-pend on the observation techniques of teachers and c l i n i c i a n s 3 and must be related to the s p e c i f i c content of the tasks and the instances i n which the d i s a b i l i t y i s made manifest. Those who must make such decisions must be p r o f i c i e n t i n task analysis of the material presented to the c h i l d . Before one can i s o l a t e that part of the task which i s the determiner of success or f a i l u r e , the task c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s must be s p e c i f i e d i n regard to such factors as complexity, l e v e l of abstraction, modalities, and response modes. When a learning d i s a b i l i t y manifests i t s e l f as, f o r example, an i n a b i l i t y to learn to read when taught by com-monly used methods, ca r e f u l study of the relevant concomitant variables may reveal a subset of variables i n which the child's primary d i s a b i l i t y l i e s . One subset or correlate of a learning d i s a b i l i t y i s d i f f i c u l t y i n one o r more of the modes of sensory input and/or motor output. Wepman (1967) assumes that children have d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t y to learn by eye, or by ear, or by touch. F r o s t i g (1961) and Kephart (1960) include motor performance, d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between vocal expression and gross and f i n e motor coordination, as associated with learning d i s a b i l i t y . 4 This investigator concurs with the findings of such educators, who are themselves concerned with the rel a t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s and reception and expression of information. Yet there i s evidence from the classroom and the c l i n i c which suggests that a t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y may be c r u c i a l f o r some children: t h i s i s the Interaction be-tween the mode of sensory input and the mode of response the c h i l d must u t i l i z e when performing a task. I t i s with interactions l i k e these that t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s concerned. [Vor this study M i n p u t " w i l l r e f e r to the mode i n which information i s presented or available to the student. I t i s generally agreed that there are three important input modes: auditory, v i s u a l , and haptic ( t a c t i l e plus kines-t h e t i c ) . "Output" w i l l r e f e r to the mode i n which the c h i l d i s required to respond. A l l responses are necessarily motor responses, but i t i s customary to consider vocal responses as a separate category; thus two output modes, vocal and motor!) Because of the recent emphasis on task analysis i n schools, teachers are looking more cl o s e l y at the behavior of children i n th e i r classrooms and are beginning to report 5 anecdotes such as t h i s one, which was recently communicated to the writer: He knows what the s p e l l i n g word i s because he can s p e l l i t c o r r e c t l y o r a l l y , but he has trouble writing i t . He doesn't seem to have a motor problem because when I give him a written question which he can scan v i s u a l l y he can compose an accurate answer. I t seems he only has trouble when I t e l l him some-thing and ask him to give a motor response (writing, pointing, e t c . ) . In t h i s c l i n i c , more and more diagnoses s i m i l a r to the following are coming to the writer's attention: R.V. (whose diagnostic report appears i n Appendix A) has a problem i n reading related to the input mode and the output mode as a combination. For R.V., i f the stimulus i s v i s u a l and the response requested i s vocal, his chance of succeeding i s minimal; however, i f the stimulus i s auditory and the response requested i s vocal or motor, he w i l l do very well. Likewise, he responds well when the stimulus i s v i s u a l and the response requested i s motor. By looking at a l l these combinations of input-output, a p a r t i c u l a r pattern results (see Table I ) . 6 TABLE I INPUT-OUTPUT EFFECTIVENESS FOR R.V. Input Output Vocal Motor Auditory good good V i s u a l bad good Haptic * * * Data not av a i l a b l e . By use of thi s table i t i s easy to see that f o r R.V. the p a r t i c u l a r input-output combination of v i s u a l with vocal i s c r i t i c a l f o r success i n reading. I t i s only when the input and output modes are paired i n thi s p a r t i c u l a r combina-t i o n that he appears to have d i f f i c u l t i e s . Under a l l other combinations he appears to be equally successful ( v i s u a l with motor, auditory with vocal o r motor). This case study and the sample of teacher-reported behavior, together with s i m i l a r information from the labora-tory, c l e a r l y indicate that c h i l d behaviors which seem related to input-output combinations appear to be extremely 7 important i n determining whether some children w i l l learn under certain conditions. Although the complexity of the tasks i n the case study c i t e d i s not the same as the complexity of the tasks used i n this study, the implications f o r the classroom teacher are s i m i l a r . In the classroom, the task as presented to the c h i l d i s much more complex than that which was used i n t h i s study. In the classroom, the complexity of the stimulus may be such that children w i l l attend only to those properties of the task with which they can cope most successfully. Because of t h i s , r e a l differences i n children's a b i l i t i e s would be expected to be somewhat masked, hence i t i s su r p r i s i n g that teachers do report differences i n a b i l i t i e s that are related to input and output. However, i t was important i n t h i s study to maximize the opportunity for such effects to display themselves. Therefore tasks that represent d i s c r e t e parts of the t o t a l input-output framework were chosen. I f sizeable differences were to e x i s t on the performance of these tasks, then the c l i n i c a l impressions would be corroborated and strengthened; however, i f no differences were found even when using s i m p l i f i e d tasks, doubt would be cast upon the 8 importance of, or i n fact the existence of, these hypo-thesized input-output problems. I f i n fact these differences are large enough to be d i s c e r n i b l e , and of such a magnitude to make a r e a l " d i f -ference" i n a child's a b i l i t y to learn, then c e r t a i n implications f o r curriculum developers become apparent. I f we can determine that children do d i f f e r importantly on the tasks i n t h i s study, a next step emerges. This step would have two stages: (1) obtain input-output information on each subject by means of an appropriate diagnostic pro-cedure, and (2) use this information to see whether i t i s i n fact possible to maximize performance i n achieving the common c u r r i c u l a r objectives. I f the results of such a study were p o s i t i v e , then i t would seem reasonable to recommend the use of s i m i l a r diag-nostic procedures i n a kindergarten, f o r example, to deter-mine fo r each c h i l d the input-output behaviors that would l i k e l y aid or hinder learning. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Investigators concerned with the d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s of children as related to modes of input and output have tended to emphasize either input o r output. The p o s s i b i l i t y that i n t e r a c t i o n between input and output modes may play an important r o l e i n accounting f o r certain learning d i s a b i l i t i e s seems not to have been explored by researchers i n this f i e l d . Accordingly, the following review deals almost exclusively with the findings and theo-r e t i c a l positions of persons who are concerned with e f f e c t s of input or ef f e c t s of output or effects of input and out-put, since there are no studies of input-output Interaction s i m i l a r to the one reported herein. A l l of the investigators c i t e d here are o r were engaged i n applied research i n learning d i s a b i l i t i e s (some i n c l i n i c a l , some i n laboratory s e t t i n g s ) . Most emphasize the immaturity of research i n the area and urge further i n v e s t i g a t i o n into diagnostic methods and remedial techniques. Bateman (1967) states, "Research i s needed i n many areas of 10 remedial planning from the o r i g i n a l match with the c o r r e l -ates of the learning disorder to o v e r a l l e f f i c a c y , M F r o s t i g (1967) says "growth curves f o r a l l known v i s u a l and audi-tory perceptual a b i l i t i e s are not yet established and even a l l the a b i l i t i e s are not defined. That there are separate a b i l i t i e s has been borne out by the work of Cruickshank (1957) and of Wedell (I960) and others," Such investigators are t r y i n g not only to define the o v e r a l l l e v e l of a c h i l d ' s functioning but to determine s p e c i f i c areas of a b i l i t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s i n terms that are meaningful and useful to the teacher. Information that "the c h i l d has a perceptual handicap" i s not useful i n that form to a teacher who has referred him f o r an educational assessment, I, INPUT Input i s usually investigated by one of two approaches. Some investigators are concerned with the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c -tiveness of input modes such as v i s u a l versus auditory, or auditory versus haptic, or a l l three together. Others, Wepman (1967) among them, investigate cross-modal transfer, which i s concerned with the transfer of t r a i n i n g across input 11 modes. This review w i l l not be concerned with t h i s l a t t e r area. Wepman (1967) believes that the c r i t i c a l factor to look at i n a c h i l d i s h i s preferred mode of input. He says: Individual differences i n perceptual trans-mission and conceptual learning can be demonstrated to be along modality l i n e s ; methods fo r teachers or the school system to determine a given child's maximal learning modality, i f they are i n c l i n e d to do so, remain to be discovered. . . . perceptual a b i l i t y i s the precursor to comprehension. I t provides the underpinning f o r understanding and f o r generalization. Man has not evolved with separate v i s u a l , a u ral, and t a c t i l e sense receptors and a central process f o r integration without purpose. By determining the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d ' s s p e c i f i c a b i l i t i e s and u t i l i z i n g them i n an organized way, reading, l i k e a l l other language forms, can be acquired with a minimum of discomfort and a maxi-mum of pleasure. The modality approach to reading - by d i f f -e r entiating the perceptual levels of transmitting input signals and t h e i r a b i l i t y , i n the intermodal transfer, to arouse the associations necessary f o r integration and thus meaning - only nominates the directions of i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r a i n i n g , Deutsch and Zawel (1966) hypothesized that f o r brain-injured children a c a r e f u l analysis of input w i l l y i e l d modality-related patterns of response and of a b i l i t y . The hypothesis, which was confirmed, was that the children would be able to function i n a more adequate manner i f they were 12 approached through one p a r t i c u l a r sense modality, as opposed to an approach through some other modality or through mul-t i p l e modalities simultaneously. These investigators constructed a series of unimodal tasks. A l l the child's responses were verbal, c a l l i n g f o r only a singl e word, or required only a simple pointing response. By using only one modality for stimulus presentation the necessity f o r i n t e r -sensory integration was obviated. By requiring no precise motor response, the perceptual-motor coordination and i n t e -gration problem was avoided. Muehl and Kremenak (1966) were concerned with the a b i l i t y to match information within and between auditory and v i s u a l sense modalities, and subsequent reading achievement. They used tasks requiring v i s u a l - v i s u a l , visual-auditory, auditory-visual, and auditory-auditory matching. Their r e s u l t s indicate that when used as predictors only scores made under visual-auditory, and auditory-visual input con-d i t i o n s made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to predicting reading success. Fernald (1948) a c l i n i c i a n who worked with children with reading d i s a b i l i t i e s , found kinesthetic t r a i n i n g to be b e n e f i c i a l , and found that t r a i n i n g the haptic mode may f a c i l i t a t e learning. Gellner (1959) and her associates at Columbus, Ohio, have proposed four c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of mini-mal brain i n j u r y (considered synonymous with learning d i s a b i l i t y ) which are related to input modes and movement: (1) v i s u a l somatic, (2) v i s u a l autonomic, (3) auditory somatic, (4) auditory autonomic. Gillingham (1949) i n her work with v i s u a l dyslexia u t i l i z e s phonic methods f o r t r a i n i n g v i s u a l problems. Myklebust (1967) says that primary emphasis must be placed on input, because input precedes output. "The agnosias [input d i s a b i l i t i e s } are more debi-l i t a t i n g than the apraxias [output d i s a b i l i t i e s ] as they reduce and modify learning." F r o s t i g and Home (1962) i d e n t i f i e d f i v e areas of v i s u a l perception which they con-side r to function independently i n school learning — e s p e c i a l l y learning to read. (The f i v e areas are: eye motor coordination, p o s i t i o n i n space, figure ground, form constancy, and s p a c i a l r e l a t i o n s . ) On the basis of the F r o s t i g Developmental Test of V i s u a l Perception ( F r o s t i g , 1961), remedial exercises have been devised to remedy any d i s a b i l i t y that a c h i l d may experience i n any of the f i v e areas of v i s u a l perception that are i d e n t i f i e d . Attention i s also given to motor responses. 14 I t i s stated by de Hirsch (1967) that c l i n i c a l l y , some children have been found who "have r e l a t i v e l y good use of an idiom on an auditory perceptual basis: they sound as though they have a large vocabulary, but some of them f a i l when asked to give a word on being presented with a picture." Anderson (1966) says that "haptic perception involves a perceptual pattern which has as i t s sensory source both touch and kinesthesia." Berman (1939) states that the addition of the ta c t u a l mode through manual tracing results i n greater economy i n learning time f o r word-recognition tasks. Ofman and Shaevitz (1963) explored the question of the pertinence of haptic t r a i n i n g f o r teaching reading to retarded readers. Their r e s u l t s , though, do not give con-clu s i v e evidence that a l l children w i l l benefit from haptic t r a i n i n g nor that these experiences reinforce v i s u a l and auditory modalities i n teaching reading. Talmadge, Davids, and Danfer (1963) gave tactual-kinesthetic (haptic) t r a i n i n g to a group of retarded readers. Their r e s u l t s show s i g n i -f i c a n t gains f o r the group receiving t h i s t r a i n i n g . However, Anderson (1966) questions the re s u l t s of the study on the ground that confounding of independent variables makes int e r p r e t a t i o n d i f f i c u l t . 15 I I . OUTPUT Sperry (1962) i s one of the strongest advocates of an output approach. The following i s an extract from one of h i s a r t i c l e s . An analysis of our current thinking w i l l show that i t tends to s u f f e r generally from a f a i l u r e to view mental a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r proper r e l a t i o n , or even i n any r e l a t i o n , to motor be-havior. The remedy l i e s i n further i n s i g h t into the r e l a t i o n s h i p between, the sensori-associative functions of the brain on the one hand and i t s motor a c t i v i t y on the other. In order to achieve t h i s i n s i g h t , our present one-sided pre-occupation with the sensory avenues to the study of mental processes w i l l need to be supplemented by increased attention to the motor patterns, and e s p e c i a l l y to what can be inferred from these regarding the nature o f the associative and sensory functions. In a machine, the output i s usually more revealing of the i n t e r n a l organization than i s the input. S i m i l a r l y i n the case of our thinking apparatus an examination of i t s terminal operations and finished products may be more enlightening than any amount of analysis of the transport of raw materials into i t . Only a f t e r we have attained some under-standing of the way i n which the sensory and thought processes become transformed into motor a c t i v i t y , can we hope to comprehend t h e i r meaning and plan of organization. Only then can v a l i d working p r i n c i p l e s be found to curb and to guide future theorizing. Investigators i n t h i s area are aware of the statements of Kephart (1960) on the theme " a l l behavior i s b a s i c a l l y motor." He believes that the prerequisites of any kind of 16 behavior are muscular and motor responses. Behavior deve-lops out of muscular a c t i v i t y , and so-called higher forms of behavior are dependent upon lower forms of behavior, thus making even these higher a c t i v i t i e s dependent upon the basic structure of the muscular a c t i v i t y upon which they are b u i l t . Motor a c t i v i t y i s brought under control f i r s t and l a t e r a sensory-motor match i s accomplished which i s the process by which the v i s u a l o r auditory stimulus derives meaning by being matched to the motor patterns. Sensory data are matched to e x i s t i n g motor data, I I I . INPUT AND OUTPUT Gates (1940) and Monroe (1932) have developed tests to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s i n input and output modes as they r e l a t e to learning to read, V a l e t t (1966) has devised a developmental scale with sub-categories which a teacher can use to compare a c h i l d developmentally on audi-tory discrimination with motor coordination, and so on. Clemmens (1967) c l a s s i f i e s children c l i n i c a l l y into only three groups: auditory agnosia, motor aphasia, and dyslexia. 17 One of the most widely used instruments f o r d i f f e r -e n t i a l diagnosis of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s i s the I l l i n o i s Test of Psycholinguistic A b i l i t i e s (Kirk and McCarthy, 1962) which gives a p r o f i l e of nine separate language a b i l i t i e s . These researchers have demonstrated that the i s o l a t i o n of patterns of d i s a b i l i t i e s can lead to more e f f e c t i v e remedial planning f o r children. The instrument tests v i s u a l and auditory modes of input and vocal and motor output; the r e l a t i v e strengths and weaknesses may be seen on a p r o f i l e . In contrast to the K i r k and Bateman (1962) approach to remediation of s p e c i f i c weaknesses, Dunn, Smith and Horton (1965), authors of the Peabody Language Development K i t , advocate an o v e r a l l approach to language development. No attempt i s made i n the l a t t e r approach to segregate s p e c i f i c input and output modes f o r remedial attention a l -though the Peabody materials provide t r a i n i n g i n a l l modes. IV. INTERACTION The study which i s most l i k e the present investigation but which used adult aphasics with a d i f f e r e n t set of tasks, was that of Ross (I960) as reported by Bock and Bargman 18 (1966): S i g n i f i c a n t Subjects x Input i n t e r a c t i o n and Subjects x Input x Output in t e r a c t i o n were claimed. I t should be noted here that t h i s study i s the only one found which tended at a l l to support the t r a d i t i o n a l notion of visual-motor and auditory-vocal as "the" pure input-output combinations. Suggestive of an i n t e r a c t i o n are the programmed phonics materials by Hegge, K i r k and K i r k (1940). They recognized that f o r certain children p a i r i n g the vocal res-ponse with the v i s u a l stimulus i s most e f f e c t i v e i n remedial reading. This seems a concession given to the usual v i s u a l -motor and auditory-vocal linkage f o r the remedial-teaching world. V. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The material presented i n Chapter One suggests that d i f f e r e n t subjects perform more ably under some input-output combinations than others. The procedure i n t h i s study w i l l permit a te s t of this and c e r t a i n other related hypotheses. 19 The aim of the study w i l l be to investigate children's performance on defined tasks as a j o i n t function of the modes of input and output. There may exis t three d i f f e r e n t classes of e f f e c t , any or a l l of which may be present i n a single person. To use the terminology of analysis of variance, there may be a main e f f e c t due to the mode of input, there may be a main e f f e c t due to output required, and there may be an e f f e c t due to the i n t e r a c t i o n between the modes of input and output. For example, with respect to the separate effects of input and output, i t may be that a person operates better when information i s presented i n one mode as opposed to other modes. Any one person, f o r example, may operate more e f f i -c i e n t l y with a v i s u a l input than with auditory or haptic input, regardless of the p a r t i c u l a r output required. There may also be i n the same person an o v e r a l l consistent d i f f e r -e n t i a l i n h i s performance when one kind of output i s required. This same person may operate more e f f i c i e n t l y when the re-quired response i s vocal than when the required response i s motor; th i s may hold true regardless of the mode of input of information. Thus, we have two kinds of main e f f e c t s , one due to input only and one due to output only. 20 F i n a l l y , i n addition to o v e r a l l input and output e f f e c t s , there may be an i n t e r a c t i o n between a p a r t i c u l a r input and a p a r t i c u l a r output mode; thus a channel-specific e f f e c t may operate so as either to r a i s e or lower a person's e f f i c i e n c y i n a given channel above or below that which would be expected on the basis of the o v e r a l l e f f e c t , each of the input mode and output mode. The questions above have a l l been with regard to a sin g l e i n d i v i d u a l . The question may also be raised as to the consistency of these r e s u l t s across people. I t i s axio-matic that i n d i v i d u a l differences do e x i s t - a l l children w i l l not have i d e n t i c a l a b i l i t y patterns. The question i s , can d i f f e r e n t types of patterns be i d e n t i f i e d ? The answer i s to be found at least p a r t i a l l y by looking f o r interactions (again i n the ANOVA sense) between modes and subjects. CHAPTER III METHOD Data r e l a t i v e to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of input-output interactions were obtained by two r e p l i c a t i o n s of s i x tasks administered to each of 90 subjects. The tasks required short-term memory for object sequences and were designed to combine each of the three input modes with each of the two output modes. Each task was designed to involve a p a r t i c u l a r input-output combination. Sampling and Subjects Ninety subjects, 42 boys and 48 g i r l s , were chosen from one hundred Grade I children i n a large elementary school i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. The area and school were selected on the advice of the research d i r e c t o r of the Van-couver School Board. The school served children from upper lower and lower middle socio-economic families who make up a large section of the families i n the c i t y . Census t r a c t data on the area ( D i s t r i c t 10) y i e l d the following information: (1) Average income $4,991 and -z -.35 (the mean for the c i t y i s $5,500 with a S.D. $1,392), and 22 (2) Of the adult population i n thi s area, 36% (z +.62) have no higher than an elementary school education, whereas the mean f o r Vancouver i s 28% with a S.D. of 13%. Ten of the one hundred children were excluded from the study. The c r i t e r i a on which th i s was done were: (1) unsuccessful performance on the pretest, (2) absence from school f o r a greater time than could be tolerated f o r administration of the r e p l i c a t i o n f o r that c h i l d , (3) non-English speaking. Grade I children were chosen because the obscuring of some modes as a r e s u l t of various teaching methods would s t i l l be minimal. Instruments Pretest. A pretest was administered to each c h i l d before the s i x tasks. I t required the subjects to i d e n t i f y f i f t e e n f a m i l i a r concrete objects by (1) sight and (2) while blindfolded, by touch. Both of these performances were prerequisite f o r the tasks which followed. Any c h i l d who could not i d e n t i f y a l l of the objects by name or by touch 23 was excluded from the study. I f the c h i l d made any mistakes or hesitated, several objects, including the confusing one, were readministered. I f the c h i l d then named the confusing object e a s i l y t e s t i n g was begun. However, i f he hesitated or was i n error again, testing was terminated. Pretest instructions w i l l be found i n Appendix B. There were three instances when testing was terminated f o r these reasons. These subjects were recent immigrants for whom English was a second language. Tasks. A f t e r the pretest, the i n d i v i d u a l examin-ation was conducted. Each task consisted of the presentation of object sequences of successively increasing length with three sequences ( t r i a l s ) at each l e v e l . A l e v e l was defined by the number of objects appearing i n a given sequence. The same object never appeared twice i n the sequence. A l l ob-jects were used an equal number of times i n each task and at each l e v e l the order of t h e i r appearance was randomized. (For information concerning general administration instruc-tions, abbreviations used for objects during recording, and i n d i v i d u a l task i n s t r u c t i o n s , see Appendixes C, D, and E.) The s i x tasks u t i l i z e d the following input-output combinations: 24 1. auditory-vocal 2. auditory-motor 3. v i s u a l - v o c a l 4. visual-motor 5. haptic-vocal 6. haptic-motor Figure 1, page 25, gives a b r i e f description of the tasks. The test forms used are i n Appendix G. The order of presentation of the s i x tasks was randomized f o r the i n i t i a l session as we l l as f o r the r e p l i c a t i o n f o r each c h i l d . Each c h i l d was seen i n d i v i d u a l l y f o r two approximately one-half hour sessions with an i n t e r v a l of exactly two weeks between sessions; f o r only four children was this two-week i n t e r v a l exceeded, and then by only one day. The enti r e study was thus replicated with the same ninety children. On the r e p l i -cation the examiners had no knowledge of the results of the i n i t i a l session f o r any subject. Scoring The scoring procedures f o r the tasks of the study are presented i n d e t a i l i n Appendix F. In general terms, scoring 2 5 Input Output Vocal Motor Stimulus Child i s shown a sequence of objects. Stimulus Child i s shown a sequence of objects. Haptic V i s u a l Response Response Child names the objects he saw i n the order they were presented. Ch i l d points to the objects he saw i n the order they were presented. Stimulus Stimulus £. says a sequence of names of objects to the c h i l d . E. says a sequence of names of objects to the c h i l d . Auditory Response Response Child names the objects he heard i n the order he heard them. Child points to the objects he heard i n the order they were presented. Stimulus S timulus Child feels a series objects while b l i n d -folded. of Child feels a series of objects while blindfolded. Response Response Child names the objects he f e l t i n the order he f e l t them. Child points to ob-jects i n the order presented. Fig. 1. Description of stimulus and response conditions for each of s i x input-output combinations. 26 was based on a count of errors made at each l e v e l of a task. The c h i l d could make an error i n several ways: f o r example, by omitting one or more objects, by making substitutions, by ind i c a t i n g the presence of more objects than were presented, and/or by placing objects i n the wrong order. Empirically, children were found not to make more errors than the number of objects i n each of the sequences at any l e v e l , so i t became f e a s i b l e to think of scoring performance at a given l e v e l as a proportion of possible error ( a r b i t r a r i l y defined as the number of objects i n a sequence at that l e v e l ) . This proportion could then vary from 0 to 1; i t was calculated as the r a t i o of the number of errors to the number of objects used. Working i n terms of proportions allowed the i n v e s t i -gator to present no more than two sequences at any l e v e l i f performance on these was s u f f i c i e n t l y consistent to establish the proportion f o r that l e v e l . I t also meant that the longer sequences did not have a disproportionate e f f e c t on the scores. Using the rules of Appendix F, each examiner recorded i n d e t a i l the child's responses to a l l items, and the invest!-27 gator obtained an error count. For each l e v e l , the propor-t i o n of error was determined. At th i s point, a p r i n c i p l e of scoring developed by Thurstone (1926) was adapted to the present s i t u a t i o n . A child's score was h i s p o s i t i o n on a scale running from 2 to 8 (the smallest to the largest number of objects) f o r which his t o t a l proportion of error was equal to h i s t o t a l proportion of non-error. The l a t t e r was defined as the complement of the former. B r i e f l y , the rationale of Thurstone's p r i n c i p l e i s t h i s : i f a set of items i s arranged along a scale of d i f f i c u l t y f o r a defined group, then one may think of a ch i l d ' s p o s i t i o n on the same scale as that point f o r which his p r o b a b i l i t y of passing the corresponding item i s .50. This i s the point at which he i s changing from a "winner" to a " l o s e r " . The formula used to determine each child's scale value (S) was (see Appendix F f o r derivations and procedures): S = k + % - £q where k = the number of objects at a l e v e l for which the child's proportion of error became 1.0; 28 2"q = the sum of the proportions of error f o r a l l of the levels up to and including that f o r which the pro-portion f i r s t equalled 1.0, This formula follows exactly the p r i n c i p l e s described by Thurstone. Examiners Four persons, including the investigator, administered the tasks to the children. The d i v i s i o n of children was not equal among the examiners. The breakdown of children per examiner i s i n Table I I . TABLE II SUBJECTS PER EXAMINER Examiner No. of Children 1 10 2 11 3 24 4 45 29 The investigator conducted individual training sessions with each examiner, and the examiners observed the investigator administer at least one complete battery of tasks to a child. In addition, the investigator observed each of the examiners administering at least one complete battery of tasks to a child. Equipment A display of fifteen familiar concrete objects was presented as illustrated in Figure 2. This display was visible to the child during the pretest and the motor-response tasks while the child made his selection. At a l l other times Fig. 2. Display of objects shown to the child. 30 the display was covered by an open ended box which hid the objects from the view of the child, but which permitted access by the examiner for presentation of a sequence of objects to the child and then enabled him to return them to their assigned position on the display without revealing the display (see Figure 3.), The blindfold that was used in the pretest and for the haptic tasks was a "Batman" mask with the eyes taped shut. . , . . . • Fig, 3. Display covered by the box as seen from the examiner's position. 31 Data Analysis The data were co l l e c t e d to f i t into a four-way analysis of variance design: 90 Subjects x 3 Input modes x 2 Output modes by 2 r e p l i c a t i o n s , with one entry per c e l l . Input and Output were considered fixed factors. Subjects and r e p l i c a t i o n s were taken as random i n order to extrapo-late beyond the two re p l i c a t i o n s and 90 subjects observed. CHAPTER IV RESULTS Discussion of the model. A major purpose of the study was to obtain evidence about whether subjects d i f f e r i n the pattern of t h e i r performances under d i f f e r e n t Input-Output combinations, and also whether they d i f f e r with d i f f e r -ent Input modes, and with d i f f e r e n t Output modes. S i g n i f i c a n t Subjects x Input x Output, Subjects x Input, and Subjects x Output interactions would provide t h i s evidence i f the s t a t i s t i c a l assumptions underlying the ANOVA model were reasonably s a t i s f i e d . Since there i s only one score per c e l l , no d i r e c t empirical evidence i s available about the populations from which these scores were presumed drawn. Evidence i s a v a i l -able, however, about the v a r i a b i l i t y and the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of scores within conditions by r e p l i c a t i o n s . Appendix H indicates that there need be l i t t l e concern about hetero-geneity of variance. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s of scores shown i n Appendix H are f o r the most part symmetrical, though there i s a tendency toward p o s i t i v e skew under Haptic-Motor conditions. 33 There are no s t r i k i n g differences i n d i s t r i b u t i o n shape that would caution against the use of the F-test f o r test -ing the important interactions• A possible problem of i n t e r p r e t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t F-values i n t e s t i n g these interactions arises out of the fact that the order of presentation of tasks was randomized independently f o r each subject on each of h i s two r e p l i -cations. This implies that order of presentation i s confounded with subjects and that, f o r example, a s i g n i -f i c a n t S x I x 0 i n t e r a c t i o n might be argued to r e s u l t , i n part, from differences i n order o f presentation as well as from differences i n subjects per se. However, i n the appropriate F-test of t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n , MS (SIO) / MS (SIOR) , the denominator includes additional variance due to sequence eff e c t s r e s u l t i n g from the d i f f e r e n t orders used on the two r e p l i c a t i o n s , while the numerator includes variance r e s u l t i n g from differences between subjects on the average of the two randomly selected orders — a smaller component. The test i s thus negatively biased. I f , i n f a c t , there are no. r e a l differences among subjects i n t h e i r Input-Output strengths and weaknesses, a s i g n i f i c a n t F i s less l i k e l y to be obtained i f there i s order variance. 34 A s i m i l a r argument holds f o r tests of the Subjects x Input and Subjects x Output in t e r a c t i o n s . S i g n i f i c a n t S x I x O , S x I, and S x 0 effects may thus be interpreted as i n d i c a t i n g r e a l differences among subjects i n respect of t h e i r Input-Output, Input, and Output performances. To locate which p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s are respon-s i b l e f o r such s i g n i f i c a n t interactions i s more hazardous, because f o r any given i n d i v i d u a l one i s unsure of the extent to which the order of presentation of tasks has contributed to his discrepant performances o n l x O , I, or 0, Some e v i -dence about the r e l a t i v e unimportance of order effects f o r p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s can be seen i n the consistency of scores over t r i a l s of those persons whose s i g n i f i c a n t I x 0 interactions have been selected f o r discussion i n Chapter V, Results. A summary of the o v e r a l l analysis of v a r i -ance i s given i n Table I I I . 35 TABLE I I I SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR 90 SUBJECTS Source df M.S. E.M.S. F # Estimated Variance Component S 89 3.744 7.65*** .2712 I 2 89.545 264.7 *** 0 1 19.540 71.7 *** R 1 .326 <1 0 SI 178 .636 2.12 ** .0840 SO 89 .456 1.92 ** .0364 IO 2 .855 1.36 SR 89 .490 IR 2 .002 a 0 OR 1 .054 <1 0 SIO 178 .431 1.91 ** .1028 SIR 178 .300 SOR 89 .237 IOR 2 .423 1.88 SIOR 178 .225 a. 4 The use of Satterthwaite's approximation to F was required f o r tests on I, 0, and 10, r e s u l t i n g i n denominator degrees of freedom of 41.70, 8.89, and 4.35 respectively (See Winer, 1964, p. 202). ** - p < .001 ***- p < .0001 36 The main effects f o r Input and Output, though s i g n i -f i c a n t , are of only secondary importance i n t h i s study. So, too, i s the main e f f e c t f o r Subjects, f o r which s i g n i f i c a n c e i s to be expected and would be of i n t e r e s t only i f i t did not appear. I t would be generally expected that the Subjects x Input and Subjects x Output interactions would be highly s i g n i f i c a n t , and they are. Such are the conclusions of a large number of researchers, referred to i n Chapter I I , who have concerned themselves with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and remedi-ation of s p e c i f i c Output and/or Input modes and th e i r d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e cts on children. More importantly, the Subjects x Input x Output i n t e r a c t i o n i s also found to be highly s i g n i f i c a n t . In view of the foregoing discussion regarding the importance of sequence e f f e c t s , i t seems f a i r to conclude that there are r e a l differences among subjects on Input-Output combinations as well as on Input and Output modes separately. Of those components of variance involving subjects that can be d i r -e c t l y estimated i n this model the order of t h e i r magnitudes appears to be , S-^ , _r£ . This indicates that Input-Output combinations are most important i n discrimina-t i n g among subjects i n terms of t h e i r scores on tasks l i k e 37 the s i x i n the study; second i n importance i s the Input mode; and t h i r d , the Output mode. In f a c t , the v a r i a b i l i t y due to th i s three-way i n t e r a c t i o n i s almost as great as that due to the t o t a l of the two two-way interactions (S x I and S x 0). Treatment condition means over subjects and r e p l i -cations are given i n Table IV. TABLE IV INPUT-OUTPUT MEANS FOR THE 90 SUBJECTS AND 2 REPLICATIONS Input Vocal Output Motor Total Auditory 4.30 4.14 4.22 Vi s u a l 3.69 3.35 3.52 Haptic 3.41 3.09 3.25 Total 3.80 3.53 3.66 Means f o r i n d i v i d u a l subjects over r e p l i c a t i o n s on the three input modes and two output modes appear i n Appendices J and K . Raw scores f o r the 90 subjects i n each of the s i x tasks and t h e i r r e p l i c a t i o n s are shown i n Appendix I. The table of means (Table IV) not involving subjects can be u t i l i z e d as a referent to determine the typicalness of a certai n c h i l d ' s mean scores over r e p l i c a t i o n on input and output modes. Consistency of children's scores over r e p l i c a t i o n s d i f f e r e d with examiners. Correlation between r e p l i c a t i o n s are shown i n Table V for a l l 90 subjects and also f o r those 45 subjects tested by the examiner f o r whom children's scoring consistency was greatest (Examiner Four). I t was TABLE V CONSISTENCY OF SCORES OVER REPLICATIONS BETWEEN ALL FOUR EXAMINERS AND EXAMINER FOUR ONLY (The examiner f o r whom scoring consistency was greatest) A l l Four Examiners Examiner Four 90 Subjects 45 Subjects Auditory-Vocal .69 .82 Auditory-Motor .68 .74 V i s u a l - l o c a l .47 .46 Visual-Motor .53 .65 Haptic-Vocal .50 .67 Haptic-Motor .56 .45 39 decided that the data f o r those 45 subjects should be analyzed separately, rather than add examiners (with atten-dant interactions) as an addit i o n a l factor, since v a r i a b i -l i t y among examiners may have obscured e f f e c t s . I f , despite this consequent large reduction i n degrees of freedom, the hypothesized effects s t i l l show up, then these cannot be attributed to differences i n performance under d i f f e r e n t examiners. The summary of analysis of variance of 45 subjects tested by Examiner Four, i s presented i n Table VI. In t h i s analysis, as i n the analysis on a l l 90 sub-j e c t s , s i g n i f i c a n t S x 0 and S x I interactions were found. Again, the S x I x 0 i n t e r a c t i o n i s also highly s i g n i f i c a n t . For Examiner Four, the v a r i a b i l i t y due to the S x I x 0 i n t e r a c t i o n i s more than the t o t a l f o r the two two-way i n t e r -actions. The ordering of the magnitude of those components of variance involving subjects remains the same, that i s A 1. A S . A 4. 40 TABLE VI SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 45 SUBJECTS (TESTED BY EXAMINER FOUR) Source of V a r i a t i o n df M.S. E.M.S. Estimated Variance F* Component S (Subjects) 44 2.775 <r\6&'Z<r£ I (Input) 2 45.515 r\z^90£vf%,soe£ 0 (Output) 1 12.313 < r V 3 ? % R (Replication ) 1 .085 «r%6<s£> <1 0 S x I 88 .598 *•%a**+ **_._• SIR. S I 2.808*** .0963 S x 0 44 . 4 0 3 ^ ^ + 6 ^ 1.743* .0286 I x 0 2 . 303 +*S<r* + Z.<r°'+ 900* S x R 44 . 278 < r V 6<r^  I x R 2 . O S O c r ^ V ^ <1 0 0 x R 1 Cl 0 S x I x 0 88 .440<rWV-**;a'A Tzoft S i f t . 3.446*** .1561 S x 0 x R 88 . 2 1 3 ^ * 0 ^ I x 0 x R 2 S x I x 0 x R 88 . 1 2 8 ^ % ^ -x- =p <.05 *** = p <.0001 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The o v e r a l l analysis has confirmed that subjects d i f f e r i n t h e i r performance under d i f f e r e n t Input modes, and under d i f f e r e n t Output modes. More importantly i t has been established that people also vary i n t h e i r scores under d i f f e r e n t Input x Output combinations, to an extent not explainable by t h e i r strengths or weaknesses under Input o r Output modes alone. The o v e r a l l analysis does not say that a l l persons w i l l show pronounced su p e r i o r i t y or i n f e r i o r i t y on a par-t i c u l a r Input or Output mode, or on a combination of these modes; what i t does say i s that some subjects w i l l do so, to an extent not att r i b u t a b l e to chance. Individual Performances The following section provides examples of subjects, from among those tested, who i l l u s t r a t e the kinds of Input, Output, and Input x Output idiosyncracies that occur, and that may be held to account f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t F's encoun-tered above. The procedures and i n f e r e n t i a l processes i n -volved i n this analysis were as follows. F i r s t , a table of Input-Output means f o r selected subjects was inspected f o r highs and/or lows that could not be accounted f o r i n terms of Input or Output influence alone. For a given subject, this involved t e s t i n g the I x 0 i n t e r -action i n the usual way. Two observations have been made on each subject under each of the s i x Input-Output combina-tions, so that the error term, the Mean Square f o r observations-within-cells, has s i x degrees of freedom. Second, the Input and Output means of each subject were tested f o r s p e c i a l strengths and weaknesses. This c a l l s f o r something d i f f e r e n t from the usual F-test of the n u l l hypothesis as applied to Input and Output main e f f e c t s . The best evidence about the population of children under study (the means f o r the group of 90 children) i s that Input modes and Output modes exhibit a preferred orders Auditory (4.22), V i s u a l (3.52), Haptic (3.25); Vocal (3.80) and Motor (3.53). Since Input means and Output means do d i f f e r i n the population, i t makes no sense to test the n u l l hypothesis f o r any p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d . I f he i s at a l l t y p i c a l of his group, h i s means must be expected to d i f f e r . The hypo-thesis of in t e r e s t i s that the pattern of hi s Input (or 43 Output) means does not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of the means f o r the population. This does not say that his means w i l l equal those of the population, but that they w i l l e xhibit the same trend. I f this hypothesis i s rejected, the conclusion i s that the c h i l d i s a t y p i c a l of h i s group i n h i s pattern of Input (or Output) strengths, and thus contributes to S x I (or S x 0) i n t e r a c t i o n . As noted e a r l i e r , i f sequence ef f e c t s are operating, there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that an a t y p i c a l pattern of highs and lows among Input, Output, or Input-Output means could be p a r t l y attributed to such e f f e c t s . This contention loses force where the child' s scores on the s i x modal com-binations over two r e p l i c a t i o n s show high consistency, since the combinations were applied i n d i f f e r e n t (random) orders. Scores on the two re p l i c a t i o n s are shown f o r each c h i l d . To t e s t the hypothesis that a subject's means (over a hypothetical universe of r e p l i c a t i o n s ) e x h i b i t the same trend as the means of the population to which he belongs, i t i s necessary to know the population means -- o r at lea s t t h e i r deviations from the population grand mean. These were not known, but could be estimated by the means of the group of 90 children. There was no obvious way to take account of the sampling error i n these means, i n testing the pattern hypothesis, so i t was decided to treat them as i f they were i n fact the population means. With 90 cases, the error so incurred should be s l i g h t . For convenience, these means are referred to throughout as the population means. The appropriate test of the pattern hypothesis i s outlined by Lindquist (1953). I t requires adjusting each sample Input (or Output) mean by subtracting the deviation of the corresponding population mean from the population grand mean, and then testing the n u l l hypothesis of no d i f -ference among the adjusted means. The t e s t s t a t i s t i c i s F, calculated as the r a t i o of the mean square f o r adjusted means to the mean square within Input-Output c e l l s . The l a t t e r mean square i s unaffected, of course, by the adjust-ments, which a f f e c t both scores i n each c e l l equally. In addition to performing the o v e r a l l F-test on the adjusted Input means, i t was sometimes desired to look at p a r t i c u l a r contrasts. For example, subject C (discussed l a t e r i n this chapter) appeared a t y p i c a l l y high on the V i s u a l mode, so a test was made of the contrast, V i s u a l vs. Ave (Auditory, Haptic). S p e c i f i c a l l y , the hypothesis tested 45 was H 0: Y = T'vs. h^: y where y i s a contrast of the subject's Auditory mean (y*' ) over repeated inde-pendent testings, against the average of his V i s u a l and Haptic means ( ^  and s"3 ); i.e.,T =A - % + ^  ); and ' i s a s i m i l a r contrast among the corresponding means fo r the population. The test s t a t i s t i c i s This t e s t i s equivalent to tes t i n g the n u l l hypothesis on the adjusted means, as defined above, but i s presented i n this form because of i t s greater f a m i l i a r i t y . The procedures described i n the foregoing paragraphs make i t possible to decide whether the performances of a given subject under d i f f e r e n t Input or Output modes d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of the population as a whole. Attention i s now directed to analyses of the perfor-mance of selected subjects. The ANOVA summary tables must = cr-'r J MS Icf w _____ where Y i s an estimate of Y obtained by using the sub-jec t ' s obtained means, and the Cj are the c o e f f i c i e n t s of t h e / ^ j i n the expression fo r y above. 46 be interpreted with care. They are not standard, because the main effects of Input and Output have been adjusted while the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s defined i n the conventional way. 47 Subject A Table VII presents the data f o r Subject A. His means on the three Input modes, the two Output modes, and the s i x Input-Output combinations appear i n Table VII(a). For com-parison, the means of the t o t a l group are also included. Table VII(b) shows this subject's scores on two independent, randomly ordered presentations, two weeks apart. F i n a l l y , Table VII(c) presents an ANOVA summary table f o r Subject A. TABLE VII(a) INPUT, OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT A (with i n t e r a c t i o n effects i n parentheses*) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Input Means Means f o r f o r Subject A Population Auditory 4.54 (-.25) 4.08 ( .25) 4.31 4.22 V i s u a l 3.06 (-.27 2.64 ( .27) 2.85 3.52 Haptic 5.24 ( .52) 3.22 (-.52) 4.23 3.25 Output Means fo r Subject A 4.28 3.31 3.80 Output Means f o r Population 3.80 3.52 3.66 * Figures i n parentheses are residuals a f t e r subtracting i n d i v i d u a l input effects and output effects from the combination means. 48 TABLE VII(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT A UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition Aud-Voc Aud-Mot V i s -Voc V i s -Mot Hap-Voc Hap-Mot Replication 1 4.57 4.08 3.06 2.67 4.91 3.22 Replication 2 4.50 4.08 3.06 2.61 5.56 3.22 TABLE VII(c) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT A Source df MS F prob. Adjusted Input Means 2 2.7284 75.96 <.0001 V i s . vs (Aud + Hap) 1 3.8823 108.09 <.0001 Aud. vs Hap. 1 1.5745 43.84 <.001 Adiusted Output Means 1 1.4462 40.27 <.001 I x 0 2 .8298 23.10 <.0l Within 10-cells 6 .0359 49 This chil d ' s Input means exhibit a pattern d i f f e r e n t from that of the population--assuming that the population means are c l o s e l y approximated by the means of the sample of 90 children. His Output means also exhibit d i f f e r e n t pat-terns. These conclusions follow from the highly s i g n i f i c a n t F values reported i n the upper part of Table V I I ( c ) . Rela-t i v e to the group, he shows V i s u a l input weakness and Haptic strength, and he i s stronger on Vocal than on Motor output. Yet the s i g n i f i c a n t Input x Output i n t e r a c t i o n implies that these Input and Output strengths and weaknesses do not wholly explain the pattern of means shown i n Table VII(a). The residuals remaining a f t e r removal of the main ef f e c t s are shown i n parentheses i n the table, and indicate the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n . I t i s explainable i n terms of a par-t i c u l a r l y strong performance under Haptic-Vocal input-output conditions, and a p a r t i c u l a r l y weak performance when the combination i s Haptic-Motor. Table VII(b) suggests that sequence effects are not operating strongly i n that the child's pattern of performance appears v i r t u a l l y unaltered by a random change i n order of presentation. So i t i s l i k e l y that the observed effects are associated more with Subject A than with order of presentation. 50 I t seems that Subject A's problem i s mainly V i s u a l , aggravated somewhat by a Motor expressive weakness. I t might be possible, however, to c a p i t a l i z e on his Haptic-Vocal strength. The important thing i s that one cannot r e a l l y be sure about the nature of his problem u n t i l one has looked d i a g n o s t i c a l l y at h i s performance under a l l combin-ations of input and output. Subject B Table VIII gives information for Subject B following the pattern used f o r Subject A. TABLE VIII(a) INPUT, OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT B (with i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n parentheses) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Input Means Means for for Subject B Population Auditory 5.80 (-.43) 5.72 ( .43) 5.76 4.22 V i s u a l 4.72 (-.29) 4.34 ( .29) 4.53 3.52 Haptic 5.15 ( .72) 2.75 (-.72) 3.95 3.25 Output Means Subject B Output Means Population f o r f o r 5.22 3.80 4.27 3.52 4.75 3.66 51 TABLE VIII(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT B UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition » U t*~ Voc Aud- V i s - V i s -Mot Voc Mot Hap-Voc Hap-Mot Replication 1 5.83 5.83 4.75 4.34 5.15 2.67 Replication 2 5.78 5.61 4.68 4.34 5.15 2.83 TABLE VIII(c) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT B Source d i MS F prob. Adiusted Input Means 2 .7329 108.05 <r.oooi Haptic vs V i s u a l 1 .1858 27.39 4T.005 Adjusted Output Means 1 1.4040 206.98 ^.0001 I x O Within 10-cells 2 1.5901 234.44 <.0001 6 .0068 52 This c h i l d i s i n f e r i o r under Haptic compared with V i s u a l input, r e l a t i v e to his group, (Note, however, that his mean performance under Haptic i s s t i l l superior to the group's average performance under a l l conditions except Auditory input.) Also, as compared with his group, he does much better when the expressive mode i s Vocal rather than Motor. Yet Subject B's Haptic i n f e r i o r i t y i s not general; neither i s h i s Vocal s u p e r i o r i t y , as indicated i n the highly s i g n i f i c a n t I x 0 in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . His performance under Haptic-Vocal i s very superior, but under Haptic-Motor i s very i n f e r i o r . Also his Vocal s u p e r i o r i t y does not show up under Auditory input. R e l a t i v e l y he does better here with Motor output. 53 Subject C Data for Subject C appear i n Table IX. TABLE IX(a) INPUT,OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT C (with i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n parentheses) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Means fo r Subject C Input Means fo r Population Auditory 3.96 (-.24) 4.14 ( .24) 4.05 4.22 V i s u a l 4.29 (-.05) 4.08 ( .05) 4.18 3.52 Haptic 3.50 ( .29) 2.61 (-.29 3.06 3.25 Output Means for Subject C 3.92 3.61 3.76 Output Means f o r Population 3.80 3.53 3.66 TABLE IX(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT C UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition Aud- Aud- V i s - V i s - Hap- Hap-Voc Mot Voc Mot Voc Mot Replication 1 4.00 4.14 4.34 4.04 3.50 2.61 Replication 2 3.92 4.14 4.23 4.11 3.50 2.61 54 TABLE IX(e) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT C Source df MS F prob. Adiusted Input Means 2 .9380 481.04 ^.0001 V i s . vs (Aud • Hap) 1 1.9195 984.36 <.0001 Aud. vs Hap. 1 .0015 <1 Adjusted Output Means 1 .0043 2.18 >.10 I x 0 2 .2932 150.38 ^.0001 Within 10-cells 6 .0020 This child's " v i s u a l strength" i s f a r above h i s other Input modes, both i n absolute terms and with reference to the group pattern. His other Input modes follow the group trend quite c l o s e l y ; that i s , though he i s lower on Haptic than Auditory input, the discrepancy i s no greater than f o r the group as a whole. Since h i s Output modes seem also to follow the group pattern, i n terms of Input-Output modes taken separately Subject C deviates only i n being "strong on v i s u a l . " This V i s u a l strength shows up i n both Output modes, being somewhat 55 with Vocal output, as i n the population. As with the previous subjects, these observations do not t e l l the whole story of C's strengths and weaknesses. He performs unusually well under Auditory-Motor conditions. In the population, the tendency i s f o r children to score lower under Auditory-Motor conditions than under Auditory-Vocal, yet this c h i l d scored higher. He also performed more poorly on Haptic-Motor than would be predicted from his Input and Output means. A teacher possessing t h i s kind of information about Subject C might well stress Visual-Vocal o r Auditory-Motor channels, and avoid Haptic-Motor when tr y i n g to optimize i n s t r u c t i o n f o r him--assuming that the results of this study are ultimately shown to hold f o r a much broader universe of tasks than these ^represented here. 56 Subject D The data f o r Subject D are contained i n Table X. TABLE X(a) INPUT, OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT D (with i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n parentheses) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Means fo r Subject D Input Means fo r Population Auditory 5.30 ( .71) 3.74 (-.71) 4.52 4.22 Visu a l 3.17 (-.70) 4.41 ( .70) 3.80 3.52 Haptic 3.33 (-.01) 3.21 ( .01 3.27 3.25 Output Means f o r Subject D 3.93 3.79 3.86 Output Means f o r Population 3.80 3.53 3.66 TABLE X(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT D UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition Aud- Aud- V i s - V i s - Hap- Hap-Voc Mot Voc Mot Voc Mot Replication 1 5.30 3.78 3.17 4.25 3.33 3.25 Replication 2 5.30 3.69 3.17 4.58 3.33 3.17 57 TABLE X(c) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT D Source df MS F prob. Adiusted Input Means 2 .0946 9.20 <T.025 Hap. vs (Aud + Vis) 1 .1873 18.21 ^.001 Aud. vs V i s . 1 .0019 <1 Adjusted Output Means 1 .0449 4.37 >.05 I x 0 2 1.9760 192.15 ^.0001 Within IO-cells 6 .0103 This subject evidently d i f f e r s i n h i s Input pattern from the population as a whole. He i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f e r -i o r with Haptic input compared with other input modes, when contrasted with the t o t a l group. This holds true whether the expressive mode i s Vocal or Motor. He i s not d i f f e r e n t from the group as a whole so far as his other Input Modes are concerned, nor i s he c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t from h i s group i n his r e l a t i v e performance with Vocal and Motor output. However, he has a highly s i g n i f i c a n t Input x Output in t e r a c t i o n which res u l t s from very high Auditory-Vocal 58 performance, and unexpectedly high Visual-Motor performance, and from the fact that i n Visual-Vocal he exhibits h i s weakest performance. I t i s not d i f f i c u l t to see how a teacher might attempt to c a p i t a l i z e on these strengths and weaknesses, i f the conclusions of this study generalize to many kinds of school tasks. Subject E Table XI presents the data f o r Subject E. TABLE XI(a) INPUT, OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT E (with i n t e r a c t i o n effects i n parentheses) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Means f o r Subject E Input Means f o r T Population Auditory 3.96 (-.31) 4.07 ( .31) 4.02 4.22 V i s u a l 3.96 ( .57) 2.31 (-.57) 3.13 3.52 Haptic 2.72 (-.26) 2.72 ( .26) 2.72 3.25 Output Means for Subject E Output Means f o r Population 3.55 3.80 3.03 3.53 3.29 3.66 59 TABLE XI(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT E UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition « U <^" Voc Aud-Mot V i s -Voc V i s -Mot Hap-Voc Hap-Mot Replication 1 3.92 3.93 4.00 2.11 2.72 2.72 Replication 2 4.00 4.21 3.92 2.50 2.72 2.72 TABLE XI(c ) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT E Source df MS F prob. Adjusted Input Means 2 .1082 5.34 <.05 Aud. vs V i s . 1 .0706 3.48 >.10 V i s . vs Hap. 1 .0391 1.93 >. 10 Aud. vs Hap. 1 .2148 10.59 <.025 Adjusted Output Means 1 .1815 8.95 <.025 I x 0 Within 10-cells 2 6 .9777 .0203 48.22 <r.oooi 60 This chil d ' s pattern of Input means d i f f e r s from that of the populations. His means exhibit somewhat greater spread, his poorest performance being on Haptic. His Output means also diverge more than i n the population, being lower i n Motor. These conclusions do not adequately describe h i s weaknesses, however. He does not have a generalized Motor weakness. He performs equally well with Haptic input, whether Vocal or Motor response i s c a l l e d f o r , whereas to be t y p i c a l of his group he should ( e s p e c i a l l y with a Motor weakness) perform much lower on Motor response with Haptic input. A c t ually, he performs better with Motor response when Input i s Auditory, and this i s much better than the population as a whole, which averages lower under Auditory-Motor than under Auditory-Vocal. The f a c t i s that h i s apparent Motor weakness results from p a r t i c u l a r l y poor per-formance when Motor response i s required with Visual input. His Haptic weakness i s not wholly general either , since he i s stronger with Haptic than with V i s u a l input when res-ponse i s Motor, while i n the population this i s reversed. I t i s u n l i k e l y that these combination effects are ju s t due to chance, since the I x 0 i n t e r a c t i o n f o r this subject i s highly s i g n i f i c a n t . 61 Subject F The pertinent information about Subject F appears i n Table XII. TABLE XII(a) INPUT, OUTPUT, AND INPUT x OUTPUT MEANS FOR SUBJECT F (with i n t e r a c t i o n effects i n parentheses) Input Output Vocal Motor Input Means fo r Subject F Input Means fo r Population Auditory 3.60 (-.55) 3.92 ( .55) 3.76 4.22 Vi s u a l 3.85 ( .11) 2.83 (-.11) 3.34 3.52 Haptic 3.88 ( .44) 2.20 (-.44) 3.04 3.25 Output Means Subject F Output Means Population f o r f o r 3.78 3.80 2.98 3.53 3.38 3.66 TABLE XII(b) SCORES MADE BY SUBJECT F UNDER SIX INPUT-OUTPUT CONDITIONS ON TWO REPLICATIONS Condition Aud- Aud- V i s - V i s - Hap- Hap-Voc Mot Voc Mot Voc Mot Replication 1 3.28 4.00 3.92 2.83 3.83 1.67 Replication 2 3.92 3.83 3.78 2.83 3.92 2.72 62 TABLE XII(c) ANOVA SUMMARY TABLE FOR SUBJECT F Source df MS F prob. Adjusted Input Means 2 .0918 <l Adjusted Output Means 1 .8300 6.35 <:.05 I x 0 2 1.0330 7.90 <T.05 Within IO-cells 6 .1307 The very small F-value f o r the adjusted Input means says that the pattern of Input means f o r Subject F i s not e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from that for the population. However, his Output means show a difference, h i s Motor performance being r e l a t i v e l y lower. But thi s l a s t statement i s true only i n an average sense, f o r when input i s Auditory, the subject performs extremely well . His highest score i s ob-tained on the Auditory-Motor combination. A d d i t i o n a l l y , his performance on the Haptic-Motor combination i s d i s t i n c t l y lower than h i s Motor weakness would indi c a t e . This pattern of notable Auditory-Motor strength and Haptic-Motor weakness seems mainly responsible for this c h i l d ' s s i g n i f i c a n t I x 0 in t e r a c t i o n . 63 Limitations and Suggestions f o r Research Although the instrument used i n t h i s study c a l l s f o r a b i l i t i e s needed i n the successful performance of school tasks, f o r example, sequential memory, no pr e d i c t i v e r e l a -tionship has been established between i t and academic achievement. Without such evidence of v a l i d i t y , i t should not be used as a diagnostic instrument. The purpose of this study, however, was not to develop such an instrument. Rather, the purpose was to demonstrate the existence of an i n t e r a c t i o n between the Subject and the Input and Output properties of a task that requires certain cognitive a b i l i t i e s , and to estimate the r e l a t i v e magnitudes of the i n d i v i d u a l differences involved. Studies which f a l l i n the category of "basic research", i n addition to demonstrating the existence of ce r t a i n pheno-mena, f o r example, are t y p i c a l l y sources of ideas f o r addi-t i o n a l research. Here follow a number of suggestions which appear to be f r u i t f u l avenues of inquiry growing out of the present study. F i r s t , i n the area of school curriculum, before the results of thi s study can be applied i n making modifications the consistency of the ef f e c t s over d i f f e r e n t kinds of tasks 64 must be looked at c a r e f u l l y . Do these effects take the same form and magnitude on non-sequential, non-short term memory tasks u t i l i z i n g d i f f e r e n t c u r r i c u l a r materials such as arithmetic computation and word recognition? In addition do these same effects operate importantly f o r children on materials of a higher order, f o r example, concept formation tasks? A second question, however, should be given consider-ation. This concerns the etiology of the p a r t i c u l a r 1-0 pattern which a c h i l d possesses i n the f i r s t year of formal schooling ( i n Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Grade I ) . Is this pattern due to neurological constitution (genetic predisposi-t i o n , and so on) or to the child's p a r t i c u l a r environment and h i s experience i n t e r a c t i n g with that environment, or both? Closely related to the question of etiology i s that of the f e a s i b i l i t y of t r a i n i n g these d i f f e r e n t i a l a b i l i t i e s . Is i t possible to intervene and a l t e r the 1-0 patterns by pro-v i d i n g programs which are designed from s p e c i f i c 1-0 i n f o r -mation about each learner? Are these patterns modifiable, or, i s maturation or m i l i e u the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g change? 65 An important fourth area of research w i l l be to investigate the r e l a t i o n of s p e c i f i c 1-0 patterns to par-t i c u l a r types of learning disorders which underlie d i f f i -c u l t i e s children experience i n school. Do the patterns which manifest themselves i n Grade One with p a r t i c u l a r tasks appear i n other populations such as the mentally retarded, aphasic, deaf, cerebral palsied, emotionally disturbed, the c u l t u r a l l y disadvantaged children, and so on? Moreover, are ce r t a i n 1-0 patterns more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of one population than another? A f i f t h area of research has to do with the s t a b i l i t y of 1-0 patterns over time. To explore t h i s question i t would be necessary to conduct a long i t u d i n a l study. How early i n l i f e can 1-0 patterns be detected? With no p a r t i -cular attempt to a l t e r an ex i s t i n g pattern, w i l l the same pattern be i n evidence a f t e r three years of schooling? — f i v e years? What about adults? Do they continue to exhibit the patterns found to e x i s t i n childhood? I f not, have the e a r l i e r patterns been conditioned or trained out over time? Or, i s the explanation i n terms of maturation? 66 As answers to questions l i k e the foregoing become avai l a b l e , i t w i l l then be possible to systematically begin to develop d i f f e r e n t i a l diagnostic instruments and remedial techniques which take account of i n d i v i d u a l Input x Output strengths and weaknesses. REFERENCES Anderson, R. P. Physiologic considerations i n learning: The tactual mode. In J . Hellmuth (Ed.), Learning disorders. Vol. 1. Seattle, Wash.: Special Child Publications, 1965. Pp. 97-112. Bateman, B. D. An educator's view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. Ibid. Pp. 219-239. Berman, A. The influence of the kinesthetic factors i n the perception of symbols i n p a r t i a l reading d i s a b i l i t y . Journal of Educational Psychology. 1939, 30, 187-198. Bock, D. and Bargman, R. Analysis of covariance structures. Psychometrika. 1966, 31. Clemmens, R. Minimal brain damage i n children. In E. Frierson and W. Barbe (Eds.), Educating children with  learning d i s a b i l i t i e s : Selected readings. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Pp. 91-99. Conference on learning disorders. University of Kansas Medical Center, 1964. Unpublished proceedings. Cruickshank, W. M., Bice, M. V., and Wallen, N. E. Perception  and cerebral palsy. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1957. de Hirsch, K. Tests designed to discover potential reading d i f f i c u l t i e s at the six-year-old l e v e l . American Journal  of Orthopsychiatry. 1957, 27, 566-576. Deutsch, C. and Zawel, D. Comparison of v i s u a l and auditory perceptual functions of brain injured and normal children. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s . 1966, 22, 303-309. Dunn, L., Smith, J . 0., and Horton, K. B. Peabody language  development k i t . C i r c l e Pines, Minn.f: American Guidance Service Corporation, 1965. 68 Fernald, G. Basic techniques i n remedial school subjects. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948. F r o s t i g , M. Education of children with learning d i f f i c u l t i e s . Distinguished Lectures i n Special Education. University o f C a l i f o r n i a , 1967. Pp. 3-8. F r o s t i g , M. and Home, D. The F r o s t i g program fo r the  development of v i s u a l perception. Chicago: F o l l e t t , 1964. F r o s t i g , M., Lefever, D., and Whittlesey, J . Developmental  test of v i s u a l perception. (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Marianne F r o s t i g School of Educational Therapy, 1961. Gates, A. The improvement of reading: A program of diagnostic and remedial methods. (3rd ed.) New York: Macmillan, 1947. Geliner, L. A neurophysiological concept of mental retard-ation and i t s educational implications. Chicago: J . Levinson Research Foundation, 1959. Gillingham, A. Avoiding f a i l u r e i n reading and s p e l l i n g . Independent School B u l l e t i n . Nov., 1949. Hegge, T., Kirk, S., and Kirk, W. Remedial reading d r i l l s . Ann Arbor, Mich.: Wahr, 1940. Johnson, D. J . and Myklebust, H. R. Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . New York: Grune and Stratton, 1967. Kephart, N. C. The slow learner i n the classroom. New York: Charles M e r r i l l , 1960. Kirk, S. A., and Bateman, B. D. Diagnosis and remediation of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . Exceptional Children. 1962, 29, 73-78. Kirk, S. A. and McCarthy, J . J . The I l l i n o i s test of psycho Unguis t i c a b i l i t i e s . Champaign, 111.: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1961. 69 Monroe, M. Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Muehl, S. and Kremenak, S. A b i l i t y to match information within auditory and v i s u a l sense modalities and sub-sequent reading achievement. Journal of Educational  Psychology. 1966, 57, no. 4, 230-239. Ofman, W* and Shaevitz, M. The ki n e s t h e t i c method i n remedial reading. Journal of Experimental Education. 1963, 31, 317-320. Ross, D. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of aphasics. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of North Carolina, 1960. Sperry, R. W. Neurology and the mind-brain problem. American S c i e n t i s t . 1952, 40, 291-313. Talmadge, M., Davids, A., and Danfer, M. A study of experi-mental methods f o r teaching emotionally disturbed, brain-damaged retarded readers. Journal of Educational  Research. 1963, 56, 311-316. Thurstone, L. L. The scoring of i n d i v i d u a l performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1926, 17, 446-475. V a l e t t , R. E. V a l e t t developmental survey of basic learning  a b i l i t i e s . Palo A l t o : Consulting Psychologists Press, 1966. Wedell, K. Variations i n perceptual a b i l i t y among types of cerebral palsy. Cerebral Palsy B u l l e t i n . 1960, 2, 149-157. Wepman, J . M. The perceptual basis f o r learning. In A. Robinson (Ed.), Meeting i n d i v i d u a l differences i n reading. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Pp. 25-33. Winer, B. J . S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental design. New York; McGraw-Hill, 1962. APPENDIX APPENDIX A READING DIAGNOSIS FOR R.V.* The Gates-McKillop Reading Diagnostic Test was given to R.V. with the following r e s u l t s : Oral reading -R.V.'s grade score i n o r a l reading was 4.5. He read very slowly and h i s phrasing and emphasis were poor. His ex-pression seemed a r t i f i c i a l and he made a det a i l e d study of unfamiliar words with audible t r i a l s . He appeared to use s y l l a b i c a t i o n i n word analysis attempts. Omission of words mispronunciations, wrong middle and wrong several parts of words constituted h i s p r i n c i p a l types of errors. A f t e r analyzing R.V.'s reading performance, i t i s found that h i s a b i l i t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s are not of a pure good auditory input, poor v i s u a l input nature, or v i c e versa. Rather, they appear i n input-output operations. For example, R.V. did better on tasks that required him to input information a u d i t o r i l y and then express the answer motorically, and he did quite poorly when he was required to input the v i s u a l stimulus and then produce a vocal response. * Chronological Age: 12, Grade: 6. I f we consider the two input-output combinations i n t h e i r pure state as auditory-vocal and visual-motor, then other possible operations would be ei t h e r auditory-motor o r vi s u a l - v o c a l . We are accustomed to looking f o r auditory input or v i s u a l input d i s a b i l i t i e s , and here we fin d a boy who exhibits a pattern which i s contrary to the di v i s i o n s as set out by our diagnostic instrument, R.V. exhibits a di s a -b i l i t y i n an input-output combination. Changing h i s reading program from a phonic to a v i s u a l approach or the reverse i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d would be equally unsuccessful and consequently i t would appear im-possible to teach him to read. I t w i l l be extremely d i f f i -c u l t to teach R.V. to read unless the nature of this i n t e r a c t i o n i s understood. I t i s not that R.V. has d i f f i -c u lty with the v i s u a l input mode, because he does very well i f the input i s v i s u a l and the output required i s motor. Likewise i t i s not the vocal response that i s defective because when an auditory stimulus preceeds the request f o r a vocal response he w i l l succeed. I t i s only when the combination v i s u a l - v o c a l appears that he i s i n serious d i f f i c u l t y , thus the diagnosis of a v i s u a l - v o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n d i s a b i l i t y . 73 Following are examples of i n put-output combination techniques, two each, f o r a general phonic and a general v i s u a l approach to word recognition s k i l l s . The auditory-motor technique i s the s p e c i f i c recommended input-output mode whether the general method i s phonic o r v i s u a l . These exercises are not to be taken as suggestions f o r s p e c i f i c teaching ideas f o r use with R.V., but as i l l u s t r a t i v e of the s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e involved. General Not recommended Recommended Method Visual-Vocal Auditory-Motor Input Present word to R.V. printed on a card. Input say to R.V. sounds t - r - a - i - n . Phonic Response requested R.V. i s told to sound out each l e t t e r and then say the word. Response requested Have R.V. pick up the word " t r a i n " from a group of 4 cards with words on them. Input Input Say to R.V. the word " b a l l " . Present the printed word " b a l l " paired with p i c -ture of a b a l l . Do this with several words V i s u a l repeatedly. Response requested Have R.V. l a b e l v o c a l l y the printed words alone. R.V. i s asked to pick the card with the word " b a l l " from a group of 4 cards. Response requested F i g . 4. Input-Output Related Word Recognition Techniques 74 APPENDIX B PRETEST INSTRUCTIONS A. Place the display of objects (as indicated i n figure 2) i n front of the c h i l d . B. Say to the c h i l d , "Point to these things and t e l l me what you c a l l them." C. A f t e r the c h i l d has named a l l 15 objects, put the mask on him, hand him one of the objects and say, "Here's one of the things you ju s t saw, can you t e l l me what i t i s by f e e l i n g i t ? " Proceed i n the same way with the other 14, but ask only "What's t h i s ? " NB The c h i l d must be very f a m i l i a r with a l l of the objects. I f he makes any mistakes or hesitates f o r more than 5 seconds on ei t h e r v i s u a l o r blindfolded naming, go over several objects again including the confusing one. I f he then names i t e a s i l y proceed with the testing. However, i f he hesitates again, or i s i n error again, tes t i n g should be terminated. Whatever consistent l a b e l a c h i l d attaches to an object should be used by the examiner throughout testing (eg. some children use words to describe an object which are not keyed but remain consistent—use t h e i r word whether i t i s e l a s t i c , rubber, e l a s t i c band, rubber band, p l a s t i c band, etc. as long as they r e a d i l y i d e n t i f y i t as such). 76 APPENDIX C GENERAL DIRECTIONS 1. Always give the practice examples for each subtest, 2. Use only the standard instructions provided. Do not modify or delete any words. 3. Always record exactly what the child ' s response i s (each word he says, o r object he points to) as he makes i t . 4. I f a c h i l d c o r r e c t l y answers the f i r s t two items at a p a r t i c u l a r l e v e l , go on to the f i r s t item of the next l e v e l . 5. I f he gives wrong objects, omits objects, substitutes objects, adds objects or has an inc o r r e c t order i n items 1 and 2 at a l e v e l , he w i l l also be administered item 3 of that l e v e l . Example: 2a r i g h t 2b r i g h t 2c do not administer 3a r i g h t (administer a f t e r 2b) 3b wrong ( i n e r r o r i n some way) 3c administer because of 3b 77 6. The examiner w i l l conclude a subtest when the c h i l d makes one or more errors i n two consecutive items at one l e v e l . An error i s defined as i n c l u s i o n of wrong objects i n h i s response, substitution of objects, addition of objects or omission of objects. Order i s not a s u f f i c i e n t condition for termination of a sub-test. Example: 2a r i g h t 2b r i g h t 2c not administered 3a r i g h t 3b wrong order of objects 3c wrong objects included or missing objects, or addition of objects, o r substitution of objects, or omission of objects. 4a one or more of the errors above (other than wrong,order) 4b one or more of the errors above (other than wrong order 4c not administered (assume would be incorrect) 7. Use comments section on each te s t form f o r any unusual or i n t e r e s t i n g event during that sub-test (eg. use of verbal mediators on v i s u a l tasks). Place objects on the display sheet i n the spaces provided. The examiner takes them from and returns them to th i s sheet during the presentation of the subtests. APPENDIX D ABBREVIATIONS USED ON TEST FORMS FOR OBJECTS Object Abbreviation cup cup car car fork frk balloon bin pin pin Pig piS comb cmb chair chr p e n c i l p e l button btn rubber band rbr scissors s s r sucker skr r i n g rng d o l l d o l 80 APPENDIX M INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING EACH OF THE SIX TASKS Aud i to ry-mo to r Directions: Say to the c h i l d : "I am going to t e l l you some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to show them to me i n exactly the same order I told them to you," "Let's practice." E says, "chr" and then "dol " * , waits 5 sec. and then removes the box and the c h i l d i s t o l d , "Now you show me the things that I ju s t s a i d . " I f he he s i -tates say, "Point to them." See General Directions f o r correct, incorrect and wrong order responses to the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Say the objects to the c h i l d one by one. When through with a sequence, hesitate 5 sec., then l i f t the box l i d and say, "Now show me what I to l d you i n the same order that I to l d them to you." (Only say this on item 2a) On items 2b-8c only l i f t the l i d and say, "Show me", a f t e r the 5 sec. i n t e r v a l . When beginning a new sequence always say, "Listen c a r e f u l l y . " * Objects w i l l be referred to by t h e i r code names. 81 Visual-motor Directions: Say to the c h i l d : M I am going to show you some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to show them to me i n exactly the same order I showed them to you." "Let's practice." £ places the pig and then the p e n c i l i n a row i n front of the c h i l d . He l e t s the c h i l d look at them f o r 5 sec. and then re-places them under the box l i d . He then uncovers the display and says to the c h i l d , "Now show them to me i n exactly the same order that I showed them to you," I f he hesitates say, "Point to them." See General Directions f o r correct, i n c o r r e c t , and wrong order responses to the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Lay the objects before the c h i l d , object by object saying, " F i r s t t h i s , then t h i s , then..." Take the objects from under the box l i d so that the c h i l d does not see the ent i r e display. A f t e r he has viewed the sequence f o r 5 sec. place the objects back under the l i d quickly. Then l i f t the l i d , say to the c h i l d , "Now show them to me j u s t l i k e I showed them to you." (Say this only on item 2a.) On items 2b-8c only say to the c h i l d , "Show me." When beginning a new sequence always say, "Now look care-f u l l y , f i r s t t h i s , then t h i s , then..." Do not name the objects. 82 Visual-Vocal Directions: Say to the c h i l d : "I am going to show you some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to t e l l them to me i n exactly the same order I showed them to you." "Let's p r a c t i c e . " E places f i r s t the balloon and then the pe n c i l i n a row i n front of the c h i l d . He lets the c h i l d look at them f o r 5 sec. and then replaces them under the box l i d . A l l objects are removed at once from the child's view. Say to the c h i l d , "Now t e l l me what I showed you, i n exactly the same order that I showed them to you." See General Directions f o r correct, incorrect and wrong order responses to the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Lay the objects before the c h i l d , object by object saying, " F i r s t t h i s , then t h i s , then..." Take the objects from under the box l i d so that the c h i l d does not see the display. A f t e r he has viewed the sequence for 5 sec. place the objects back under the l i d quickly. Then say to the c h i l d , " T e l l me what I showed you, i n the same order that I showed them to you." (Only say this on item 2a.) On items 2b-8c only say to the c h i l d , " t e l l me." When beginning a new sequence always say, "Now look c a r e f u l l y , f i r s t t h i s , then t h i s , then..." Do not name the objects f o r the c h i l d . 83 Auditory-Vo c a l D irections: Say to the c h i l d : W I am going to t e l l you some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to t e l l them to me i n exactly the same order I told them to you." "Let's p r a c t i c e . " E says, " d o l " and then:-"pin", and then says to the c h i l d 5 seconds a f t e r the presentation of the l a s t stimulus object, "Now t e l l me the things that I j u s t told you i n exactly the same order." See General Directions f o r correct, incorrect, and wrong responses i n the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Say the objects to the c h i l d one by one at a 1 per second rate. When through with a sequence, h e s i t a t e 5 seconds, then say to the c h i l d , "Now t e l l them to me i n ju s t the same order I t o l d them to you." (Only say this on item 2a.) On items 2b-8c, say to the c h i l d only, " T e l l me", af t e r the 5 second i n t e r v a l . When begin-ning a new sequence always say, "Now l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y . " 84 Haptic-Vocal Directions: Say to the c h i l d : "I am going to l e t you f e e l some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to t e l l them to me i n ex-ac t l y the same order you f e l t . them. "Let's p r a c t i c e , " E hands f i r s t the comb and then the chair to the masked c h i l d , l e t s him f e e l them, then replaces the objects i n the display, waits 5 seconds, and says to the c h i l d , "Now you t e l l me the things that you f e l t , i n exactly the order you f e l t them," See General Directions f o r correct, i n c o r r e c t , and wrong order responses to the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Hand the objects to the masked c h i l d , re-placing them i n sequence as soon as he has f e l t each one. Wait 5 seconds, then say to the c h i l d , "Now t e l l me the things that you f e l t , i n order." (Only say this on item 2a.) On items 2b-8c say to the c h i l d only " T e l l me," a f t e r the 5 second i n t e r -v a l . When beginning a new item say, "Now be ca r e f u l , f e e l , f i r s t t h i s , then t h i s . . . " 85 Haptic-Motor Directions: Say to the c h i l d : "I am going to l e t you f e e l some of the same things again. When I am a l l done I ' l l ask you to show them to me i n ex-actl y the same order you f e l t them." "Let's practice." E hands f i r s t the chair and then the pin to the masked c h i l d , l e t s him f e e l them, replaces the objects i n the display, waits 5 seconds a f t e r presentation of the l a s t object, then removes the child's mask and says, "Now you show me the things that you j u s t f e l t , i n exactly the same order". I f he hesitates say, "Point to them." See General Directions for correct, i n c o r r e c t , and wrong order responses to the example. Directions f o r items 2a-8c: Hand the objects to the c h i l d one by one and l e t him f e e l them, replacing them as soon as he has f e l t each one, wait 5 sec-onds, then say to the c h i l d as you l i f t the box l i d and he raises his mask, "Now show me the things that you j u s t f e l t , i n the same order." (Only say thi s on item 2a.) On items 2b-8c say to the c h i l d only, "Show me", a f t e r the 5 sec. i n t e r v a l . When beginning a new sequence always say "Now be c a r e f u l , f e e l f i r s t t h i s , then t h i s . . . " 86 APPENDIX F ERROR TYPES AND NUMBER OF ERROR POINTS POSSIBLE ON EACH Type of Error Possible No. of Error Points 1. Substitutions 0 to N 2. Additions 0 to K 3. Order 0 or 1 4. Wrong Words 0 to K 5. Omissions 0 to N N = number of objects i n a sequence K = 0, 1, 2... ( i . e . as many wrong words or additions as the c h i l d a c t u a l l y made. There was no upper l i m i t on what the number could be.) Following i s a description of the possible types of errors. 1. Substitution errors - Every object name from the object pool which appears i n place of the name of an object a c t u a l l y presented, as long as t h e i r number does not exceed the number of possible objects i n that sequence. 2. Addition errors - Every object given i n addition to the number of objects i n the item. 87 3. Omission errors - I f N equals the number of objects i n a sequence, then omissions equal N minus the number of objects given i n the child's response, whether correct or inco r r e c t . 4. Wrong word errors - Wrong words are names of any ob-jects named by the c h i l d which are not included i n the object pool. 5. Order i s scored 1 i f there i s any departure from the exact order of the stimulus sequence i n the ch i l d ' s response, and 0 i f the order of the c h i l d ' s response i s i d e n t i c a l to the stimulus pattern. Out of order covers the instances below: a) Regardless of the number of additions, substitu-tions, etc., those remaining objects which do appear i n a given sequence are out of order. b) A l l objects that should appear i n a given sequence do appear, but the order of t h e i r presentation i s not i d e n t i c a l to the stimulus pattern. c) A complete reversal of a pattern i s considered out of order. 88 Derivations of Scoring Formula and Procedures Let k = number of objects at the l e v e l where scale value S f a l l s ( i . e . the i n t e r v a l i n which the proportion of error equals the propor-ti o n of nonerror). q^= proportion of error at the l e v e l having i objects. P t= i - q . x = distance from S to upper l i m i t of kth l e v e l . L = number of objects at the l e v e l at which the child's proportion of error - 1.0 Thurstone's p r i n c i p l e demands that x be such that <<12 • q3 + (l-x)Pk = * p k + (Pfc^ +...PL) Solving we get k-1 L k L x = 2" q. + q, - Z p t - Z q. - Z P_ 1 K k+l X 2 1 k+l but p. = 1 -therefore k L L - Z q± - 2 (1 - q±) = Zqt - (L - k). k+l I f we regard levels as stretched along a continuum, then we take the upper l i m i t of l e v e l k as k + .5 on the scale of S. Then S = k 4- .5 - x L L = k «• .5 - 2" q, + L - k 2 1 = L + .5 - lq± Here L = the i n t e r v a l i n which the c h i l d got q = 1.0 and q^ = the sum of h i s proportions of error over a l l of the leve l s attempted, plus the Lth l e v e l . Example: Level 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 q 0 .15 .30 .60 .50 .50 .35 .70 1.0 p 1 .85 .70 .40 .50 .50 .65 .30 0 S = L + .5 ~Zqt = 10 * .5 - 4.10 = 10.5 - 4.1 APPENDIX 6 FORM 1 AND FORM 2 OF 6 TASKS Haptic-Vocal (Form 1) Sequence Number ___________ Child's Name Examiner 2a d o l , skr 2b rbr, frk 2c frk, skr 3a p e l , chr, cmb 3b bin, s s r , cup 3c p e l , bin, rbr 4a mg, btn, pin, car 4b cup, rbr, skr, chr 4c ssr, chr, bin, d o l 5a fr k , d o l , p e l , f r k , pig 5b cmb, chr, dol, pin, rng 5c btn, skr, d o l , p e l , cmb 6a rbr, p e l , bin, car, skr, btn 6b dol , rbr, ^ cup, fr k , pin, cmb 6c rbr, bin, chr, cup, ssr, frk 7a mg, Pig. p e l , skr, chr, ssr, bin 7b car, pig. chr, frk , d o l , bin, ssr 7c pig, s s r , pin, mg, pel , d o l , skr 8a cup, cmb, rbr, pin, mg, btn, car, skr 8b pe l , pin, car, pig, cup, cmb, dol, rng 8c car, bin, pin, pig, btn, cmb, rng, rbr Comments: Auditory-Mo tor (Form 1) Sequence Number Examiner Child's Name 2 a cup 2 b chr 2c pin 3a btn 3b frk 3c rbr 4a rbr 4b pin 4c rng 5a btn 5b cmb 5c f r k 6 a cup 6b d o l 6c car 7 a rbr 7b dol 7 c rbr 8a pin 8b cup 8c frk Comments: Pig rng car cmb, pel , bin, pel , cmb, car, car, btn, skr, btn, cmb, dol, car, bmb, cup, dol , ssr, btn, d o l car pig skr, s s r , cup, p e l , pig, d o l , rbr, s s r , p e l , mg, cup, pin, s i n , skr, pig, chr fr k dol rng, ssr bin, cup pin, rbr mg, skr, pig bin, f r k , pin pin, s s r , chr skr, s s r , frk, btn bin, pig, car, s s r mg, p e l , pig, cmb frk , chr, btn, mg, cmb rbr, d o l , chr, car, p e l pin, bin, pel, car, dol Auditory-Vocal (Form 1) Sequence Number Child's Name Examiner 2a car, pin 2b rbr, cmb 2c do l , p e l 3a frk, chr, pel 3b dol , skr, cup 3c fr k , chr, pin 4a car, frk , chr, pin 4b rbr, cmb, btn, rng 4c cmb, rng, rbr, btn 5a pin, ssr, bin, p e l , car 5b bin, pin, chr, pig, rbr 5c Pig, skr, bin, fr k , pel 6a cmb, mg, skr, dol, cup, frk 6b ss r , btn, cmb, rbr, Pig, chr 6c ss r , rbr, chr, pin, rng, pig 7a skr, cup, car, frk, d o l , p e l , bin 7b ss r , pin, mg, btn, p e l , car, skr 7c btn, cmb, cup, car, d o l , pin, Pig 8a bin, ssr, pin, mg, btn, cmb, rbr, pig 8b chr, f r k , Pig, d o l , car, bin, ssr, btn 8c bin, car, d o l , cup, p e l , chr, s s r , rng Comments: Visual-Vocal (Form 1) Sequence Number _______________ Child's Name Examiner 2a cup, pin 2b Pig, bin 2c skr, chr 3a mg, pel, rbr 3b fr k , d o l , cmb 3c btn, s s r , bin 4a skr, mg, car, frk 4b cmb j ss r , pig, cup 4c pin, chr, p e l , rbr 5a d o l , btn, s s r , pig, cup 5b chr, pin, car, rbr, f r k 5c bin, p e l , skr, d o l , cmb 6a mg, bin, chr, car, rbr, d o l 6b btn, Pig, pin, cup, ssr, p e l 6c skr, d o l , fr k , cmb, bin, mg 7a rbr, Pig, f r k , cup, ss r , pin, btn 7b skr, cmb, chr, d o l , p e l , car, cup 7c mg, pel , skr, s s r , cmb, pig, chr 8a pin, cmb, btn, d o l , car, rbr, fr k , bin 8b pig. car, skr, d o l , cmb, cup, btn, chr 8c ssr, pin, f r k , rng, rbr, p e l , skr, bin Comments • * Visual-Motor (Form 1) Sequence Number __________ Child's Name Examiner 2a Pig, cup 2b ssr, bin 2c Pig, pin 3a cmb, btn, rng 3b car, pig, pel 3c bin, f r k , cup 4a dol , car, bin, rbr 4b Pig, pin, cup, btn 4c skr, d o l , car, s s r 5a rng, ss r , cmb, chr, skr 5b fr k , car, ssr, rbr, pin 5c rng, cmb, pin, skr, bin 6a d o l , btn, mg, cmb, fr k , skr 6b p e l , chr, cup, Pig, skr, cmb 6c cup, rbr, car, d o l , btn, Pig 7a cup, rbr, btn, bin, chr, f r k , pel 7b car, pin, rng, do l , ssr, chr, frk 7c dol , skr, pin, btn, p e l , chr, cmb 8a cup, rbr, s s r , btn, cmb, mg, pel , skr 8b bin, car, pin, d o l , Pig, frk , btn, s s r 8c mg, rbr, chr, bin, cup, car, cmb, pin Comments: Haptic-Motor (Form 1) Sequence Number ___________ Child's Name Examiner ______________________ 2a p e l , dol 2b skr, cup 2c f r k , cup 3a car, fr k , bin 3b chr, ssr, pig 3c p e l , d o l , skr 4a pin, rbr, rng, cmb 4b btn, d o l , skr, frk 4c rng, ssr, pig, pin 5a chr, p e l , cup, bin, car 5b s s r , pin, p i g , rbr, rng 5c p e l , cup, d o l , bin, chr 6a cmb, btn, rng, ssr, p i g , pel 6b d o l , chr, car, frk, skr, cup 6c f r k , skr, car, rbr, cmb, btn 7a pin, bin, cup, rbr, btn, skr, p ig 7b skr, d o l , p e l , btn, rng, cmb, chr 7c cup, f r k , chr, dol, bin, pig, rbr 8a f r k , car, s s r , pig, rbr, pin, rng, chr 8b car, cmb, btn, pin, rbr, pig, ssr, bin 8c skr, p e l , car, ssr, pin, rng, cmb, dol Comments: Sequence Number Examiner Auditory-Motor (Form 2) Child's Name 2a dol , car 2b pe l , bin 2c pin, pig 3a btn, frk, p e l 3b car, ehr, d o l 3c rbr, skr, s s r 4a cup, cmb, mg, btn 4b chr, frk, bin, dol 4c pin, cmb, pig, p e l 5a rng, pin, cup, rbr, s s r 5b car, Pig, bin, cup, cmb 5c dol , btn, f r k , s s r , skr 6a mg, car, rbr, chr, ssr, pin 6b pe l , d o l , car, pin, frk, bin 6c ssr, cmb, dol, pig, skr, mg 7a rbr, btn, cup, mg, pin, d o l , skr 7b frk, cup, bin, Pig, btn, cmb, ssr 7c mg, pel , car, btn, d o l , cup, car 8a mg, frk , ssr, cmb, pin, chr, skr, pel 8b rbr, pig, bin, rng, car, p e l , f r k , d o l 8c cmb, btn, car, mg, pin, chr, Pig, cup Comments • • Sequence Number Examiner Auditory-Vocal (Form 2) Child's Name 2a rng, s s r 2b chr, pel 2c cup, d o l 3a car, bin, btn 3b ssr, bin, car 3c dol , Pig, f r k 4a bin, pig, pin, d o l 4b car, cup, cmb, btn 4c btn, pin, mg, ss r 5a chr, Pig, rbr, cmb, skr 5b car, p e l , btn, rng, pin 5c ssr, bin, pel , d o l , frk 6a car, cup, skr, pig, rag, pin 6b chr, rbr, ssr, cup, Pig, rng 6c cmb, btn, ssr, f r k , cup, dol 7a skr, rng, cmb, pe l , fr k , bin, s s r 7b pig, rbr, Pin* chr, car, bin, btn 7c p e l , bin, s s r , pin, btn, rbr, rng 8a cmb, mg, btn, cup, rbr, pin, chr, frk 8b car, pin, chr, f r k , cup, skr, d o l , p e l 8c chr, frk, p e l , d o l , cmb, rbr, pin, car Comments • • Sequence Number Examiner VisualrMotor (Form 2) Child's Name 2a pin, cmb 2b car, cup 2c bin, chr 3a rbr, rug, ssr 3b btn, f r k , Pig 3c d o l , pin, car 4a bin, skr, p e l , rng 4b cmb, btn, ssr, rbr 4c cup, cmb, chr, p e l 5a btn, pin, skr, d o l , frk 5b chr, ssr, dol, mg, pin 5c car, p e l , f r k , chr, bin 6a btn, rbr, cup, pig, bin, d o l 6b car, rbr, cup, cmb, skr, pig 6c cup, chr, p e l , skr, f r k , cmb 7a rng, btn, do l , bin, skr, pin, cmb 7b mg, pin, rbr, s s r , car, f r k , skr 7c chr, cmb, ssr, rng, skr, car, dol 8a skr, btn, cup, pin, Pig, rbr, bin, car 8b dol , cup, fr k , bin, p e l , pig, car, rng 8c btn, cmb, pin, Pig, bin, ssr, cup, skr Comments: Sequence Number Exaxainer Visual-Vocal (Form 2) Child's Name 2a bin, skr 2b p e l , rbr 2c rag, frk 3a pin, ssr, chr 3b btn, cup, cmb 3c d o l , skr, car 4a Pig, bin, fr k , rbr 4b car, d o l , btn, cmb 4c pin, chr, pig, cmb 5a s s r , skr, p e l , mg, cup 5b car, pel , d o l , chr, cmb 5c skr, btn, pin, ssr, cup 6a frk , pig, rbr, rng, bin, cmb 6b f r k , d o l , skr, p e l , s s r , cup 6c pin, p i g , btn, dol, rbr, car 7a ehr, bin, mg, cmb, do l , skr, pel 7b bin, frk, rbr, car, pin, chr, cup 7c Pi g i ssr, btn, d o l , rbr, p e l , chr 8a pin, cup, pig, ssr, cmb, frk , s s r , 8b skr, bin, ssr, btn, cmb, dol, frk, 8c p e l , rng, chr, skr, bin* Pig, pin, Comments • • Haptic-Motor (Form 2) Sequence Number Child's Name Examiner 2a dol , cmb 2b rng, pin 2c ss r , car 3a p e l , skr, bin 3b ss r , pig, r b r Be pin, btn, cmb 4a car, chr, rng, pin 4b rbr, pig, s s r , car 4c frk, rbr, Pig, bin 5a d o l . chr, f r k , cup, cmb 5b chr, rng, btn, pel, dol 5c skr, pig, btn, rbr, cup 6a skr, bin, pin, btn, rbr, cup 6b cmb, car, skr, frk, cup, 6c car, chr, d o l , pe l , pig, s s r 7a mg, btn, cmb, chr, bin, dol, cup 7b p e l , mg, rbr, pig, pin, s s r , car 7c bin, cup, p e l , chr, pin, Pig, s s r 8a mg, frk, skr, dol, btn, cmb, rbr, p i g 8b pin, skr, d o l , p e l , pig, ssr, chr, bin 8c frk, car, cup, Pig, cup, skr, d o l , p e l Comments « • Sequence Number Examiner Haptic-Vocal (Form 2) Child's Name 2a rbr, mg 2b btn, cmb 2c Pig, pin 3a bin, car, mg 3b d o l , cmb, cup 3c Pig, car, pin 4a p e l , skr, car, btn 4b mg, pin, rbr, cmb 4c cup, skr, d o l , pel 5a mg, pin, s s r , Pig, skr 5b bin, d o l , f r k , chr, pig 5c car, bin, ssr, chr, skr 6a p e l , Pig, mg, fr k , s s r , cup 6b chr, bin, rbr, cmb, pin, frk 6c cup, rbr, d o l , btn, skr, car 7a bin, p e l , rbr, cmb, pig, d o l , skr 7b btn, mg, pin, dol, chr, cmb, Pig 7c btn, pel, d o l , frk, rbr, pin, chr 8a ss r , chr, skr, rbr, cup, car, pin, btn 8b rng, rbr, bin, pel , cup, ssr, bin, cmb 8c chr, p e l , skr, frk , rbr, skr, d o l , bin Comments: APPENDIX H MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF SCORES WITHIN CONDITIONS x TRIALS Condition x 1.50- 2.00- 2.50° 3o00~ 3.50- 4„00~ 4 .50° 5.00= 5.50- 6.00= T r i a l Mean S.D. U99 2.49 2.99 3.49 3.99 4.49 4e99 5.49 5.99 6,49 Aud=Voc 1 4.34 .662 2 4 29 13 32 7 2 1 Aud-Voc 2 4C25 .687 1 2 4 29 19 26 4 5 Aud-Mot 1 4D13 .853 3 6 9 26 15 22 0 8 1 Aud-Mot 2 4.15 .873 3 6 10 18 20 22 2 9 Vis=Vbc 1 3.70 .845 1 3 17 17 23 11 10 7 1 Vis°Voc 2 3068 .921 2 6 14 13 22 14 14 4 1 Vis-Mot 1 3.39 .766 2 9 20 19 17 15 7 1 Vis-Mot 2 3.32 .857 4 5 29 16 16 9 8 2 1 Hap-Voc 1 3.38 . . 843 5 5 22 12 31 ... 5 6 4 Hap-Voc 2 3.43 .935 3 9 15 20 25 6 5 3 4 Hap-Mot 1 3,15 .774 5 11 25 20 19 5 4 0 1 Hap-Mot 2 3.04 .803 5 14 35 11 16 6 0 1 2 APPENDIX I RAW SCORES OF 90 SUBJECTS FOR SIX TASKS AND THEIR REPLICATIONS *** E S No. A - V A - M V - V V - M H - V H - M 1* 2** 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 01 490 470 447 425 497 433 454 358 350 445 239 167 3 02 383 432 350 372 350 391 300 227 250 200 272 222 3 03 490 383 490 400 414 282 278 292 392 355 289 272 3 04 458 375 417 450 500 272 250 358 167 200 250 183 3 05 375 364 364 467 551 392 319 336 392 319 200 267 3 06 383 319 261 333 267 250 244 261 183 319 272 305 3 07 456 472 375 383 458 452 369 292 183 300 272 200 3 08 432 383 414 487 392 431 358 383 391 361 358 558 3 09 425 465 425 490 465 383 392 294 361 328 375 525 3 10 517 378 551 572 392 543 467 510 465 333 454 267 2 11 283 417 473 483 386 429 439 233 400 306 261 406 2 12 369 383 386 311 350 383 216 294 300 375 311 278 2 13 378 400 342 435 294 411 317 272 222 336 319 267 2 14 483 392 475 250 272 272 239 272 267 294 228 183 2 15 490 477 467 389 497 400 381 375 375 200 392 200 2 16 490 583 553 569 537 463 425 530 425 383 476 425 2 17 414 440 381 381 314 311 322 331 244 303 339 217 2 18 393 389 392 461 369 482 450 475 358 350 353 367 2 19 400 392 428 460 358 372 399 446 294 167 283 306 2 20 447 490 586 497 523 483 294 392 378 524 267 283 2 21 503 562 589 594 524 573 425 573 437 574 469 594 1 22 472 483 497 497 503 503 267 400 305 483 381 294 1 23 381 283 488 292 503 216 503 228 546 216 308 228 1 24 490 375 589 581 361 317 383 183 528 317 342 325 1 25 392 450 383 417 317 294 408 283 392 367 333 305 1 26 375 392 331 239 194 211 239 150 217 183 167 200 1 27 433 383 479 460 283 435 381 473 267 358 361 294 1 28 383 383 381 415 397 261 305 167 325 353 394 358 1 29 397 383 289 432 300 200 272 167 217 200 283 298 1 30 482 483 392 400 497 458 367 473 408 408 389 392 1 31 369 392 375 457 <383 409 267 283 378 294 378 278 1 32 488 475 470 425 305 317 336 358 289 339 183 272 1 33 272 200 228 211 244 200 167 211 183 183 244 233 APPENDIX I (continued 104 E S A - V A - M V - V V - M H - V H - M No. 1* 2** 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 34 453 417 473 473 294 342 294 300 267 200 183 183 1 35 461 317 381 319 322 256 342 339 356 350 217 217 1 36 392 319 375 217 256 306 200 283 415 256 261 217 1 37 328 392 400 383 392 378 283 283 383 392 167 272 1 38 425 375 397 331 317 283 367 233 272 217 389 397 1 39 408 425 452 463 333 417 294 392 375 528 409 283 1 40 466 400 342 425 422 167 256 222 331 483 339 361 1 41 333 278 308 283 217 200 167 272 167 261 167 275 1 42 517 463 490 425 294 490 383 397 369 283 239 261 1 43 392 392 375 283 434 342 467 369 250 333 375 367 1 44 403 400 344 361 465 452 358 367 322 382 333 272 1 45 356 403 244 333 250 383 256 305 272 333 244 283 4 46 361 383 283 350 294 433 239 256 369 272 356 250 4 47 392 400 393 421 400 392 211 250 272 272 272 272 4 48 400 392 414 414 434 423 401 411 350 350 261 261 4 49 583 578 583 561 475 468 434 434 515 515 267 283 4 50 530 530 378 369 317 317 425 458 333 333 325 317 4 51 457 450 408 408 306 306 267 261 491 456 322 322 4 52 417 465 364 462 294 294 322 256 217 267 200 283 4 53 483 473 460 497 381 389 319 348 450 375 319 322 4 54 480 490 582 580 417 483 403 425 372 590 344 417 4 55 394 418 319 369 381 328 272 297 331 367 322 283 4 56 447 422 473 433 375 283 272 300 294 317 272 239 4 57 383 383 314 314 261 272 342 333 267 267 228 228 4 58 497 497 482 497 383 344 369 397 367 328 344 283 4 59 483 458 383 328 495 394 417 403 381 451 278 285 4 60 328 383 239 267 250 217 261 261 261 233 272 200 4 61 406 400 392 503 350 333 278 342 272 361 267 294 v 4 62 425 503 497 562 383 361 294 364 342 267 272 353 4 63 497 467 441 468 347 256 297 267 311 306 400 375 4 64 490 503 333 368 272 272 460 325 250 383 311 353 4 65 536 490 490 294 383 383 425 256 361 427 422 294 4 66 482 372 392 381 317 272 435 294 392 317 342 167 105 APPENDIX t (continued) A - V A - M V - V V - M H - V H - M No. 1* 2** 4 67 537 589 617 537 424 542 417 458 513 558 482 378 4 68 477 483 294 425 294 183 325 331 256 289 278 256 4 69 392 392 414 339 317 417 403 364 375 403 397 423 4 70 523 497 490 568 344 322 344 272 361 261 217 239 4 71 497 477 437 465 419 294 331 317 465 429 256 283 4 72 583 583 490 490 444 475 350 350 495 480 367 342 4 73 465 458 421 414 317 317 339 408 272 283 289 314 4 74 372 460 459 448 294 383 300 272 283 364 383 294 4 75 369 372 283 372 381 261 417 306 294 356 376 375 4 76 381 306 344 364 367 383 317 272 311 339 306 222 4 77 482 517 426 487 306 353 331 319 272 306 467 283 4 78 462 443 403 392 217 381 317 372 353 283 272 392 4 79 336 425 358 306 516 372 386 347 283 344 256 294 4 80 467 497 272 328 392 392 278 294 367 375 261 261 4 81 471 445 479 442 400 403 294 256 328 200 336 306 4 82 372 400 400 5353 11272 <;448 350 328 369 367 344 294 4 83 458 463 451 378 283 518 367 483 283 392 319 422 4 84 392 400 353 408 353 442 342 353 372 389 361 364 4 85 389 392 358 403 381 389 386 439 381 267 217 283 4 86 381 392 457 477 483 477 433 400 375 358 381 383 4 87 458 417 369 472 414 486 467 364 381 408 342 378 4 88 460 462 554 561 497 497 477 497 488 467 417 433 4 89 383 350 361 383 347 350 228 250 381 381 272 336 4 90 375 375 369 369 306 369 239 272 331 331 350 350 * I n i t i a l ***YA14. /raw scores i n this table have Replication * * D ^ - H „ „ « - . ; ~ - b e e n m u l t i p l i e d by 100. A - V = Auditory-Vocal; A - M = Auditory-Motor; V - V = Visual-Vocal; V - M = Visual-Motor; H - V = Haptic-Vocal; H - M = Haptic Motor. 106 APPENDIX J INDIVIDUAL MEANS OVER TRIALS FOR VOCAL AND MOTOR OUTPUT* Output Output Subjects Vocal Motor Subjects Vocal Motor 1 447.50 348.33 33 213.66 215.66 2 334.33 290.50 34 328.83 317.66 3 419.33 336.83 35 343.66 302.50 4 328.66 318.00 36 324.00 258.83 5 398.83 325.50 37 377.50 298.00 6 286.83 279.33 38 314.83 352.33 7 386.83 315.16 39 414.33 382.16 8 398.33 426.33 40 378.16 324.16 9 404.50 416.83 41 242.66 254.33 10 438.00 470.16 42 402.66 365.83 11 370.16 382.50 43 357.16 372.66 12 360.00 299.33 44 404.00 339.16 13 340.16 325.33 45 332.83 277.50 14 330.00 274.50 46 352.00 289.00 15 406.50 367.33 47 354.66 303.16 16 480.16 496.33 48 391.50 360.83 17 331.00 328.50 49 522.33 427.00 18 390.00 416.33 50 393.33 378.66 19 330.50 387.00 51 427.66 331.33 20 507.50 386.50 52 325.66 314.50 21 528.83 557.33 53 425.16 394.16 22 458.16 389.33 54 472.00 458.50 23 357.50 341.16 55 369.83 310.33 24 398.00 400.50 56 356.33 331.50 25 368.66 354.83 57 305.50 293.16 26 262.00 221.00 58 402.66 395.33 27 359.83 408.00 59 443.66 349.00 28 350.33 336.66 60 278.66 250.00 29 282.83 289.33 61 353.66 346.00 30 456.00 402.16 62 380.16 390.33 31 370.83 339.66 63 364.00 374.66 32 368.83 340.66 64 361.66 358.33 107 APPENDIX J (Continued) Output ' Output Subjects Vocal Motor Subjects Vocal Motor 65 431.66 363.50 78 356.50 358.00 66 358.66 335.16 79 379.33 324.50 67 527.16 481.50 80 415.00 282.33 68 330.33 318.16 81 374.50 352.16 69 382.66 390.00 82 371.33 344.83 70 384.66 355.00 83 399.50 403.33 71 430.16 348.16 84 391.33 363.50 72 510.00 398.16 85 366.50 347.66 73 350.50 364.16 86 411.00 421.83 74 359.33 359.33 87 427.33 398.66 75 338.83 , 354.83 88 478.50 489.83 76 347.83 304.16 89 365.33 305.00 77 372.66 385.50 90 347.83 324.83 * A l l raw scores i n this table have been m u l t i p l i e d by 100. 108 APPENDIX K INDIVIDUAL MEANS OVER TRIALS FOR AUDITORY, VISUAL, AND HAPTIC INPUT * I n p u t Subjects Auditory V i s u a l Haptic 1 458.00 435.50 300.25 2 384.25 317.00 236.00 3 440.75 366.50 327.00 4 425.00 345.00 200.00 5 392.50 399.50 294.50 6 324.00 255.50 269.75 7 421.50 392.75 238.75 8 429.00 391.00 417.00 9 451.25 383.50 397.25 10 504.50 478.00 379.75 11 414.00 371.75 343.25 12 362.25 310.75 316.00 13 388.75 323.50 286.00 14 400.00 263.75 243.00 15 455.75 413.25 291.75 16 548.75 488.75 427.25 17 394.00 319.50 275.75 18 408.50 444.00 357.00 19 420.00 393.75 262.50 20 555.00 423.00 363.00 21 562.00 523.75 543.50 22 487.25 418.25 365.75 23 361.00 362.50 324.50 24 508.75 311.00 378.00 25 410.50 325.50 349.25 26 334.25 198.50 191.75 27 438.75 393.00 320.00 28 390.50 282.50 357.50 29 375.25 234.75 248.25 30 439.25 448.75 399.25 31 398.25 335.50 332.00 32 464.50 329.00 270.75 33 227.75 205.50 210.75 34 454.00 307.50 208.25 109 APPENDIX K (Continued) I n p u t Subjects Auditory V i s u a l Haptic 35 369.50 314.75 285.00 36 325.75 261.25 287.25 37 375.75 334.00 303.50 38 382.00 300.00 318.75 39 437.00 359.00 398.75 40 408.25 266.75 378.50 41 300.50 214.00 217.50 42 473.75 391.00 288.00 43 360.50 403.00 331.25 44 377.00 410.50 327.25 45 334.00 298.50 283.00 46 344.25 305.50 311.75 47 401.50 313.25 272.00 48 405.00 418.00 305.50 49 576.25 452.75 395.00 50 451.75 379.25 327.00 51 430.75 285.00 422.75 52 427.00 291.50 241.75 53 478.25 359.25 391.50 54 533.00 432.00 430.75 55 375.00 319.50 325.75 56 443.75 307.50 280.50 57 348.50 302.00 247.50 58 498.25 373.25 330.50 59 413.00 427.25 348.75 60 304.25 247.25 241.50 61 425.25 325.75 298.50 62 496.75 350.50 308.50 63 468.25 291.75 348.00 64 423.50 332.25 324.25 65 452.50 364.25 376.00 66 406.75 329.50 304.50 67 570.00 460.25 482.75 68 419.75 283.25 269.75 69 384.25 375.25 399.50 70 519.50 320.50 269.50 110 APPENDIX K (Continued) I n p u t Subjects Auditory V i s u a l Haptic 71 469.00 340.25 358.25 72 536.50 404.75 421.00 73 437.25 345.25 289.50 74 434.75 312.25 331.00 75 349.00 341.25 350.25 76 348.75 334.75 294.50 77 478.00 327.25 332.00 78 425.00 321.75 325.00 79 356.25 405.25 294.25 80 391.00 339.00 316.00 81 459.25 338.25 292.50 82 381.25 349.50 343.50 83 437.50 412.75 354.00 84 388.25 372.50 371.50 85 385.50 398;75 287.00 86 426.75 448.25 374.25 87 429.00 432.75 377.25 88 509.25 492.00 451.25 89 369.25 293.75 342.50 90 372.00 296.50 340.50 * A l l raw scores i n this table have been m u l t i p l i e d by 100. 

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.831.1-0104274/manifest

Comment

Related Items