CONCEPTUAL TEMPO AND AUDITORY-VISUAL TEMPORAL-SPATIAL INTEGRATION by GURMAL RATTAN B.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1974 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, 1979 ® Gurmal Rattan, 1979 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e 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 a g r e e t h a t t h e 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 a n d s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e 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 p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t 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 n d e r s t o o d 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 n o t 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 . D e p a r t m e n t The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 D E - 6 B P 7 5-5 1 I E ABSTRACT This study explored v a r i a t i o n s of audio-visual information i n t e g r a t -ion patterns and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to conceptual tempo i n a sample of 93 grade four c h i l d r e n . A l l subjects were given nine combinations of audio-v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n (AVI) tasks as well as the Matching Familiar Figures Test. The resultant data was analysed to discover the extent to which the conceptual tempo dimension i s related to information processing patterns. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s the question of whether differences i n reading achievement may be traced, i n part, to differences i n information proces-sing p r a c t i c e s . / A m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the four tempo groups ( r e f l e c t i v e s , slow inaccurates, f a s t accurates, and impulsives) on any of the AVI tasks. A one way ANOVA from a post-hoc analysis, however, indicated that r e f l e c t i v e s and impulsives d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on the reading measure used (Gates-MacGinitie) and that s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s existed between reading and eight of the nine AVI tasks. This indicated that while a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between reading (vocabulary and comprehension) and AVI tasks (ptask was to state whether the comparison stimulus i n the p a i r was the same or d i f f e r e n t to the standard stimulus (see Appendix E). The auditory temporal stimulus pattern consisted of a ser i e s of beeps that were recorded on cassette tapes. They were s i m i l a r i n arrange-ment to the dot patterns with regard to standard and comparison conditions. The tapes (auditory temporal) were o r i g n a l l y made by Jarman (1977) but modified f o r the Marshall (1979) study. The beeps were recorded on cassette tapes and played on a Wollensak 3M tape recorder. The v i s u a l temporal stimulus patterns consisted of a series of flashes of l i g h t . They were s i m i l a r i n patterning to the v i s u a l s p a t i a l stimulus i n both standard and comparison conditions. The beeps from the the auditory temporal patterns were used as the t r i g g e r i n g mechanism to produce the v i s u a l temporal patterns of flashes of l i g h t . The flashes of l i g h t were produced from a small incandescent lamp. The subject's task i n a l l 9 tasks was to state whether the comparison stimulus was the same or d i f f e r e n t i n patterning to the standard. Matching Familiar Figures Test - Form F The MFFT i s a nonstandarized match-to-sample task. I t was constructed by Kagan and h i s associates (Kagan et a l . , 1964) to discern r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive responding s t y l e s based upon tasks involving a high degree of response uncertainty. I t i s operationalized by response time to the f i r s t s e l e c t i o n on each stimulus card and the number of errors. This instrument i s comprised of 12 items (10 test items and 2 p r a c t i c e items). The items are l i n e drawings of f a m i l i a r f igures (see Appendix A). Each item contains one standard and s i x v a r i a n t s . The c h i l d i s asked to select by pointing to the one variant that i s .identical to the standard. Materials The materials f o r the AVI tasks are: (a) a Wollensak 3M tape recorder, model 2520 (b) a Kodak 76 OH carousel s l i d e projector (c) scoring sheets (see Appendix E) (d) syn-cued projector and manual switching system used during the i n s t r u c t i o n a l phase of each matching session, (these were constructed at the U.B.C. I n s t r u c t i o n a l Media Centre). The materials for the MFFT administration are: (a) stopwatch (Heurer trackmaster, model 8042) or one s i m i l a r i n c a l i b r a t i o n (b) scoring sheets (see Appendix B). Procedure Marshall ( 1 9 7 9 ) met with the teachers involved i n h i s study. He gave them guidelines along with the administration manual for the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The classroom teachers administered t h i s test and scoring was double checked by Marshall. Marshall both administered and scored the Canadian Lorge-Thorndike I n t e l l i g e n c e Test. The 1 4 4 subjects i n the Marshall study were separated (according to scores on the Gates-MacGinitie), into two reading groups, able and disabled readers. Each group consisted of 7 2 subjects, 3 6 g i r l s and 3 6 boys. The 1 4 4 subjects were then matched on i n t e l l i g e n c e (based on CLT scores) and chronological age. Ex post facto analysis showed that groups did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n 1 . 0 . and chronological age. Each c h i l d that p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study was then randomly assigned a number from one to nine. That number determined the order of presentat-ion they would p a r t i c i p a t e i n according to the tables of complete sets of orthogonal L a t i n Squares (see Fisher & Yates, 1 9 7 3 , p. 7 2 ) . These tables gave an approximated counterbalanced order of presentations. Each matching task administered by Marshall took about 2 0 minutes. Testing was c a r r i e d out i n i s o l a t e d rooms with groups of one to s i x students. There were f i v e t e s t i n g sessions with each session (except the f i f t h ) involving the administration of two matching tasks. The t e s t i n g procedure involved introducing the AVI tasks to the p a r t i c i p a t i n g students, giving them examples, and f i n a l l y , adiministering the test items using a prepared s c r i p t (see Marshall, 1 9 7 9 , p p . 1 3 5 - 1 3 6 ) . Testing was started i n February and completed i n early June of 1 9 7 8 . Marshall ( 1 9 7 9 ) forwarded the data c o l l e c t e d on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, CLT, and the 9 AVI tasks to t h i s writer i n October, 1 9 7 8 . Schools p a r i c i p a t i n g i n the Marshall study were contacted for permission to do a continuation study. Seven schools responded favourably. From thes schools, 100 c h i l d r e n were made av a i l a b l e . The MFFT was administered by t h i s writer and one University of B r i t i s h Columbia student. The student was thoroughly trained i n test administration by t h i s examiner before t e s t i n g of the actual subjects began. The MFFT i s an i n d i v i d u a l l y administered test requiring 10-20 minutes Test administration was i n accordance with those set out by Kagan (see Appendix C). The administration setting required two chairs and a small table (4' X 6')set i n an i s o l a t e d area. Testing began i n early November and was completed by l a t e November of 1978. CHAPTER IV - -RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The concluding chapter i s divided into three major parts: (1) r e s u l t s , 2) discussion, and 3) summary and implications for future research. The r e s u l t s section i s further subdivided into two u n i t s -the f i r s t presenting a multiple regression analysis followed by a m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of conceptual tempo. The multiple regression analysis was performed to c o n t r o l for the e f f e c t s that reading a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , sex, and chronological age may have exerted on task performance ( i . e . , 9 AVI tasks). This was done by s t a t i s t i c a l l y " p a r t i a l l i n g out" t h e i r e f f e c t s i n order to get a l e s s biased assessment of AVI task performance for r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive children. The multivariate analysis was performed to assess the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the findings. The second analysis consisted of a one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and a Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n between the dependent measures and the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Part two was a post-hoc analysis. Results Part One: Data Analysis and Evaluation of Hypothesis. The focus of the present study was an attempt to discern what re l a t i o n s h i p ( i f any) existed between the dimension of r e f l e c t i o n -i m pulsivity and modality matching. On which task(s) did impulsives perform more poorly than t h e i r r e f l e c t i v e counterparts? The dependent measures used were comprised of the following i n t r a and intermodal matching tasks: 1) auditory-auditory (A-A), 2) auditory v i s u a l - s p a t i a l (A-VS), 3) v i s u a l - s p a t i a l auditory (VS-A), 4) visual-temporal v i s u a l -temporal (VT-VT), 5) v i s u a l - s p a t i a l visual-temporal (VS-VT), 6) visual-temporal v i s u a l - s p a t i a l (VT-VS), 7) auditory-temporal visual-temporal (AT-VT), 8) visual-temporal auditory-temporal (VT-AT), 9) v i s u a l - s p a t i a l v i s u a l - s p a t i a l (VS-VS). These tasks were considered to p a r a l l e l the reading process (Marshall, 1979; Muehl & Kremenak, 1966; Rudnick et a l . , 1972; S t e r r i t t et a l . , 1971). By noting the types of tasks (eg. v i s u a l - s p a t i a l , visual-temporal or auditory-tempora that impulsivesperformed more poorly than r e f l e c t i v e s , one might get an i n d i c a t i o n of the types of tasks that lead to reading d i f f i c u l t i e s for impulsive ch i l d r e n . The multiple regression analysis (see Appendix F) was computed using the 9 AVI tasks as dependent measures. The percentage of variance which was contributed by the subject variables was c a l -culated for each dependent measure. I t was found that the t o t a l variance so contributed by a l l subject variables to 9 AVI tasks was 13%. Results from the multiple regression analysis seemed to i n d i c a t e that AVI task performance was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected by the reading a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , sex or chronological age of the subjects involved i n t h i s study. The findings noted from the multiple regression analysis are not too s u r p r i s i n g since Marshall (1979) cont r o l l e d for the possible e f f e c t s of these subject v a r i a b l e s on AVI task performance by matching h i s subjects on each of these v a r i a b l e . That i s , there were an equal number of subjects who were above and below the mean on reading a b i l i t y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , 47 and chronological age as well as an equal number of boys and g i r l s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n Marshall's (1979) study. The multiple regression analysis was performed i n t h i s study because information about the subjects' background was not a v a i l a b l e to determine whether they had been completely matched on a l l the subject v a r i a b l e s . The reading measure used i n t h i s study (Gates-MacGinitie) yielded two sub-measures of reading - vocabulary and comprehension. Of a l l subject v a r i a b l e s , i t was found that the vocabulary v a r i a b l e affected AVI task performance the most (5%), so i t was used as a covariate i n a multivariate analysis of conceptual tempo. The gender of the subject or sex v a r i a b l e was used as a factor i n a m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of conceptual tempo to check for possible i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . The m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis then, was a 2 (sex) x 4 (conceptual tempo) mul t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s , with vocabulary used as a covariate. Table 3 presents the r e s u l t s of the 2 x 4 m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s . As indicated, the main e f f e c t s for sex and conceptual tempo were i n s i g n i f i c a n t (p>.05). In addition, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . Results c l e a r l y indicated that the four tempo groups ( r e f l e c t i v e s , slow inaccurates, fast accurates, and impulsives) did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y on any of the 9 AVI tasks. The research hypothesis then, was not supported by t h i s f i n d i n g , that i s , impulsives and r e f l e c t i v e s did not appear to have any differences i n t h e i r perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . 48 Table 3 M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s i s of Conceptual Tempo Source F df P r o b a b i l i t y 1.158 1 ,84 .334 1 .146 3 , 8 4 .290 1.359 3 , 8 4 .119 Sex Conceptual Tempo SXCT MS w i t h i n Adjusted f o r Covariate Variable^ 1 Variance Standard D e v i a t i o n 1. A-A 14 .693 3.833 2. A-VT 19.455 4 . 4 1 1 3 . A-VS 17.717 4.210 4 . VT-A 16 .284 4.035 5 . VT-VT 14 .338 3-787 6 . VT-VS 15.528 3 . 9 4 1 7. VS-A 14 .876 3.857 8. VS-VT 11.134 3.337 9. VS-VS 5.025 2 . 242 a df = 84 1 0 A-A a u d i t o r y - a u d i t o r y A-VT a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l temporal A-VS a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l s p a t i a l VT-A v i s u a l temporal-auditory VT-VT v i s u a l t e m p o r a l - v i s u a l temporal VT-VS v i s u a l t e m p o r a l - v i s u a l s p a t i a l VS-A v i s u a l s p a t i a l - a u d i t o r y VS-VT v i s u a l s p a t i a l - v i s u a l temporal VS-VS v i s u a l s p a t i a l - v i s u a l s p a t i a l 49 Part Two: Post-hoc Analysis In order to v e r i f y the r e s u l t s obtained from the m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis, a one way ANOVA was performed on the Gates-MacGinite Reading Test. Results (Tables 4 and 5) i n d i c a t e that of the four tempo groups, the r e f l e c t i v e s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the impulsives (p<;.01) on both measures of the Gates-MacGinitie (vocabulary and comprehension). The two other tempo groups, the fast accurates and slow inaccurates did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n reading performance from the r e f l e c t i v e s or impulsives. Nor were s i g n i f i c a n t differences noted between the four tempo groups on non-verbal I.Q. and chronological age (see Tables 6 and 7). A Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n was then computed to determine what r e l a t i o n s h i p existed between AVI and reading. Results (presented i n Appendix G) i n d i c a t e that a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p (p<^. 01) existed between the two sub-measures of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (vocabulary and comprehension) and 8 of the 9 AVI tasks. This seems to i n d i c a t e that reading and AVI tasks are measuring something s i m i l a r , possibly reading a b i l i t y . The v i s u a l - s p a t i a l v i s u a l - s p a t i a l (VS-VS) task did not c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. The VS-VS i s an intramodal i n t e g r a t i o n task r e q u i r i n g a subject to discriminate between d i f f e r e n t graphic symbols. Judging from the subjects' raw scores, which indicated very few errors on the VS-VS task, discriminating graphic symbols did not seem to be d i f f i c u l t task for these subjects. That i s , these subjects seemed to have already mastered the s k i l l of discriminating between 50 •Table 4 Analysis of Variance Summary for Conceptual Tempo on the Vocabulary Subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test Source df SS MS F P Conceptual Tempo between 3 972.226 324.079 4.998 0.003 within 89 5771.477 64.849 t o t a l 92 6743.742 Table 5 Analysis of Variance Summary for Conceptual Tempo on the Comprehension Subtest of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test Source df SS MS F P Conceptual Tempo between 3 1664.313 544.770 6.871 0.000 within 89 7185.652 80.738 t o t a l 92 8849.965 Note. Scheffe's test indicated that s i g n i f i c a n t differences existed only between r e f l e c t i v e s and impulsives and not f o r the other two groups (fast accurates and slow inaccurates) on the Vocabulary and Comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. Table 6 Analysis of Variance Summary for Conceptual Tempo on the Non-Verbal I.Q. Measure Source df SS MS F P Conceptual Tempo between 3 50.230 16.743 0.195 0.899 within 89 7635.293 85.790 t o t a l 92 7685.523 Table 7 Analysis of Variance Summary for Conceptual Tempo on Chronological Age Source df SS MS F P Conceptual Tempo between 3 26.473 8.824 0.584 0.627 within 89 1345.097 15.113 t o t a l 92 1371.570 graphic symbols (as based upon low error scores on VS-VS task). The discrimination of graphic symbols (VS-VS) i s a basic s k i l l necessary only for beginning reading (Birch & Belmont, 1964; Muehl & Kremenak, 1966; Strang, 1968). It seemed t h i s s k i l l no longer played an important r o l e for these subjects i n the reading process. The r e l a t i v e s i m p l i c i t y of the VS-VS task was also noted by Marshall (1979), Rudnick et a l . (1972), and S t e r r i t t et a l . (1971). A summary of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e the following: 1) the v a r i a b l e s of sex and conceptual tempo did not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t performance on any of the 9 audio-visual i n t e g r a t i o n tasks. Nor was there a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n among these v a r i a b l e s ; 2) r e f l e c t i v e subjects scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than impulsiveson the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test; 3) s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s were found to exist between vocabulary and comprehension on 8 of the 9 audio-visual i n t e g r a t i o n tasks. Discussion Research findings have implicated the dimension of r e f l e c t i o n -i m p u l s i v i t y i n a v a r i e t y of "learning problems". Impulsives have been noted to perform more poorly than r e f l e c t i v e s i n reading (Butler, 1972; Davey, 1971; Hood & Kendall, 1974; Readence, 1976; Shapiro, 1976), i n math (Cathcart & Liedthke, 1969), and i n scanning and decoding of graphic symbols (Kilburg et a l . , 1973; Nelson, 1969; Siegel et a l . , 1973; Siegelman, 1969). Impulsives were also noted to manifest behaviours c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h y p e r a c t i v i t y , have a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s , emotional problems and an assortment of other problems that hinder learning (see Epstein et a l . , 1975). When scanning strategies were analysed, i t was noted that impulsives ignored two and one-half times as many a l t e r n a t i v e s on the MFFT than r e f l e c t i v e s (Drake, 1970; Siegelman, 1969). They also devoted proportionately more time looking at a l t e r n a t i v e s observed most and t h e i r f i n a l s e l e c t i o n . When scanning strategies were taught (McLauchlan, 1976; Siegel et a l . , 1973; Zelniker et a l . , 1972) along with modelling and s e l f - v e r b a l i z a t i o n techniques (Meichanbaum & Goodman, 1971), i t was noted that task performance improved r a p i d l y . Considering that a v a r i e t y of factors (eg. perceptual organization, anxiety, attention, scanning s t r a t e g i e s , etc.) may have been factors contributing to reading impairment, t h i s study only focused on the factor of perceptual organization. The current research then, began with the proposal that d e f i c i t s i n reading a b i l i t y of impulsive c h i l d r e n might be traced to inadequate perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . To test t h i s , nine combinations of a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l temporal-spatial sensory i n t e g r a t i o n tasks were used, since they were considered to p a r a l l e l the reading process (Marshall, 1979; Meuhl & Kremenak, 1966; Rudnick et a l . , 1972; S t e r r i t t et a l . , 1971). Research on reading and AVI have noted that better readers perform s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than poorer readers on AVI tasks (Birch & Belmont, 1964, 1965; Beery, 1967; Marshall, 1979; S t e r r i t t & Rudnick, 1966). They noted that the v i s u a l s p a t i a l matchings to be the least d i f f i c u l t ; the combined v i s u a l s p a t i a l and and temporal matchings (VS-A, A-VS, VS-VT, VT-VS) to be moderately d i f f i c u l t . The v i s u a l s p a t i a l and temporal matchings are tasks requiring the c h i l d to i d e n t i f y sounds made by d i f f e r e n t graphic symbols (A-VS) and i t s converse procedure (VS-A). A d d i t i o n a l l y , the temporal matching tasks require the v i s u a l recognition of graphic symbols while moving along a l i n e of p r i n t (VS-VT) and i t s converse procedure (VT-VS). Studies by Byrden (1972), Marshall (1979), Rudnick et a l . (1972) and S t e r r i t t et a l . (1971) noted that the tempral matchings (AT-VT, VT-AT, VT-VT, A-A) seem to be the most d i f f i c u l t . These l a t t e r tasks require associating the auditory patterns i n speech to the appropriate graphic symbols i n p r i n t (which are s p a t i a l l y organized) as one i s moving along a l i n e of p r i n t (AT-VT), and i t s converse procedure (VT-AT). The VT-VT i s simply a task which requires moving along a l i n e of p r i n t . From the above discussion, one could speculate that the temporal matchings (AT-VT, VT-AT, VT-VT, A-A) would be the tasks which best d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers, while the combined v i s u a l s p a t i a l and temporal matchings (VS-A, A-VS, VS-VT, VT-VT) would be tasks which probably d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers the l e a s t (except for the VS-VS task). Results from the multivariate analysis indicated that the four tempo groups did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e on any of the 9 AVI tasks. Since AVI tasks are supposed to d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers (Marshall, 1979, Rudnick et a l . , S t e r r i t t et a l . , 1971) r e s u l t s from the above analysis indicates the 4 tempo groups Hid not d i f f e r e n t i a t e i n reading a b i l i t y . A post-hoc a n a l y s i s , however, indicated that r e f l e c t i v e s performed s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than impulsives on the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. One possible explanation f o r discrepant findings noted above i s that the Gates-MacGinitie and the AVI tasks may be measuring d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s . A Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n , however, indicated that the vocabulary and comprehension subtests of the Gates-MacGinitie and 8 of the 9 AVI tasks were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d . Results from the above analyses then, seem to in d i c a t e the following: 1) Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and AVI tasks are s i g n i f i c a n t l y related and 2) r e f l e c t i v e and impulsives d i f f e r e n t i a t e d on the Gates-MacGinitie but not on the AVI tasks. As noted e a r l i e r , AVI task performance d i f f e r e n t i a t e d good and poor readers (Birch & Belmont, 1964, 1965; Beery, 1967; Kahn & Birch, 1967; Marshall, 1979; S t e r r i t t & Rudnick, 1966). S i m i l a r l y , the R-I dimension d i f f e r e n t i a t e d good and poor readers (Butler, 1972; Davey, 1971; Hood & Kendall, 1974; Kagan, 1965b; Readence, 1976; Shapiro, 1976). Since these r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that AVI tasks and the R-I dimension can both d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers but do not seem to be relat e d to one another, ( i . e . there was no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r e f l e c t i v e s or impulsives on any AVI tasks), the following explanations can be put f o r t h : 1) AVI tasks are rela t e d to reading, 2) the R-I dimension i s rela t e d to reading, but, 3) there appears to be no re l a t i o n s h i p between performance on AVI tasks and performance on the MFFT. The R-I dimension and the AVI tasks both possess s k i l l s that are s i m i l a r to those;'.required i n reading, but they do seem to possess s k i l l s common with each other. I f the AVI tasks are assessing the 56 perceptual organization mechanisms that are involved i n the process of reading, then the r e s u l t s from t h i s study i n d i c a t e that reading d e f i c i e n c i e s i n impulsive c h i l d r e n are not based i n t h e i r perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . If the AVI tasks are not assessing perceptual organization mechanisms involved i n the process of reading,deficiencies i n impulsive c h i l d r e n may be due to t h e i r d e f i c i e n c i e s i n perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . The l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n seems possible based on the assumption that even though AVI tasks d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers, these tasks may do so on factors other than perceptual organization. If the basis of the above i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s correct, then i t i s d i f f i c u l t to speculate what the nature of the AVI tasks are, that i s , what they are a c t u a l l y assessing. If AVI tasks are assessing perceptual organization, then reading d e f i c i e n c i e s i n impulsive c h i l d r e n may be due to factors other than perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . While there may be many such factors (eg. motivation, memory, anxiety, e t c . ) , one factor worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g i s attention. The l i t e r a t u r e on scanning strategies has noted that impulsives ignored two and one-half times as many alternates on the MFFT than r e f l e c t i v e s (Drake, 1970; Sigelman, 1969). Epstein et a l . (1975) a t t r i b u t e the i n e f f i c i e n t scanning s t r a t e g i e s of impulsive c h i l d r e n noted by Drake (1970) and Sigelman (1969) to impulsives' i n a b i l i t y to sustain a t t e n t i o n . Zelniker et a l . (1972) found support for t h i s hypothesis by nothing that when impulsives were given longer time to respond to a task, t h e i r performance decreased. Zelniker et a l . (1972) i n a further study, measured v i s u a l scanning s t r a t e g i e s on the MFFT using a video-tape recorder. They noted that r e f l e c t i v e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher frequency and duration of observation. Zelniker et a l . (1972) concluded that "...the i n a b i l i t y to sustain attention i s one of a number of behaviors that would be appropriate i n a denotative d e f i n i t i o n of i m p u l s i v i t y " (p.335). Investigating a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s i n impulsive c h i l d r e n as one source of v a r i a t i o n e f f e c t i n g reading performance may be a possible avenue of future research i n exploring reading problems. Summary and Implications for Future Research This study attempted to assess whether d e f i c i e n c i e s i n reading a b i l i t y of impulsive c h i l d r e n might be traced to inadequate perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . The r a t i o n a l e was derived from the l i t e r a t u r e on scanning s t r a t e g i e s . I t was noted that impulsive ch i l d r e n were i n e f f i c i e n t i n scanning and decoding of graphic symbols (Kilburg & S i e g e l , 1973; Nelson, 1969; S i e g e l , K e i a s i c & K i l b u r g , 1973; Sigelman, 1969). It was hypothesized that the i n e f f i c i e n t scanning strategies employed by impulsive c h i l d r e n on complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i might be.factors which contributed to t h e i r reading d e f i c i e n c i e s (Butler, 1972; Davey, 1972; Hood & Kendall, 1974; Readence, 1976; Shapiro, 1976). To test t h i s , nine combinations of a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l temporal-spatial i n t e g r a t i o n tasks were employed. These 9 tasks were devised by Jarman (1977) and constructed by Marshall (1979). The 9 AVI tasks were thought to p a r a l l e l the process of reading (Beery, 1967; Marshall, 1979; Muehl & Kremenak, 1966; Rudnick et a l . , 1972; S t e r r i t t et a l . , 1971) and as such, they were 58 assumed to assess the perceptual mechanisms en t a i l e d i n reading. In t h i s way, we might be able to trace differences i n reading performance of r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n to t h e i r differences i n perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Results from the m u l t i v a r i a t e analysis of conceptual tempo indicated no s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t . That i s , the four tempo groups ( r e f l e c t i v e s , slow accurates, fast accurates, and impulsives) did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y on any of the 9 AVI tasks. That i s , d e f i c i e n c i e s i n reading performance of impulsive c h i l d r e n could not be traced to t h e i r perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i as operationalized by the 9 AVI tasks. An a l t e r n a t i v e p o s s i b i l i t y i s that i f the 9 AVI tasks were not assessing perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i , then researchers may wish to pursue the perceptual organization hypothesis using other sets of tasks which purport to assess perceptual organization. If the 9 AVI tasks were assessing the perceptual organization of complex v i s u a l s t i m u l i as r e l a t e d to the reading process, then f a c t o r ( s ) other than perceptual organization need to be considered i n explaining d e f i c i e n c i e s i n reading performance of impulsive c h i l d r e n . One such factor might be a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s . A review by Epstein et a l . (1975) c i t e s studies (eg. Drake, 1970; Sigelman, 1969; Zelniker et a l . , 1972) which lend support to the notion that a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s i n impulsive c h i l d r e n may be sources of v a r i a t i o n e f f e c t i n g task performance. Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n exploring the a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s hypothesis may be f r u i t f u l . The r e s u l t s from the multivariate analysis of conceptual tempo seem s u r p r i s i n g i n view of the f a c t that performance on the MFFT and performance on the AVI tasks can both d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers, but r e f l e c t i v e s and impulsives did not d i f f e r e n t i a t e on any of the 9 AVI tasks. This seems to i n d i c a t e that the AVI tasks and the MFFT are both r e l a t e d to reading i n some manner, but there seems to be no r e l a t i o n s h i p between them. It would seem more expedient for researchers then, to use the MFFT as opposed to the 9 AVI tasks i f they wished to d i f f e r e n t i a t e good and poor readers. This could save them an invaluable amount of time since the MFFT takes about 15 minutes to administer i n comparison to 4 hours for the 9 AVI tasks. However, i f diagnostic information were required about sources of reading d i f f i c u l t i e s ( i . e . inadequate i n t e g r a t i o n of auditory-temporal, visual-temporal or v i s u a l - s p a t i a l tasks), then the 9 AVI tasks may be more su i t a b l e . I t i s assumed here that information received from AVI task performance i s i n f a c t diagnostic and not j u s t spurious information. F i n a l l y , researchers may wish to employ a more r e l i a b l e form of the MFFT. The low r e l i a b i l i t y of the MFFT, although not investigated i n t h i s study, i s of concern to t h i s w riter. I t i s the opinion of t h i s writer that future researchers consider employing a more r e l i a b l e form of the MFFT. The current MFFT used (form F) has a t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of .52 (Ault et a l . , 1976; Egeland & Weinberg, 1976). More recently, Cairns and Cammock (1978) have developed a more r e l i a b l e form of the MFFT. This instrument contains 20 items, with a two week s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of .91 for latency and .89 for errors. A t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y over a f i v e week period yielded a c o e f f i c i e n t of .85 for latency and .77 for e r r o r s . Using such an instrument would make the dicotomization of subjects i n t o r e f l e c t i v e s and impulsives more r e l i a b l e . In summary, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the R-I dimension, and AVI needs to be investigated further. By d i l e n a t i n g the above re l a t i o n s h i p we may be able to make some comment regarding the v a l i d i t y of the perceptual organization hypothesis. In t h i s way, we w i l l be one step closer i n knowing the factor(s) contributing or not contributing to reading d e f i c i e n c i e s i n impulsive c h i l d r e n . REFERENCE NOTE 1.) Marshall, M. Personal communication, Oct. 5, 1978. REFERENCES Abravenel, E. The development of intersensory patterning with regard to selected s p a t i a l dimensions. Monographs of the Society for Research i n Chi l d Development, 1968, 33 (2, S e r i a l No. 118). Ault, R., M i t c h e l l , C. & Hartmann, D. Some methodological problems i n r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y research. Child Development, 1976, 47, 227-231. Becker, J. & Sabatine, D. R e l i a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l t e s t s of perception administered u t i l i z i n g group techniques. Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1971, 27_, 86-88. Beery, J. Matching of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i by average and retarded readers. Child Development, 1967, 38, 827-833. Birch, H. & Belmont, L. Auditory-visual i n t e g r a t i o n i n normal and retarded readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34, 852-861. Birch, H. & Belmont, L. Auditory-visual i n t e g r a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e and reading a b i l i t y i n school c h i l d r e n . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1965, 20, 295-305. ; Block, J . , Block, J . , & Harrington, D. Some misgivings about the Matching Familiar Figures Test as a measure of r e f l e c t i o n -i mpulsivity. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10(5), 611-632. Bond, G. Auditory and speech c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of good and poor readers. Teachers College Contributions to Education, 1935, 429. Brannigan, G. & Ash, T. Cognitive temp and WISC-R performance. C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1977, 33(1), 212. Briggs, C. & Weinberg, R. E f f e c t s of reinforcement i n t r a i n i n g children's conceptual tempo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 65, 383-394. Bryden, M. Auditory-visual and s e q u e n t i a l - s p a t i a l matching i n r e l a t i o n to reading a b i l i t y . Child Development, 1972, 4_3, 824-832. Buros, O.K. The seventh mental yearbook, v o l . I I , New Jersey: Gryphon, 1972. Butler, L. A p s y c h o l l n g u i s t l c analysis of the o r a l reading behavior of selected impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e second grade boys. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Ohio State University,1972. Cairns, E. & Cammock, T. Development of a more r e l i a b l e version of the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Developmental Psychology, 1978, 14(5), 555-560 Campbell, D. & Fiske, D. Convergent and discriminant v a l i d a t i o n by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1959, 56, 81-105. Cathcart, G. & Liedke, W. Reflectiveness/impulsiveness and mathematics achievement. Arithmetic Teacher, 1969, 3_6_, 563-567. C h r i s t i n e , D. & C h r i s t i n e C. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of auditory d i s c r i m i n a t i o n to a r t i c u l a t o r ^ defects and reading retardation. Elementary School Journal, 1964, 11, 97-100. Davey, B. A p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n of cognitive s t y l e s of o r a l reading s t r a t e g i e s i n achieving and understanding fourth grade boys. (Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , 1971). D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts International, 1972, 32_, 4414A. Debus, R. E f f e c t s of b r i e f observation of model behavior on conceptual tempo of impulsive c h i l d r e n . Developmental Psychology, 1970 2, 22-32. Denney, D. Modeling e f f e c t s upon conceptual s t y l e and cognitive tempo. Child Development, 1972, 43., 105-119. Denney, D. R e f l e c t i o n and i m p u l s i v i t y as determinants of conceptual strategy. C h i l d Development, 1973, 44, 614-623. Derevensky, J.L. Crossmodal functioning and reading achievement. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1977, 9, 233-251. Drake, D. Perceptual correlates of impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1970, 2, 202-214. Egeland, B. & Weinberg, R. The Matching Familiar Figures Test: a look at i t s psychometric c r e d i b i l i t y . C h i l d Development, 1976, 47, 483-491. Epstein, M., Hallahan, D. & Kauffman, J. Implications of the r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y dimension for s p e c i a l education. The Journal of Special Education. 1975. 9. 11-25. Eska, B. & Black, K. Conceptual tempo i n young grade-school children. C h i l d Development, 1971, 42, 505-516. Fisher, R. & Yates, F. S t a t i s t i c a l tables for b i o l o g i c a l , a g r i c u l t u r a l and medical research, (4th ed.). London: O l i v e r & Boyd, 1953. Ford, M. Auditory-visual and t a c t u a l - v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to reading a b i l i t y . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1967, 2_4, 531-541 Friedes, D. Human information processing and sensory modality: Cross-modal functions, information complexity, memory, and d e f i c i t s . Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1974, 81, 284-310. Gaudry, E. & Speilberger, C. Anxiety and educational achievement. S. A u s t r a l i a : The G r i f f i n Press, 1971. Goldent, N. & Steiner, S. Auditory and v i s u a l functions i n good and poor readers. Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1969, 2(9), 476-481. Goodnow, J. Matching auditory and v i s u a l s e r i e s : modality problem or t r a n s l a t i o n problem? Ch i l d Development, 1971, 42_, 1187-1201 Gupta, P. Correlates of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Alberta, 1970. H a l l , V. & Russell, W. Multitrait-multimethod analysis of conceptual tempo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 932-939. Hood, J. & Kendall, J . A quantitative analysis of o r a l reading miscues on r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive second graders. ED 092880, 1974. Jarman, R. A method of construction of auditory stimulus patterns for use i n crossmodal and intramodal matching t e s t s . Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1977, 9(1), 22-25(a). Jarman, R. Patterns of crossmodal and intramodal matching among i n t e l l i g e n c e groups. In P. M i t t l e r (Ed.), Research to p r a c t i c e i n mental retardation. (Vo. I I ) . Baltimore: U n i v e r s i t y Park Press, 1977(b). Jones, B. & Connolly, K. Memory e f f e c t s i n crossmodal matching. B r i t i s h Journal of Psychology, 1970, 61, 267-270. Jorgenson, G. & Hyde, E. Auditory-visual i n t e g r a t i o n and reading performance i n lower s o c i a l class c h i l d r e n . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 718-725. 64 Kagan, J. Monographs: basic cognitive process i n c h i l d r e n . Chicago, 111.: C h i l d Development Publications, 1963. Kagan, J. Impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n : s i g n i f i c a n c e of conceptual tempo. In: J.D. Krumkoltz (Ed.), Learning and the educational process. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965, pp. 133-161(a). Kagan, J. R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y and reading a b i l i t y i n primary grade c h i l d r e n . Child Development, 1965, 36, 609-629(b). Kagan, J. Developmental studies i n r e f l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s . In: A. Kidd & J. Rivoire (Eds.), Perceptual development i n c h i l d r e n . New York: International U n i v e r s i t i e s Press, 1966. Kagan, J. & Kogan, N. Individual v a r i a t i o n i n cognitive processes. In: P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of c h i l d psychology, (Vol. I ) . New York: Wiley, 1970. Kagan, J . , Moss, H. & S i g e l , I. Psychological s i g n i f i c a n c e of s t y l e s of conceptualization. In J . Wright & J . Kagan (Eds.), Basic cognitive processes i n c h i l d r e n . Monographs of the society for research i n c h i l d development, 1963, 28_(2, No. 86), 73-124. Kagan, J . , Pearson, L., & Welch, L. Conceptual im p u l s i v i t y and inductive reasoning. Child Development, 1966, 37, 583-594(a). Kagan, J . , Pearson, L., & Welch, L. M o d i f i a b i l i t y of an impulsive tempo. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 5_7, 359-365(b). Kagan, J . , Rosman, B., Day, D., A l b e r t , J . , & P h i l l i p s , W. Information processing i n the c h i l d : s i g n i f i c a n c e of a n a l y t i c and r e f l e c t i v e a t t i t u d e s . Psychological Monographs, 1964, 7_8 (1, S e r i a l #578). Kahn, D. & B i r c h , H. Development of auditory v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n and reading achievement. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1967, 27_, 459-468. Kilburg, R. & S i e g e l , A. D i f f e r e n t i a l feature analysis i n the recognition memory performance of r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive chi l d r e n . Memory and Cognition, 1973, 10(9), 564-572. Klapper, Z. & Birch, H. Developmental course of temporal patterning i n v i s i o n and audition. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1971, 32, 547-555. Lee, L., Kagan, J . , & Robson, A. Influence for a preference for a n a l y t i c categorization upon concept a c q u i s i t i o n . Child Development, 1963, 34, 433-442 Lewis, M., Rausch, M., Goldberg, S. & Dodd, C. Error response time and I.Q.: sex differences i n cognitive s t y l e of preschool ch i l d r e n . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1968, 26,563-568. Magnusson, D. Test theory. Menlo PI., C a l i f o r n i a : Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1967. Margolis, H. Relationship between audit o r y - v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n , reading readiness, and conceptual tempo. Journal of Psychology, 1976, 93, 181-189. Marshall, M. Auditory-visual and s p a t i a l temporal i n t e g r a t i o n a b i l i t i e s of able and disabled readers. Unpublished manuscrip 1979. (Available from U.B.C., Faculty of Education.) McLauchlan, D. Modifying the task strategies of impulsive c h i l d r e n Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1976 Meichenbaum, D. & Goodman, J . Training impulsive c h i l d r e n to ta l k to themselves: a means of developing s e l f - c o n t r o l . Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 77_, 115-126. Messer, S. The e f f e c t s of anxiety over i n t e l l e c t u a l performance on r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n . Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Harvard U n i v e r s i t y , 1968. Messer, S. The e f f e c t s of anxiety over i n t e l l e c t u a l performance on r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y i n ch i l d r e n . Child Development, 1970, 41, 723-735. Messer, S. R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y : a review. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1976, 83(6), 1026-1052. Mischel, W. Continuity and change i n personality. American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 1012-1018. Mol l i c k , L. & Messer, S. The r e l a t i o n of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y to i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1978, 132, 157-158. Muehl, S. & Kremenak, S. 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. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 230-238. Neisser, A. Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1967. Nelson, T. The e f f e c t s of t r a i n i n g i n att e n t i o n deployment on observing behavior i n r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d r e n . D i s s e r t a t i o n Abstracts, 1969, 29, 2659B. Neussele, W. R e f l e c t i v i t y as an influence on focusing behavior of c h i l d r e n . Journal of Experimental C h i l d Psychology, 1972, 14, 883-891. 66 Pick, H. Systems of perceptual and perceptual motor development. In: J.P. H i l l (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on c h i l d psychology, Vol. 4. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970. Plomin, R. & Buss, A. R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Psychological Reports, 1973, _33, 726 Rae, G. Relation of auditory v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n to reading and i n t e l l i g e n c e . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1977, 97_, 3-8. Readence, J. Cognitive s t y l e and o r a l reading behavior of t h i r d grade c h i l d r e n . Reading Improvement, 1976, ji l _ , 175-181. Re a l i , N. & H a l l , V. E f f e c t s of success and f a i l u r e on the r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive c h i l d . Developmental Psychology, 1970, 3_i 392-402. R e i l l y , D. Auditory-visual i n t e g r a t i o n , sex, and reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 81, 175-181. Rudnick, M. , S t e r r i t t , G. & Flax, M. Auditory and v i s u a l rhythm perception and reading a b i l i t y . Child Development, 1967, 38, 581-587. Rudnick, M. , Martin, V. & S t e r r i t t , G. On the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y of auditory and v i s u a l , temporal and s p a t i a l , i n t e g r a t i v e and non-integrative sequential pattern comparisons. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 2_7, 207-210. Seigel, A. , K e i a s i c , K. & K i l b u r g , R. Recognition memory i n r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive preschool ch i l d r e n . Child Development, 1973, 44, 651-656. Seigelman, E. R e f l e c t i v e and impulsive observing behavior. C h i l d Development, 1969, 40, 1213-1222. Shapiro, J. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of conceptual tempo to reading readiness test performance. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1976, 8(1), 83-87. Stennett, R. , Smithe, P. & Hardy, M. Language background, guessing, mastery and type of error i n beginning reading. Alberta Journal of Education Research, 1972, 18(3), 180-189. S t e r r i t t , G., Martin, V. & Rudnick, M. Auditory-visual and temporal-spatial i n t e g r a t i o n as determinants of test d i f f i c u l t y . Psychonomic Science, 1971, 23, 289-291. S t e r r i t t , G. & Rudnick, M. Auditory and v i s u a l rhythm perception i n r e l a t i o n to reading a b i l i t y i n fourth grade boys. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1966, 22, 859-864. Strang, R. S k i l l f u l teaching: theory and p r a c t i c e . In: J . F i g u r e l (Ed.), Forging ahead i n reading. Delaware: Inter-n a t i o n a l Reading Association, 1968. Ward, W. R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y i n kindergarten ch i l d r e n . Child Development, 1968, 39, 867-874. Weiner, A. & Adams, W. The e f f e c t of f a i l u r e and f r u s t r a t i o n on r e f l e c t i v e and impulsive ch i l d r e n . Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1974, 17, 353-359.-Wolfe, L. D i f f e r e n t i a l factors i n s p e c i f i c reading d i s a b i l i t y . Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1941, _58^ 57-62. Yando, R. & Kagan, J. The e f f e c t of teacher tempo on the c h i l d . C h i l d Development, 1968, 39, 27-34. Zelniker, T., J e f f r e y , W., Ault, R. & Parsons, J . Analysis and modification of search strategies of impulsive and r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n on the Matching Familiar Test. C h i l d Development. 1972, 43_, 321-335. APPENDIX A Sample item from MFFT 69 A P P E N D I X A APPENDIX B Scoring sheet f o r MFFT MATCHING FAMILIAR FIGURES TEST Examiner: Examinee:, Sex: M School: Grade: Year Month Day Date of Test: Birthday: Age: Item: l)House (1) Time:_ Choice: IV 2) 3) _4) 5) 6 ) _ 2)Scissor (2) Time: Choice:!) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 3)Phone (3) Time: Choice:!) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6 ) . 5) Tree (2) Time: 6) Leaf (6) Time: 4)Bear (4) Time: Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) _ Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) _ Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Cat (3) Time: Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 8) Dress (5) Time:_ Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 9) G i r a f f e (4) Time: Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)_ 10) Lamp (5) Time: Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)_ 11) Boat (2) Time:_ _ Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6 ) _ 12)Cowboy (4) Time: Choice: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Total Time: Total Correct: T o t a l Error: APPENDIX C Directions f o r administering the MFFT 73 APPENDIX C DIRECTIONS FOR MATCHING FAMILIAR FIGURES "I am going to show you a p i c t u r e of something you know and then some p i c t u r e s that look l i k e i t . You w i l l /have to p o i n t to the p i c t u r e on t h i s bottom page (point) t h a t i s j u s t l i k e the one on t h i s top page ( p o i n t ) . Let's do some f o r p r a c t i c e . " E shows p r a c t i c e items and helps the c h i l d to f i n d the c o r r e c t answer. "Now we are going to do some tha t are a l i t t l e b i t harder. You w i l l see a p i c t u r e on top and. s i x p i c t u r e s on the bottom. F i n d the one that i s j u s t l i k e the one on top and p o i n t to i t . " E w i l l r ecord l a t e n c y to f i r s t response to the h a l f -second, t o t a l number of e r r o r s f o r each item and the order i n which the e r r o r s are made. I f S i s c o r r e c t , E w i l l p r a i s e . I f wrong, E w i l l say, "No, t h a t i s not the r i g h t one. F i n d the one t h a t i s j u s t l i k e t h i s one ( p o i n t ) . " Continue to code responses (not times) u n t i l c h i l d makes a maximum of s i x e r r o r s or gets the item c o r r e c t . I f i n c o r r e c t , E w i l l show the r i g h t answer. \ I t i s necessary to have a stand to place the t e s t book-l e t on so t h a t both the stimulus and the a l t e r n a t i v e s are c l e a r l y v i s i b l e to the S at the same time. The two pages should be p r a c t i c a l l y at r i g h t angles to one another. Note: I t i s d e s i r a b l e to enclose each page i n c l e a r p l a s t i c i n order to keep the pages c l e a n . 74 APPENDIX D Matching task stimulus patterns i n AVI tasks APPENDIX D I T EM NUMBER S T I M U L U S C O M P A R I S O N SAME (S )/ DIFFERENT(D) EXAMPLES 1 • • • • • • S 2 • • • • • • D 3 • • • • • • D 4 • • • • • • S S • • • • • • 0 TEST ITEMS 6 • • • • • • • • S 7 • • • • • • • • D 8 • • • • • • • • D 9 • • • • • • • • S 10 • • • • • • • • D II • • • • • • • • S 12 • • • • • • • • S 13 • • • • • •• • • D 14 • • • • • • • • • • S 15 • • • • • REST • • • • • REST S 16 • • • • • • • • • • 0 17 • • • • • • • • • • 0 18 • • • • • • • • • • S 19 • • • • • • • • • • 0 20 • • • • • • • • • • S 77 APPENDIX E Scoring sheet for AVI matching task stimulus patterns APPENDIX , same d i f f e r e n t 2 same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t j il same d i f f e r e n t „ same d i f f e r e n t 5 g same d i f f e r e n t y same d i f f e r e n t g same d i f f e r e n t ^ same d i f f e r e n t •^ Q same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t ^2 same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t ^ same d i f f e r e n t , s a m e d i f f e r e n t 15 • REST same d i f f e r e n t ^ same d i f f e r e n t 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name: same d i f f e r e n t 26 35 same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t REST same d i f f e r e n t same d i f f e r e n t APPENDIX F Mul t i p l e Regression Analysis APPENDIX P The Amount of Variance Accounted f o r ^ biy.sSna:k;j:ec&xV-SMacWles f o r each Dependent Measure Dependent Measures NuSulsvfe^t Va r i a b l e s T o t a l Sex I . Q . Vocabulary C h r o n o l o g i c a l Comprehension Age 1 . A-A . 0 9 4 0 . 0 9 4 0 2 . A-VT . 0 4 5 9 . 0 2 9 3 . 0 8 6 7 . 1 6 1 8 3 . A-VS . 1 1 3 2 . 1 1 3 2 4 . VT-A . 1278 .0241 . 1 5 1 9 5 . VT-VT . 0 7 2 6 . 1 5 1 1 . 2 2 3 7 6 . VT-VS . 0 4 4 4 .1541 . 1 9 8 5 7 . VS-A . 1 0 3 9 . 1 0 3 9 8 . VS-VT . 0 3 0 9 . 0 3 0 5 . 0 8 6 1 .1475 9 . VS-VS . 0 3 1 9 . 0 3 1 9 T o t a l .1494 . 1 3 6 1 .4985 .4184 .0241 1 . 2 2 6 4 Percentage . 0 1 6 . 0 1 5 . 0 5 .04 . 0 0 2 6 . 1 3 APPENDIX G I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n of AVI Tasks and Reading Measures APPENDIX fi I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of AVI Tasks and Reading Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 . A-A - . 5 5 3 * * . 6 1 0 * * . 5 6 8 * * . 6 1 2 * * . 6 0 5 * * . 4 8 5 * * . 6 2 5 * * . 4 3 0 * * - . 3 0 7 * * - . 2 8 3 * 2 . A-VT . 6 2 0 * * . 6 6 8 * * . 6 0 1 * * . 4 3 4 * * . 4 4 . 6 * * . 4 1 6 * * . 4 1 3 * * - - . 2 9 5 * - 2 . 6 8 * 3 . A-VS - . 5 8 7 * * . 5 0 1 * * . 5 6 1 * * . 5 4 7 * * . 4 8 0 * * . 2 6 8 * - . 3 1 7 * * - . 3 3 7 * * 4 . VT-A - . 5 8 0 * * . 4 7 6 * * .418** . 3 5 3 * * . 3 5 4 * * - . 3 5 8 * * - . 3 5 5 * * 5 . VT-VT - . 5 1 5 * * . 4 8 0 * * . 4 8 7 * * . 3 8 3 * * - . 3 5 4 * * - . 3 8 9 * * 6 . VT-VS - . 5 9 7 * * . 5 3 9 * * • 3 5 5 * * - . 3 5 9 * * - . 3 9 3 * * 7 . VS-A - . 4 4 3 * * . 5 1 7 * * - . 3 2 2 * * - . 3 1 4 * * 8 . VS-VT - . 4 2 4 * * - . 2 9 4 * - . 2 7 8 * 9 . VS-VS - - . 1 0 5 - . 1 3 0 1 0 . Vocabulary - . 8 3 4 * * 1 1 . Comprehension -a n=93 * p < . 0 5 *# p < . 0 0 1