Developmental Variations in Learning: Applications to Social, Executive Function, Language, and Reading Skills (Lea's Communication Series)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

2002

I . A W N C E E ~ B A ASSOCMTES, U ~ PUBLISHERS

~~~~, NewJersey

London

Copyright 0 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc. All rights reserved.No part of this book maybe reproduced in any form, by photostat,microform,retrievalsystem, or any other means, without prior written permission of the publisher. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, NJ 07430 Cover design by Kathryn~ o u ~ t a l Lacey ~ng

Developmental variations in learning :applications to social, executive function, language, and readingskills / [edited by] DennisL. Molfese and VictoriaJ. Molfese. p. cm. Includes bibliog~phicalreferences and index. ISBN 0-8058-2229-1 (cloth :a&. paper) 1. Cognition in children. 2. Individual differences in children. 3. Child development. I. Molfese, Dennis L. 11. Molfese,VictoriaJ. BF723.CS D477 2001 155.4’13-4~21 00-061863 CIP Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed on acidEree paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength and durabiliv.

Printed in the United Statesof America l 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ment ions

~ynn

er action Impai ~ater~o~se

V

vi

C~NTENTS

Indi~dualDifference in the Developmen Communication Competency in Very Low C~~dren

t

Susan H. Landry C ~ t h i L. a Miller-Loncar f i r e n E. Smith

Individu~Differences in the Development of Executive Function in Children: Le From the Delayed Response and A-no ~ i m ~ e rAndrews ly Espy Paul M. fiufmann

Developmental and Clinical Vaiations in Executive Functions Maril~ C.Welsh

lation Between Language Development Dennis L. Molfese Dana 2 3 , Narter Arlene M o ~ ~ l i n

Naming Abilities inChi1

Robin D. Morris Lorna L ~ a r u s - ~ e n ~icho~as ~rawiec~i ~ a r y a n n Wolf e

Patterns of Language Development Through Augmented Means in Youth With MentalRetardation Mary Ann Romski Rose A. Sevcik

Modeling Developme~taland Individual Variability in ~ e a d i and n ~ Writing Acquisition:A ~ e v e l o p m e ~ t ~ Neuropsycholo~icalPerspective Vir~iniaW gernin~er Robert D. Abbott

v11

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

changes in cognitive abilities in childhood have long across any fields, including be of interestto rese~chers communications, education, and medicine. With th proaches that include consideration among experts in different fields who bring differe increase an

in research collaborations rts

in different fields abilities.

of cognitive

as a basisfor the early identificationof children at riskfor cognitive delays and for the development and evaluationof intervention approaches.This book reviews literature in five areas of cognition and provides theory- and research-based information on the applications of research ~ndings and intervention approaches to normally developing children and children with development^ disorders. Runningthroughout is infor~ation on the interthe role of indivi~ualdifferences actions of different cognitive abilities and in development that influencesdevelopment assessments. ~t i The first WO chapters discuss the assessmentof a c h i e v e ~ eskills children. In chapter 1, Intelligence and Achievement: M e a s u r e ~ ean ~t ~ r e ~ i c t iof o n~ e v e l o p ~ eVariations nt~ by Molfese andMa~in,the

0th intelligence and achievement are the focus.~ e a s u r eof s inare used to m impo~antdecisions nd achievement children’s abilities, placement in special education e been used to identify children needing inte~enti Chapter 2, Developmental Trends in Teacher P

an evaluation of teacher ~pectationsand student development^ changes so that problems rmance identified. can be The use of these inventoriesby clinicians andeducators is de The next two cha~ters describe develo~mental S insocial s ~ l l s . Cha ter 3, Social ~nteractionImp~rments by Wa and genetic basesfor the de~elopmento provides a model of the skills involved in lopmental disorders (i.e.,D t, and autism)on the developmentof indivi ren by Landry, ille er-Loncar, and Smith, continues lopment of social skills.The behaviors needed to cits, such as those in medically cornpromised children. It describes their research with verylow birth weightchildren which links skills in initiation of social comrnunication with parenting behaviors the and demands cia1 context, to illustrate the complex cognitive skills needed for rnent of social communication. The importance of executive functionskills in tive ab~ities is the focusof the next chapters. Exe behaviors such as planning,i~ibition,moni memo^. Chapter 5,Individual Differences in FunctioninChildren:LessonsFrom the Del continues the discus n childhoo~. Espy and executive ~ n c t i o skills n in infants and young children and evaluate individrences in development. Chapter 6, ~ e v e l o ~ m eand n t ~ClinicalVariations in Executive Functions by Welsh, discusses both normal development

PFEFACE

xi

duringearly c h i l ~ o o d h o u school-ageyeam and c ~ n i c a l v ~ a t i oin ns development as seen in ch heny~etonuria,autism, a~ention deficit h~eractivitydisorde isabilities, epilepsy, and Down syndrome. Both chapters include covemge of the measurement of lls and the neuropsychological implicationsof the The d ~ e l o p m e nof t language and communicationskills impact t velopment of a varietyof cognitive abilities. Chapters7 the development of language skills,how these skills are i development and pathology, and how the language skills of children with m n retardation can be improved. Chapter’7,The Relation Between DevelopmentandBrain Activity, presents idorm neuroelec~oph~iological measures have beeqused to asse ive abilitiesof idants and children, andtheir us tification of cognitive disabilities. Molfese, Narder, and review studies using event-related potentials (EW) in studiesof int abilities, including and e specific speech perceptio velopment and us of predictive models involvi complications, and cognitive behaviors is described. ties in Children With rain Tumors, describesthe to adulthood and presents research rs in childhood compared in assessment of naming abilities in children with brain lesionscon children without lesions. Morriset al. also discuss issues related to selecfor lexical access patterns, and eftion of assessment batteries, implications fects of lesionsite on p e ~ o ~ a n cChapter e. 9, Patterns of L a n ~ a g e Development Through Augmented Means in Youth With Mental Retardation, describes the challenges facing children and youth with moderate and severe mentalret~dation. Finally, the developmentof reading abilities involves multiple skills, each of which can show individual differences in acquisition. idente remediation strategies for children with reading disabi~tiesare increasingly focusing on group level and individual levels of skills development. Chapter 10, odel ling Development and Reading and Writing Acquisition: A Developmental spective, describes and critiques developmental signsusedinstudyingreadingandwriting.Berningerand ~ b o t also t describetheirresearchprograminvestigating in~ndividual,interindividual, and group differences in the development of reading and writing skills. Chapter 11, TheSearchforIndividualandSubtypeDifferencesin to Remediationby Lovett andBarron, Reading Disabled Children’s Response continues the discussion of group and individual differences in the development of reading skills. It’s focus is on the roleof nonreading skills in the de*

*

xii

eresponse to remediation by

read in^

ecom~inin extensive ~

nal research by the auddress important issuesin the devel ifically, seek to unde ise from both normal and ~ a t h o l o ~ i c a l so~rces.It is throu~hsuch comparisons that insi~htsinto the for the early ide~tificationof children and the development of inte~ention

C H A P T E R

CINE

Achievement tests are used by the schools to make important decisions, of children into ing ~ r e l i m i n decisions a~ a ~ o uplacement t programs, and referral for assessments of learning, math, readin

in theirefforts to identify most exclusivelyon intelligence testsan siderable success in identifyrng a of setearly predictors, fant and early childhood measures, that can success childhood inte~igenceand cognitive test scores. to identify a setof predictor variables that can be used early screening batteryfor detection of later learning andot disa~ilities.It is hoped that early detectionwill lead to early and such early remediation efforts will show greater success in effecting positive change than is shown when remediation efforts are started ages. Researchreports have noted considerable success in developi dictive models using inte~igencetests as the criterion measure. Particularly successful havebeen models using measuresof biomedical ri

MOLFESE AND MARTIN

2

ditionsassociatedwithpre socioeconomic status ation

,labor,deliveryandneonatalstatus,

of the quality of the home enUs as the predictor variables, These measures count for up to50% of the variance when used to predict intelligence scores as outcomes. The f o l l o ~ n sections g briefly review the literature reportin of models involvingcomb~ations of biomedical, SES, home e and other measures as predictors of intelli~ence.Following this review,a rationale for extending these models to predict performanceon achieve~ e n tests t and for considering three additionalpredictorvariableslength of time in school, chronological age when the tests are administered, and verbal scores-is presented. Finally, the resultsof this research are discussed. Inthis research, the variables already described are used to ance on intelligence tests andon achievement tests using sample of children who havebeenstudied&ombirth

A

number of studies have examined the e~ectiveness ofbiomedical risk

conditio^, SES index measures, and measures of the q u ~ tof y the home

e n ~ ~ n m easn predictors t of performance on cognitive and intelligence tests. any studies have focused on children characterized by very low erinatal compromise, and/or preterm births. A variety of les have been usedto predict performanceon intelligence tests using scores obtained from normal and “at risk”’ child re^. Crisaf& Drisco~,Rey, and Adler(1987) studied 144 children characterized byvery low birthwei~t(<1,500 grams). They found that asphyxia at birth, SES, and sexof infant (male infantsare at greater risk) combined to account for 32% of the variance in predicting %year Bayley Mental DevelopmentIndex ( M scores. ~ ~Siege1 (1982a) reported results of a study with 42 children who had been characterizedas preterm and verylow birthwei~t(< S). She founda variety of biomedical and social risk conditions order, m a t e ~ a smoking, l respiratorydistress, e predictive of 3-yearStanford-BinetandReyn scores, accounting for from 22% to 35% of the variance. ~ ~ s m aF nk ,, and Rosen (1987) predicted scores of 3-yeardds on the Merrill Palmer Test. The scores of 39 children who had k e n exposed to methadone as infants were predicted bya combination of neonatal comp~cationsand family social organization, with 32% of the variance accounted for. Hack and Breslau(1986) found that neonatalrisk conditions, b ~ h w e i ~head t , c~umference,measures of neurologic i m ~ a ~ eobnt

inet sco~esof §core§was able to cl

Fowler, 1992; ~ v ~ &n u ~ of cor~lations we

a § t ~ ipoint n ~ for CO nce scores and with thato~tained v a ~ a ~ lshould e § include the rneas

nt are the basic me~u e. There are other ,Geci ( 1 ~ pre~ ~ ) could be added, For e e ~ o u n of t t h e a child spends in sc nce on both intelligenceand achievement tests. ce gains made during theschool year are at leas vacations, with bo resumption of schoo e gains made dueto schools administer predictive models in tha factor One ring.

to extend this model to inte gence tests also are influen

s h o ~ n that g change

searcher have reported just such eEects for age atschool e n t ~ n c

1.

7

INTELLIGENCE AND ACHIEVEMENT

administered yield different effects, with length of schooling havi greater influenceon scores than maturation. This difference can be t by examining data from childrenwho are grouped according to grade in school (e.g., first grade, second grade).Those children whose bi~hdates are just before the cutoff datefor school entry are younger when they enter each grade than childrenwho just miss the cutoff dateand who must enter school the following year. For example, first gradeis composed of children who have reached age6 by a specific cutoff date(e.g., a c o ~ o n cutoff date is September l)) children who have birthdates &er the cutoff 7, and by children date who enter first grade when they have reached age whose school entrance is delayed due to parentlteacher decisions. Thus, first-grade classesare composed of children who range fkorn older. By comparing predictive models in which children grade, it is possible to examine pe~ormancescores for the effectsof maturity (chronological age in months) at the time when the tests are administered. By including children who have been administered intelligence and achievement tests at different times in the school year, it is possibleto examine the separate effects of length of time in school on performance. CE O N INTELLI~EN~E

To examine the effectsof the variables already described, a studyof variables aBecting the prediction of children’s performance on intelligence and achievement tests was conducted. The study used measures of biomedical risk conditions,SES, quality of the homeenvironment,time in the school year when the tests were administered, and chronological age at the time the tests were administered as predictor variables. Scoreson intelligence and achievement tests were used as criterion variables. Data used in the study were obtained from childrenpa~icipatingin alon nal study.For these children, intelligence testswere administered attheir yearly test session, which occurred within a month theirof birth dates and achievement testswere admi~steredby schools accordingto the schools’ preferred times in the school year. The purposes of the studywere threefold: to investigate the extent to which the variables usedto predict intelligence scores can also be used to predict achievement scores; to determine how the results are influenced by the addition of two variables hypothesized to influence test performance: maturation (chronological age) and lengthof time in school when tests were administered; and to investigate the effectiveness of the variare dividedinto two groups us ables to identifychinthey meansplit to createwhichchildren are dividedinto those ing one standard deviationbelow the mean and those scoring above that score.

The sample consisted of children pa~icipatingin a ~ o n ~ i ~ d stady inal conducted in a were recruited up testing sese and for 64 (30 m There were no sign& d with ch~drenfor whom scores de (see Table 1.1). ad few severe biomedical risk conditio^ terized by a variety of biomedic~ risk conditions that have found to be relatedto p e ~ o ~on~inc e e and achie~ementtests. medical risk conditions scored from medical recTXBLE1.1 Descriptive Statistics for Subject Sample

First-Grade C b i l ~ r ~ Second-Grade Chiidren

gv = 68)

Predictors Biomedical Risk1 HOME Total Score SES Index2 Test Time3 Intelligence Tests Achievement Tests e at Test4 Intelligence Tests Achievement Tests ~ ~ t Measures ~ ~ o n Inte~gence(standard scores) Achievement Composite (t scores)

g v = 64)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

5.26 45.41 4.90

1.78 4.19 1.19

5.32 46.41 5.06

2.27 3.9-7 1.24

5.75 7.08

3.39 2.88

5.45 7.13

3.24 3.05

83.75 84.21

.61 5.59

95.98 96.15

.51 5.16

104.72 72.72

12.92 19.96

108.61 71.65

10.56 24.12

lScores are calculated using infantsex [male], parity, 5-minuteApgar, maternal smoking, number of prior abortions, and birthweight. See text for scoring. family income. Educa%cores reflect the sumof parental education and occupation and tion: 1 = some high school; 2 = completed high school; 3 = some college; 4 = completed .Occupation usedH o l l i n ~ s ~ escheme a ~ s of occupational categories (Bonjean,Hill, & NcLemore, 1967) 7; high scores “best.” Income: 0 = c 5 , ~ ~ 1 02 ,= ~ ; 20 0 0 ~ 2 5 ? 0 0 05; = 2 5 , 0 0 ~ 3 0 , ~60 ; 3Time in the school year when tests were administered. Months were score hom August (l)to July (12). 4Sc0re reflect the children’s chronological ages in months at the time the tests were ad~~stered.

1.

INTELLIGENCE AND A C H I ~ M E N T

ords using Siegel'sRisk Index (1982a, 1982b). The risk index was selected because it hasbeen used across a broad age range of children characte~ed term, low birthwe t, and normal birth histories in studies e ~ i n develo ment ofintelli~enceand achievement abilities.Six risk items te Apgar, maternal smoking, number of were used. These items were scored as present or absent, except Apgar scoresfor which actual scoreswere use parity thatwas scored as normal (1-3 births) and atrisk (no or >4 births), andb ~ w e ithat ~ twas scoredas normal (withinone sta viation around the sample mean) or abnormal (greater than one standard deviationaroundthemean).Absentandnormalconditionsreceiveda score of 0. A b n o ~ a ~and ~ s present k conditions received a score of l . sts were administered to the children thdate. The Stanford-BinetIntelligenceScale (4th n, & Sattler, 1986) was administeredto children at through 6. The WechslerIntelligence Test for Child 1991) was used to measure intelligence at age 7 onwar was used rather than the Sta~ord-Binetat older ages to iarity due to repeated administration at the yearly testing sessions. The results of school-administered achievement tests were p r o ~ d e by d the schools attended by the children. The schools administered a wide variety of d ~ e r e nachievement t tests.The most common achievement tests 'Achievement Test ( U T ; 1985, Mc~raw-Hil~, Inc.), the Skills (ITBS; 1993, Riverside Publishing Co.), and the nt Test Series (SAT; 1989, Harcourt Brace~ovanovich, ed national percentile ra t scoresin the present study.For all achieve-

s of social-en~ronmentalmeasures were obtained: A sociolated for each child using parental education, parental occupati the Hollingshead scheme of occucLemore, 1 9 6 9 , andfamilyinmeasure was the preschool verof the Home Observation for Measurement ofthe 11 & Bradley, 1978). TheHOME week was administered during the home visit that was scheduled 1within of the testing session at age 3. The two social-enviro~entalmeasures were used as separate scores on the analyses. Shown in Table 1.1 are the descriptive statisticsfor the first- an de children. The number of children included in each analysis varied sli~htlydue to occasional missing scores. PearsonCorrelations were ob-

MOLFESE AND MARTIN

tained to determine the relation between achievement and intelligence .In the correlation was .41 (p .001), and second in the was '64 (p < .001). Three models were tested to determine their effectiveness in d i s c b i between ,the children based on their test scores. The fmt model e scores from the Risk Index(BioRisk), SES, andTotal HOME scores as discriminant variables.The second model used five discriminant ' les: BioRisk, SES andTotal HOME, age when tests were adminis(Age at Test), and time in the school yearwhen tests were adminisst Time). The third model used only Age at Test and Test Time as The three d~criminantmodels were tested with the children in two ways-in one set of analyses, the children were divided into two p u p s at the mean score obtained from the sample (mean split), in ' d e second set of analyses, the children were divided into two PS with one group scoringone standard deviationor more below the ean (Low) obtained for the sample and the other p u p scoring above the LOW group ( A v e r a g e ~ i ~Whereas ). the Low grou few children (4-12) as compared to the A ~ e ~ g e ~ i ~ was i m p o ~ n to t examine the effectiveness of the p d~criminantanalyses included the ident~cationof the lowest scoring children. The results of the discbinant anal ses are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. Results are presentedseparatelyandbytype of test(intelligenceandachievement).Separate re also presented for the two of thechildren. Whenthe were dividedusingamean t one of the models resulted in significant discriminant functions. A consistent superiority for Model 2 (BioRisk, SES, Total HOME, Test Time, Age at Test) over the other models was shown in the Wilks's lambdaandchisquareresults for bothintelliandachievement. Model 1 ~ i o ~ i sSES, k , Total HOME) was a close d in Wilks's l ~ ~ d a and chi square statistics and yielded c ~ s ~ c a t i accuracies on that were nearly identical to those of Model 2. Model 3 (Test Time, Age at Test) resultedin n o n s i ~ ~ c adiscriminant nt functionsexcept for intelligence scores in second grade. e childrenwere divided by standard deviation into Low and Avegroups (Table 1.3), theresults were nearlythesame.Models 1 and 2 resultedin significantdiscbinant functions in all but one case for 1 for second-grade intelliboth intelligence and achievement, with Model gence scores being the nonsign~cantexception. Although Model 3 did not result in s i ~ ~ c adiscriminant nt functions for fmt-grade intelligence and achievement scores, the model did result in a si~ificant discriminant function for second-grade scores, but the model was weaker and achieved poor classification accuracy than Models 1 and 2.

I

-.

v)

W

ch F(!

#

m

' " !

W

v\

"tl

c

r@?

S!

m . !

N

rll

v)

#

-00

l

as!

1’4

\e,

rc,

v!

4.

#

v ; , N

VJ!n E?

00

v!

#

mr@?2

rc,

n

r-

m v!

r-

r:

0

v\

v!

U

00

5

rF':

d

09

'61

r-

1

W

* N

2

1

asi

m ' " !

r-

c

r-

z

* 0 0 0 F':k

1

P-

1

cu

\o

rc

00

as!

9

in in

Y

M

as!

N

y11

F

as!

b

rs

00

Y

ti

in

2

a?

d achievement. T a ~ n gthe results contributed most stronglyto the disc

IONS

the c o ~ e ~ t i obetween ns intelligence and achie~ementscor~s were modest, which is consistent with previously publ~hedrep0 the d i s c ~ i ~ aanalyses nt are quite similar. MO Risk, SES, and ME scores, and Model 2, Age at Test and Test Time,yielded the best the four models did so for both intelligen~eand achie~eme sultsobtainedModel 3, whichincludd only Age at Tes

have reported that the

1.

I ~ ~ ~ G AND E ~AC C E

res

ict~

A ~ ~ r n of ~ estudies r have re

~ d i t i Qrnatema~ ~, charac

1. ARENAS OF C O ~ F O ~AND T ADOLESCENT STRESS

~ a n c on e inte success is the m

have been found be-

e Index scores at age 3

spectively. Shown in Table 1.4 are the results of thediscrimin~t ~nction analyses for the first- and second-grade children divided at the mean. Only one model (BioRisk, SES, HOME,TestTime,Age at Test, and M c C ~ h y VSI) was tested, with number of casesper parameter in each analyses exsted minimum of five cases per parameter (Bent ddition of the McCarthy VS1 increased the classific accuracy by9 to 15 points for intelligence, although the improvement was not as impressive for achievement. Dividing the children into groups using standard deviations did not produce appreciably dihFerent results. TABLE 1.4 Discriminant Function Results for Intelligence and Achievement

Canonical Cowel~tion

Number Classified

Wilks's Lambda and Cbi Square

Classfkation Accuracy

~isc~minant Function ~oe~~cients

Intelligence

First Grade SES HOME BioRisk rest Time Age at Test McCarthy VS1 Second Grade SES HOME BioRisk Test Time Age at Test McCarthy VS1

.62

.68

1 2 1 22 4 20.61"" 2 3 18

.61

-85

SES .61 Test Time .52 McCarthyVS1 .40 HOME .29 Age at Test .21 BioRisk . l 1

1 2 21 5 3 20

.54

.B4

HOME .62 McCarthyVS1 .53 Test Time .50 SES 3 1 BioRisk -.06 Ageat Test -04

.58

HOME .72 BioRisk -.61 McCarthy VS1 S8 Age at Test .l8 Test Time -.l7 SES .l4

.78

McCarthy VS1 .65 HOME .64 SES .50 Test Time .34 Age at Test .34 BioRisk -.32

1 2

26.84**

Achievement

First Grade SES HOME , BioRisk Test Time Age at Test

.36

1 2

1 2 22 15 8 10

1 2

1 2 24 7 4 16

-86 7.17

NcCarthy vs1

Second Grade SES HOME BioRisk Test Time Age at Test NcCartlly vs1

**p c .01.

S8

.66 18,95**

MOLFESE AND W T I N

nt in classification lation ~ ~ve

e

e

was not

obtainedis of the ~ ~ c ~ ~ a n t

cales m dBer-

and a c h i e v ~ ~scores e n ~ is st

r the early ident~cation of ch

Antonak, R., Hng, S., & bwy,J. (1982).Otis-knnon mental ability test, Stanford achievement test, and three demographic variables as predictors of achievement in Grades 2 and 4. Journal of ~ducational ~esearch, 75, 366-373. Beck, F., Spurlock,D.,& Lindsey,J. (1988).The WSC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement: Correlations for exceptional children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 587-590. Bee, H., Bamard, K , Eyres, S., Gray, C., Hammond, M., Spiea, A., Snyder, C., & Clark, B. (1982).Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child ~evelopment,53, 1134-1156. entler, P.,& Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling.SocioZogical Methods re, S. (1967).Sociological measures:An inventory of scales Chandler Publishing. n preschool s instruments and standards for minimal levelsof racken, B.(1987).L i ~ ~ t i oof technical adequacy.Journal of P ~ c h o e d u c a t i oAssessment, ~l 4, 313-326, Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1978).Manual for the Home Observation Meawrement of the ~ ~ v i r o nLittle ~ ~Rock: t . University of Arkansas. Carvajal, H., Weaver, K.,& McKnab, P. (1989).Relationships between scores of gifted children on the Stanford-Binet IV and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement. ~ i a ~ o s t ~14, ~ u241-246. e,

~

1. INTEL~GENCEAND ACHI~MENT Ceci, S. (1991). How much does schooling influence general intelligence and its cognitive DeveZopmentaZPsychoZogy,27,703-722. components?A reassessment of the evidence. Cohen, S., & Parmelee,A. (1983). Prediction of the 5-year Stanford-Binet scores in preterm infants. Child Developm~t,54, 1242-1253. Crisafi, M,, Driscoll, J., Rey, H., & Adler, A. (1987, March). A Zongitudi~Zstudy of inteZZectuaZ performance of very low birthweight infants in the preschool years, Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore. Drudge, O., Reilly,T., Rosen,J., Fischer, M., & Loew, D. (1981). A comparison of the WISC-4 McCarthy scales, Woodcock-Johnson,and academic a c h i e v ~ e n tConcurrent : andpredictive v a Z i d i ~Technical , ReportavailablefromEducationalResources Info~ation

Center (ERIC). Espy, K. A., Molfese, V. J., 8z DiLalla, L. F. (2001). Effects of environment on intelligence in children: Growth curve modeling of longi~dinaldata. M ~ Z Palmer Z quarter^, 47, 42-72. Flynn, J. (1987).Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: WhatIQ tests really measure. PsychoZogicaZ BuZZetin, 95, 29-5 1. Flynn, J., 8z Rahbar, M, (1993). The effects of age and gender on reading achievement: Implications for pediatriccounseling. DeveZopmentaZ and BehavioraZ Pediatrics, 14, 304-307. Flynn, J., Rahbar, M., & Bernstein, A. (1996).Is there an association between season of birth and reading disability? Develop~entaZand BehavioraZ Pediatrics, 17, 22-26. Grossman, F., & Johnson, K. (1982). WSC-R factor scores as predictors of WRAT performance: A multivariate analysis. PsychoZogy in the SchooZs, 19, 465-468. Hack, M., & Breslau, N. (1986). Very low birthweight infants: Effects of braingrowth during infancy on intelligence quotients at 3 years of age. Pediatrics, 77, 196-202. Hutton, J., Dubes, R., & Muir, S. (1992). Assessment practices of school psychologists: Ten years later. School Psychology Review, 21, 271-284. Johnson, H., Glassman, M., F i b , K., & Rosen, T. (1987). Path analysis of variables affecting Infant BehaviorandDevelop36-month outcome in a population of multi-risk children. ment, 10, 451-465. Kames, F,,Edwards, R., & McCallum, S. (1986). Normative achievement assessmentof @ed W U T , and CAT, PsychoZogy in the SchooZs, 23, children:Comparingthe&“C, 346-352. Klausmeier,K.,Mishra, S., & Maker,J. (1987). Identification of gifted learners: A national survey of assessment practices and training needs of school psychologists. Giped Child Quarter& 31, 135-137. Low, J., Galbraith, R., Muir, D., Broekhoven, L., WWnson, J., & Karchmar, E. (1985). The contribution of fetal-newborn complications to motor and cognitive deficits. DevelopmentaZ Medicine and ChiZd NeuroZogy, 27, 578-587. Scales of Chi~dren’s AbiZities, New York: PsyMcCarthy, D. (1972). Manual for the~ccarthy chological Corporation. ~ and infant deveZopment. New York: Guilford. Molfese, V. (1992). P e ~ n a t arisk Molfese, V., & DiIalla, L. (1995). Cost effective approaches to identi@ingdevelop men^ delay in 4- to 7-year-old children.Early Education and DeveZopment, G, 265-277. Molfese, V., Holcomb, L., & Helwig, S. (1994). Biomedical and social en~onmental iduI n t ~ a t i o Jour~Z ences on cognitive and verbal abilities in children to 3 1years of age. nal of Behav~oraZ Development,17, 271-287. O’Connor, M., Cohen, S., 8z Parmelee, A. (1984). Infant auditory discrimination in preterm DeveZopmentaZ Ps~choZogy,20, and hll-term infants as a predictor of 5-year intelligence. 159-165. Prewett, P., & Fowler, D. (1992). Predictive validity of the Slosson Intelligence Test with the WSC-R and the WRAT-R Level 1. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 17-21.

MOLFESE ANDMARTIN

P m e t t , P., & Giannuli, M. (1991). Correlations of the WSC-R, Stanford-Binet Intelligence of three popular achievement tests.PsyScale: Fourth Edition, and the reading subtests chological Reports, 69, 1232-1234. Rothlisberg, B. (1990). The relation of the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition to measures of a ~ e ~ m e nAtconcurrent : validity study. Psychology in the Schools, 27, 120-125. Rubin, R., & Balow, B.(1979). Measures of i d n t development and socioeconomic status as predictors of later intelligence and school achievement.DeveZopmentaI PsychoZogy, 25, 225-227. Samemff,A., & Chandler, M. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuumof caretaking casualty. In F. Homwitz, S. Hetherin~on,S. Sm-Salapatek, & G. Siegel (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 4, pp. 187-244). Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. S ~ e m f fA., , Seifer, R., Bamcas, R, Zax, M., & Greenspan, S, (1987). Intelligence quotient scores of 4-year-old children: S o ~ a l - e n ~ n m e n risk t a l factors.Pedfat~cs, 79,343-350. Schiamberg, L. (1991, April). Predictors of verbal fntelzigence und ~ehaviorproblems of Society for Reumongfour-year-old children. Paper presented at the biennial meeting search in Child Development, Seattle. Siegel, L. (1982a). Reproductive, perinatal, and environmental factors as predictors of the cognitive and language development of preterm and fullterm infants. Child Development, 53,963-973. Siegel, L. (1982b). Reproductive, perinatal, and environmental variables as predictors of development of preterm (< 1501grams) and fullterm children at S years. S ~ i ~ inr s P ~ ~ t o l o g6, y ,274-279. Siegel, L. (1985). Biological and environmental wriables as predictors of intellectual functioningat 6 years of age.In S. Hare1 & N. Anastasjow (Eds.), B e at rfsk infant: psycho so^^ medical aspects @p. 65-73). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Smith, A., Flick, G., Ferriss,G., & S e h n n , A. (1972). Prediction of developmental outcome Child ~evelopment,4 3 , at seven years ftom prenatal, perinatal and postnatal events, 495-507. Spruill,J.,& Beck, B, (1986). Relationship betweenthe WMS-R and wide range achievement l Psycholo~calMeasurement, 46,1037-1040. test-revised. E d u c a t i o ~ and Sternberg, R, & Kaufman, J. (1998). Human abilities, Annual Reviw of Psychology. Palo Alto, 0 1 : AnnualReviews. Svanum, S., & Bringle, R. (1982). Race, social class, and predictive bias:h evaluation using the WSC, UVRAT,and teacher ratings. Intelligence, 6,275-286. en, E., & Sattler, J. (1986). Guide for ~ m i n i s t ~ and n g scorfng the fourth edition Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Chicago: Riverside. Vacc, N, (1988). Early adolescents’ performance on the UVRAT compared to their W S G R IQs, reading achievement scores and selected demographic ~ b l e s . ~ oofuEarly ~ I Adolescence, 8, 195-205. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scalefor Children (3rd ed.). New York: Psychological Corporation. Whorton, J.,& Kames, F. (1987). Correlation of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale scores with various other measures used to screen and identify intellectually g&ed students. Perceptual and Motor SkiIIs, 6 4 , 461-462. Wison, R. (1985). Risk and resilience in early mental development. Developm~talPsychotogy, 22, 795-4305.

C H A P T E R

TWCI

John M. Holahan ennett A. Shaywitz Vinita Chhabra Abigail Shneider Karen Marchione S d y E. S ~ a ~ i ~ Yale ~ n i v e r s School ~ t ~ of Med~c~ne Jack M. Fletcher ~ n i v e r s i tof~ Texas ~ e d i c aSchool, l ~o~ston

Teachers are in an optimal position to observe and provide feedbackon the academic and behavio~lstatus of their students. Teachers spend a subs tan ti^ amount of time with students (AtHns & Pelham, 1991), they can place the student’s ehavior in a broad context, and they may be less susceptible to bias tha re parents ( U ~ a n nSleator, , &: Sprague, 1984). Teachers can provideo b s e ~ t i o npivotal s to the disentan~ing learning of and behavioraldi~culties(Shaywitz et al., 1995); furthermore, the incorporation of the teacher’s perspective allows the child to be assessed in a natu~listicsetting within the confines of the c ~ s r o o m Clearly,it would remely h e l p ~tol havea ~ s t e m ~ t i method that wou to record their observation of students over time. Such information would provide the empiric d a ~ b a s enecessary to describe the ontogenyof cognitive, lingu~tic,and beh mains over the critical school years; moreover, these data cou en teacher observations andother m e ~ u r e s dual tests of academic achievement) over time. 3

HOIAHAN ET AL.

Inventory for Teachers (NIT; S h a ~ i 1983, ~ , a ment designed to evaluatea teacher’s perceptionsof academic status, as well as a~entionaland b e h a ~ i o ~ l d to assist the classroom teacher inprovidin~an assessment of academic, a ~ e n t i o nand ~ , behavioral problems a~ectingthe school-age child. The NIT provides teachers with the o p p o ~ ntoi ~ reeir obse~ationson a full range of specific behavioral and styles ina consistent and systematic manner; its format is user frie ~ u i only ~ nfrom ~ 5 to l0 minutes to complete. In addition to items, there are sess overall problems sc in itemstoevaluatecificareas of academic performance. This report provides a more e~ensive desc~ption of the ropert ties

nted of the reliabili

,r e l i a ~ ~and valid1 i~,

d and expanded

ins

e 11 is described with systematic l trends in teacher rat-

,and Academic. Teac

2. M

U

L

~ INVENTORY ~ ~ E FORTEACHERS

to go on to thenext .Theseitemsare score from 0 = ~ e ~ i n itot e5 ~= not at all. Fina of academic p e r f o ~ a n c evaluate s p e c ~ areas c adinglevel,decoding,comprehension, a~thmeticpro arithmetic reasoning, written expression, and h a n d w ~ t i nThes ~, are scored on a point Likert scale from s ~ ~ e r ior Q ~r i ~ ~(1) e tos t or Z Q ~ eone s ~ or two in class

TABLE 2.1 Items of the Multigrade Inventory for Teachers (MIT) and the Adolescent MIT (ADMIT)

Out of chair when supposed to be doing his work-sharpens pencils, walks around In constant motion-always on the go Restless, can't sit still-taps pencils, Restless, aps claps,feet taps claps, Flits from one activity to another Shifts from Distractible-notices and distracted by slightest noise or m o ~ m e n t

Att~tion 6 Needs reminders to listencarefully 7 Gets to work immediately, without hesitation 8 Slow to completeacademic tasks-requires extra time 9 Requiresconstant s u p e ~ i o nor reminders to fmish a task 10 Losesinterestbeforecompletingmost tasks 11 On a diiEcult task w l ikeep trying, persist 12 Doesn'tfinishwhathe/shestarts(a book, a worksheet) 13 Needs to have inst~ctionsrepeated several times individual help (1:1) in order to

can't sit sti&"ps

pencils,

one activity to another Acts be€ore t h ~ g Does things in a loud and noisy way Fidgets Acts as if driven by a motor

15 Side-tracked from task at hand

nized-loses pencils, papers, work area messy

Attention I1

Ignores or overlooks details Makes careless mistakes Forgets assignments Appears low energy, S Appears apathetic, low motivation Seems to daydream during class Requires quiet atmosphere in order to work Works independently ~signmentshanded in on time

17 Gets upset by and can’t tolerate changes

in routine/schedule

18 Problems during transitions-waiting, Problems during

t~~ition~waitin.g,

classes changing lining bus up for 19 Takeschallenges eagerly~dapts to new tasks 20 Takes

a long time to settle down to a new activity

Sd@Z

21 Interested pa~icipantin most class ac-

tivities

imiessly around classroom

27 ~ibited-needs to be coaxed in order to p~icipate

~ t e r ~ port sinmdes on others Seeks out assistance when needed Respected by peers

n ~ a ~ e

Retells a story in. a logical sequence 29 Ideascome out jumbled, incomplete, in bits and pieces

30 Trouble expressing hisher thoughts in

words

31 Trouble i d e n t ~ n g letters/numbers Trouble decoding

32 DHtcult to understand resses self physically or through gestures rather than verbally 34 Requiresextra help-gestures, repetition to follow verbal directions

or reading words

(Conti~~ed~

TABLE 2.1 ~Conti~ued)

Language II

Mispronounces wordsor phmses Trouble finding correct word, talks around a topic, imprecise Speech is smooth, fluent Problems in oral reading Speech interrupted by pauses, hesitations, repetitions Uses imprecise words: “stuff,” “thing,” ‘VOU

know”

Confiuses words that sound alike: says tornado for volcano Uses mature vocabulary Academic 35 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43

In general, does hisher work well Interest in boobheading Gets the concept being presented Retains information learned Trouble formini letters, numbers (&rors/reverses/~egible) Seems to understand rules, but confuses application Trouble learning new tasks Writing slow and laborious Difficulty in ~ ~ p u l a t i pencil, n g scissors

44 Trouble following directions 45 Associates sound with letter

Handwriting hard to read

Trouble learning new material DifBmlty in manipulating pencil or pen Trouble sounding out words Curious and interested in learning Behavior

In general, follows school rules Loses temper Argumentative Tends to refuse adult’s requestsor rules Tends to do annoying things Blames others for his or her mistakeslmisbehavior Tends to be touchy Seems to be angry RespectfUl of other’s property Swears Tells the truth Tends to be bossy or bully others Gets into fights

7

H

O ET AL.~

TAJ3I.E 2.1

~Conti~ued)

Overall, do you think this student: 46 Hasaproblemlearning (47-49, and 53 deleted) 50 Has aproblem in behavior

51 Has aproblemgettingalongwithothers i l be ready to go on to the 52 This child w next grade in September 54 Within the class, this child'sreading is (lo~~st-highest) Fur this student's grade, what is his or her as^^ Level for the foIlowtng academic

ski2ls: 55 56 57 58 59 60

Decoding Comprehension Ari~meticProcesses ArithmeticReasoning WrittenExpression Hand~ting

IT have been re-

ic, Language, Activity, Dexterity, and Behavior. In es, the MIT scales f o ~ e two d broadband facitive, The Behavioral broadband scale group consisted of Activity, Behavior, and Attention scales. The Cognitive broadband scale group consisted of Academic, Dexterity, and Attention. Thus, the Attention scale loaded substantiallyon both broadband scale ~ o u p s S 1, 2 , 3, and 5. Systematic gender daerences in the teacher ratf students cognitive and behavioral status were also reporte ntn et al. (1992). Boys were rated by their teachers as having h f problems in the six d o ~ a i nthan s were the girls.Stat~ticallysigmain effectsfor grade were found in fiveof the six scales, with the Activi~scalebeingtheexception.Finally,significantebygenderinteractions were detected for the Attention and Behavior scales. Over time, boys are rated as more inattentive, but for girls attention remains fairly constant. Simi~rly,the ~ehaviorscale means for boys generally increase worse), and the mean scoresfor girls generally decrease(im~rove) or ain stable.

2. M U L ~ G ~ E

I FOR ~ TEACHERS ~ O R Y

In order toaccommodate the breadth and depth of behavior and learning hat adolescent boys and girls demonstrate in the classroo ss t h ~ u g high h school, theMIT was revised and expanded 1993, in en the pa~i~ipants in the CLS were in the ninth grade.The Adolescent IT) consists of 93 itemsandwasdesignedtoreflect n the school e n v ~ ~ e n t gradelevels.Specifically, i anded to be consistent with itional-De~antDisorder (0 with Dm-N criteria were added to the ADMIT. Four new items relevant to HD were introduced egory of the ADMIT; three ite were added to the Social cate flect age-ap~~priate behavior, In the Academic catego changed in wording, and new items were added to reflect age-ap academic and behavioral demands in the classroom. Additional and Language categories (Attention I1 and L a n ~ a g e11) we supplement the original categories and provide more in those domai~s.The global items of the ADMIT d learning,behavior,andreadiness for academic ad~ncementandthe items that assess the child’s current academic function in reading and mathematics remain consistent with the MIT. The revised and new i t e ~ s of the ADMIT are presented in Table 2.1.

Data gathered regarding the scale development, reliab the MIT came from the ongoing Co~ecticut ~ngitudinai Study ation has been described in a number of previous reports letcher, Holahan,Br S. E. Shaywitz, 1992; S. E. Shaywitz B. A. Shaywitz, Fletcher, Br Makuch, 1992; S. E. Sh Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990). The sample continues to be n o ~ a t i v data e he develo~men course ~ of l for the CLS was Connecticut the 1983-1984 school ye cluded in the study were selected by a two-stage prob cedure. A d m i ~ s ~ t i v e lthe y ,state is stratifiedinto six aieducationai areas comp~ing 146 towns and 9 rural districts, o units. Within each regionai area, a systematic sample of was selected with probability proportional to size based

HOIAHAN ET AL.

garten e ~ o ~ eThe n second ~ . stage of sampling consisted of selection classes within the school system of each of the 12 to select two classes within each town was based primarily on the need for an adequate sample size,Each class within a given town had equalprobabili~of selection, For eachtown, two random numbers selected the two classes, with a total of 24 classes selected. children entering public ~ n d e r ~ a r tin e neach of the towns were inmted to participate in the study. ~clusionarycriteria were limited to sign ~ csensory ~ t i m p a ~ e n tserious , psychiatric ro~lems,or to English the primary language. These criteria res lted in the exclusion of child. Four hundred forty-five childrenpa~icipated,representn acceptance rate of 96,5%, )and 210 boys The included sample 375 11.2%), 4 Asian d 9 Hispanic (2.0%) renc whose was race (l.G%). *

has been carefully followed since entry into ~ n d e r g a ~ e n ted 11th p d e in spring 1995. In the spring of each school o c k - ~ o h ~ oPsychoeducational n Battery (achievement seccock & Johnson, 1977) wasadministered to eachchild. Teachers completed theMIT ADMIT scale data are

S for which both the MIT nnel recorded any special received by the child (e.g., selfkontained class, reomain (e.g., reading, math, writ.On alternate o d d - n u m ~ ~ d S 1 , 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 ) ,the WechslerInte~gence Scale for ~hildren-Resler, 1974) was administered to each child. Parents com of DM-W criteria for ADHD ategorical and dimensional di

IT items were e ~ m i n e with d two series of exploratory princip ponent varimax orthogonal rotation. The frst series of a~al~es n to reduce the item pool and to estimate the num-

2. M

~

~ I ~ G~ T O ~ RFOR YE "EACHERS

in five scales: Threewere f a ~ ~ o r -scales ~ ~ e and d two were d scale, and one ite

TABLE 2.2 Final Rotated Factor Loadings for the ~~T

Items in Grade 9 Factors I

rI

.l2 .81 Trouble decoding or reading words .l7 roble^ in oral reading .78 .02 Trouble expressing hiis or her thoughts in words [30] ( ~ n ~ a g e ) .77 .20 Trouble sounding out words .77 .08 n ~ word, talks around a topic, imprecise .?6 Trouble ~ n d i correct .l 5 Trouble learning new material [41] (Academic) ‘73 .l1 Speech interrupted by pauses, hesitations, repetitions .73 .l6 D ~ l ~to lunders~nd t [32] (~nguage) -73 Ideas come out jumbled, incomplete, in bits and pieces [29j 20 .71 uaf?e) -. 70 -.19 roblem learning [46] (Academic) .68 .l9 pronounces ‘wordsor phrases -.65 -22 ets the concept being presented /37] (Academic) -. 16 -.64 Retells a story in a logical sequence .l6 .64 ~ r i t ~ slow n g and laborious 1421 ( ~ ~ e ~ t y ) .62

-.62 -.62

Uses imprecise words: “stuff”,“thing”, ‘vou how” to understand rules, but confuses application Does things in a loud and noisy way

“-61

S7

S4 .l3 .l8 .08

.2 -. 17 -. 16 -. 16 ‘26 .34

111

.16

.19 .23 .16 .15 .37 .23 .l

.27 -.28

.13 -52 -.47 .27 .13

“55 -.36 “22 -31 .30

.88

.10

.87 .86

.15 .02

.l1 .13 .l4 .l

.86

.11

.85 .85

.15 .03

.85

.12

around [l](Activity) .09 istractibl~noticesand distractedby slightest noiseor m o ~ m e n t Shifts from one activity to another [4] (Activity) l? classroom [22] (Activity) down to anew [201 ( A c ~ i ~ ~ ) sses [l$](Ac-

.78 .75 .73 .?l

.2 1 29 .19 .19 .45

.66

.17

rudes on others

I)

*

*

-

to wait turn (261 (Activity) .38

.58

.47 “24 .3

EI

~

~ FOR OTEACHERS R ~ TABLE 2.2 (Continued)

Academk

111

Attention

Losesinterestbeforecompletingmost tasks [lo] (Attention) Appears apathetic, low motivation Seems to daydream during class Interested participant in most class activities Curious and interested in learning In general, does his or herworkwell [35] (Academic) Appears low energy,sluggish Assignments handed in on time On adifficulttask w l ikeep trying, persist Takes challenges eagerly-adapts to new tasks Doesn't finish what he/she starts (a book, a worksheet) [ l 2J (Attention) Forgetsassignments Interestedinbookdreading [36] (Academic) Ignores or overlooks the details Works independently Makescarelessmistakes A Priori Scales ODD In general, follows school rules Loses temper Argumentative Tends to refuse adult's requests or rules Tends to do annoyingthings Blamesothers for his or hermistakes/misbehavior Tends to be touchy Seemsto be angry Swears Tends to be bossy or bully others Gets into fights

I

11

.29 .26 19 -. 32 -.44 -.43 .25 -. 23 -.25 -.39

-51 .l5 .l1 -. 12 -.20 -.35 -. 13 -.42 -.39 -.30

.66 .81 .78 -.76 "72 "-72 .70 -.69 -.68 -.68

.26 .26

.41 .44 -.23 .44 -.44 .34

.67 .67 -.61 .60

*

-.SO

.36 -.33 .35

-.58

.S6

Behavior

Has a problem inbehavior [SO] (MITBehavior) Has a problem getting along with others [51] (MI"Behavior)

page, and Dexterity scales, a finding in general agreement with A ~ o n i n et al. (1992). The reliability estimatesfor the ADMIT scales are consistently very high; the Behavior scale (from Agronin et al., 1992) r e ~ a besti~i~ mates are substantial, particularly because the scale consists of two ~uestions:(a) Does this child have a problem with behavior, and with others? Nonetheless, teach cy in answeringthose ~uestions.

ET AL.

H0

TABLE 2.3 Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficients for MIT and ADMIT Scales

~ rAa cdde m i c 6 7

S 9 10 l1

Grade 9 10

11

.91 .S1'91 .93 .75.93 .93 .93

Language

D e x t e ~ ~Attentiorr .77

.S1 .S3 .S2 .7S

.92 .93 -93 .92 .91 .92

.76 .94 .92.72 .94-75

.S0

.78

Activi~ Be~avior .94 .94 .94

.ss .89

Oppo~tiona~/ Defiarrt

ACtiVi~/ ~ c a d ~I ~ cp ~ i s i vDisorder ~ B&avior Attention ~ .96 .96 .95

'97 .96 .95

.95

.S2 .86 .S1 .89

.96

.89

.96

.S9

.ss

-96 .95

~orRlationsamong the five ADMIT scales within each PRsentedinTable 2.4. Acrossgrades 9 to 11, consistentlyhi cortions were found for the Academic and Attention scales, representing theamonganddomain Ac and scales Disorder Defiantnal l doin. Conversely, correlations between scales fkom the separatedoma~ns ic and Behavior, or Attention and A c t i ~ ~ ~ m pareu ~ i ~ ~ ) lower than those for scales from the same domain.The five MIT scales were subjected to three separate second-order principal component analyses for data collectedin grades 9, 10, and 11. As was the case with theMIT scales (Agroninet al., 1992),two hctors accounted for a 5% of the variancein the scales.The factor loadin d solutions are presentedin Table 2.5; the factor with the correlation matrices. IT Scales

The means for the overall sample, males and females,for each MIT scale and the meansfor the overall sample, males and feT scale are plotted in Fig. 2.2. Means and standard ~eviationsof the MIT scales in grades6 through 11 and MI^ scales in

2. M

~

~ INVENTORY G ~ FOR E TEACHERS TBLE 2.4

Pearson Correlations Among the ADMIT Scales Scales Activity/

Academic Grade 9 Activi~~pulsivi~ Attention Behavior .60 OppDef Disorder .67 Grade l0

S3 .76 .46 SO

I ~ ~ € S i V i ~A

.64 .73 .82

Acti~~~pulsivi~ Attention Behavior .57 OppDef Disorder

.60 -51

.81

Activi~~pulsivi~ Attention Behavior OppDef Disorder

.62 .78 S3

.64 .69

Grade 22

.76 .48

S3

~ ~ t i ~ ~ebavior n

.82

.62 .72

.81

.62

.81

.60 S9

.80

9 through 11 for the whole sample are presented in Appendix A. ly, means and standard deviationsof the NIT and ADMIT scales for

males and females are reported in Appendix €3. Data for eachof the sixMIT scales were organized into a 2 X 6 (Gender X Grade) design, with repeated measures on Grade. Results of the six two-way analysisof variance (BituOVAs) are presented in Table2.6. Consistent with Agroninet al. (1992), the gendermain effect is statistically signifdemonicant (p .001) for all six scales, in each case girls were rated as strating significantlybetter behavior than boys. The maineffect for is statisticallys i ~ i f i c a n( t pS ,02) for all six scales. Onlyone scale, Activity, was found to yield a statistically significant Cp .002) gender by grade interaction. As can be seen in Fig. 2.1,the means for the NIT Activity scale generally decline (improve) from grades 7 to 11. The significant interaction can be attributed to relatively small variation in the differences between boys and girls-tending to be smaller in grades 10 and ll relative to grades 6 and 7, rather than a systematic difference in profdes for boys and girls. Finally, observed, but not s i ~ ~ c a ninteractions t, were found for theNIT Dexterity scale (p= .063) and for theMIT Behavior scale(p= .07). Statistically signifkant trend components associated with the main effects forGrade are notedsinTable 2.6. There is substantial fluc~ationin the mean ratings from grade to grade across each of the scales. In general, however, it may be noted that means for the Academic, Language, and

TXBLE 2.5 Rotated Loadings for Second-Order Factor Analyses of the ADMIT and MIT Scales

Crude

9

11

10

Factors Z

Scale Oppositional Defmnt Disorder .32 Behavior .25 .36 Activi~~pu~ivity Academic .93 Attention .82

LI

.89 .S9 .84 .23 .46

-25 .43 '92 .S4

Z

IZ

Z

ZI

.90 .89 .80 '26 *39

.31

.91 .86 .79 .29 .38

.28 .31

.44 .86

.91

Grade

-

8

7

6

3

22

l0

Factors

" " "

Scale

I

zz

z

zz

z

ZI

z

zz

z

zz

z

ZI

Academic Dexterity Language Attention Behavior Activity

77 84 76 66 19 27

43 04 33 56 89 89

51 08 40 70 86 89

73 89 76 55 22

52 05 38 66 88 88

73 89 77 60 21 20

83 80 86 61 23 26

36 21 23 65 88 87

80 85 82 62 21 33

39 17 31

53 06 47 56 88 83

69 87 67 64 17 29

20

60

89 84

Dexterity scales tend to be higher in grades 9, 10, and 11 than the corresponding means in grades7 , 8 , and 9. In contrast, A~entionand Behavior scale means areonpY slightly higher in grades9 , 1 0 , and 11 t §p~ndingmeans in grades 7 , 8, and 9. ~ i m ~ a r ldata y , for eachof the five ~ M X scales T were o r ~ a n ~ into ed a2 X 3 (Gender X Grade) design with repeated measures on Grade, and results of the five two-wayANOVAs are presented in Table2.6. The main effect for genderis statistic~y signiflcant (p<,001)for all five scales, consistent with Agronin et al. (1992), that is, boys are scored in showingpoorer ~ e r f o ~ a nin c eeach of the scale areas rated.The main effect for grade is §tatistica~~ s i ~ ~ i c act, n t2 '02) for two of the five scales (A~entionand Behavior). tati is tic ally signiflcant trend compon~nts asso~iatedvdth the are noted in Table 2.6. Trend analysesidente slight

MIT Academic Scale 2.0 l.

1.5

-

c

i

-

0.5__K 0.0

1

2

3

4

5

8

7

8

9

1

0

Grade

MIT Language

1.0

-

0 . 5 L _K_ . 1. _ _2 _ _3 0.0

4

5

8

Grade

MIT Dexterity Scale

=f

2.0

-

1.5

-

1.0

-

0.5

-

o.oJ

,

K

I

1

I

2

, , , 3 64 75 8 9

,

1

,

0

,

1

Grade

FIG. 2.1. (Continued)

,

1

,

I

I

7

8

9

1

0

1

1

MIT Attention Scale 2.0

,

1.5

-

1.0

-

"j'""~ , ,

0.0

K

1

2

, , ,

~

3 64 75 8

9

1

0

1

,

,

I

1

Grade

MIT Activity Scale

=c

2.0

-

1.5

-

1.0

-

0.0

K

1

2

3

64

75

6

9

1

0

1

1

Grade

MIT Behavior Scale

f 0.5

-

0.01

,

K

, , ,

1

2

3

64

~

75

,

6

,

0

1

,

0

,

1

,

1

,

I

,

Grade

FIG. 2.1. Scales.

Meansfortheoverallsample,males,

and femalesforthe

MIT

ADMIT Academic Scale

-

8

9

10

12

fl

Grade

ADMIIT Attention Scale

2.5

2.0

1.5

L

l .o

0.5

0.0

9

8

10

11

Grade

ADMIT Activi~/lmpulsivi~ Scale

g

1.5

-

1.0

-

8

9

10

Grade

FIG. 2.2. (Continued)

11

4 ADMIT Behavior Scale 2.5

2.0

0.0

4

8

S

l0 Grade

l1

12

ADMIT ODD Scale

11.0

0.5

0.0

-

I 8

S

10

11

12

Grade

FIG. 2.2. Means for the overall sample, males, and females for the ADMIT Scales.

linear increases in the means for the Attention and Behavior scales from e 9 to grade 11,indicating that teachers are identifying increasing levels of problems in attention andbehavior as the students progress through those grades. Interestingly, the Activity scales remain relatively stable from grades 9 to 11.It should be noted that the MIT Activity scale itoricallyrelateditemsbased on DSM-IZZ criteria.In contrast, ale reflects DSM-N criteria that include both activity and that the scale is then labeled ~ctivity~mpulsivi~. Therefore, 1s do decrease with se ~ndings are that

v v v v v

v v v v v

H0

ET AIL.

“Tro~~ decodle

les in order to

ng

2, M

~ INVENTORY ~ FOR TEbiCHERS ~

~

E

4.3

TULE 2.7 ADMIT Concurrent Validity CoeEkients

with Measures of

Ability and Achievement

W~dcoc~-Jo~nson Scale Grade 10

Math

WQ

PIQ

-.54 -.52

-.39

Academic Activity~pu~ivi~ Attention

“49 -.32 -.30 -.37-.45 -.34 -.30

-.51 -.32 “-43 -.34

Academic Activity Attention

-.42

-.41 -.32 -.38 -.34

ODD Grade 10

ODD

Grade 11

Academic Attention

-.31

WISC-R FSIQ

-.30 -.41 -.31

-.48 “.35

Note: The W S G R was not administered after 9th grade and the ~oodcock-Joh~on Math subtests were not administered after 10th grade,

anceIntelligenceQuotient(PIQ),andFullScaleIntelligenceQuotient (FSIQ) in grade 9 as criteria were in the same range. As would be expected, those items had fewercoeffi~ien~ exceeding k.30with HQ than with VIQ and FSIQ. The evaluative items for reading level, decoding, and comprehe~ionhave systematically higher validity coefficients with reading achievement and IQ. The teachers’ evaluation ofh a n d ~ ~ t i in ng 9 achieved coefficients exceedingk3 0 with reading; the teachers’ e tion of handwriting in grades 10 and 11 failed to achieve coefficients exceeding 2.30 with either reading achievement or IQ. Because teachers can provide reliable ratin of student status,it is reasonable to ~ ~ t e r m i the n e relations between the d i s c ~ i n a nvariab~es t (Teacher ratings) and the student’s readingstatus (reading disabilityor not) or ~ h a status ~ (ADHD o ~ or not). It is also important in assessing themlidi of the predictor measures to determine which, if any, constructs are related to c ~ s ~ c a t i of o nsubjects into their diagnostic p u p s . The CLS study design providesfor school-based and research-based criteria for ident~cationof reading disability (S. E. Shapvitz et al., 1990). School-based ident~cation(SI) is determined from school recordsof subjects who have received special education services in reading each year. Research-based criteria for identi~cationas reading disabled 0uses testbased empirical criteria for low achievement and discrepancy status in each year. The validity of teacher ratings on the MIT and ADMIT in d e t e ~ i n i n g

4

HOLAHAN ET AL.

TABU 2.8

Concurrent and Predictive Validity Coefficients for Measures Related to Reading and Evaluative Items

v Readz'ng

WISC-R Grude 9

Grude

IQ Score

Item~Scale

9

10

l1

Verbal

Language I1 9 LanguageI1 10 LanguageI1 11 Trouble decoding 9 Trouble decoding 10 Trouble decoding 11 Trouble sounding out 9 Trouble sounding out 10 Trouble sounding out 11

-.46 -36 -.43 -.48 -.42 -.42 -.48 -.38 -.36

-.5 1 -.39 -.46 -.5 1 -.43 -.45 -.52 -.39 -.37

-.48 -.39 -.48 -.47 -.43 -.47 -.49 -.40 -.38

-31 -.42 -. 48 "51 -.46 -.43 -.46 -.39 -.39

-.38

-.46 -*35 -.39 -.56 -.43 -.50 -.51 -.41 -.45

-.52 "39 -.41 -.60 -.47 "55 "56 -.45 -.50 -.54 -.41 -.49 -.32

-.49 "40 -.41 -.S6 -.48 -.54 -.51 -.45 -.50 -.51 -.41 -.46 -.3 1

-.47 -.41 -. 39

-.37 -.32

~~

Evaluatz'veItems Reading Level 9 ReadingLevel 10

ReadingLevel l 1 Decoding Level 9

DecodingLevel 11 Comprehension 9 Comprehension 10 Comprehension 11 Written Expression 9 Written Expression 10 Written Expression 11 H a n d ~ t i n g9

-S1

-.36 -.43 -.31

-.m

".49 -.51 -.56 -. 49 "'51 -.53 -.42 -.47

P e ~ o ~ a ~ cFull @ Scale

-.41 -31 -.34 -30

-.46 -.33 -.32 -.45 -.34 -.38 -.40 -3 1 -.33

-.49 "39 -.43 -.S 1 -.41 -.42 -*45 -.37 -.38 -.47 -.41 -36 -.59 -.46 -.47 -.56 -.47 -SO

-.52 -.41 -.45

ssed by the parent ~ p t o checklist m for r i d diagnosis of ADHD using 9. This i n s ~ m e npermits t using ina~ention,h ~ ~ c t i v criteria and a dimensional torn checklist. he four models predictedto (D~ensional) ,and ADHD (Categorical) criteria, respec-

tively. Summaries of the canonical correlations and canonical for the f o u r ~ M I T models are presented Table in 2.9. The cal correlation is for the model predictingSI, followed by RI, ADHD (Catego~cal),and ADHD (D~ensional).Most important, for ~ ~ ~ i c to t i SI ng and RI criteria, it may be seen that the loadings for the scales and items from the cognitive domain (e.g.,~cademicscale, Trou~le deco~ing) have

Canonical Variate Loadings for Discriminant Functions d les S fo e AD Receipt of S p e c ~ aEd~ Services

ADMIT Academic 9 Trouble Decoding 9 Language TI Scale 9 .63 Trouble Sounding Out Words 9 ADMIT Attention 9 .59 ADMIT ODD 9 ADMIT Behavior 9 ADMIT Activity 9 Gender Canonical Correlation

.a8 .31

.S3 .76 .76 -64 .54 .49 .4S -.29 -54

~~~

W Status

.69

*so .S2 .51

.49 S6 -.09 .42

~~~

~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ i Q n a ~ ~ C a t e ~ Q ~ c a ~ .54 23 .43 .35 .74 .94 .76 .82 .27 ,30

.l1

.23 .l8 .85 .75

.90 .41 .31

higher loadings than the scales representi e scales from the behavio~l ngs in both mode^ gender in the SI model i model. The can0 (~imensional),and 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5, respectively.

"O

r"----------------

Predictor

FIG. 2.3. Prediction of readingdisability.

.o

1

0.8

0.6

.3 0.4

0.2

0.0

Predictor

FIG.2.4. Prediction of ADHD (dimensional).

.o

1

0.8

m

0.2

0.0

Predictor

FIG. 2.5. Prediction of D H D (categorical).

.As we have noted previously ( S ,1994),the conce~tof attention

rkley, 1994,1996;

,Duncan,

ea^,

~ o nover timereflectstheteachers’

that middle school and h ~ a n c more e as a produ

ificantly more problems with attention

EX

S

ronin, M. E., Holahan,

ventory for Teachers to assess children FclJ B. A.Shaywitz (Eh.) ~ ~ (pp.~89-116). r Austin, y m:P-Ed. Atkins, M. S., & pel^^, W. E. (19 1). Sch~l-based ~sessment ofattentiondeficits, 197-204. h ~ ~ cdisorder. t i Jmrnal ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~~ i si a bni l ~ tgi e24(4), arkley, R. A. (1994). The assessmentof a~ention in children, In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of r e f ~for e tbe a s s e s ~of~Lt ~ ~ d i~s ~~~ ~n~New ~g t iviews e s : on m e a ~ r e m ~ t (pp.69-102). Baltimore:PaulH.Brookes. arkley, R A. (1996). Critical issues in research on attention. In G. R. Lyo gor (Eh.), ~ t ~ t ~memory, o n , and e ~ e ~ tfunction ~ v e (pp.45-56). H. Brookes.

i ~ ~ e s

2.

EI

Press.

the elements of attention: A n e u r o p ~ c h o l o gapproach. i~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ c h 0 2 2, 0 ~ 10

145.

ionnaire for completion by teachers: Prelimiand ~

~

c

~ 8, 1-11. i ~

t

~

,

.~ d u c a t ~ o health, n, and behavior. London: London: Hodder & §toughton. .,Holahan, J.Mi., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1992). Discrepancy comd to low achie~ementdef~itionsof reading d ~ a ~ Results ~ ~ t yfrom : the ~onn~cticut 25(10),639-648. ~ n gStudy. i ~ o~u ~ oaf~ 2ea^^^^ ~ Disab~l~t~es, ,B. A., Fletcher, J. M,,H o l ~ a nJ , ,Francis, D. J., § h a ~ e ~ D. e rP.,, Interre~tionshipsbetween reading disability and attention-de~cit~yperacti~~ disorder.

don.

Cbltd ~ ~ r o p ~ c h o1(3), 2 o ~170-184. ,

~ e v ~ e ~ ,

H0

T AL.

~ e h a ~ oproblems ur

ght years.J o u ~ of ~ l

& Smith, R. S. (1977). Kuuui’s children come of u p . Honolulu: University

W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). ~ ~ d c o c ~ - J o h ~P~ch~Educutional son But-

PA

~

E

~

Means and Standard Deviations of MIT and ADh4IT Scales

~

&UT Academic Grade 6 7

Language

n

M

SD n

M 8

9 10 11

SD n

M

SD n

M

SD n

M

SD n

M

SD

414 1.441 1.052 411 1.498 1.066 409 1.378 1.033 408 1.651 1.060 397 1.633 1.052 386 1.041

414 .977 .75 1 41 1 .981 .764 409 .a59 ,746 407 1.023 .687 397 .974 .721 386 1.051 ,729

Dexterlty Attention 4 14 .665 .B39 411 .672 .a93 409 .499 .739 407 .817 .788 396 ,795 .798 386 A07 .792

Activt~ 414 1.341 1.078 41 1 1.423 1.155 409 1.304 1.116 408 1.413 1.155 397 1.452 1.104 388 1,413 1.074

4 14 1.015 .938 411 1.225 .760 409 1.12 .686 408 1.186 .705 397 .B63 .B26 388 B23 .779

4 14 .a94 1.267 4 10 .B83 1.310 409 .773 1.241 408 .765 1.267 396 ,841 1.248 386 346 1.233

Ac~vtty~

Grde 9

Academic n

M

10

SD n

11

SD n

M

M

SD

408 1.28 .78 395 1.24 .77 386 1.28 .76

I ~ p u ~ s i v i ~Attention

408 1.02 .95 395 .97 .B7 388 .91 .BO

408 1.75 1.03 395 1.79 1.03 388 1.81 1.04

~e~avtor 408

.77 1.27 395 .84 1.25 386

.85

1.23

ODD 406 395

.74 .89

387

.71 .73 .84

Q)

V)

it it

Q)

crc

do

it

crc

Q)

it

Q)

n

rl

Q)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

C H A P T E RT H R E E

Lynn ater rho use m e College of New Jersey

This chapter presents a modelof social interaction skills. Sources of individual variation and keycomponents of social inte~ctionare considered. tt syndro~e, WilNeuraland social impairmentsinDownsyndrome, liams syndrome and autism are described.The central claims of t ter are (1) that brain deficits reduce variability in social interaction, a (2) that distinctive featuresof abnormal sociability provide clues to discovering the brain basis of social behavior. There are three major sections in t is chapter. The first outlines m of variation in behavior. The second nsiders the a ~ n o r m sociabi ~ autism and Down, Rett, and Williams syndrome. The third sectio poses an elaborated model of social interaction skills.

A prime source of individu~variation in h~man be~avior is viduality. A person’s behavio~lvariation is determined by th genes in developmental interaction with the en~ronment. or more genes arethoughtdeterminethehuman ce tern (CNS). Subsets of these nes determine the brain S

5

~ATE~OUSE

try, and processes that form thecontrol systems generating humanbehav-

iors. Variation in individualgenes (alleles) andsets of genes underwrite variation in human behavior.Genetic variation in or~anismsis adaptive, The greater the genetic variation within a population, the greater will be the likelihood that a subset of that population will survive and reproduce if the en~ronmentchanges. Similarly, cultural variation in “memes” (units of c u l ~practice ~ l and innovation theorized to ~ n c t i o nas genes also adaptive. The cultural memes of tools, ag~culture,division of ~ t i n gand , laws have improved the adaptive fit of humans, Moreover, cultural memes such as clothing have extended the adaptive fitof humans to new environments (Soltis, Boyd, & Richerson, 1995). Groups of genes underwrite control systems that fall on a continuumof malleabili~:(a) least malleable are autonomic system functions, such as breathing; followed by (b)reflexes, such as sneezing, blinking, and sucking; (c) fsed action programs, suchas grasping; (d) fsed com~onent triggers for specific formsof learning, suchas the development of phobias or word production skills;and (e) learned programs with strong innate components such as social interaction skills;(f) learned motor skills and condge; and most malleable is the (g) imagination to create new and skills. Genetic variation infsed programs of behavior is more limited than in learned programs: People are more like one another in breath they are in imagination, However, many components of each seven sets of control systems for behavior can vary across i n d i ~ d ~ a l s . T u r ~ e i m e r(2000) has outlined the three “laws” of genetic on behavior. First, all behaviors are heritable. Second, family e has a smaller effecton behavior thando genes. Third, as i ~ n ~ c a ort n t ti on of variation in behavior is not accounted for by either genes or family environment. T u r ~ e i m e rargues that e n v i r o ~ e n t ainfluences l are not syst~matic(2000, p. 163),and therefore, research to discover causesof variation in behavior can yield only small and unpredictably changing results. Given both the varied genetic constitution of each individual, the varied life experience and learning that each has encountered, the mental contents and dispositions of each person can be assumed to be quite varied. Despite this potential range of riat ti on in behavior, there are many forces working to reduce variation in human behavior.

There are many factors that serveto limit the potentially wide rangeof ind i ~ d u a variation l inhumanbehavior.Shared genes and ( f o u n ~in twins,siblings, ~ m i l i e s , ~ n s h i ppopulations, s, andspecies)

ENTS

-of-warbetween

ances in c o n t e ~ . i n WO

nt of whether the face

ate into~ationcu

p~ner. Conve~ationalso requiresthe const~ction of an int ist or message of a communication from another. For an eople must constantly conduct sorn memory reviewof words, phrases, and ideas that appe 199~; Leech, ~ 9 9in~the ) interaction. Thisprocess of referent buil~ingfor shared w o r ~ n m g mory i~ormationor common tenance of the episode in w o r ~ n gmemory for the her continuof the conve~ation,and the long-term storage of the salient attende to contents of that conversation,It appears that a wide ran tion from the in cti nitse will automatica~yin^^ workrecords for the conversation episode. Thus i ~ o ~ a nts to sustain w o r ~ n g

e m memory store that is bei

s the process of f l ~ b l redire e

ry is crucial to con-

tents.

f h ~ m a ns

~inte~ction i ~ is th

9) propose^ that th

t form iss e ~ - s e ~ n g

other systems to g e n e ~ t ethe social affects. F sphere f u n c t i o ~strategically for the protection o f t left hemisphere functions ~lliativelyfor social interaction. Luu and Tucker (1998)also presented a modelof emotional b e h a ~ o r . ode1 is embedded in a larger model of neurolinguistic Tucker claimed that the left hemisphere fo ous analytic cog~itionand focal atdthat the righthemisphereformsa model of the world based on an expansive attentional mode with d~erentialmemo^ or Luuand Tucker (199 ,approach-a~oid~ce the left hemispherein its role in del, the right h~mispheregene o rinter~ction, retation of o n ~ o i n g b e h a ~in This brief sketch fewof a select man social inte~actionsu task for the brain. In fact, social interaction appears to r e ~ ~ ithe r e successful onof many, if not all, systems rmal conversation with an rful test of the inte i of inte ~ e h a ~ oinvolved r s an conversatio e expected that there ar the ability to engage in conversation.

social cohesion, and the imp c u l ~ r eand other indi~duals. ed i n d i ~ d ~ a(Steinbe ls

3. SOCIAL I N T E ~ C ~ O N

~ P ~ ~ E N T S

Scarr (1992) proposed thatinnormaldevelopment, as adolescents have increasingly more interaction outsideof home, they are an increasingly wide pool of behavioral models and behavio Scarr posited that selection from this expandedpool of possible behaviors allows adolescents’ behavioral pressi ions and patterns of c h o i c ~to become increasingly true to their i ~ e r e n genetic t consti~tion. developmental disorders, howeverwillhavea retion because theywill explo~tion the of e learn what preferences and uni~uenessthey over, because theywill have limited abilityto imic others, and to compreh~nd the others, their social peers, teachers, and family members time directly r e ~ l a t i n ginteractions, and less time ing the expression of potential i and neural~ i a t i o in n Down s ~ d r o m e autism are briefly reviewed,a en social and neural variation in developmental

rome adults with brain volumes ler amygdala volumesthan nor-

budova et al., 199 noted in many individuals with Down syndrome.

up, Down syndrome in interaction behavior comparedto norsy~drome individu~s are expressively posi~ l l i a t i without ~e reserve. In a review of reported that John don Down origiescribed the syndromein l866 as character^ cheerhl personsense of humor. Their ality, with the ability to mimic ot of bei tive and lacking in the social i m p a i ~ e n consists t ability toself-servin engage inative interaction with others. ed that Domm syndrome childre ona: They are excessively and o v e r ~ l i a t i ~This e . m ~ ~ e d l y r e d ~ c e s iv ~ i a b i l i ~

ic rules for sentence f o ~ a t i o D ms ~ m a ~even r e in adulthood. Most .They do not manipul

There are many neural ~ ~ ~ n c t i o with Rett syndrome. Overall, there is a deceleration in head

neuron^

in the brainsof

e ~ To ~ date, . onlya h a n ~ of ~ cases l of drome have been identified in boys drome is defined almost entirely thr One of the most notable social imp absence of language development. Also sign tion of emotional expression. Many girls diagnosed with Rett syndrome

ip~ocampalsystem fu nt of the affective

conjointly in a single sa be found to have all four t. The core diagnostic b e h a ~ o r sinautism all red use of nonverbal behaviors to regulate does not seek others to share an experir e c i ~ r o c iand ~ , lackof social imitative or

an e ~ i d e m i o l o g i c ~ Gould (1979) c a t e ~ o r ~ social e d i m p a i ~ e nautism in t in

and ups,

TS

ion in social i ~ t ~ ~ ~ c t i o

TABLE 3.1

ocial I m p a i ~ e n t sin Domm Syndrome,Rett S ~ d r o m e , Williams Syndrome,andAutism

DOUm me

Rett ~ilZi~ms S y ~ r oS m y ~e ~ o m e Aut

resI ~ t ~ ~ c t i o n ~is~osition Fair bonding

Yes no no Yes no

mimic^

Group social cohesion Reward dependence Harm avoidance Novelty s e e ~ n g Prosocial d ~ s ~ s i t i o n

no

no

no

none none

Social e m o ~ (pride, o ~ envy) emotions(surprise)

tion ~ ~

n

c

~ Rules ~ n

~ rules a development ~ e

Equality matching Market valuation

no

~

none

e

slow/norm~ rare some some some rare rare

none none none none none none

normal abno~al impaired some some rare rare

none none none none none none

ENTS

Face ~roce§sing In-~rou~ Reco~niti~n Out- roup R e c o ~ ~ ~ o n Social Ideologies

und in Conver§at~on in Conve~§atio~

L

has discussed a few selected modelsof the sources of individan in

Cloninger, C. R., Ado~sson,R., genes for human personalture G ~ e t i c s 12, , 3-4. Collins, P. F. (1999). N and the s ~ c ~of rp e ~ o n ~ l Dopaty: mine, facilitation of motivation, and .Behavioral a~ rain S c i ~ c e s22(3), , 49 1-569. i s t 384-392. , Ekman, P. (1993). Facial expression and emotion. A m e ~ c a n ~ ~ c h o l o g48, son, J.N., Young, L. J., Hearn, E. F., Matzuk, M. M,, Insel, T. R., & Winslow, J. T. ocial ~ n e s i ian mice lack in the oxytocin gene. ~ a t u r eGenetics, 25, 284-28 Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for aunified theory of social relations. Psychological Re~iew,99, 689-723. Gallaburda, A.M., & Bellugi, U.(2000).Multi-levelanalysis o neur~anatomyin Williams s ~ d r o m e~. o u ~ofa Cognitive l ~ e u r o s ~ e n c12, e, ~ h i l dDeGeary, D. C., & Bjor~und,D. F, (2000). ~volutionarydevelopsychology. ment, 71, 57-65. ,E. (1974). Frame analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gray, J.A. (1970). A psychophysiological basis of in~oversion-e~aversion. B e h a ~ o rResearch and % ~ a p y 8, , 249-266. hag berg^ B., Anvret, M., & W ~ l s ~ o eJ. m(Eds.). , (1993). Rett s ~ n d r o ~Clini~uZand e; biological aspects. London: Mac Keith Press. Touchette, P., Lott, I., Buchsbaum, M. S., M D., Sandman,C., in nonspeE. (1995). Brainsizeandcerebralglucoseicrate tion and Down syndrome. rntellige~e,29, 191-210. t ~ c Hayes, A., & Batshaw, M.L. (1993). Down syndrome. In M. Batshaw (Ed.),~ e ~ i aClinics of ~ o r t America: b %e child with developmental disabilities, 40(3), 523-535. Insel, T,R. (1992). Oxytocin-a neuropeptide for affiiation: Evidence from behavioral, receptor autoradio~aphic,and comparative studies, P~choneu~ Insel, T. R., O’Brien, D. J., & Leckman, L. (1999). Oxytocin, vasopressin and autism: Is there a connection?Biological chiat at^, 45(2), 145-157. Kagan, J. (1994). Galen’s prophecy. New York: Basic Books. Kemper, T, L., & Bauman, M. (1998). Neuropath~lo~ of infantile a u t i s m . ~ o ~ p a ~ h o l and o~ ~ p e ~ m ~ t a l ~ e57(7), u r o 645-652. lo~, Koegel, L. K.,& Koegel R. L. (1995). ~otivat~ng communica~on in children with autism. InE. Schopler & G. B. Mesibov (Eds.), Learning and cognition in autism (pp. 73-88). New York: Plenum. Labudova, O., Fang-F~cher,S., Cairns, N., Moenkemann, W., Yehigiazqan, K., & Lubec, G. (1998). Brain vasopressin levelsin Down syndrome and Aizheimer’s disease.Brain Research, 8OG(l), 55-59. . York: Longman. Leech, G. (1990). P ~ n ~ ~oflper as ~ a t i c sNew Leontovich, T. A.,Mu ha, J. K., Fedorov, A. A., & Belichenko, P. V. (1999). M o ~ h o l o ~ c a l study of the entorhinal cortex, hippocampal formation, and basal Disorders, G(2), 77-91. drome patients. ~e~robiological ion: Examples from peer intervention pr L e a ~ i n gand cogni~onin autism (pp. inte~ationofneurolinguisticmechanisms. In H. ~ i ~(Ed.), e ~ ra ~ bofoneuroZing~ist~cs o ~ @p. 159-172). NewYork:Academic Press. Maurice, C. (1993). Let me hear your voice; A family’s t ~ u m p hover autism. New York: Fawcett Columbine. ,& Gopnik, A. (1993). The role of imitationin u n d e ~ ~ d ipersons ng and de& D. J.Cohen (Eds.), theory of mind.In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flus~erg, erst standing other minds (pp. 335-366). New York: Oxford University Press.

I N T E ~ C ~ O~NP ~ ~ E N T S

7

M o d ~ lC., , Green,L., Fein, D., Morris, M., Waterhouse, L.,Feinstein, C,, Plasma oxytocin levels in autistic children. giological P s ~ c h i a t 43(4), ~, 270-277. n and the nature of Plotkin, H. C. (1994). D a ~ i machines vmd University Press. ogy of mental retard 146-158. behuviour. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Reiss, A, L.,Eliez, S., Schmitt, J. E,, Straus,E., hi,Z.,Jones,W., & Bellugi, U. (2000). Neuroanatomy ofW ~ iSyndrome: ~ s A high resolution ofMRI study.J o u ~ a Zof tive ~ ~ r o s ~ e n12, c e65-73. , Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child Developm~t,63, 1-19. Sheinberg, L., & Avenovoli, S. (2000). The role of contextinthedevelopmentof ology: A conceptual framework and some speculative propositions. ChiZd De71, 66-74, ~ ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 1994). ~ e u r o b i o l o(3rd Richerson,P.J. (1995). Can grou~~nctional behaviors evolve by group selection? Cultural ~ t h ~ ~ o36,l 473-494. o ~ , Sperber, D.,& Wi~on,D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. C u ~Direc~ t Tur~eimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. tions in Ps~cholo~ical Science, P, 160-164. Waterhouse, L, (1988). Aspects of the evolutionary history of human social behaviour. LIn . Wing (Ed.), ~ p e c t osf autism: gioZogicul research (pp. 102-114). London: Gaskell. D. (1996). Perspectivesonsocial i m p ~ ~ einnautism. t InF. ook of autism (pp. 901-919) (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Waterhou~,L., Fein, D., 8z Modahl, C. (1996). Neuro~nctional mechanisms inautism. Psycholo~icul~ e v i e 103(3), ~, 457-489. Waterhouse, L., Morris, R., Allen, D., Dunn, M., Fein, D., & Feinstein, C. (1996). D ~ a ~ o s i s and class~cationin a u t i s m . ~ o uof~Autism l and Developm~tal Disorders, 2G, 59-86. Wing, L., 8z Gould,J.(1979). Severe impairments of social inter-action and associated abnormalities in children: Epidemiology and classification. Journal of Autism and D e v e l o ~ tal D i s o r d ~ sP, , 11-30. W i s n i e ~K. ~E., , ~ u r e - ~ i o nM.,oConnell, ~ ~ , F., Wen, G. Y. (1986). Neuronal denapto~enes~s in the postnatal stage of brai maturation in Down syndrome. In o~ Down syndrome (pp. 29-43), New York: Raven. C. Epstein (Ed.),B e n e u r o b i o lof Woodward, S, A., Lemenweger, M. F., Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D, (2000). Taxonic structure of i ~ a nreactivity: t Evidence from a taxometric perspective.Psycho m e , 11, 296-306.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

active partner. Initiations, therefore, call for flexibili problem becau *

ehavio~ required for effective social initiati l, sequencing a set of behaviors) have been of behaviors that comeunder the rubricof executive functionskills h & Pennington, 1988). Executive ~ n c t i o nhelp s o p e r a t i o n ~the ~e lity to profit from and comprehe ' expe~ences (P. Fuerst, 1991). Evidence for the l en social initiati behavio~and executive functionskills can be found in studies evaluati s o c i ~developmentand m a s t e ~motn skills in c~ildrenwho h central nervous system (CNS) insults hydrocephalus, severe intravent~icularhemo~hage) .Whenchild CNS d e ~ ~ are i t s placedin socialandnonsocial si~ationsinwhichthey are red to independently heir sustai formulate and goals per~ormance is areas these in below that of m p ~ s o groups n ,Garner, Pirie, & Swank, ,1993). In contrast, when t ations that provide external s t ~ c t u r e(i.e., standard~edtests of mental abilitie§ or situations where they are required to respond to the S requests of others), dBerences in their level of ~nctioningare not sk for problems in learn-

~ehavior, mothers who are

4. SOCIAL C O M ~ U N I ~ ~ O

M D R Y , M I ~ E R - L SMITH O ~ ~

im ortant earlier in infancy for

with eye gaze, this s evelopment of more

children described in this chapter were type and severity of their ical complications. Over have medical CO term i ~ a n tw s e i ~ h i n<~1, tlons a ~ s ~ c l a t with e d p r e m a ~ r(Volpe, i~ .These ofrcen lead to ry to respiratory p

or bronchop~lmon chapter, ~ r e m a ~is rdefined i ~ as a gesta-

4. SOCIAL COMMUNI~~ON

7

birth, was calculated by a neonatologist using Ballard, N (1979) scoring system.A l l LBW infants includedin these studies hadmild to severe medical complicationsas defined later. Thepresence or absence nial ult~onography(or occasionally CT .I ~ a n t swith M received s~ccessive detect progressiveventriculardilation (e.g., dilationpresent on the third wee spiratory illness en m d positive x-rayfi changes, h ~ e r i ~ a t i of o nthe lungs), while chronic lu fined as oxygen required for 2. 28 days. A cohort of 364 urban and~ ~low SES 1 families , rec and 1991were evaluated in a longitudinal study of p mental outcomes in prete WBW children. Table 4.1 sh hic and medical i n f o ~ a t i o nfor the three sub cted s i g n ~ cdifferences ~t between groupsfo TABLE 4.1 Demographic and Medical Characteristics by Risk Group

Full T m

(n = 128) Mean Me~ical

~ i ~ w e(grams) i ~ t Gestational age (weeks) Days of hospital~ation

~

a

t

~

l

Maternal age (years) Maternal education (years) Soci~conomicstatus* mar it^ status (%) Married Divorced Single Maternal workhchool (%) Yes Etbnic (96)

African American Caucasian Hispanic Other

Low Risk (n = 123)

(SD)

Mean

(SD)

(767) 3187a (5.9) 39. l a

1263b 30.9b 44.5a

(202) (2.0) (47)

-

26a 11.8 25.3

~

Meas

28b

(12)

28.5

12.2

39.1 7.1 53.

48.2 9.5 42.3

44.9 11.6 43.5

37.0

35.0

32.0

62

62

57

25

13

-

20 15 3

b

(SD)

93OC (233) 28.OC (2.2) llOb (77)

(S)

(1.9)

i Risk ~

(n = 83)

(7)

(2.0) (12)

25 13

5

Note: Groups with different superscripts are significantly different from one another: “a” significantly differs from “ b and “c”;“ b significantly differs from “c” Cp c .OS). *Ho~ingshead four-factor index ~ o ~ i n g s h e a1965) d,

LANDRY, ~I~ER- LON^, SMITH

Two aspects of the children’s social competence were coded: ~ e s ~ Q ~ s i ~ e ness to mothers’ attention-directing behaviors and requests and ~ n i ~ ~~Q~~ of social inte~ctions. Children’s social competence was

from their interactions with their mothersin the home e

rather than with an examiner because children acquire their social skills at these youngagesthrough interactions with their primary caretaker ( M a ~ o1990). , This approach was,therefore, expected to p r o ~ d ae more valid representation of their social communication skills. ~hildren’ssocial behaviors were coded as responsiveness i f they followed within 3 seconds of a maternalattention-direct in^ event and as an initiation if they occurred when the mother had not interactedwith the infant for at least 3 seconds. Initiatin~behaviors were coded as separate if they were s e p a ~ t e dby at least 3 seconds. Previous cross-secstudies with children of similar ages (e. .,Landry et al., 31994) indichildren were going to respond to their mothers’ requests, the response most often occurred within the to 3 seconds after the compl~tionof the request. If greater amountewere allotted, then ch~dren’s beha~ors that did not seem directly responsivet but rather introduced a new aspect of the inte~ction were c s ~ o n s e srather than initiatio~.

At all ages,social categories for responsiveness and initiating b e h a ~ o r ins

ed gestures, positive affect, eye gaze, and vocal~ations~ords. Two additionalresponsivenesscategories inc ded: the i ~ a n t ’ sori the focus of mother’s attention directing ehavior at 6 months the developmental quence of this behavior (Scaife & ~ ~ n e r , complianceandntiatingversusnoncompliance to maternalrequests at 24 and 40 months.

Factor analysis and structural equation modeling revealed separate factors and responding acrossthe 6- t h r o u ~ 40-month tim table structure across this same develo~mental der to establish the validity and re~abilityfor a social compet struct, a series of c o ~ l ~ a t ofactor r y and s t r u c t u ~equation odel ling anal~seswere done. The initial measurement model specified four factors“a social competence factor at each age point from 6 to 40 months. The indicator variables included social initiating andsocial responsiveness

rs

les were usedto make concer~acceptance,and resp sed on f r e ~ ~ of e materna n ~ concer~acceptance was base a1 stimulation (includin tance of childr~n’sinterests, moods, and ness/~e~b was ~ l based i~ on promptnes§ and cont res onse to children’scues, degree of indepen high intercorrelati .BO), scores were

,internal cons is ten^ measures of the c e .84, at 24 months, .81 andat 40 m0

~ene~l~ab coefificients ili~ for the (6/12/~4/40 months) we .84; atte~tion-maintaini .98/.$16, and toy play, r

==

.6’7/.6

as follows: average 3/.94,and toy play,

with responsiv~nessas with initiating f de~elopmentin respon§iveness were

4. SOCIAL C O ~ ~ U N I ~ ~ O N

higher levelsof medical risk becauseof the delaysHRVLBW children show in motor, attention, and early communication skills. 3:

st

Of

Across both contexts, both the HR and LR VLBW infants showed slower rates of increases from6 to 12 months in initiationsas compared to the FT infants. HR VLBW infants appeared to have both slower rates and lower levels in both contexts as compared to the FT infants. In contrast, the L infants have both lower levels and slower rates only in the more D dailyactivities, LR inattention~ydemandingtoyplaycontext. fants also showed slower increasesininitiati t theyhad s i g n ~ c a n t l ~ higher6-monthinitiating skills thanthe H tsand skills that were hanthe FT infants,ingthat LR infantshaveless in this context. No nt differences ac were found for either 6-month responsiveness scores or for t crease from 6 to 12 months in responsiveness (see Table4.2). illustrates the risk d~erences for initiations (for more specifi on the procedures and analyses see Landry, ~ m i t het al., 1997b). ‘nfants may have broader d ~ c u l aling their interests. In contrast, with initiatingwhen they are in situationswithincreasedattentionaldemands. In support of t preterm infants frequently are reported to have greater attention lems when compared to FT infants (see Ruff, 1988). LR infants have the capacityto formulate a social goal when they are required to orient attention to both mother and toys.The absence of group differences in social responsiveness s em on st rates that VLBW infants, even those at ~ where eater medical ris ,are less likely to have d ~ l c uinl situations others provide a framework by making specific requests. Because of children’s learning occurs through the active role they assume inSOCI interactions, it will be importantfuture in studies to evaluate the d ment of initiating at later

en evaluating the effectof prematurity and medical riskon the devel~ months of opment of these same social skills from6 t h r o u 40 oups of children, similar results were found for medical risk for growth in initiating. After accounting for the iduence of mothers’ be(HLM) analyses revealed haviors, results from hierarchical linear modeling HR both that the FT children showed more of an increase in initiating than and LR children. This increase was greater during toy play than daily activities (see Fig. 4.1). In contrast, theHR and LR children showed greater ac-

x

0

m

0

n ( r

v)

N

0 Q)

-

-

l"

0

0 VI

m

0

v)

AVld A01 ~Nl1Vl1lNl lV13OS

0

. -

v

S13V AllVCl ~ N l l V i l l NlV13OS l

celerations than the FT children, but this was most apparent during toy play, with theLR children displa~ngmore of an acceleration intheir initiating skills than the HR children. Similar to the findings across the first year of life, growth inchildren’s responsiveness showedno signi~cantrelation -with medical risk or prematurity (see Table 4.2). The VLBW children’s greateraccelerationsininitiati s u ~ e s t more s unevennessin their socialdevelopment.Becausethisnnesswas seen morein toy play than daily activities, these children’s ability to learn to use gestures and verbal~ations toattract their mother’s a~entionmay be more tively aected in situations that require morejoint attention. These ings demonstrate thatVLBW children, as comparedto FT children, show changes in their rate o rowth of social communicative re, evaluating these skill later agesmay ultimately reveal a priatelevels of socialfunctioniinthesechildren.

~nderstandingthe relation between mothers’ interactive behaviors and children’s social communication development across the infant’s first year of life was espected to be important becauseof the critical nature of this eriod for building a base for social skill development. Increased maternal warmth and sensitivityto infants’ interests provide the necessary supports for infants’ activeorgan~ationof social responses.These two maternal behaviors were espected to be important for infants, particularlyVLBW ino develop early social skills. In c o n t r ~ thigh , degrees of s t ~ c t u r e directive strategies and attempts to redirect attention were exo place increased demands on the infants’ attentional capacities an interfere with the acquisition of social skills, particular1 social initiatse behaviors were espected to have a more signa the VLBW infantsbecause of their attentional d~lculties(seeLandry, $mith, ille er-Loncar, & Swank, 1998). Table.4.3contains mea^ and standard deviations for all three maternal behaviors. Because the frequency of mothers’ interactions and infants’ cognitive levels may be importantin understanding individual dHerences in social development, these variables were included whene ~ m i n i n relations g between maternal interactive behaviors and infant social development. Results are shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5. For all infants, higher Bayley mental scores were associated with increased competen~in initiatin~and this was more apparent for the LR VLBW infants than theHR.infants. In addition, maternal maint~ningwas an important predictor of both month social responsiveness (see Table 4.4) and growth in this skill across the

LE 4.4 ~ u l t i ~ i aand te U ~ ~ i a t e for Infant Social Competence ~ i l'S ~ s L a ~ ~ ~ Fa 3.15

~ o d efor l ~~itiatio~s

.94 .95

.01 2.38 -03

-8718,606

2.41

R2

F

"2.10 -2.24 .03 2.65

nsiti~~ s~imuiation~D~ Bayley men^^ months

p value 6,606 6,606 "01

df

304 304 304

.22

I

)

x

~

H W vs. FT2

~DA ~ = daily e activities; ; HR/LR vs. FT = Hi S

one-tailed test of s i ~ n i f i ~ a n c ~

cative process.

.05 .01

.0001

t *

p value

2.75 .01 3.27 -1.79 .04 -3 -39

df 304 304 304 304

p value .01 -01

Un~ua~ate

t

"~

282

t

1

Low

df

.Q1

p uaZ~e

LANDRY, ~ I ~ E R - L O N

1 as increases in this

lated to slower incre

Id, mothers’ warm owing more normal patterns of de

f maternal behaviorsto social communicative de3, p ~ i c uinterest l ~ inmaternal b e ~ a and ~ o ~ rs that facilitated accelerated H~ was used to examine th maternal behavior as a t i m e - v ~ ncovariate ~ @ryk 8s. Rau r levels and further increases in the rates with which mothers maint~ninfants’ attentionwere expected to relate ~ o s i t i v ~ l y S’ social res~onsiveness and initiative. Becauseof

4. SOCIAL C O M ~ ~ N I ~ ~ O N

the ?XBW infants ~sistancein this for the HR.than the L

oups comparedto the F“ infants, i ~ a n t s .though directiveness was not

more i ~ o ~ a t i o espected of them.

siveness across

~

p

ofor ~u n dt e ~ ~ n d i na grange of developmental outcome

pe~pective of thechild’s cognitive ~evelopment,mothers’ at temp^ to m ~ n t a i nattentional focus provides support for young children’s immature attentional skills by not requiring them to shift their attentional focus. m e n mothers make requests that are complement^ to children’s interests, children can then use their attentional and cognitive c a p a c i ~to respond a~~ropriately and initiate social exchanges. Althou has been related to social skills at early ages, the present strate thati n c r e ~ e in s the rate at which children developthese skills also depends on mothers increasi their use of this supportive strate the early ~ h i l ~ h o operiod. d Across both contexts and forall groups, higherlevels of maternal directiveness across6 to 40 months p r ~ ~ i c t slower ed ratesof initiati

IO

T-.

I

T-.

U)

U)

Q3 C Q3

n

.iii

8

CI

> . -

-=?

. c -

"

L

(D

I

RIod

LANDRY, MILLER- LON^, SMITH Bruner, J.S. (1982). The organization of action and the nature of the adult-infant interaction. In E. Tronick (Ed.),Social int~changein infancy:~ e c tcognition, , and communication (pp. 23-35). Baltimore: University Park Press. ~udenbush, S. W. (1992).~ierarchicallinear models: ~ ~ l i c a t i oand n s data a ~ ~ s i s ~ e London: t ~ o d Sage. s . Butterworth, G.(1995). Origins of mind in perception and action.In C. Moore& P. J.Dunham (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in d e v e l o p ~ n (pp. t 29-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crawford, J.W. (1982). Mother-i~ntinteraction in premature and full-term infants.Child Development, 53, 957-962. Crocken~rg,S., & Litman, C. (1990). Autonomy as competence in 2-year-olds: Maternal correlates of childdefiance,compliance,andself-assertion. Developmental Psychology, 26(6), 96 1-97 1. ge, K. (1985). Facets of social interaction and the assessment of social competence in children. In B. Schneider, K. Rubin, & S. Ledingham (Eds.), C h i 1 d r ~ ’ s pr~lations: e~ issues in a s s e s s ~ n and t i ~ t e ~(pp. ~ 3-22). t i ~New York: Springer-Verlag. , (1980). ~ w - b i r t h w e i ~ t Drillien, C.M., Thomson, A., & B u r g o ~ eK. A lon~tudinalstudy. Developmental ~ e d i c and i ~ Child Neuro Garner, P.W., Landry, S. H., & Richardson, M. A. (1991). The develop skills in very low birth weight infants across the two first years. Infant ~ e h a and ~ ~Deo ~ v e l o p ~ e n t14, , 489-495. Goldberg, S., Lojkasek, M., Gartner, G., & Corter, C. (1989). Maternal responsiveness andsocial development in preterm infants. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),~ a tresponsiv~ess: ~ l Characteristics and consequences (pp. 89-103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greenberg,M. T., & Crnic, K. A. (1988). Longitudinal predictorsof developmental status and social interactionin premature and full-term infants at agetwo. Child Develo~ment,59, 554-570. .B. (1965). Fourfactor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale Department of Sociology, New Haven, CT. Kopp, C. B. (1990). Compliance and comprehension in very young toddlers. lopment, 61, 1997-2003. Kopp, C, B. (1982). The growth of self-re~lation: A developmental perspective.Developtal Psychology, 18, 199-214. Kuqnski, L., & Kochanska, G.(1990). Development of children’s noncompl~ance strategies: From toddlerhood to age 5. D e v e l o p ~ t aPsychology, l 26, 398-408. K u ~ n s k L., i , Kochanska,G., Radke-Yarrow,N.,& Girnius-Brown,0. (1987). A developmental interpretation of young children’s noncomplicance.~ e v e l o p ~ n tPsycholgy, al 23, 799406. Landry, S. H.(1995). The development of joint attentionin premature low birth weight incomplicationsandmaternala~ention-directingbehaviors. ds.),Joint attention: Its origins and role in development .Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Infant (1988). Visual attention skills and preterm infant risk. *

Landry, S. H., Chapieski,M. L., ~ c h ~ d s oM., n ,Palmer,J., & Hall, S. (1990).The social competence of children born prematurely: Effects of medical complications and parent behaviors. Child Develop~ent,61, 1605-1616. Landry, S. H., Denson,S. E., & Swank, P.R. (1997). Effects of early medical risk and socioeconomic statuson the cognitive development and social communication skills of low birth weight infants. J o u ~ o~Clinica1 l a n d ~ ~ ~ Neu t r oa p sly c ~ o l o19(3), ~ , 261-274. I a n d r y , S. H., Fletcher,J. M., Denson, S,, & Chapieski, L. (1993). Longitudinal outcome for low birth weight infants:Effects of intraventricular hemorrhage andb r o n c h o p u ~ o n ~ ~ ~ p l a s~i ao. u ~ofa Clinical l and ~ x p ~ m ~Neuropsychology, t a l 1.5(2), 205-218.

4. SOCIAL C O ~ U N I ~ ~ O N

Landry, S. H., Garner, P., Swank, P., & Baldwin, C.(1996). Effects of maternal scaffolding during joint toy play with preterm and full-term idnts. M ~ I I - P a Z m ~ ~ u a r42,l-23. t~ly, Landry, S. H., Garner, P. W., Pirie, D., & Swank, P, R. (1994). Effects of social context and mothers’ requesting strategies on Down’s syndrome children’s social responsiveness. DeveZopm~taIPsychoIogy, 30, 293-302. Landry, S. H.,Robinson, S. S.,Copeland, D.,& Garner, P. W. (1993). Goaldirected behavior and perception of self-competence in children with Spina Bifida.Journal of Pediatric PsychoIo~,18, 389-396. Landry, S. H., Smith,K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997a). Predicting cognitivelanguage and social growth curves from early maternal behaviors in children vat ~ n g degrees of biologic risk. DeueIopmentaI PsychoIogy, 33, 1-14. Iandry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1997b). Responsiveness and t, initiative: Two aspects of social compentence. infant Behavior and D e u e ~ o p m ~20, 259-262. Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C.L., & Swank, P. R. (1998).The relation of change in maternalinteractivestylestothedevelopingsocialcompetenceoffull-termand preterm children. ChiId D#eIopment, 69, 105123. Landry, S. H.,Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Miller-Loncar, C, L. (2000). Early maternal and ChiId child influences on children’s later independent cognitive and social functioning. D e ~ e I o p m ~71, t , 358-375. Leung, E. H. L., & Rheingold, H. (1981). Development of pointingas a social gesture.Deuelo p m ~ t a PsychoIogy, I 172, 215-220. Lewis, M., & Goldberg, S. (1969). Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: A generalP a ~ ~ ~ ized expectancy modelas a function of mother-infant interaction.~ ~ Z Z - Quarterly, 15, 81-100. Maccoby, E.,& Martin, J.A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family. E. M. In Hetherington (Ed.), P.H, Mussen (Series Ed.),Handbook of chiZdpsychoIogy: Vol. 4. Socialization, p~sonaIity, andsocial deveIopment (pp. 1-102). New York: Wiley. MacDonald, K. (1992). Warmth as a developmental construct: An evolutionary analysis. Child DeveIopment, 63,753-773. Marfo, K. (1990). Maternal directiveness in interactions with mentally handicapped children: An analytical commentary.Journal of Child PsychoIogy and Psychiatry, 31, 531-549. Papile, L., Burstein,V., & Burstein, R. (1978). Incidence and evolution of subependymal and intraventri~larhemorrhage: A study of infants with birth weight less than1500 grams. Journal of Pediatrics, 92, 529-534. Parpal, M,, & Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child compliance. Child ~ e v e l o p ~ e n56, t , 1326-1334. Plunkett,J.W., & Meisels, S. J.(1989). Socioemotional adaptation of preterm infants at three years. Infant Mental Health JournaI,10, 117-131. Rocissano, L., & Yatchmink, Y.(1983). Language skill and interactive patterns in prematurely born toddlers. Child Development, 54, 1229-1241. Rourke, P. D., & Fuerst, D. R. (1991). Learning disa~iIitiesandpsychosociaIfunction~ng:A neuropsychoIo~icaI perspective. New York: Guilford. Ruff, H. A. (1988). The measurement of attention in high-risk infants. InP. Vietze & H. G. Vaughan(Eds.), Early ident~icationof infants at risk for mental retardation (pp. 282-296). New York: Grune & Stratton. Nature, Scaife, M., & Bruner, J.S. (1975). The capacityfor joint visual attention in the infant. 253, 265-266. Schaffer, H. R. (1977). Studies in moth~-infantinteractions. New York: Academic Press. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. K. (1980). Child compliance and maternal control techniques. DeveIopmentaI P ~ ~ h o I o g16, y , 54-61.

An explosion of research activity in thearea of attention, memo^, and executive function has been noted since the mid-1980s (Lyon & 1996).The bulk of this activity, however, has focusedon the e~mination of group dHerences in executive skills, with less attention devotedto the

ESPY AND ~

U

F

~

N

tative descriptio~.Many authors identify the unique clinical presentation of PhineasGage,anotherwise unremar~blerailroad worker, as the dawning of modern interest in the brain-behavior relations associated with executive functions (Harlow,1848, 1868). Gage made history when an accidental explosion sent a large tamping iron traversing through his left frontal lobe, causing focal, yet extensive damage. Harlow’s behavioral observations are the only record of the psycho logic^ changes characterized by reduced inhibition and altered personality: The equilibrium o r balance, so to speak, between his intellectual faculties and his animal propensities, seemsto have been destroyed. Heis fitful, irreverent, indulging at timesin the grossest profanity(which was not previously his custom), m a ~ e s t i nbut ~ little deference for his fellows, impatientof restraint o r advice when it conllicts withhis desires, at timespe~inaciouslyobstinate, yet capricious and vacillating, devising many plansfor future operations, which are no sooner arranged than they are abandoned in turn for others appearing more feasible. (IIarlow, 1868, p. 344).

Soon after the injury, Harlow (1848) concluded that Gage’s memory was unimpaired. However, extended observations noted that Gagewould entertain his nieces and nephews with fabulous stories of “his wonderful feats and hairbreadth escapes, without any foundation except in his fancy” (Harlow, 1868, p. 334). Using a formal, psychometric approach, Eslinger and Damasio (1985) the frontal pole investigated patientm,whose orbital frontal surface and tal Tradiwere excised bilaterally,due to a laxge o r b i t o ~ o ~ meningioma. tional neuropsychological batteries, which included measures of executive functions, such as the isc cons in Card Sortin Test (VVCST; Heaton, 1981), demonstrated little, if any, evidence of disturbed h i ~ e r c o ~ i c ~ functions following recovery from surgery. Protocols from repeated follow-up examinations are noteworthy in thatEVR’s performance was strategic, sophisticated, and almost flawless. However, i~ormationprovided by family members, along with observationsof EV”s decision making in everyday life, clearly demonstrated a significant disability associated with his frontal lobe tumor and excision, whichA. R. Damasio, Tranel, andH. Damasio (1990) labeled acquired sociopathy. In children, the investigation of executive skills has much a shorter history. Until the 1980s, many neuropsychologists believed that executive skillsdid not “turn on” or becomefunctional until puberty (Golden, 1981). However, recent studies with various methods and measurement tools have demonst~tedrepeatedly that children possess executive functions (Chelune & Baer, 1986; Levin et al., 1991; Welsh, Pennin~ton,& Groisser, 1991). In addition, lesions to the prefrontal cortex early in life may belesslikely to mimicimpairmentsobservedacutelyfollopving prefrontal lesions in adulthood (Eslinger, Biddle, & Grattan, 199’7). This

5. I N R ~ R RIFFE~NCES U ~ IN CUT^ FUNCTIONS

observation is g, considering that intact central lished that bra1 well to children (Fletcher frontal cortex lesion ~anded boy, had an unremar~blemedical, d

the children’s be

severalcases of e

seizures, and subse surgery, resulting in an arteriovenous m head of the cauda tion). Neuropsych that observed in ked to right frontal cortex, therefore, specific di~cultiesin spatial planning, sequencing, constructional praxis, andmonito~ngduring multist tasks wereprominent, in additionto a classic “adult-like7’ left hemi-spati neglect. Measured inte~igencewas in the High Average Range andconsistent with premorbid expectations (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised, WISC-R Full Scale IQ = 111; VIQ = 113,PIQ = 106).Patterns of distracted, impulsive, and disinhibited behavior, with tang en ti^ speech, were noted. One of the moreidios~craticbehaviors displayed by an obsessive propensity to sniff everything. Follow-up neuropsychological evaluationof JC, 4 years revealed greatly diminished-yet residual evidence of-sp andspatial attention deficits.Interestingly, these mild er were not apparent when external organkational ~erformance on an executive function battery executive function impairments on many measures, but noteworthy e~ceptionsincluded age-appropriate pe~ormanceon the WCST and the Tower (TOH; Simon, 1975). Socially, JC denied anybehavioral prob commented “I’mnice. I’m a good friend, 17mnice to other people.” However, reports from his parents and teachers revealed persisti with concent~tion,restlessness, and carelessnessinhis problems and aggressive behavior were noted, with JC showing poor appreciation or compliance with age-approp~atenuance and finesse in social s i ~ a t i oHis ~ . parents reported that, “JC doesn’t seem to u n d e ~ t a n ~ a lot of the d y n ~ i c of s his peer groups. He takes thi S very litera~yand pe~onally,” but described him as a happy, loving boy, who was sociable, out go in^, and responsive to his family life (Eslinger et al., 1997). These cases share severalcommonalties, First, general i n t e l l e c ~ other neurop~chologicalfunctions, such as language, sensory abilities,

?

UN..~ I F F E ~ N C EINS

of these cognitive theories includedat least semi-inde

esent distinct c o ~ ~ o n e n t

~sociates(1991)

ture of any de~nition, involve higherorder, integrative con

of a group. Research studies focusing on the average ovide a rich base and may illuminate ~ isubse-~ however, may be of little comfortto parents whoare seeking a better understanding of their child’s problems and/or assistance in remediating these problems. Individual differences traditionally have been c o n c e p ~ a l ~ as e dfactors ndividual to deviate fromthe “average”or mean groupperpel, 1982).In randomized experimental designs, the dee to which an individual varies from the expected group mean is conered error vari~nce.The goal in this type of investigation isto minimize rror variance, thatis, to reduce differences among individuals order in to m ~ m i z ethe h~othesizedgroupeffect. In practice, at least in quasiexperimental, clinical neuropsychologicalresearch, whether the hypothesized effect concerns a “group” or an “individual” is §ornewhat arbitrary. For exam le, the presence of a medicalcondition, such as t ~ u m a t ibrain c ences the manner by which an i n d i ~ d u child ~ deviates from of normally developing peers. Children who have sustained traumatic brain injury also canbe grouped according to injury severity in er to determine therisk for cognitive sequelae (Fletcher& kvin, 1988). reover, within severely braininjured children, those with pupillary abnormalities exhibit greater developmental differences in~ s u o m o t oskill r ative to those without such eye findings (Francis, Fletcher, Steubi dson, & Thompson, 1991).Which level or dimension represents “individual difference”: presence of brain injury, brain injury severity,or pupillary abnormality? This example illustrates that individual daerences in almost any outcome can be demonstrated depending on the m a n ~ e r and/or level at which the independent variable is concep~alized. The c o n c e p ~ ~ i z a t i o n omany f neuropsychological phenomena has been driven by the reliance on medical, diseas~-basedmodels of clinical phenomena in children. For example, dyslexia is the term often used in ’a1 settings to describechildrenwhoare poor readers(Menkes, .Dyslexia historically hasbeen defined as “specific”-that is, as a discrete, biologically uniform category of children children who read poorly for nonspecific, but “ as low intelligence @utter & Yule, 1975).This ease based, as it is thoughtto be present or absen

l

5. I N D ~ D DIFFERENCES U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

fection (e.g., World Federation of Neurology de~nition;Critchley, 1970). More modern conceptualizations view poor readers as comprising the natural tailend of the normal distributionof reading skills(S. E. S h a ~ t z , , In fact, other medic Escobar, B.A. Shaywitz, Fletcher, & M ~ c h1992). “disease” statesalso may represent a continuumof neuropathology andassociated cognitive sequelae, for example,the degree of white matter damage is related linearly with cognitive outcome children with h~drocephaa lus (Fletcher et al., 1992). Readily accessible, relatively simple, traditional statistics, suchas t test and analysisof variance (ANOVA), also have promulgated discrete, groupbased designs that focus on average performance diffe between groups.The researcher may be compelled to form“artificiupsin order to conduct these analyses. The problem is not in the statistics, in that the artificial groupingmay not reflect the phenomena under study. In fact, many independent variables in neuropsychological research arecontinuously distributed and therefore are amenable to designs that relate individual differences in the independent variableto differences in outcome. ~ u l t i p l regression e is one such design that utilizes the inherent variability in both the independent anddependent measures. There are many naturaily occurring grouping variablesin qu~i-experimentalresearch, which when considered in more detail can be analyzed as a continuum. When a child’sneuropsychologic~development is considered in a iongitudinal context, individual variab~ityoccurs at many levels. Individuals may differ in the ageof onset of the emergence of skill development,the rate of development, the level of proficiency at any given shape of the trajectory of skill acquisition.When taken toget dividual differences yield various developmental patterns (Satz, Fletcher, Clark, & Morris, 1981).It is only recently with the advent of flexible and relatively accessible hier~chical or multilevel modeling techniques (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Goldstein, 1995)that these individual differences in the patterns of skill development can be studied (e.g., Espy, Riese, & Francis, 1997; Francis, S. E. Shaywitz, Stuebing, B. A. Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996).Furthermore, these techniques can be used to investigate individual differences, which are nondevelopmental, but that also are nested at several levels (e.g., individual children in various classrooms within different schools). Presumably, it isthese individual differences in development thatcomprise important variability in outcome. Fletcher (1997)proposed that the ~ n d ~ e n t a l s t ~ c t u r e - ~ relations n c t i o n andthe mechanisms for individual v~iability differ ndividual variability,then, may result from phenoms t ~ c t u r e - ~ n c t i orelation, n but nevertheless are ena not related to a n important in predicting outcome. For example, the relation of injury severity in traumatically brain injured children andoutcome is well ~o~

may be observed ~ e ~ o r m a di~erences ~ce among

5. I ~

B BIFFE ~

~

U

~

this c h a ~ t focus~s ~r on uaf ~ ~ ~ r e in ~~rfor c ~ s

c

el

N

n

el

ect ~ v i s ~gaze, a l ratherthan. e a s ~ ~Inethese . s ~ d i e sa,pr (~~2-rnon.th-old) and older f the reward, that is, looked

ly long delay inte~als (15 and 70 seconds) largeon et d.,1990). HofstadterandRezni R, 5-month-old infantsident~ed reliably object location,if gaze direction is used as the dependent m e ~ u r e . In terms of skill ma~ration,Pi out 12 months of age, no longer this age, infants are able to represent the object as independent of their own search s t ~ t (Le., e ~object permanence), an therefore are able to find the reward at anygivenlocation.However,iamond (1990a) proposed thatthe AI3 error could be demonstrated inolder child sufficientlylongdelaybetweenhidingand r e t ~ e ~ aEspy, l. ~ c ~ i a r m iand d , Glisky (1999) found that 2- to 5-year-old chi1 error with a 10-second delay. Out of l 0 trials, the 2-year-old children made from0 to 7 errors. The 5-year-old children, made 0 to 2 errors. Therewassomeindicationthatpeewasconstrained at the older ages as a ceiling was reached, whichperfectperformancewasachievedvariedmarkedly school children. These findings lend s u p p o ~ to ~iamond’s Taken together, thesestudiestthat i n d i ~ d variabili~ u~ in AI3 performance parsed be can to onset, level of proficiency at the givenage endpoint, rate of ,andshapeof the developmental trajectory. Researchers, to least, have not exa rates and patternsof change in indi~dualperformance .Given that the unit of measure is on a ratio scale (the number of trials, or seconds of delay), such data are well suited inrecen~ly developed techni¶ues such as hierarchical modeling. These modeling techni¶uesallow the e~mination of develo~ment chan~eand permit a more sensitive measure of indi~dual d~erences, which may illuminatetheunderlying de mentalprocess of executive Eunction development in infants and

ter Indi~dualdifferences occur as a result of phenomena other th solely related to development. Sex d~ferencesare probably widely studied indi~dualdifference (Stumpf,1995). AB performance has been demonstrated t iffer in infants by sex. Girl error was demonstrated. that 86%of the girls made the AI3 error at ’7%months, wh males could not search for the hidden reward. A longer in order to elicit theAI3 error in female infants, by ond, 1985). The same, sex-dependentpattern has been iamond & Doar, 1989).

4.

INDIVIDUAL DIFFE~NCES IN EXECUll"E FUNCTIONS

27

Other interindi~duali ~ u e n c ealso s affectAI3 performance. Matthews, Ellis, and Nelson(1996) found that healthy,low risk preterm infantstolerated longer delays before exhibiting the AI3 error than full-term infants. Matthews et al. concluded thatbetter AB performance by preterm infants was related to the greater extra-utero experience (testingwas conducted at the corrected age). Furthermore,Ross, Tesman, Auld, and Nass (1992) found that appro~matelytwo thirds of their sample of 10amonth~old preterm infants with and withoutsubepend~al or intraventricu~arhemorrhages were unable to find the reward on two out of three reversal trials. Only 13% of full-term infants exhibited this responsepattern. Of the children who succeeded on this task, however, there were no d~erences in the delays required to consistently exhibit the AI3 error. Espy, ~ u ~ a nand n ,Glisky (1999) examined AB performance in prenatally cocaine-exposed toddlers. Cocaine-exposed toddlers made more perseverative errors and erred perseveratively for more consecutive trials on AI3 relative to nonexposed controls. Toddlers who were exposed in utero to cocainealsoobtained fewer correctsets,butthiseffectwas nonsig~icantwhen verbal intellectual abilities were controlled statistically. In a sample of infants with early and continuously treated phenylk~tonuria,mild h~e~henylalaniemia, siblings, and matched and general popu~tioncontrols, Diamond, Prevor, Callendar, and Druin (1997) found that infants with eitherpheny~etonuria or mild h~e~henylalaniemia required longer delays to successfully retrieve the reward and performed more rlycompared to all control comparison groups. As toddlers, performance differences only were apparent in children with pheny~etonuria with high phenyl~aninelevels &er2 1 months of age, comparedto toddlers with lower phenyla~ninelevels and control groups. McEvoy, Rogers, and ~ e n n i n ~ o(1992), n however, found no differences in DR or AB performance among autistic, c~ronolo~cally age-matched developmenta~ydelayed, and verbal abili~matched preschool control children. In this study, no delay was used between hiding and retrieval, which may have contributed to the null findings. To our knowledge, the impactof other individual difference variables, such as race or socioeconomic status,has not been exn amined, whichis critical inorder to understand the effectsof the.en~ronR ment on AI3 and DR performance variability.

When. indi~dualsperform similarly on two tasks, the tasks often are inferred to be related, sharing some common measurement characteristic, M a ~studies y have examined patterns of performance on AI3 and on pertinent comparison tasks in order to understand what cognitive abilityunderlies AB ~erformance,For example, Diamond (1990b) compared per-

on onelateral side. Similarto A B , a manual reachi p e r f o r m ~ c eon OR is not considered rocesses because there is no delay and t ~ h i l the e i ~ a n res t onds. The i ~ a n must t i ~ i ~the i ttenden

es did not differ o ~ c l u that ~ e rei ~

to reach

correct responses. Hofstadter and Rea

t ~ e c t e the d l~~lihoo ofdperseve~tive

of the efferentconnectio

5. I N ~ ~ DIFFE~NCES D U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

Both AB and DR share a well-defined relation to dorsolateral prefrontal cortical function (Diamond & G o l d m a n - ~ c 1989; , Goldm 1987). For example, perseverative searching behavior on AB an has been observed in frontally ablated adult monkeys( D i ~ o ~ intact and frontally ablated infant monkeys ( D i ~ o n d 1986), and intact human infants, from age 7% to 12 ,1985; Diamond & Doar, 1989). On the basis of these findings, Diamond(1990a) concluded thatAB and DR perfo~ancesin to l~-month-oldinfants are related to frontal lobe immaturity. Individual differences in M3 performance also have been related to variability in frontal lobe function,as measured by resting frontalEEG activity and increased anteriorto posterior EEG coherence (Bell& Fox, 1992). Bell and Fox (1992) found that the infantswho required the long delay inorder to display the A B error evidenced: decreased right frontal power in the resting EEG signal between 7 and 8 months of age, greater increases in bilateral frontal EEG power each month between 9 and 10 months of age, and greaterpower in theEEG signal from the left occipital lead across6 the months of the study, relativeto the i d n t s who displayed theA€3 error after a short delay. Therewere no dserences in signal power from the parietal recording sites. When averaged across the fronta~pa~etal and f r o n t ~ o c cipital leads, signal coherence initially decreased between 8 and 9 months of ageand then increasedinthelefthemisphere between 10 and 12 months of age. Coherence did not change between 9 and 10 months. The length of F3/P3 coherence was U-shaped in left hemisphere,whereas the h of the F3/01 coherence was stable.In the right hemisph~re,FQ02 sites were more coherent than F4/P4. The short-delay group, who tolerated, on average, a %second delay before exhibiting the AB error at l 2 months of age, showed decreasedpower at the rightfrontal lead siteonly between 10 and 11 months of age. These findings suggest t ual differences in executive behavior are alsomanifested in however, the ongoing relation between development of cortex and changes in AB or DR. performance remainsto be investigated. There are many changes in the structure and ~ n c t i o nof the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex that occur during late infancy, concu~entwith

young infants. Bell andFox (1992) found infimts who solved the AB problem without a delaybefore 8 months of age, differed inthe ~ o u noft signal power at the right frontal lead at8 months of age from those infants who solved the AB problem at older ages. However, Bell and Fox did not find that EEG power or coherence differed betweenthe last age at which was unable to be solved and the age at which AB was solved initially on any lead site. Bell and Fox (1992) found no relation between the age at which maximal OR pe~ormance was achieved and the delay tolerated on m. Furthermore, frontal EEG power and coherence among frontal and other electrode sites were unrelated to performance on OR and response i ~ i b i t i o n to novelty tasks. Bell and Fox concluded that thedorsolateral prefrontal cortex was unrelated to performance on OR. In light of Fletcher’s(1997) f o ~ u l a t i o of n individual differences, may it be that differences in OR perf o ~ a n c may, e in fact, be relatedto the inhibition compo~entof AB and DR pe~ormance. I~ibition, however, may not be subserved by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, but may remain an important co~tributorto executive function performance differences among individual children. The well-developed relation of ABiDR and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is unusual in most neuropsychological work. The application of to study such neuroscience paradigms offers a rich methodology by which executive function development in indi~dualchildren ~ u f m a n et n al., 1989). However, tasks must be developmentally sensitive, in a like mann , and Glisky ner as AB and DR. For example, Espy, ~ u ~ a n~cDiarmid, (1999) found that performance on a Delayed Alternation task was sensitive to development in preschool children and was not related to verbal intellec~alskill. Performance on this task,however, was not successful in discriminatingamongschool-agetraumatically brain-injured children with frontal lobe lesions (kvin et al., 1994). In that study,Levin cautioned as children tried to that the task may not have been valid in this age range, “out think” the simple alternation problem. The demand characteristicsof any given taskmay influence heavilythe sensitivity to individual performance differences.

The investigationsreviewedsuggestseveraldirections of inquirythat should be pursued in order to better understand the nature of individual difZerences in executive function in children. First,the Andings from AB and DR indicate that individual differencesare manifest at several levels.

5. I N ~ M ~~I FUF E~ ~ N C E INS EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS

Individuals may differ in the age of skill acquisition, the level of profie, the rateof development, or mor The d~ferences were apparent on ined longi~dinally ,1996; att the components of executive function, th development. In order to a administered at eac techniques, suchas st~ctural equation or used (Goldstein, 1995; McArdle, 1996). There are, however, inherent dif3culties in usingother executive tion measures in longitudinal studies. For example,one hallmark o eral of the executive function definitions is the synthesisof novel i ~ o ~ a tion. The repeated administ~tionof any executive function i n s t ~ m e may render the task lessnovel, especially in older children. M e r the ta has become familiar, the task may no longer measure executive skills. Perhaps a mixed cross-sectional, longi~dinal design would be more useful in ling the developmental and practice effects. ~ternatively,the may be suited uniquelyfor longi~dinaluse. between: hiding and retrieval may be adjusted r to maintain sensitivity acrosswide a age range, predistorting the measurement characteristicspiafmann, McDiarmid, & Glisky, 1999). In addit' trieval principle also may be increased with fmann et al., 1989). For example, in B D R , the infant simply res the reward at the observed location across trials. In the more complex variant, ~ e l a y e dMatching to Sample, familiar and novel are placed on top of the well covers as cues to signal reward location.I n v ~ a b l the increased task complexity will produce different patterns of develop pro~ciencies( J a n o ~ k y1993), , whichmaybe related somewhat ently to brain function than the more simple tasks. However, this paradigm is a powerful tool by which to investigate executive skill development across age. Second, given the diverse definitions of executive function (Lyon negor, 1996), one way to better understand how indi~dualchildren r in executive functions is to trace skill development back to that which is observable early in development. Investigationsof p e ~ o ~ a n c e on represent such efforts. Unlikesomeofthe other executivefunc,B D R has not been usedextensively to documentinterinditio vidual differencesin pe~ormance,perhaps relatedto its history inthe developmental and neuroscientific literatures. Other more complex tas such as TOH (Simon, 1975) and WCST (Heaton, 1981), have been used routinely in studies of interindi~dualdifferences, pa~icularlyin various

where p~blematic de~nitional issue

cularly for inte~entionresearch. It is

remar~ble de~elopm~~t, co~cu~en

The m a ~ eby r which

5. IN

tesbirthandcontinuesthr

d e t e ~ i n i n whether g or not organic factorswere playing a role in an older person's behavioral difficulties; the need to devise ways to help a patient who had sust~neda stroke to recovery hisher lost hnctions; the need to fathom why a school childof adequate general inte ' o re n ~ a g i n ~ in self-defeatin i n e ~ ~ l i c a~isturbances bl~ in 1987, p. IT;?.

E

Borkowki, J.G., & Burke, J.E. (1996). Theories, models, and measurements of executive functio~ng:An information processing perspective. In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executive f u ~ t l o n(pp. 23S262). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). ~ i ~ a r c h i c linear al models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Chelune, G. J.,& Baer, R. A, (1986). Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. J o u ~ a of l Clinical and ~ p ~ ~N e ut ~ pa~ c hl o l o g8, y , 219-228. Chugani, H. T., & Phelps, M.E. (1990). Imaging human brain development with positron l Nuclear Medicine, 32, 23-25. emission tomography. J o u ~ aof Critchley, M. (1970). ?Be dyslexic child. Springfleld, IL:Thomas. Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1990). ~ndi~duals with sociopathic behavior causedbyfrontaldamagefail to respond autonomically to socialstimuli. Behaviour Brain Research, 41 (2), 81-94. Diamond,A. (1985). Developmentof the abilityto use recall to guide action, as indicated by infants’ performance on AB. Child Developm~t,56, 868-883. D~amond, A. (1990a). The development and neural bases of memory functionsas indexed by AB and delayed responsetasks in human infants and infant monkeys. AnnaZs of the New York Acderny of Sciences, 608, 267-317. Diamond,A. (1990b). Developmental time course in human infants and infant monkeys, and the neural bases of inhibitory control in reaching.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608, 637-4576. Diamond,A., & Doar, B, (1989). The performanceof human infantson a measureof frontal cortex function, the delayed response task. D e v e l o p m ~ t a l P s ~ c h o ~22,271-294. iolo~, Diamond, A., & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1986). Comparative development of human infants and infant rhesus monkeysof cognitive functions that dependon the prefrontal cortex. Neurop~chologicalAbstracts, 12, 274. Diamond,A., & Goldman-Wc, P, S. (1989). Comparisonof human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget’s AB task: Evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.Exp ~ m ~ tBrain a l Research, 14, 24-40. Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callendar, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated early and continuously for PKU. onog graphs for the Society for Research in Child D e v e l o p ~ n t 62(Serial , 252). Ernbretson, S. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletln, 93, 179-197. Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing, and measuring components of executive function: A summary. In G.R.Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, fmmory, and exe c u t ~ v e ~ n c t i o(pp. n 367-396). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes. Eslinger, P. J.,Biddle, K. R., & Grattan, L. M. (1997). Cognitive and social development in children with prefrontal cortex lesions. In N.A. Krasnegor, G. R. Lyon, & P. S. GoldmanRakic (Eds.), D e ~ e l o p m of ~ tthe~refrontazcortex: volution, ~ u r o b i o l oand ~ , behavior (pp. 295-336). Baltimore: Paul H. Brmkes. Eslinger, P.J.,& Damasio,A. R. (1985). Severe disturbanceof higher cognition after bilateral frontal lobe ablation: Patient EVR. Neurology, 35,1731-1741. Espy, K.A., Kauhann, P. M., & Glisky, M. L. (1999). Neuropsycholo~ical function in toddlers exposed to cocaine in utero: A preliminary study. D~velopmental Neuro~s~chology, 15, 447-460. Espy, IS.A., ~ u f m aP.~M.,, M c D i ~ i dM, , D., & Glisky, M. L. (1999). Executive functioning in preschool children: A-not-B and other delayed response format task performance. rain and C o ~ ~ t l o41, n , 178-199. Espy, K.A., Riese, M.L., & Francis, D. J.(1997). Neurop~chologicaldevelopment in preterm neonates prenatally exposed to cocaine. Infant BehaviorandDevelopm~t,20,297-309.

5. I N D ~ D DIFFE~NCES U ~ INEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

or in chiZdren with deveZopm~Fletcher, J. M. (1997, August). ~ r a i ~ e h a v irelationsh~s tal disabizities~concepts and methods. Paper presented at the American P ~ c h o l o ~ c a l Association, Chicago, IL. Fletcher, J. M,, Bohan, T. P., Brandt, M. E., Brookshire, B. L., Beaver, S. R., Francis, D. J., Davidson, K.C., Thompson,N. M., & Miner, M.E. (1992). Cerebral white matter andcognition in hydrocephalic children. Archives of NeuroZogy, 49, 818-834. Fletcher, J. M., & Levin, H. S. (1988). Neuro~havioraleffects of brain injury in children. In D. K.Routh (Ed.),~ a n d ~ ofpediat~cpsychology o o ~ (pp. 258-298). NewYork: Guilfo Fletcher, J. M., & Taylor, H. G. (1984). Neurop~chologicalapproaches to children: Towards a developmental neuropsychology.Journal of Clinical NeuropsychoZogyl 6,39-56. Francis, D. J.,Fletcher, J.M., Steubing, K. K.,Davidson, K. C., & Thompson, N. M. (1991). Analysis of change: Modeling individual growth.Jouma1of Consultingand ~1inicaZP y CbOZom, 59, 27-37. Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K.K.,Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (1996). Developmental lag vs. deficit models of reading disabilities: A longitudinal, individual, and growth curves analysis.Journal of EducationaZ PsychoZogy, 88, 3-17. Fuster, J. M. (1985). The prefrontalcortex and temporal integration.In A. Jones (Ed.), Cerebral cortex (Vol. 4, pp, 151-177). New York: Plenum. In G. W. Golden, C.J.(1981). The Luria-Nebraska Children’s Battery; theory and formulation. Hynd & J. E. Obrzut (Eds.),NeuropsychologicaZ assessment and the school-agechild (pp. 277-302). New York: Grune & Stratton. Goldman, P, S. (1974). An alternative to developmental plasticity: Heterologyof CNS structures in infants and adults. In D.Stein, J.Rosen, & N. Butters (Eds.), PZasticity and recovery offunction in the central nervous system (pp. 149-174). NewYork: Academic Press. Goldman, P. S., & Rosvold,H.E. (1970). Localization of function within the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex of the rhesus monkey. E ~ ~ ~ nNaroZogy, t a Z 27, 291-304. Goldman-Rakic, P. S. (1987). Development of cortical circuitry and cognitive function. Child ~eveZopmentl58, 601-622. Goldstein, H. (1995). ~uZtiZeveZstatisticaz models (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Graham, S,, & Harris, K.R, (1996). Addressing problems in attention, memory, and executive functioning: An example from self--regulated strategy development. In G. R. Lyons & N. A. Basnegor (Eds.), Attention, memory, and executivefunction (pp. 349-366). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes. Gratch, G., Appel,K.J., Evans, W. F., LeCompte,G. K.,& Wright, N. A. (1974). Piaget’s stage IV object concept error:Evidence of forgetting or object conception. ChiZd ~evelopmentl 45, 71-77. Harlow, J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron bar through the head. Boston ~ e d ~ c and a 2 Suqical J o u ~3~ 9,,389-393. Harlow, J. M. (1868). Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head.Publication of tbe ~ a s s ~ c h u s e tMedicaZ ts Society, 2 , 327-347. t, Harris, P. L. (1973). Perseverative errors in search by young infants.Child ~ e v e l o ~ e n44, 28-33. Hayes, S. C., Gifford, E. V.,& Ruckstuhl, L. E. (1996). Relational frame theory and executive function: A behavioral approach. In G.R.Lyons & N. A. Basnegor (Eds.), Attention, memoryl and executive function (pp. 279-306). Baltimore: Paul H.Brookes. Heaton, R. K. (1981). WisconsinCardsorting Test manual: Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hertzog, C. (1985). An individual diEerence perspective: Implications for cognitive research in gerontology. Research on Agingl 7 , 7-45. Hofstadter, N.,& Reznick, J. S. (1996). Response modality affects human infant delayedresponse performance. ChiZd Development, 67, 646-658.

,M. L. (1994).~ ~ iof co~itive c s d~elopment: A u n ~ n approach g to universal trends and individualdBerences. Special Issue: Developmental perspectiveson individual differences in learning and memory, ~ea~in and g I ~ i v i ~~ i ~ ~l ~ ~6(3), c e s , 36~36~.

A. S. (1997).~ e l o p m e n ~ of a pn ~a f~ r~o ycortex. n ~ In .R. Lyon, & P. S. G o l d m a n - ~ (Eds.), c Deve~opmentof tbe~efrontul ~ u r o b i o l oand ~ , bebavior (pp. 69-83).Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. The developmentof neural basis of memory systems. In M. H. Johnt a d cognition (pp. 665~78). Cambridge, E n ~ a n dBasil : I)

Bla~ell. ~ ~ P,, Leckman, n , J.M., & Ort, S. I. (1989).Delayed response performance in males with Fragile-X. J o u ~ olf Clinical and ~ ~ ~ ~ e um r o p ~~ c b o Zt12, o ~ ,69. ~ l u ~ aP, ~ M., ,Fletcher, J. M., Levin, H. S., Miner, M. E., & EMg-Cobbs, L, (1993). Attentional d ~ ~ r b a nfollowing ce pediatric closed head injury. Jou~Z of ChiZd ~euroZppel, G. (1982).Design G analysis;~esearc~er’s b a ~ b o (2nd o ~ ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prent~ce- ha^.

,H. S., Culhane, K. A., Fletcher, J. M., Mendelsohn, D. B., Lilly, M. A., Hmard, H., Chapman, S. B., Bruce, D. A., ert to lino-Kusnerik, L., & Eisenberg, H. M. (1994).Dissociato tion between delayed alternation and memory &er pediatric head injury: Relationship A. J., H m d , H.,Ringholtz,

tests of p u ~ ~frontal e d lobe hnctioning. ~ e u e Z o ~ ~

t t h e ~A., , Ellis, A. E., & Nelson, C. A. (1996).Development of preterm m d full-term in-

& Pennington, B. F. (199

ung autistic ~ i l d r e n , ~ o u M e ~ e sJ., H.(1985).T ~ x ~ boof cbiltz o ~ n e u r o l o ~(3rd ed.). ~h~adelphia: Lea &L Febiger.

(Eds.), Atte~tion,

ent ti on and m e m in~ ~

tions in the d e v e l o ~ ~ eof n t~ e o r ~ e s ,

basic ~ s u m ~ t i o n%e s. ~ i i n i ~ a Z

~ e ~ ~ ~ s 6, y ~259-275. ~oZog~st,

H. Brookes. ~ search ~ and t object We~man,H. Mi., Cross, D., & Bartsch, K. (1986). I of the A-not-Berror. ~ o n o g ~ a pof h sthe S o ~ e ~ ~ o ~ ~ e s e a r c ~ meta-an~sis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~7(2), h 1o31-i149o. ~ , Ueates, K. O., B i ~ m e ~ t e iE., n , Patterson, C. N., ~ s ~ ~ ~ oSa&@@, Z o ~I ,i ~ a ~ eiazo, P. D., Rezn~ck,J. S.,

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

C H A P T E R

S I X

arilyn C. Welsh ~ ~ ~ u eofr~~ ~~ rt yt Colorado b e ~

he same route every evening as you return home fro ,you can engage in conversation with a passe along to the radio or argue with the talk-radio host, plan di dream, and so on. This kindof routinized activity does not demand a great deal of conscious attention, strategic thinking,or flexible action, although this is not an endorsement for engaging in such concurrent activities. In contrast, if this routine drive is perturbed by a t d k accident, a snow,last minute errands that must be completed on the way home, then k has nowbecome an activity that engages executive functions (e. planning, generating and monitoring strategies, inhibiti tions, and flexible shifting to more appropriate ones). who normally adopt a “defensive driving” strategy, in actions are anticipated and their own potential responses are planned, the nction system is continuously active. still somewhat controversial, itis proposed in this chapter as it has been elsewhere (e.g., Welsh & Pennington, 1988) that infants and young children utilize executive functions, albeit primitive versionsof the adultactivitiesthatsubserve goal-directed, future-oriented behavior. When a 9-mont~-old reaches for a stuffedtoy, the behavior is drivenb the a1 of play. However, executive functions are tapped to a en the infant must generate and flexiblyexecute the pla der to retrieve the toy (e.g., push away a pillow, pull on the blanket on which the toy lies). Similarly, once the rules of a simple board

TO

TOL

P; x;

C

X

Welsh et al. (1990) Goel & ~ ~ (199 r kvin et al. (1994) Welsh et al. (1999)

n

~

6.

S

6.

CU’ITVE F U ~ C ~ O N S

hat require: planningor decision

er @atbehavior in~olvesan

ctive re-oriented beretri~vinga toy or a 30-

Pennington (1994, 1998; Pennington et al., 1996) discussed the @. 6). That is, there is a veritable of the “uncon§trained frontal metaphor” f § ~ p t o mthat s can follow frontal injury or dys~nction and en subsumed under the umbr~lla executive of ~ n c t i o nCO .

6. ARENAS OF C O ~ F O I ~NT~ O L E S C E ~ ~ E

onious ~ a n n ~t r , Ions of i ~ i ~ i t i o ~

ter

6.

Lsw

6. V ~ ~ O INNE SSE C U W FUNCTIONS

ning andorgan~edsearch of an external stimulus displayexhi levelperformance as early as age 6. The two tasksthatprimarily demanded i ~ i b i t i o nskills matured by age 10. However, tasks that requ~ed more c o m ~ l e xplanninthe organ~edsearch o f l o n ~ t e r m ~ e m o r y i~ormationdid not re adult-level p e ~ o ~ a n by c eage 12. Finally, a recent study by Luciana and Nelson (1999) explored th ided working memory systems” age 4 to 8. Although the authors the cognitive domain d as “working memory,” the bro tasks used in this study pre mably required a variety of executive function skills,such as planni inhibition, and fle~bility,in workingmemory. A sampl f 181 childrenbetween age 4 smaller sample of teen and young adults were tested on a set of mea~europsychologicalTest Automated Batte a1 tasks included spatial memoryspan, spat1 London, and a intradime t with the earlier studies provements observed in performanc dependent on the nature and demands of the particular task. poorly than5- to ?-year-olds on was as proficient as older childre utive function measures (spatialspan, si owever, asign~cantimprovement was S on more complex tasks that seemed to introduce additional d n, and f l e ~ b i l(e.g., i ~ more d ~ c u l troblems from the TOL, spatial workingmemory). Moreover, 8-year-olds an adult level of pe~ormance on these more difficult exe ting a later development^ shift or shifts in performance. ies have explored the development of executive function skills by e ~ m i n i n gdevelopmental trends on established neurops~choa logical measuresof frontal lobe function. The task most closely associat~d with frontal lobe function is the WCST, and three studies have yielded very consistent results with regard to development of performance. Chelune and colleagues (Chelune&:Baer, 1986; Chelune &:Thomps et al. und that adult-level performance on the index mance, perseverative errors, was achieve Levin et al. (1991) found a significantdecrease in persever tween their 7- to 8-year-old group and their 9- to 121-year-old ~isk-transfer tasks, suchas the Tower of London (TOL) and of Hanoi (TOH), are relatively recent additions to the frontal assessment literature. These tasks require that a start state is transformed to a goal state via a correct sequenc f moves.Although the TOH andTOLhave face validity as planningta there is a need for empirical va~dationof

6.

CUTWE F U ~ C ~ O ~ S

mation while inhibiting the i n t ~ s i o of n potentia~ycompeting sequences of working memory abilities in children have been h the verbal and visuospatial domains. ACCO itch (1974) model, verbal working memory the ~ticulatory loop in conjunction with the the nonverbaltasks are mediatedby the visuospatial the central executive. Hitch and colleagues (Hitch, Halli,& Schraagen, 1988; Hitch, ~ o o d i n&, Barker, 1989) suggestedthatvisual WO emory develops atan earlier 5, visual sti sed that by age the visual working memory system. However, it takes for control processes to develop that mediate a transfer of visual ationfrom the visual to the phonologic^ w o r ~ n g ch et al., 1989). The authors maintain that by age 10 to 11, children are more likelyto translate visuali ~ o ~ a t iinto o n an auditory-verbal code for processing in ver 1988). gradual developmen Unlike the memory over the school years, Hitch and colleagues su ested in 1989 that there was ingly little, if any, maturational *

*

There is relatively little recent litera

memo^ in youngchildren; however, the findingsof one study are consi

tent with the notion of very early ~nctional develop~ent of this system. Using the radial maze task asa measure of spatial man, Warry, and Murray (1990) found some evidenc abili~ in children as youngas 18 months; however, there was a linear increase in performance from 18 months to about 5 years of age. It is internote that the radialmaze task not only requires the childto mainmanipulate the search plan in spatial w o r ~ n gmemo^, but it also demands inhibition of the prepotent response to return to reviousl rea t i o ~~. u ~( 1e9 9r ~ e~plored ) spatial worki ren with the Mr. Cucui task (Diaz, 1974; cited task in whichthe childrenwere shown the Mr. Cucui arts marked and, followi ocations on a blank mod a linear developmental pattern of ~erformance on this fore, the results of two studies that memo^ in the first 5 years of life conver dual improvement in skill. In c o n t ~with t theHitch et al. (1989) proposal thatthere is little develo~mentalimprovement in visual working memory after age 5,Case (1992) discussed studies by Crammond (1992) and Menna (1989) that demon-

6. V ~ ~ O INN WCUTIVE S FUNCTIONS

l

Development of inhibitory processesin young children primarily has been studiedwithself-controlandresistance to temptationparadi rally tap the “withholding” dimensionof inhibition. nhibition that requires ding a response and lly has focused on sc children, although examined this CO of inhibition in young children as well ( ~ u n e&Welsh, o 1992; Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994). Inhibition in early childhood traditionally has been assessed by means of self-control paradigms, alsoreferred to as delay of grat~cationor resistance to temptation (Mischel & Patterson, 1979). In the typical task, children are presented with an attractive stimulus or activity and is told that they must waitfor a period of time before approaching the object or enin the activity, frequently with an added incentive to do so. Selfl is operationalized as the amountof time the child can delay various approach behaviors (touching, eating,etc.). According to Olson and colleagues (Olson, 1989; Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1990), self-control behavior in children may reflect two relatively independentsources of normal variation: an inhibitory control ability that is closely tied to cognitive development and a predisposition toward complying with internalized social ex~ectations. Kopp (1982) proposed a developmental model of self-regulation besting that it emerges at about age2 in conjunction withrepthought and the ability to recall i~ormation(e.g., social rules, prohibitions,expectations)from lon~termmemory. This early man~estationof self-control was confirmed by the research of Vaughn and ~ a u g h nKopp, , & Krakow, 1984; Vaughn, M o w , Kopp, Schwam, 1986) in which a very rudimentary and unstable form of delay behavior was observedas early as 18 months and a cant improve~entin self-control was demonstrated between age 2 According to Kopp’s model, a more flexible form self-re~lation of that includesself-monitorindappropriateadjustments to c 3 to 4.Interesti encies would notparentuntilage and Trudel (1991) found that, among children as youngas age 295, those who p e ~ o ~ the e dbest on self-control ks did so byusingaflexible strategy of shifting their attentionduri he delay period. Therefore, tasks thatp r ~ a r i l require y the withholdingof a response elicit evidence of inhibition in children fromas early as 18 months and thisskill appears to develop until about age 4.Flexible shifting canhelp a very young child inhibit an approachresponse, but this strategyis usually not seen until the preschool years.The classic self-control paradigm is an effective means of demonstrating inhibition in young children, but there appears to be little development in the behaviors elicited by this type of task &er age 4 (Logue & ~hararro,1992).

found to “drive”

involves

the

additi~n o

6.

QNS IN E

~ F U N C ~CQ N S

~

ory studies indicate efficientinhi~i-

and and spontaneously. Inconthe activationof inappropriate !y until age 9 (Johnson, 1994). tern of develo~ment of inhi~i7' to 11. One could specul~te lu~ing facial e~~ressions) may

nt of i n h i ~ i t ~rocesses, o~

of i~elevant lin~istic and m later. As is discussed in the

exnce of the lite~tures on

two subsections on research thathas explored working memory and inhibition i m p a i ~ e n t sin child clinical groups, withan emphasis on how these literatures converge with,and diverge from, the literature on executive function deficits.

Research exploring specific executive function i m p a i ~ e n t sin disorders o f c h ~ d h o o d p r i has m ~focused ly on three clinical groups that vary in the specificity with which the neurologic dysfunction has been identified. Of the three conditions, the genetic disorder p h e n y ~ e t o n ~ r(PKU) ia reflects the most well-specified modelof a prefrontal d~function(e.g., Chamove Molinaro, 1978; Diamond et al., 1993; Diamond et al., 1997; Welsh, 1996). The subtle prefrontal d~functionis assumedto be the result of the neurochemical consequences of a very specific genetic ~ u t a t i o nthat appears to reducelevels of functionaldopamine se et al., 1985). It has been proposed by several research groups thatthe second clinical condition, Attention DeficitH ~ e r a c tDisorder, i ~ ~ may represent a frontallobe d~functiondisorder (Gualtieri & Hicks, 1978; Mattes, 1980; R o s e n t h ~& Men, 1978; Stamm & Kreder, 1979; Welsh, 1994). This hypothesis has been based on behavioral s ~ p t o m a t o l (Douglas, o~ 1983, 1988), dopa, mine deficiencies (S. E. Shamtz, B. A. Shamtz, Cohen, & ~ o u n g1983), and neuroimaging evidence of hypofrontality (Lou, Henriks 1984); however, it is not without its critics(e.g., Oades, 198 ~ p o p o r t1987). , The third child clinical condition, autism, troversial with regard to the core neuropsychological impairment (e.g., l a n ~ a g esocial , cognition, or executive function),which has led to d ent hypothesesregardingneurobiologicalmechanisms(Pennington Welsh, 1995). However, recent researchhasconverged on a possible prefrontal cortex dyshnction as manifested by executive function deficits (e.g., Ozonoff, Pennington, & Rogers, 1991). Research specifically designed to examine the prefrontal dysfunction model of early treated PKU generally has revealed significant executive ~ n c t i o nimpairmentsthatareunrelated to neral intelligence. Welsh, ~ e n n i n ~ t oOzonoff, n, Rouse, and McCabe (1990) found tion deficits in a groupof early treated 4- and 5-year-old compared to I~-matchedcontrols. Poor p e ~ o m a n c e such tasks as TOH, visual search, and verbal fluency, and many perfomance scores were negatively correlate^ with plasma phenylalanine (Phe) level at the time of testing. In a longitu~inalstudy, Diamond and coles (1993, 1997) revealed executivehnction impairments duringthe i ~ n c ytoddler, , and preschool periods of development, and again,these related to concurrent Phe level inthe early treatedPm group. The execw

6. V ~ ~ Q INNE S ~

C FUNCTIONS U ~

tive ~ n c t i o nm~asures sed in this study could be characterized

ave consistentlyshown executi

dation, autistic childr~nappe

,so much so that thisde~citin

as de-

io

6. V

~

~ IN ~

N

S

+

c.1

c.1

c.1

c.1

x

c.1

+

b

c.1

6.

ONS IN E

~

C

U

~

of i n ~ i ~ i t i and o n fl on verbal working

LSH

S

cutive unction,

X X

x x X

?

X

x ?

x ?

X ?

X

x

s

x

~ o ~ EF e ;= executive ~nction; = working memo^; “pure”inhib = inhibition ; does not include the demandfor f l ~ i ~ P~ mi =~ ~henylketonu ;LD = learning d i s a b ~ iRI3 ~ ;= reading DS = Downs Syndrome;X = evidence o co~istei nn~research findings of impai~ent.

6.

S

memo^ and inhibi-

or inhibition, it becomes clear that it is often the case that mation into the

cult to interpret. Are ns are erm mane only if these indepgndent cont~butorsto pe counts reviewed earlier in the chapter h ory and i ~ i b i t i o ninteract because they

6. V ~ T I O N SINEXECUTIVEFUNCTIONS

speculated that measuresof flexibility are contexts in which this interaction occurs. Finally, the degree to which other measures of executivefunction, such as visual search, verbal fluency, and planning tasks demand ory and/or inhibition processes must be addressed. For exam has been referred to as a planning task, but the cognitive comprising“planning”havenever been entirely clear (e.g., S F ~ e d ~ a&n Wallner-~len, , 1997). It would appear that plan quence of moves prior to action, as is required by the TOH, wou ources for generating, monitoring, and revisi ,198‘7). However, empirical evidenceof an ass memory andTOH performance has been mixed; one stud found asignificant correlation between TO and one verbal ,Welsh, Retzlaff,& Cookson, 199‘7) and another th spatial working memory tests (Welshet al., 1999 Furthermore, there is evidence that subjectswho perform well on able to inhibit direct movesto the goal, anddefer them to a oel & man, 1995; Welsh, 1991; Welsh, Cicerello, Cuneo, rennan, 1995). There is some evidence that inhibition and flexible s h ~ i isnrelated ~ to TOH pe~ormance(Welsh et al.,1999). Given th tracted course of development and the clear pattern of deficits inthe t “frontald ~ ~ n ~ groups, t i o n it ~would ~ be of great valueto undersea cognitive processes underl~ingperformance on this task.

The objective of this chapter wasto explore the developmental and clinical ~ i a t i o nin s executive function, a nascent constructfor which several operational de~nitionsexist. The controversy surroundingthe conceptualization of executive function was reviewed, with a specific focus on the proposal that working memory and inhibition might serve as amore parsimonious description of the cognitive functions mediated by the frontal cortex. To examine this proposal, the intersections among the three domains in terms of developmental patterns and clinical man~estationswere explored, and it appears that there are interesting convergenc~s. derstanding of the typical and atypical developmentof frontal lob tion will be facilitated by a more precise definitionof the execut tion construct,whichshouldinclude closer attention to the WO memory and inhibition components.Current and future executive function tasks must be examined more carefully with respect to their demands for these component processes.oreo over, there must bean appreciation for the complex nature of the developmental emergence of executive

CUT^ F~NCTIONS

6,

of Hanoi performance of retarded young adults andno~etardedas a Eunctionof solution length and goalstate.Jo~

and response to novelty in autist~c

cbology, 4, 161, 173. enter, P. A,,&Just, M. A. (1989).The role of working memory sion. In D. Klahr & K. Kotovsky (Eds.), Comple~i n f o ~ t i o n p (pp. 3148).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum ~sociates. H e r ~A.~ S~mpson t New York: Academic Press. Case, R. (1985).~nteZZect~l u'evelopm~t. Case, R. (1992).The role of the frontal lobes in the regulation of cognitive development. rain G Cognition,20, 51-73. Chamove, A. S., & ~ o l ~ n a r iT.oJ. , (1978).Monkey retarded learninga n a l ~ i s . ~ o u of^^~l tal D e f i c i ~ Resea~ch, 22,223. Chelune, G. J., & Baer, R. L. (1986).Developmental norms for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, J o ~ of ~Clinical l G E x p ~ m e n t a l N e u r o p ~ c ~8, o l219-228. o~, Chelune, G. J., F e r ~ s o nW., , Koon, R., & Dickey, T. 0. (1986).Frontal lobe disinhibition in attention deficit disorder. Child ~ ~ c b i and a t Human ~ Developm~t,16,221-234. Chelune, G, J.,& Thompson, L. L. (198'7). Evaluation of the general sensitivity of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test among young and older children. Developmental Neuro~sychol-

0 0 , 3 , 81-90.

Chugani, H. T. (1994).Development of regional brain glucose metabolism in relationto behavior and plasticity.In G. Dawson & K.W. Fischer (Eds.), Human ~ebQvior a uelopfngbrain @p. 153-175).New York: Guilford. Cohen, J.D., & Servan-Schreiber, D.(1992).Context, cortex, and dopamine:A connectio~st approach to behavior and biology in schizophrenia. fsycbological Review; 99, 45-77. Conway, A. R.,& Engle, R W. (1994).Working memory and retrieval: A resource dependent l mental ~ ~ c b o l General, o ~ : 123, 254-373. inhibition model. J o u ~ of Costa, P. T,, Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988).Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal on the NE0 personality invento~,Jou study of self-reports and spouse ratings s o ~ l i and t ~ Sociai f s y c h o l o ~ , 3 8793-4300. , Cournoyer, M., & Trudel, M. (1991).~ e h a v i ocorrelates r~ of self-control at 33 months. Infant ~ehaviorG Developme~t,14, 497-503. Crammond, J. (1992).Analyzing the basic cognitive development^ processes of children e mind's staircQse:~ p l o ~ n g withspecificrypes of learningdisability. In R. Case ( the c o n ~ e p t ~ l u ~ e ~ i n nof i nhgusm a ~t b o u ~ h t mleu'ge @p, 285-303). Hillsa

ro

of ~ n d o n - s u b ( DA~ standardized :

o assessingexecutive ~nctioningin c h ~ d ~~rchives n. of Cli~icaZN e u ~

young children: ~velopmentaland n ~ u r o p ~ ~ o l o gperspectives. ~cal C ~ iStudy l ~ J o u m l , 22,73-91. ane em an, M,, & Carpenter, P. A, (1980).IndividualdiEerencesinworkingmemoryand

WELSH Davis, D. D., McIntyre, C. W,, Murray, M. E., & Mims, S. K.S. (1986). Cognitive styles in children with dietary treated pheny~etonuria.E d u c a t i o ~ and l Psychological Research,G, 9-15. Dawson, G., & Fischer, K. W. (Eds.). (1994). H u m a n behavior and the deueloping brain, New York: Guilford. Dehaene, S., & Changeux,J.P. (1991). The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Theoretical analysis and modeling inaneuronalnetwork, Cerebral Cortex, 1, 62-79. Dempster, F. (1993). Resistance to interference: Developmental changes in a basic processing mechanism. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnack (Eds.), ~ m ~ i themes n g in c o ~ i t i v devele opment: Vol. I, F o u n d a t i o ~(pp. 3-27). New York:Springer-Verlag. DencMa, M. B. (1996). Biological correlates of learning and attention: What is relevant to learning disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder?. Journal of D e v e l o p ~ t a l G ~ e h a ~ i o rPediatrics, al 17, 114-1 19. Diamond, A. (1991). Guidelines for the study of brain-behavior relationships during development. In H. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg,&A. L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobefunction and d y s f u ~ t f o n(pp. 339-378). New York:OxfordUniversityPress. Diamond, A., Hurwitz, W., Lee, E. Y., Bockes, T., Grover, W,, & Minarcik, C. (1993, April). C o ~ i t i u deficits e on frontal cortex tasks in chikirm withear~-treated PKlX Results of two years of l o n g i t d i ~ l s t d Paper y . presented at SRCD, Los Angeles, CA. Diamond, A., Prevor, M. B., Callender, G., & Druin, D. P. (1997). Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated ear@ and continuously for PKU. onog graphs of the Socfetyfor Research in ChiZd D~elopment,@(4,Serial No. 252). Diamond, A., Werker, J.F., & Lalonde, C, (1994). Toward understanding commonalities in the development of object search, detour navigation, categorization, and speech perception. In G. Dawson & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), H u m a n behavior and the deueloping brain (pp. 380-426). New York:Guilford. D i u , S. (1974). Cucui scale: Technical~ ~ n u a l ~ u l tAssessment f l i n g ~ Program. l Stockton Unified School District,Stockton, CA. Douglas, V. I. (1983). Attentional and cognitive problems. In. M. Rutter (Ed.), D e ~ e l o p ~ ~ tal neuropsychiatry (pp. 280-329). New York:Guilford, Douglas, V. I. (1985, April). Attention deficftdisorder. Invited address at the annualmeeting of theSocietyforResearchin Child Development, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Douglas, V. I.(1988). Cognitive deficits in children with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity. In L. M. Bloomingdale & J.Sergeant (E&,), Attention deficit disorder: Criteria, cognition, i n t ~ e n t i o nA. book s u p p l ~ e nof t theJournal of Child Psychologyand Psychiatry (No. S). New York:Pergamon. Engle, R. W., Carullo,J.J.,& Collins, K.W. (1991). Individual differencesin working memory forcomprehensionandfollowingdirections. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 253-262. Everett, J., Thomas, J., Cote, F.,Levesque, J.,& Michaud, D. (1991). Cognitive effects of p ~ c h o s ~ m u l a medication nt in hyperactive children. Child P s y c h i a t ~G ~ u m a Develn opment, 22,79-87. Faust, D., Libon, D., & Pueschel, S. (1986-1987). Neurop~chological ~nctioning in treated pheny~etonuria.I n t ~ t f oJournal ~ l of Psychiatry in Medicine, 16, 169-177. Fiducia, D., & O’Leary, D. S. (1990). Development of abehaviorattributed to thefrontal lobes and the relationship to other cognitive functions. Developmental Ne~ropsychology, G, 8 5 9 4 . Flavell, J.H.(1971). First discussant’s comments. Whatis memory development the development of? H u m a n Development, 14, 272-2’78. Foreman, N.,Warry, R., & Murray, P. (1990). Development of reference and working spatial memory in preschool children. Journal of General Psychology,l1 7 , 267-276.

6. V ~ ~ O INN S CUTIVE FUNCTIONS Frith, U. (1972). Cognitivemechanismsinautism: ~perimentswithcolorandtonese160-173. quence production.J o u ~ofl Autism G Child Sch~opbrenia, 2, cortex, mediator of cross-temporal contingencies. NuFuster, J. M. (1985). The ~n

N e u ~ & i o l o4,~ ,

Gathercole, S. E., & Adams, A. M. (1993). Phonological working memory in very young chil770-778. dren. ~evelopmenta Gerstadt,Hong, L., C. Y. .(1994). The relationship between cognition and o years old onStroop-like a day-night test. Cogniaction: Performance tion, 53, 129-153. Gholson, B., Levine,N., & Phillips, S. (1972). Hypothesis, strategies and stereotypes in disa l psycho lo^, 13, 423-446. crimination learning.Journal of ~ p ~ m e n t Child Gnys, J.A., & Willis, G. (1991). Validation of executive function tasks with young children. ~ e v e l o p ~ ~Neuropsycholo~, tal 7, 487-501. Goel, V., & Grafman,J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” ~nctions? Interpreting data &om the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia,33, 62-42?. G o l d m a n - ~ cP,, S. (1987).Development of cortical circuitry and cognitive function. Child ~ e v e l o p ~58, t ,601-4522. Gorensteln, E. E., Mammato, C. A., & Sandy, J. M. (1989). Performanceofinattentiveoveractive childrenon selected measures of prefrontal-type function, J o u ~ofl Clinical psycho lo^, 45, 619-4532. Grodzinsky, G.M., & Diamond, R. (1992). Frontal lobe functioning in boys with attention~ , 427-445. deficit hyperactivity disorder. evel lop mental N e u r o p ~ c h o l o8, Gualin, C. A., & Campbell, T, F. (1994). Procedure for assessing verbal working memory in ~ e r c e ~ t uG a l MotorSkills, 79, normalschool-agechildren:Somepreliminarydata. 5544. Gualtieri, C. T., & Hicks, R. E. (1978). N e u r o p h ~ a c o l of o ~methylphenidate and a neural substrate for childhood hyperactivity.Psychiat~cClinicsof North America, 6,8754392. Halberstadt, A. G., Grotjohn, D. K.,Johnson, C. A., & Fruth, M. S. (1992). Children’s abilities Jou l of Nonver&alB e h a ~ o r16, , and s ~ t e g i eIn s managing the facial display of affect. 215-230. . ‘*. Harnishfeger,K. K., & Bjorkhnd, D. F. (1993). The ont newed approachto cognitive development.In M. L. themes in cog~itivedevelopment: Vol.I. Founda Verlag. Harris, E. L., Schuerholz,L. J., Singer, H. S., Reader,M. J., Brown,J. E., Cox, C., Mohr,J., Chase, G. A., & Denckla, M. B. (1995). Executive hction in children with Tourette syndrome andlor at~ntiondeficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of the ~ n t ~ t i o nNeuropsychologi~al al Society, l , 5 11-5 16. Hermelin, B., & O’Connor,N. (1970). Psychological experiments with autistic c b i ~ r e n . New York: Pergamon. Hitch, G.J., Halliday, S., Scaafstal,A.M., & Schraagen,J. M. (1988). Visual working memory in young children. Memory G Cognition, 26, 120-132. Hitch, G. J.,& McAuley, E. (1991). Working memory in children with specifrc arithmetic^ learning difficulties. B ~ t i s h Journal of Psychology, 82, 375-386. Hitch, G.J.,Woodin, M. E., & Baker, S. (1989). Visual and phonological components of working memory in children. Memory G Cognition, 27, 175-185. Hughes, C,, Russell, J., & Robbins, T. ‘W.(1994). Evidence for executive dysfunctionin autism. Neuropsychologfa,32, 477, 492. Hulme, C, (1984). Developmental differences in the effects of acoustic similarity on memory chology, 20, 650652. (1992). Working memory and severe learning di~iculties. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

in the child: Significanceof analytic and reflectiveatti~des.PsychoZogicaC~ono~ruphs, U. (1989).C o ~ i t i v processing e deficits in reading dis~i~ties: heses. rain G C~gnition,11, 2 ~ ~ 2 9 3 . pler, M. D. (1998).~ s e s s i n gexecutive f u n c t i o ~using the Stroop, ~0~~ of ond don, ~ h i ~ d3~~eenh ~ v i o r ~ u e s t i and o n ~~ie~hea, ~ iRating or Inventory of ~ x e ~ t i Funcve tions. Unpublished master’s thesis, ~ n i v e r sof i ~Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. mberg, D. Y., &c Farah, M.J. (1993).A unifted accountof cogn~tivei m p a ~ e n t fs o ~ o ~ n g frontal lobe damage:Therole of workingmemoryi ex, organ~ed behavior.JournaZ of ~ P e ~ ~ e P~choZom: n ~ a Z ~ e n ~ a122, Z , 41 Klahr, D.(1978).Goalformation,planning,andlearnireschoolproblemsolvers or: “My socks are in the dryer”. In R. S. Siegler (Ed,), ChiZ~ren’s thin~ing: hut deveZops? man.

C. B. (1982).Antecedents of self-re~lation: A developmental perspective. ~ e ~ e Z o ~ P s y ~ h o Z o18, ~ , 199-214.

Freides, D., &c Elsas, L.J. plasma phenylalanine in phenylalanine andbrain

J,M.,Culhane, K. A., Chapman, S. B.,

siveness in preschaol ch~dren.

o m8, ~ S ~ 2 9 , dysphasia and/or a ~ e n ~ deficit o n disorder. Archives o ~ ~ e ~ r o Z 41,

6.

impulsivity as a construct. ~ v a ~ineLearning s & ~ehavioralDisabiZit~es,3,57-94. R. (1988). Preschoolers' strategies of attention on a same-d~erent P ~ c ~ o l24, o 628-633. ~ , effects of frontal lobectomy in man. In J, Warren & K.Akert (Eds.), n e frontal g r u n u ~ cortex r and behavior @p. 313-334). New York: M c G r a ~ - H ~ . Mischel, W,, & Patterson, C. J. (1979). * self-control in children. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), ~ i n n e ~ osymposia ta on (Vol. 11, pp. 199-230). ~ ~ l s dNJ: ~ e , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Morra, S., Moizo, C., & Scopesi, A, (1988).Workingmemory(ortheMoperator)andthe p l a ~ i n of g children's drawings,J o u ~ aof l menta^ ChfldP s y c ~ o l o46,414'3. ~, Mutter, B. S, (1998). Why do t ~ r e e ~ e a r - o lfaiZ d s false-beZief tasks: Inhibition or work~ng ~ e ~ Unpublished o ~ ? master'sthesis,University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO. Norman, D., & Shallice, T.(1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behaviour.Centerforhuman i ~ o ~ a t i processi on (TechnicalReport No. 99). Reprinted in revised form in R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, D. Shapiro (Eds.), C o ~ ~ oand~ ~ s s se~-regulation(Vol.4). New York:Plenum. Oades, R. D. (1987). Attentiondeficitdisorder with hyperactivity: The con~ibutionof chatecholaminergic activity. Progress in ~ e u r o b i o l o25J7 ~ , 365-391. Olson, S. L. (1989).Assessment of impulsivity in preschoolers:easureconvergences, lon~itud~ stability, n ~ and r e l e ~ n c to e social competen~e of ClinicalChild Psychologyr 18, 176-183. Olson, S. L.,Baytes, J.E., & Bayles, K.(1990). Early antecedent of childhood impul$ivity:The role of p a r e n t ~ h ~i~teraction, ld cognitive competence and temperament.Jou ild P ~ c h o l o18, ~ , 317-334.

28, 1021-1034.

OzonoB, S., & Jensen, J. velopment~disorders

Ozonoff, S., & McEvoy, R.

mind development in

Ozonoff, S., & Strayer,D. L. (1997). I n h i b i t o ~ ~ n c t i oinnn o ~ e t a r d children e~ with auti~m. J o u ~ofl A u t i s ~a

Passler, M,A., Isaac, W., a ~ i b u t e dto frontal 349-370.

D ~ v e l o ~ ~ e n t a l D i s o27, r d ~59-77. s,

WELSH

on, D. A., Yafee, L. S., Loveland, K. A., & Norton, A. (1995). Covert visual a~entionin children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Evidence for developmentalimmaf the prefrontal cortices: Implica-

prefrontal cortex: volution, neu~biology,and ~ e h a v f o (pp. r 265-281).Baltimore:

Brookes. PeMington, B. F.,Benneto, L., M d e e r , 0 K . .,& Roberts, R. J. (1996). Executive functions R Lyon & N. A. andworkingmemory:Theoreticalandmeasurementissues.InG. r (Eds.),Attention, and executivef u ~ t i o n (pp. 327-348). Baltimore: m

e

m

o

r

y

F

Pennington, B.F.,Groisser, D., &Welsh, M. C. (1993). Contrasting cognitive deficits in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder versus reading disability.Developmental Psychology, 29, 511-523. Pennington, B. F., & Ozonoff, S, (1996). Executive functions and d~velopmentalpsychopathology. J o u ~ofl Child P ~ c h o l G o~ Psychfutry G AZlied D i s c ~ l i ~37, s , 51-87. Pe~ington,B. F.,van Doornick,W. J.,& McCabe, E. R. B. (1985). Neurop~cholo cits in early treatedpheny~etonuricchildren. herdcan Journal of ent tal D e f ~ ~ ~ ~ , 89, 467474. PeMington, B. F.,& Welsh, M. C. (1985). Neurop~chologyand developmental psychopathology.In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen(Eds.), ~ a n u a of l de~elopmentalpsychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 254-290). New York: Wiley. Perecman, E. (Ed,). (1987). Z%efrontal lobes revisited. New York: IRBN Press, Perret, E. (1974). The left frontal lobe ofman and the suppression of habitual responses in verbal categorical behavior. ~europsychologia,16, 527-537. Prior, N.R., & Hoffman, W. (1990). Neurop~chological testing of autistic children through an exploration with frontal lobe tests. Journal of Autism and D e v e l o p ~ n t aDisorders, l 20, 581-590. Reader, M. J.,Harris, E. L., Schuerholz,L. J., & Denckla,M. B. (1994). Attention deficit hyperactivitydisorderandexecutivedysfunction. Developmental ~europsychology,10, 493-512. Ris, M. D., Williams, S. E., Hunt, M. M., Berry, H. K., & Leslie, N. (1994). Early-treated pheny~etonuria:Adult neurop~chologicoutcome.Journal of Pediat~cs,124,388-392. ~nctioningin children diRobbins, P. M. (1992), A comparison of behavioral and attentional a l psycho lo^, 20, a ~ o s e as d hyperactive or learning-disabled.Journal of A ~ n o ~Child 65-82. Roberts, R. J., Hager, L. D., & Heron,C. (1994). Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. J o u m l of ~ p ~ m e n tPsychoZo~: al General, 123, 374-393. Roberts, R. J., & Pennington,B. F. (1996). An interactive framework fore~mining prefiontal ~ , 105-126. cognitive processes. Developmental ~ e u r o p s y c h o l o12, Rosenthal, R. H., & Allen, T. W. (1978). An examination of attention, arousal, and learning d ~ ~ n c tofi hyperkinetic o ~ children. Psychological ~ulletin,85, 689-715. Rumsey, J. M, (1985). Conceptual problem-solving in highly verbal, nonretarded autistic men. J o u ~ aofl Autism and Developmental Disorders, 15, 23-36 find in^ in h Rumsey, J.M., & amb burger, S.D. (1988). Neurop~cholo~cal Journal of Clinical and ~ p ~ m ~ t a l autistic men with infantile autism, residual state. ~europsychology,10, 201-221.

6. EXECUTIVE V ~ ~ O IN N S

FUNCTIONS

3

Rumsey, J. M., & Hamburger, S. D. (1990). Neuropsychological divergence of high-level autism and severe dyslexia.JoumaZ ofAutism andDeveZopmentaZDisord~s, 20,155-168. Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D, (1990). Impulsivity and inhibitory control in normal development and childhood psychopathology. ~e~ZopmentaZ PsycboZogy, 26, 710-720. Schachar, R. J., Tannock, R.,& Logan, C. (1993). Inhibitory control, impulsiveness, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. CZinicaZ PsychoZogy Review, 13, 721-739. Schachar, R., Tannock, R., Marriot, M., & Logan, G. D.(1995). Deficient inhibitory control in attentiondeficithyperactivitydisorder. JoumZ of A b n o ~ ZChild PsychoZogy, 23, 411437. Scholnick, E. K.,Friedman, S, L., & Wallner-Allen, K.E. (1997). What do they really measure? A comparative analysis of planning tasks. In S. L. Friedman & E. K. Scholnick (Eds.), The deve~opmentaZpsychoZo~ ofpzanning:When, howand why do w e p ~ n @p. ? 127-156). Hillsdale:NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Shallice, T., & Burgess,P. (1991). Higher-order cognitive impairments and frontal lobe lesions in man. InH. S. Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L, Benton (Eds.),FrontaZ Zobe~nction and d y s f u ~ t i o n@p. 125-138). New York: Oxford University Press. Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Cohen, D. J., &Young, J. G.(1983). Monoamine~icmechanismsinhyperactivity.InM.Rutter (Ed,), DeveZopmentaZ neuropsychiat~(pp. 330-347). New York: Guilford. Shue, K. L., & Douglas, V. I. (1992). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the frontal lobe syndrome. Brain 6. Cognition,20, 104-124. Siegler,R. S. (1983). I~ormationprocessingapproachestodevelopment.In W. Kessen (Ed.), Paul H. Mussen handbook of chiZdp~choZo~: VoZ 1. History, theory, and metbods @p. 129-211). New York: Wiley. Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child DeveZopm~t,GO, 973-980. Spreen, O., Risser, A. H., & Edgell, D. (1995). D e v e Z o ~ ~ t a Z ~ U ~ p s y c h oNew Z o gYork: y. Oxford University Press. Stage, S. A., & Wagner, R. K,(1992). Development of young children's phonologic^ and orthographicknowledge as revealedbytheirspellings. De~eZopmentaZPsychoZo~,28, 287-296. Stamm, J. S., & Kreder, S. V. (1979). Minimalbraindysfunction:Psychologicaland neurop~ologicaldisorders in hyperkinetic children. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), ~ a n d ~ k of behavioraz neuroZogy: Vol. 2. ~europsychoZogy(pp. 119-150). New York: Plenum. Stemerdink, N. B. A., van der Molen, M.W., Werboer, A. F.,van der Meere,J.J., Huisman,J.,de Jong, L W., Slijper, F. M.E., Verkerk P. H.,&van Spronsen, F,J. (1999).Prefrontal dyshnction in early and continuously treated Phenylketonuria. D ~ e Z o p ~ t a Z ~ ~ ~ p 16, syc~oZo~, 29-57. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1984). Neuropsychological studiesof frontal lobes.PsychologicaZBuZZetin, 35, 3-28. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F.(1986). Thefiontal lobes. New York:Raven. Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D.F. (1987). The frontal lobes and the controlof cognition and memory. In E. Perceman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revisited (pp. 141-158). New York: IRBN Press. Sutton, S. E.,& Davidson, R. J. (1997). Prefrontal brain asymmetry: A biological substrate of thebehavioralapproachandinhibitionsystems. PsychoZogicaZ Science, 8, 204-210. Swanson, H. L., Ashbaker, M. H., & Lee, C. (1996). Learning-disabled readers' working memory as a functionof processing demands.Journal of Experimental CbiZd PsychoZo~,61, 242, 275. Swanson, H. L., Cochran, K. F., & Ewers, C. A. (1990).Canlearningdisabilitiesbedetermined fromworking memory performance? Journal of Learning DisabiZities, 23,5947.

S ~ n s o n H. , L., & Trahan, M. (1990). Naturalistic memory in learning disabled children.

~ e a ~ i Disability ng Quarterly, 13, 82-95. S z a ~ a r iP., , Tuff, L., Finlayson, M. A.J., & Bartolucci, G. (1990). Asperger's syndrome and J o u ~ aof l tbe ~ e ~ c Academy a n of ~ b i l a d autism: ~ e u r o c o ~ i t iaspects. ve cent F s y c ~ i a t29, ~ , 130-136. Tannock,R.,Schachar, R., Carr, R. P., Chajczyk,D,, & Logan,G.D. (1989). l methylphenidate on inhibito~control in hyperactive children. J o u ~ of Child F ~ c ~ o l o g17, y , 473-491. Tannock, R., Schachar, R., & Logan, G. D. (1995). Methylphe~date and cognitive flexibility: Dissociated dose effects in hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal ChildF ~ c b o l o ~ , 23, 235-266. Tipper, S. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of E ~ p e ~ m ~ t a l F ~37A, c b o571-590. lo~, Tramontana, M. G., & Hooper, S. R. (1988). Child neurop~chologicalassessment: Overview n t in child of current status. In M. Tramontana & S. Hooper(Eds.), ~ s e s s ~ issues New York: Plenum. n ~ r o p s ~ c ~(pp. o l o3-38). ~ In. J. Warren & K.Akert Tueber, H. L. (1964). The riddleoffrontallobefunction i (Eds.), The frontal granular cortex and bebavior @p. 40). New York:McGrawHill, Umetani, T., Kitao, S., & Katada, A. (1985). Discrimination shift learning and response inhibio u ~ aof l tion of moderately and severely mentally retarded and non-retarded Jchildren. tal ~ e ~ c i e n Research, cy 29, 219-224. Vaughn, B. E,, Kopp, C.B., & Kralcow,J. B. (1984). The emergence and consolidation of selfcontrol from 18 to 30 months of age: Normative trends and individual differences. Cbild ~evelopment,55, 990-1004. Vaughn, B.E., Krakow,J. B., Kopp, C. B., Johnson,K,, & Schwartz, S. S. (1986). Process analysis of the behavior of very young children in delay tasks. ~ e ~ e l o p m e n tFsycbology, al 22, 752-759. Vitiello, B., Stoff, D., Atkins,N., & Mahoney, A. (1990). Soft neurological signs and impulsivity in children.J o ~ r n aolf ~ e v e l o p ~ n t Ga lBehavioral Fediat~cs,ll, 112-1 15. Walker, P., Hitch, G., Doyle, A., & Porter, T. (1994). The development of short-term visual memo^ in young children. Special issue: The development of w o r ~ n ger no^, ~ ~ t i o ~J lo u ~ ofl E~bavioralDevelopment, 17, 73-89. Welsh, M. C, (1991). Rule-guided behavior and self-monitoringon the Tower of Hanoi disktransfer task. Cognitive ~evezopment,6, 59-76. In N. Jordan Welsh, M. C. (1994). Executive function and the assessment of attention deficits. & J. Goldsmith-Phillips (Eds.),New directions in tbe assessment and t r e a t ~ notf learning d i s a ~ i ~ i t i(pp. e s 21-42). New York: Alp & Bacon. EuroWelsh, M. C. (1996). A prefrontal dysfunction modelor early-treatedpheny~etonu~a. pean J o u ~ a olf Pediat~cs(Specfa1 Section),155, 87-89. on Welsh, M. C., Cicerello,A., Cuneo, K., & Brennan, M. (1995). Error and temporal patterns the Towerof Hanoidisk-transfer task: Cognitivem e c h a ~ sand ~ s individuald~erences. J o u ~ ofl General Psycbology,122, 69-81. Welsh, M. C., & Pennington, B. F. (1988). Assessing fiontal lobe fbnctioning in children: 4, 199-230. Views fiom developmental psychology. Developm~tal Neurop~c~ology, Welsh, M. C., Pennington,B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normatived~elopmentalstudy of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children. ~eveZopmenta1 Neurop~cbology,7, 131-149. We .F., Ozonoff, S., Rouse, B., & McCabe, ed phenylketonuria Specific ~ecutive 1713,

t

~

-

CUlWE FUNCTIONS

6.

Zametkin,A., & Rapoport,J.(1987).~ e u r o b i o l of o ~attention deficit disorder with hyperactivi :Where have wecome in 50 y e a r s ? ~ o #of~the l canA c ~ e of~ Ch y cent P s y c h i a t ~26, , 676-678. Zelazo, P. R,Kearsley, R. B., & Stack, D.M. (1995).Mental r e ~ r e s e n t a t i ofor ~ visual sequences: I n c r e ~ e d speed of central processing from 22 to 32 months. I ~ t e l l i ~ ~20, ce, 41-63.

Zibovicius, M., Garreau, B., Samson, , . ' l Remy, P., Barthelemy, C., Syrota, A., & Lelord, G, (1995).Delayed ma~ration the of frontalcortex in childhood autism.~ ~J o # ~ c al of P ~ c h i a t152, ~ , 248-252.

a

~

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

H A P T E R

S E V E N

or decades, investigato believed that if they could accura age and cognitive disorders e for inte~entionto correct S well as the l~elihoodof success resulting from that int be greater. Such a belief has spawned many attempts to nitive skills in the preschool and early elementa of behavior^, medical, and physiolo natalperiod (D. L. Molfe Fox, 1987;Sostek, Smith, ever, few procedures have accom lished the traditional screeni h true positive and low false ative rates in their have success~lly ntified only those children who would laterexperience poor developmentaloutcomes while n ther children for later inte~entionwho did not require i ures, although sometimes yielding §tatistically sign~can duced low correlations between measures later scores on childhood Ian age and co~nitive tests (Si n re~essionmodels are con cted using these lan tive scores as the criterion measures andthe va easures as the predictors, nces in the perfo ortions of the children teste ~ c a n teven l ~ when testsare used

ctives, butthere is a senseof e science and its failure to ad This chapter focuses attentionon studies invest e and the event-related potential its of adult studies, but the spec of the indi~dual from early in infancy and whether used to predict future intellectual perfo~ance.

ERP has been used extensively t The a u d i t o ~ tive processes(D.L. Moifese, 1,983). The ERP EEG pattern thatis detectable diatelyinresponse to some a u d i t o ~stimulus Koslovv, 1978; Rockstroh, Elbert, Bi cause of its time-lockedrelation to the demons~atedto reflect both general and sp iusandtheperceptionsanddecisions ;D. Molfese & Betz, 1988; D. 0, 1985, 1986; Nelson & *

conducted in the late 1960s generally indicated the presence of some r e l a t i o ~between IQ, intelligence, and la and middle childhood years.These studies are S Ertl and Schafer (1969) tested 317 males and 2 8, and did find a relation between vis haracteristics and IQ. Children were ce Scales for Children (WISC), the P d the Otis Quick Scoring om bipolar electrodes 6 4 site referred to the 400 flashes recorded over a 625 ms p ummation andzero crossing an component ident~cationre S were identified in this manner and were found to correlate I ~ t e l ~ ~ etest n c escores.In en these ERP amplitude and measu the last three EW peak components at recorded from the high p e r f o ~ i n gsubjects were generally more com-

71

a A

x

W

n ~ c a n relations t were found between WRP measures and intellec~

ults

lthough noting reliable relationsearly in lifebetween activity, failed to find continued relations ~ e ~ e e n adulthood (Shucard & Callaway, 1973). ~ t h e r sin , continued to findsuchrelation Busk, 1970; § h u c ~ & dH are summar~edin Table 7.2.

P"

c

of different sexes over a wide age and SES r a n ~ “to e

presentedwith three

tionnaires were

also

administered&ereach

their own and not

CO

n to assess

factors.

ubjects varied widely data from two electro

studies reviewed here found relations between intelliivity. The one measure that did not correlate with intelliand Callaway (1973 eir selection of very

IC

de sites and

the

UTC

of studies,building on the ment of a relation betweenIQ ctivity,have investi~atedwh ERPs could predict later skills. owe~er,the outcomes of these two attempts have been quite dBerent. In the earlier series of studies, althou such relations appear to occur been birthand later infancy(ISutle el, 1969), the co~elationsbetivity andIQ at later ages werenot consistentlyfound (Engel ond set of studies, which encierson & Engel, Berent approach V. Molfese, 1985, 1997; ock, 1986), although noting relations between birth measures and later performance at age l, continued to show relations between

aa

B

9

S

S

S

&

u

3

i ! *

a

B

m

-

c,

3Fh

N

N

d

s

8

m

s

%

4 c,

m

m

N

7 . ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N T BRAIN ACTIVITY

earlybrain electrical measuresand later lae perfor~anceeven U e 5. These studies are outlined in Tab The earliest set of studies to investi~ate birth m e ~ u r e as s ~redictors of

lected &om these ida len~th the of interval i

relatio~ invol~n~

n e ~ o u sy§tems, § support thevi more mature motor systems at

fast reactors (those with

N1 latencies of 145 ms or less);

l a t ~ n c ia~t bi s

ENT

hic c h a ~ c t ~ r ~ .

S

into one of the

7 . ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N TBRAINACTIVITY

scrimination. Thus,

electrode siteandthensubmitted to aprincipal components analysis ng a correlation m v a r i rotation. ~ ~ s eve^ re~ions cha~acterction procedure to classify 3 groups of childre reading subtest sco~es at 8 years-of-age: (l) a L n who e ~ o r ~ one e d standard devi-

ent l o n ~ i ~ d i nsample al of children. Two disc

GUAGE D ~ L O P ~ AND E ~ BT

otential

me^^

7.

t in speech perception: Electro-

oxese, D.L, (19$0a). Hemispheric s p e c i ~ ~ a t i ofor n temporal i ~ o ~ a t i o n : I ~ p l ~ c a t i o n s

L. (19$0b). "he phoneme and the e n ~ a m : E l e c t r o p h ~ i oevidence l o ~ c ~ for the e ,3 ? ~ - 3 7 ~ . i n ~ i a n in t stop cons on an^. rain and ~ n g u ~ g9,

e of auditory evokedresponses recorded fro

to words they did and

~ o x e s eD. , L., Gill, L. A.,Simos, P. G., & Tan,A. (1995). Impl~cations result in^ from the use of biolo~cal techniques to assess development. In L. F. DiLalla & S. M. C l a n ~ D o ~ i n ~ e r (Eds.), ~ s e s s ~ e and nt inte~ent~ across o ~ the Z ~ e s ~ a@p. n 1~~190). T. (1978). Speech perceptio nces. J o u ~ olf ~ x p ~ ~ e n

7. ~ G U A G E D ~ L O P M EAND N TBRAINACTIVITY

Molfese, D. L., Linn~lle,S. E.,Wetzel, W. F.,& Leicht, D.(1985).Elec~ophysiologicalcorrelates of handedness and speech perception contrasts. Neurop~chologia,23,77-86. Molfese, D. L., & Molfese, V.J.(1979a).Hemisphere and stimulus differencesas reflected in the cortical responsesof newborn infants to speech stimuli.Developmntal P~chology, 15, 505-5 11.

Molfese, D.,& Molfese, V, (1979b).Infantspeech perception Learned or innate? In H. Whitaker & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Advances in ~urolinguistics(Vol. 4, pp. 225-240).New York: Academic Press. Molfese, D., & Molfese, V. (1980).Cortical responses of preterm infants to phonetic and nonphonetic speech stimuli. Developm~talPsychology, 16, 574-581. Moflese, D.,& Molfese, V. (1985).E l e c ~ o p h ~ i o l o g indices i ~ a l of auditory discriminationin newborn infants: The bases for predicting later language development. Infant Behavior and Development, 8, 197-211. Molfese, D., & Molfese, V. (1986).P ~ ~ o p h y s i cindices al of early cognitive processes and their relationship to language. In J.E. O b m t & G. W.Hynd(Eds.), Child neuropsychoZogy: l*beory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 95-115). New York: Academic Press. Moifese, D., & Molfese, V. (1988).Right hemisphere responses from preschool children to temporal cues containedin speech and nonspeech materials. Electrophysiological correlates. Brain and Language, 33,245-259. Molfese, D, L., & Molfese, V.J. (1994).Short-term and long-term developmental outcomes. In G. Dawson & K. Fischer(Eds.), Human behavior and the developi~gbrain (pp. 493-517). New York: Guilford Press. of age usMolfese, D. L.,& Molfese,V.J.(1997).Discr~minationof language skills at five years ing event-related potentials recorded at birth. Developmntal Neuropsychology, 13(2), 135-156.

Molfese, D. L., & Schmidt,A. L. (1983).An auditory evoked potential study of consonant perception. Brain and Language, 18, 57-70. Moifese, D.,& Searock, K. (1986).The useof auditory evoked responses at one year of age to predict language skills at 3 years, Austral~anJournal of CommunicationDisorders, 14, 35-46,

Nelson, C., & Salapatek, P. (1986).Electrophysiologicalcorrelates of infantrecognition memory. Child Development, 57, 1483-1497. Pederson, D., Evans,B., Bento,S., Chance, G.,& Fox, A. (1987,April). Invulner~blehigh risk for Research in Child Development, Balpreterm infants, Foster presented at the Society timore. Rhodes, L. E., Dustman,R. E., Lb Beck, E. C. (1969).The visual evoked response: A comparison of bright and dull children. Journal of Elect~encephalographyand ClinicalNeurop h ~ ~ o l o g27, y , 364-372, Rockstroh, B., Elbert, T.,B~baumer,N., & Lutzenberger, W. (1982).Slow b r a i n ~ t ~ t i a l s and behavior. Baltimore: U r b ~ - S c h ~ e n b e r g . Ruchkin, D., Sutton,S., Munson, R.,& Macar, F, (1981).P300 and feedback provided by the absence of the stimuli. ~ ~ c h o p ~ s i o l o18, g y 271-282. , Segalowitz, S., & Cohen, H. (1989).Right hemisphere EEG sensitivity to speech. Brain a ~ d ~ a n g ~ a g3e7, , 220-231. Shucard, D. W., & Callaway, E.,111. (1973).Relationship between human intelligence and freP e r c e p t ~ l a n d ~ o tSkills, o r 36,147-151. quency analysisof cortical evoked responses. Shucard, D. W.,& Horn,J.L. (1972).Evoked cortical potentials and measurement of human abilities. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 78(1), 59-68, Siegel, L. (1982).Reproductive, perinatal and e n v ~ o ~ e n tvariables al as predictors of development of preterm ( C 1500 grams) and full terminfantsat 5 years, Seminars and Perinatology, G, 274-279.

M O ~ E S ENARTER, , MODGLIN Silva, P,,McGee, R., & Williams, S. (1984). A seven year follow-up studyof the cognitive development of children who experienced common perinatal problems. AUstraZian Pediutric J o u ~ Z , 20, 23-28. Simos, P. G., & Molfese, D. L. (1997). Electrophysi~lo~cal responses &om a temporal order continuum in the newborn infant, ~europsychoZogia,35, 89-98. Sostek, A., Smith, Y.,JSatz, K.,& Grant, E.(1987). Developmental outcomeof preterm infants with intraventricular hemorrhage atone and two years of age. Child ~ e v e l o p ~ e n58, t, 779-786. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford-Binet ScaZe, Form L. M. Cambridge, M Houghton Mifllin. Travis, L. (1931). Speech pathology. New York: Appleton-Century. Vogel, W., & Broverman, D.M. (1964). Relatio~hipbetween EEG and test in~elligence:A critical review. P~chologicalBulletin, 132-144. Weinberg, H.(1969). Correlation of frequency spectra of averaged visual evoked potentials with verbal intelligence. Science, 224, 813415. Witelson, S., & Swallow,J. A. (1987). Neurop~cholo~cal study of the developmentof spatial cognition. In J. Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, & U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spati~Zcognition: Brain &mes and develop~ent@p. 373-409). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ct-iAPTER

E I G H T

Georgia State University Universit~School of Medicine

~ a ~ a WOE n n ~ Tufts U ~ i v ~ r s ~ t y

Naming refers to the ability to access and retrieve words in lexical storage (German, 1992, 1993). The act of finding a name or word is the “deceptively simple” end of a complexset of perceptual, linguistic, cognitive, and motoric operations ( C a r a m ~ a& Berndt, 1978; Gardner, 1974; LiederWolf, & Goodglass, 1983; Wolf, 1982, 1995;Wolf & Obre litativelydifferenttypes of naming disorders have been reults with anterior and posterior brain injuries. Patients wit focal damage to the anterior portion of the dominant hemisphere have many concrete and picturable nounsavailable for retri form accurately, butwith an increased latency,on na disruption appearsto bepart of a morege rbance, because other symptoms often include laborious articulation and a severe disruptionof productive syntax. Patients withposterior lesions in the dominant hemisphere ofken displayadeficit in the naming of concrete, picturable nouns, although the errors are frequently semantica~y or phonologica~y related to target (Goodglass, 1980). This impairment carries over into spontaneous speech, which is c h a r a c t e ~ e d by fluent articulationand intact syntax but reduction of content words. Although these patterns in adult naming performance are found in anterior versus posterior lesion comparisons, comparisonsat a more d~ferentiated level of lesion site have not yielded clear differences in naming perfomance (Goodglass, personal communication, 199 5 ) .

2

MORRIS ET AL.

In the past, children with focal cerebral lesions were not considered to present with patterns in speech and language disorders similar to adults chil(knneberg, 1967). Later studies, however, demonstrated that young dren with left brain lesions are impaired in various aspects of lexical, syn,and narrative discourse development ( ~Ekelman, ~ , ;Biddle, McCabe, & Bliss, 1996; hapm man et al., 1992; D tt, 1990; Kliessling, Denckla, adem, O’Gorman, & Watters, 1985), whereas children wi sions have relatively less impaired syntax, but are impai tic commu~cativeabilities” (e in communication) (Gross-T ir, 1995). Case studies of lexical ability in hemideco hn, 1975; Dennis & “hitaker, 1976) have also shown a reactic abilities in children with left hemidecortication, but Herences have been observed between childrenwith left idecortication on ~honemic orsemantic tasks. thtraumaticbraininjury(TBI) offer source of i~ormation.With these children traditional measures appear insufficientto detect their li within normal limits on mos alized tests of language (Bid Jordan, Cannon, &: Murdoch, 1992). However,whe personal n~rativeskills of TB1 children have been examined, S di~erencesin cohension ability, dysfluency, and rate have been U iddle et al., 1996; Chapman et al., 1992). Biddle andher co~eaguesconded that these narrative impairments appearmore the “result of problems with planning, producing, and monitoring discourse,” than to lanimpairments per se ddle et al., 1996, 459). The notion that ~isturbancesare re1 more to higher o er, executive processes agefunction is supported by other researchers’ work(e.g., Ylvisaker, 1993; Ylvisaker & Szekeres, 1989), by the fact that volves frontal lobe and subcorti~aldamage, and by the ~ e q u e n findi t that 9331 children evidence qualitatively different language ~ r o ~ l th es other childhoodpopulations with h o r n laagedisorders(Glosser ;McDonald, 1993). ation regardingthe specific lexical retrieval abilitiesof nonhemi~eco~icate children with brain lesions is mixe al. (1985) administeredthe Oldfield andWin dren, 28 of whom had left hemispherelesions and 25 of ~ h o m . ~ right ad hemisphere lesions. Results showed impaired naming in all children with left lesions (prenatal, early postnatal, and late postnatal) and in the children with early postnatal, right lesions when compared to control subjects. Aram, Ekelman, Rose, and Whitaker (1985) also demonstrated that

tn

G

T AL.

nces were

TABLE 8.3

Cortical Subcorticai Cerebeliar (N = 5) (N = 6)

~ a ~ a b i~e e a s u r e

F

Deficit

Semantic Latency Median ~

~

S

i Targets Median n g

Deficit

-S in^ Latency Median Median Targets Visual Median Latency Visual

Deficit Range Deficit Rafwe Deficit Range Deficit

_ _ _ _ _ ~

43

43 40-43

17% 1.3 1.0-2.9 67% 33.5 29-37 50% 3.4 2.2-3.9 67% 43 42-44 33% 1.0 0.5-1.3

0%

1.1 1.1-2.8 80% 34 22-37 40% 2.4 2.0-3.9 40% 43 41-45 60% 1.4 0.9-1.9 80%

50%

(N

= 6)

40 39-42 33% 1.2 .8-1.7 33% 27 23-34 33% 2.9 1.8-3.1 33% 42 42-45 33% 1.0 0.8-1.4 33%

Tu~rs N o n t ~ ~ r (N

= 17)

41 17% 1.2 .8-2.9 59% 31 22-37 41% 3.0 1.8-3.9 47% 43 41-45 41% 1.1 .5-1.9 53%

(N

= 19)

-

41.2-42.6

-

_ .

.8-1.4

33.5-35.6

-

-

2.5-3.4

43.7-44.6

___.

.G-l.O

"

Note: A subject was labeled Deficitif the score fell one ormore standard deviations below the national mean. *Scores on nontumor up represent age-based s t a n d ~ d ~ a ~ norms; o n subjects were not actually tested.

condition was responde to most rapidly and with the lowest error rate. i n c r e ~ e derror rate relative to the decreased latency period on the eed/accura~trade-off. er and ercent of total errors for

e two groups wererela both made more in-class er-

without tumors madeno the children with mors

normal children(410 ererrors (58%) of the children with tumorswere ,whereas, in contrast, normal children failed to % of the time. Both groups pro d r e s p o ~ efor s which no relation b and response could be discerned. Overall, the rtion (78%)of related responses tha ren without tumors made appro~matelyequal only and rhyme only errors; these children an r h ~ i n only g errors. Finally, although the proportion of hie~rchical “level” errors ,only the children with tumors made anyerrors (

rors).Over one he

In the visual condition, children in the tumor group made more semanrelated errors ( 5 ~ % )th comparison group (38% enerally indicatessome edge of the target (Wolf 1992). In contrast, the normal comparison childrenmade more visual erthan the children with tumors (30%). Only the children with de errors based on failure to respond (12%)‘ either s u ~ j e c t ced unrelated- or phonetically basederrors; the latter errors *

*

dian

vide propo~ionately more “no response” errors than did theother two tuA greater percentage of all the errors made across the ed on semantic associations(e.g.,cup/gla~s). Errors based rpretations were the next most highlyrepresented error. No errors across anyof the three tumor subgroupswere base lated responses or phonemic associations. est

SlC

en tumor and nontumor groups were compared on this test (Table d@ered in their use of responses containing incorrect basicor subordinate labels, including semantic paraphasias and incomplete descriptio~s.That is, the children with tumors producedmore “other”type responses(e.g., circumlocuto~responses,“pluginkind of knife” for “electric knife”) than did the normal comparison group (t = 2.55; p = c.05). These “other” responses were correlated with children’s subordinatelevel namiities (r = .50,p<.04), su~esting thatnaming errors r less often used, subordinate names. thou^ not statistically sign~cant, 24% of the children with tumors fell in the “deficit” e on the subordinate plus elaboration dimension, as compared to 0% 1 children. On this task, they tended to revise and reformulate ts through successive a~pro~mations until they were comble with their labeling of the presented picture.For instance, a child a tumor stated “truck,one with cement inthe middle”when attempt“cement truck.” Thissu ests that, compared ~ n d i v i d u ~ y ,

8 3 , they

TABLE 8.5 Basic and Subordinate Level

~a~able

Measure (N

Basic Subordinate Median

Deficit

Range Deficit E l a b o ~ ~ o n s Median Range Deficit Others Range Deficit

Cortical = S) 17 10-21 20% 10 8-22 40% 0 0-1 20%

3 0-4

60%

Naming Test

Subc~rti~alCerebellar Tumors (N = G) (N = G) (N = 17) 12 8-18

33%

19 14-21 0% 0 0-2

33%

1 0-2 17%

16 14-29 50% 11 1-17 7% 0 0-1 17% 2 0-5 67%

14 8-29

No~t~mor (N = 19) 18

4-30

14 1-22 19% 0 0-2 24% 1

10% 14 2-27 16% 0 M 0% 0

48%

16%

33%

0-5

0-4

Note: A subject was labeled Deficit if the score fell one or more standard deviations worse than the mean of the nonturnor group.

8. BRAIN

TUMOR NAMING

n resort to an elaborative fo di

of expression when imple atte pictures than dren in the n o ~ ~ m o r

as

Analysis (Table 8.6) showed that the effects of abstrac cant only in the second recall condition for verbs. Chi mors recalledsign~cantlymore verbs (t = 3.88,~ <.01) in the tumorgroup.Further analysisrevealedthatchildrenwithsubsignificantly fewer verbs cortical tumors (t = 17.65, p = ,005 than did the nontumor com~arisons. not §ign~cantly d~erent except in the second recall condition observed for the n o n t u ~ ochildren, r with the chi est d ~ l c uinl learning ~ noted duringthe secon int didthe children with tumor’s learningexceed the no~tumorchill e ~ i n gThis . is further h i g h l i ~ t e d by the tumor group’s inc “deficit” erc cent age and the difference between total recall in th bined recall condition. More children with tumors (65%) were in the “def(21%) in the total number of lative to thenonrchildren recalled over all learning trials. Finally, the learning of verbs by children in the tumor group was less with little increasein recall of verbs betweenthe first and S trials. ~lausibleexplanation§ for specific d ~ cin the ~ rel ~ TABLE 8.6 Concrete-Abstract P a i r e d - ~ s ~ i aLearning te Test

Variable Trial 1 # Nouns Recalled Trial 1 # Verbs Recalled Trial 2 # Nouns Recalled Trial 2 # Verbs Recalled Trial 3 # Nouns Recalled Trial 3 # Verbs Recalled AJl Trials # Nouns Recalled AB Trials # Verbs Recalled

Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range Median Range

0 0-5 0

0 0-1 0

0-4

0-1

1

1

0 0-2 0 0-1 2

0-5

0-4

0-4

0

0 0-1 2

1 0-2

0-3 2 0-5 1 0-5 2 0-15 1 0-12

0-4

l 0-2

3

0-7

2

0-3

3 0-5 1 0-5 5 0-10 2 0-7

0 0-5 0 0-4 1 0-5 0

0-3 2 0-5 1 0-5

1 0-5 0

0-4 3 0-5 2 0-5

5 1-5

3

0-15

0-5 8 1-15

1 0-12

0-14

3

4

the most a~tomatic,less

MORRIS ET AL.

des-This

index is the sum of the fre-

rim per ~ t t e r ~ n ~ e - T hmeasur ~s tegories per utterance. It is calcul total word-findi

In order to determine if groups d ~ e r e d in their roductivi~and in t number of naming errors g e n e ~ t ~ind spontanus speech, analyses were conducted length of stories, length of utterance, total number ofword-fi~din~ ories, and total number of word-finding categories/utterance as its of analysis (Table 8. he mean length of uthildrenwithouttumors was only ly longer thanthat of ~ t h o u tumor ~ h subin the tumorgroup (t = 2.4, p = ot differ sign~cantlyamong themselves inother dimensions, the subcortical tumor subgroup produced as ~ a l l e r m o d ~ e d h of utterance (t = 9.30, p = .02) than did the children in the up. The three tumor subgroups di themselves on dimensions of total of utterance, number of word-findin ~ o n t r ato~expectations, children with t greater number of naming errors in their CO theyproduce sign~cantlyshorter narrations t mor comparison group. Their sentences TABLE3 8.7 Spontaneous Language Results

Totd Median Verbd~ations e& -! Deficit MeanLengthof Median Utterance Rawe Deficit Total WordMedian Finding Cats -W Deficit Median Utterance Deficit Ratio

59 21-146 20% 15 10-22 40% 2 1-12

18 16-22

66 39-152 17% 13.7 8-23

71 43-112 0%

0%

50%

.75 .40-1.5

2 1-9 17% .75

2 0-10 17% .46

.14-1.5

0-1.4

0%

17%

17%

20%

63 21-152 12% 16 8-23 35% 2 0-12 18% .50 0-1.5 19%

79 29-244 5% 21 1042 5% 3 0-16 16% 1

0-1.8 16%

Note: A subject was labeled Deficit if the score fell oneor more standard deviations below the mean of the nontumor group.

8.

7

BRAIN WMOR N ~ I N G

were the sentences of children inthe normal comparisongroup, but these differences may not be clinically meaningfbl because both groups hy utte~nce§. More in-depth analysis of their sentence§, ted several areas of group differences. That is, 35% of the tumor group produced mean length of utterances at least1 SD below the nontumor group’s mean length of utterance. In addition, the u~erancesfor children with tumors’ tended to be less complex (1.7 subordinate conjunctio~/utterance)than their nontumor peers (2.6 subordinate conjunctions/utterance).Thus, the utterance length for children with tumors may reflect reduced proficiency in the face of the semantic prere~uisitesfor complex sentence formation. A reduction in the mean length of utterance would be consistent with German’s (1987, 1993) findings that there are two distinct categories of n ~ i n problems g inspontaneous language. Accordingto her findings, the first profile consists of a reduction in oral language despite a lack of the other word-~nding behaviors typicallyseen in children with word-findi problems. Reductionin clinically meaningfblutterance length appears apply only to a small portion of the children with tumors assessed in this study. However, a lackof semantic complexityon the whole, as evidenced in the fewer n ~ m ~ eof r ssubordinate conjunctions used, may undercut this demonstratedsentence length reduction.In contrast to German’s first pattern, a second profile is represented by a language sampleu~estricted in productivity, but that includes more of the characteristics traditionally classified as namin problems. This second pattern was not found in the current study. The sole variable that distinguished the subgroups on the language sample was the mean length of their utterances. On this variable,the sentences of the children in the subcortical tumor subgroup were S cantly shorter, althoughnot clinic~lyso, than sentences generat children in the nontumor comparison group.Because the children in the subcortical subgroup were often distinguished on a time-of-ret~evaldi,it may be that they tended to “rush” and thus abbreviate their ,culminating inshorter, but still semantically and s~tacticallyaccurate, sentences. The shortened sentences may alternatively reflect their difRcu1t.y with underlying semantic connections.

N

lated

In order to investigate the redundancy among the various measures, correlations among them were calculated for the children with brain tumors. The strongest correlations were found amongthe cluster of general functioning tests. Specific n ~ i n tests g were poorly correlated with the more

rted similar ~ o n ~ l u sai o ~~

o

~

nts indi~atedthat i n c r e ~ e ~ eater f r e ~ u e nof~wordfindi in^ ~ategoriesand Total~ e r ~ a l ~ a t i or n=:s.62, : f the na~ationand mean length of utterance, how-

MORRIS ET AL.

than do nontumorchildren. On the ~ord- in ding with tumors made more semantic than ' errors, were more limited in their semantic a . c c u r a ~ and matic errors in the semantic access condition, made more categoric^ (sein the r h ~ i n access g condition than rh rs of level in the semantic and r h ~ i n g 'S problems with names does not seem to be interpretable solely in termsof an inabilityto gain accessto existing lexical items.Limitations in naming appear related to underlying conceptual and organi~ational problems that leave children with brainlesions less sensitive to hierrelations of word class; to s ~ t a c t i icn f o ~ a t i o n li the the to-be-named e item, thou^ mildly so; r anizing a set of c o n t e f~e a~~ r e sthat cue a est that when th features of both sound c n) or require agreater degree ortionately more impaire which lexical retrieval is dependent on the demands of the task, and the ed. Thus, these results provide about language ~ n c t i o n swithi populations. This is, disturbances in basic l limited. On most of these tasks children appearclose to orwithin no^^ however, sign~cantdifferences in the assembly of language t le, and Gratton(1999,therefore, it may be concluded that the noted its ~ ~ i c u l ainr ~discourse) y were morethe result of an impaired interaction between executive and linguistic systems,rather than a discrete *

er conclusion in this study regards the eEect of lesion site on erformance. LikeGoodglass' conclusions regarding the adult aphasic pop~lations,findings in this study are not ~ompatible with the hypothesisthat site of lesion contributes to d S innaming eneral, s u b ~ o u pwere s more similar to each other than dissimsuits suggest that the s u b c o ~ i tumor c~ subgroup distinct entity than thecortical and cereb pe~ormances.Children in the subcorti e variable on tasks in which speed or latency of re In a numberof these timed situations,the children ponded at either extreme, slower or faster, than children in other two groups or than children wit in tumor eas chilPS took l to idenn in the cortical and cerebellar tumor tify A's on the Verbal an cell at ion Test, the children inthe subcortical sub-

The current study es to namin~dysfu

~ e r ~ aD,nJ., (1992).~ o r d - ~ n d i n g i n t e ~fore nchildren ~ o n and adolesceflts. Topics P

~

~ Houston, ~ a TE ~ P.

S C ~ O O ~18, S ,217-230.

injured c~ildrefl10 years post injury. Bruin . i n j q ~6, , 39-44.

Lam in

plan, E., Goodglass, H., & Weintraub, S. (1983). Boston ~ a ~ i Test. n g Philadelphia: Lea & Kiessling, L., Denckla, M., & Carlton, M. (1983). Evidence ildrenwithtemioplegiccerebralpalsy. Dev 25,727-734. Le (1967) Biological foundations of ~ n g ~ gNew e . York: Wiley. ~ederman, J., Kohn, S., Wolf, N., & Goodglass, H.(1983). Lexical creativity durin. of word-~ndingdiiBculty: Brocavs. Wernicke's aphasia. Bratn and Llinas, R. (1993). Is dyslexia a dyschronia?In P. Tallal, A. Galaburda, R. Llinas, & C, von Euler

~ormatio~ needs d

Ojemann, G. A. (1990). Organ~ationof language derived from investigat~onsduring neurosurgery. ~ e ~ r o s c i e n c2, e ,297-305. Rankin, J. N., &am, D. M,, & Homitz, S. J. (1981). Lan hemiplegicchildren. Bratn and ~ n g u a g e 12, , 292-306. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray,W., Johnson, D., & Boyes-Braem, P. (19763. Basic objects in naturalcategories. Cognitive P ~ c h o l o8, ~ ,349-382. Wolf, M. (1993). Automaticity, word retrievd, and vocabulary develo ment in In L.Meltzer(Ed.), Cognitive, linguis~ic, velopchildrenwithreadingdisabilities. tal perspectives on l e a ~ i ~ g d i s o(pp. r d ~141-165). s Boston: Little, Sparrow, S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1985). Vineland ~ a p t i v e B e ~ ~Scales. v i o r Circle Pines, M N : AmericanGuidanceService. C., & Davis, J. (1988). Relations of digit naming speed withthree c o m p o n e n ~of ing. v plied P ~ c ~ o l i n g u i s t 9, i ~ 315-334. s, Thornd~e,E. L., & Lorge, I, (1944). m e teacher~sword book: of 30JOO0words. New York: Columbia UniversityPress. Thorndike, R., Hagen, E., & Sanler, J. (1986). Stanford-B~~t Intellige~e Scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside. Toglia, M. P,, & Battig, W, F. (1978). ~ a n d ~ofos oe ~ n t i word c noms. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Var~a- ade em, F.,O'Gorman, A., & Watters, G. B. (1985). Aphasia in children with "prenatal" vs. postnatalleft hemispher~lesions: A clinicaland CT scan study. Bratn, 108, 677-696, Wechsler, D.(1974). WiSGR ~ n ~ Wechsl~ l . Intellig~ce Scalefor Children-Revised.New York:Psychological Cor~ration. telligence Scale f o r C h i ~ r e n . ~ a nNew u a lYork: . Psycho1984). %e W o r d - ~ i n dTest. i ~ ~(~perimentaled.), U n p u ~ lishedtest, Toronto, TheHospitalforSick Children. W i e g e l - C ~ mC., ~ , & Dennis, M. (1986). Development of word finding.Brain a n d ~ n g u a g e J 27(1), 1-23. Wolf,M. (1982). The word-retrieval process and readi in childrenandaphasics. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (pp. 437493). Hi~sdale,NJ:Lawrence E r h u m Asso& ates .

8. BRAIN TUMOR NAMING

Wolf, M. (1986).Rapid alternating stimulus naming in the developmental dyslexias. Brain and Language, 27, 360-379. Wolf, M. (1991).Naming speedandreading:Thecontribution of thecognitiveneuro~ , 123-141. sciences. Reading Researcb ~ u a r t e r26, Wolf, M. (1995,March). n e “Double-De~cit Hypotbeses”for tbe d e v e l o p ~ t adyslexias. l Paper presented at Society for Research in Child Development. Indianapolis, IN. Wolf, M. (1997).A provisional, integrative accountof phonological and naming-s~eddeficits in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and intervention. In B, Blachman (Ed.), Cognitive and linguistic~oundatio~ of reading acquisition @p. 67-92).M a h d , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wolf, M., Bally,H.,& Morris, R. (1986).Automaticity, retrieval processes, and reading: A longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. Child Development, 57, 988-1000. Wolf, M,, & Goodglass, H.(1986).Dyslexia, dysnomia, and lexical retrieval. Brain and Language, 28, 154-168. Wolf, N., & ObregrSn, M. (1992).Early naming deficits, developmental dyslexia and the specific retrieval-deficit hypothesis. Brain and ~ n g ~ a g24, e ,219-24?. Ylvisaker, M. (1993).Communication outcome in children and adolescents with traumatic 3,367-387. brain injury. ~europ~chological ~ehabilitation, Ylvisaker, M., & Szekeres, S. F. (1989).Metacognitive and executive impairments in headinjured children and adults. Topics in Language Disorders, 9,34-49.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

C H A P T E RN I N E

The emergence of communication andlanguageskillsisa h ~ ~ a ofr k child development.Once these skills beginto appear atthe end of the first year of life, most children follow a similar developmental path toward adult language skills, that is, from intentional communication andthe production of single words to the generation of semantic relations and syntactic forms ( A d ~ s o n1996; , Berko-Gleason, 1996).m e n language and communication skillsdo not emerge during early childhood, as is the case for most children andyouth with severe mentalretardation, there are specific long-term effectson development thatcontinue across the life span. Not only are childrenwith severe mental retardationunable to communicate through conventional means, their intellectual and s o c i ~ - e m o t i o n ~ development, as well as their educational achievements, are si compromised (Romski, Sevcik, & Adamson, 1997). Over the past two decades, a great deal of attention has been focused on developing instructional approaches that compensate for the lack of speech and l a n ~ a g edevelopment children with severe mental retardation evidence in an effort to reduce the impact the lack of speech exerts on their overall development.These specialized instructional approaches include manual signs, visual-graphic symbols, and computer-based speech output devices and replace or augment the children’s existing receptive and expressive communication skills (see Niirenda, Iacono, & ~ i l l i ~ s , & Sevcik, 1988,for reviews). Through the use of these aputh have been able to developconve

ROMSIU ANDSEVCIK

This chapter focuses on one such inst~ctionalapproach for learning ge through augmented means and describesthe paths youth with mental retardation and little or no functional speechadopt as they advancewithintheprocess of learninglanguinuing the theme of this book, that is, to examine variations in e development and le~ning,thischapterpresentsdatafromyou severe mentalretardation who encounter serious difficulty learning to speak. The first section provides a brief characterization of children and youth with moderate or severe mental retardation.The second section discusses findings from dinal study of language acquisition and use employing the System for Augmenting Language (SAL). It describes the language and communication achievementsof 13 youth with moderateor severe mental retardation who did not speak at the onset of the study, as well as some of their language-related outcomes. The final section discusses how these youth differ among themselves and also if and how they diverge fromthe typical path of development.

ATION

~hildren and youth with severe mental retardation, by definition,sig-have nificant intellectual impairments as evidenced by extremely low scores on standardized intelligence inst~ments(Snell, 1993). They exhibit a range of accompanying disabilities, which may include, a l t h o u ~ are not limited to, cerebral palsy, sensory impairments, seizuredisorders, other medical conditions, or maladaptivebehaviors(Guess &. Horner, 1978; Snell, 1993). Children and youth with severe mental retardation typically require extensive ongoingsupport in major life activities, especially communication, in order to participate in their communities erica^ Association of Mental Retardation,AAMR, 1993). Some children and youth with severe mental retardation acquireoral communication skills, albeitslowly and often incompletely7 and exhibit varying degrees~ofp a i ~ einnthe t comprehensionandproduction of thesemantics,syntax, p ~ ~ a t i c s , and/or phonologyof language (see Rosenberg& Abbeduto, 1993, for a review). The majority of children and youth with severe mental retardation, however, fail to develop functional spoken communication skills even after they have had extensive speech and language therapy directed toward that goal(e.g., Romski & Sevcik, 1996). These children and youth communicate in nonconventional ways often using idiosyncratic vocalizations, gestures, physical manipulation, and perhaps few a word appro~mations to get their messages across to others (Romski, Sevcik, Reumann,& Pate, 1989).

9.

OF LANGUAGE ~ ~ L O P ~ E N T

severe mental retardation who do not speak, creating a route by which Id initial language and communicationproduction skills is a critifor their subsequent success as com~unicators.Second, given their language their lack of roductivelanguageskills,findingsabout h augmented means can also provide unique a mechanism W their overall development.

(See Itomski eG Sevcilr,

s ~ e c ~ cspeech ~ l y production skills and ~ d i m e n t reading a~ skills.

dinal study were 13 male school-age youth ental retardation(mean CA = 12 years, 3 = 3 years, 6 months). Each pa~icipanthad a i m p a i ~ e n tresided , athome, and attended aspeat their local public school. They all demonstrated ilities (e.g., gestures, vocal~ations),but no a ~ p r o ~ m a t i o at n sthe study’s onset. Each ts of speech-language therapy but stillhad ’ atthe desc~ptionof the p ~ i c i p a n t sskills onset of the longitudinal study is provided in Table 9.1.

TABLE 9.1 ~tic~p~ Profiles t s ’ at the Onset of the Longitudinal Study

DC DE EC JA JL

Kw

MH TE

13:5 20:1 6:2 lo:$ 8:9 11:11 16:7 13:3 20:5 13:2 7:3 119

Cereb. palsy Cereb.palsy

unknown unknown unknown

Down syndrome Autism

unknown

Unknown Down syndrome Autism Cereb. palsy

Severe Severe Severe Severe Moderate Severe Severe Moderate Severe Severe Moderate Severe

< 1:Gd < 1:6d < l:@ < l:@ 4:7 2:7 3:l 2:3 < l:@ < 1:6d < 1:6d < l:@

3:O < 2:od < 2:0* < 2:Od 5:l 4:O

5:O 7:O < 2:od 4:2 5:O 3:3

Note: From Sevcik, R. A. 8z Romski, M. A. (1997). Comprehens~on andlanguage acquisition: Evidence from youth with severe cognitive disabilities. L. B. In Adamson (Eds.), ~ o ~ ~ u n i ~ aand t i language on acquisition:Discoueriesfrom atypicai 0~~~~ (pp. 187-202). tim more: Paul H,Brmkes ~ b ~ s h i Co. n g Reprinted by pe~~slon. P = partkipant ‘Level of retardation, as defined by Grossman(1983), was assigned as a resultof psychological evaluations conducted by certified school p ~ ~ o l o gprior i s ~to the onset of the as measuredbytheStanford-BinetIntelstudy.TheseevaluatioaccountbothIQ, ligenceScale(Terman ,1960), andadaptivebehavior,asmeasuredbythe AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scal rt, Windmiller, Cole, 8z Figueroa, 1975). Moderateandsevere mental ret~dationwas defined as IQs of 50-70 and 20-40, respectively (Gross~an, 1983) b P P ~ =- the ~ Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (L. Dunn 8z L. Dunn, 19 ‘biter = the Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter In~ernationalP e r f o ~ a n c eScale (Arthur, 1952) dNo basal was achieved and the participant’s age equivalent score was estimated below the lowest age equivalent score available on the test.

tional e ~ ~ r ~ s s i v e

GUAGE D ~ L O P M E ~ T TABLE 9.2 Five Components of the System for A u ~ e n t ~ Language ng Electric computer-b~edspeech-output co~municationdevices are available for use in natural communicative environments Appropriate, initially limited, symbol vocabularies with the printed English word above each symbol are placed on the devices Participants are encouraged, though not required, to use the device during looselyS tured naturalistic communicative exchanges Communicative partners are taught to use the deviceto augment their speech inputto the participants with symbol input Ongoing resource and feedback mechanisms are provided to support the participants and their partners in their commu~cationefforts

N ~ t eFrom : Romski, M. A. & Sevcik, R. A. (1996).~reakingthe speech b a ~ e r~anguage : Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Re~ e v e l o p m throu~h ~t a u g m ~ t emeans. ~ printed by permission.

h's n a ~ ralbeit ~ , S

relylimited,languageabilities wi oard that prod~cedsynthesiz

t

the SAL was a speech-output communication device. I employed a Words+Po~tableVoice 11 (Words+, Inc., 1985)

te and could not access a CO ner, this system permitted the ~raphics ~ ~onoa computer-b~ed l display. The computer prod synthetic spoken word thatcorresponded to the sym To optimize p o ~ a b i lini ~the home and school settin~s,the entire was t ~ n s p o on ~ ~a m d od~ed luggage cart. It facilit a v ~ i ofeenvironmen ~ quently within a range The Words+ system smallerand s i ~ n ~ c ~ nreduced tly i readily t~nsferredtheir symbol useS

osen individu~lyfor each pa~icipantby parents and ators. Initial vocabulary included radio) and subse~uentlysociallative words (e.g., I want, thankyou, help). Vocabulary was expanded the course of the study and updated and increased as needed The third component of the SAL of the device was intethin the s t ~ c t u rof e the the device and

ffth and final comporesource and feedback partners’ use of the SAL at and school.This component consistedof obtaining ic feedback throu~hthe use of a ~uestionnaire(Q artlcipant’s primary partner about thep~icipant’s use r communicative U down) that arose.

tively, as well as a wide range of partners

use.

LE 9.3 §ample of SALT ( C h a p m ~ & Miller, 1985) T ~ s c r i p t

I/'m go/ing to use a [L]

M M

I_

M

would you like for a Tell me what drink you wou [3L3S]{JUICE}. would? da thought so. Look what I have at the table. Look here. M holds up the container of orange juice.

J ~ o t eFrom : Romski, M. A,, & Sevcik, R.A. (1992). Developing augmented language in children with severe mentalr e t ~ a t i o nIn. S. F. Warren & J.Reichle (Eds.),Causes eflects in c o ~ ~ ~ n i c ~ and t i o~n n ~ at ng~ee ~ e n t i o(pp. n 113-130). ~altimore: Paul H.Brookes Pub~~

Reprinted by permission. = mother;J = youth; L = 1 m; { } = lexigrarn meaning;[3L3S] = CC§ codefor t i o ninitisuccess~l lexigrm request responseto an adult; [1V4S]= successfulv o ~ ~ ~ a label

T

9. P

A

~ OF~~ G~ U AS G D E

lish words an

9.

with these ~ndings,S provide a foundati

Eully orchestrated experiences. Children’s to include upwards of bine words and develop rogressed t h r o u ~ the lan

1987).

on to fast map the meanings of novel s ~ b o l s ~ o m s ~ , rand, 1996). Their development, then, which all children esse, 1982; Lewis,

In conclusion, the System for ~ u ~ e n t i Langu ng r capacities for language and communication development interaction and their previously unrealized c o n c e p ~ a l i ~ a ~ndings emph~ize a lea~ing process that couc o ~ l g u r a t i of o ~technolo ge learningo p p o ~ n i t i e s gmented language. The 6 o is variation inthe path these youth may t augmented means.These WO paths may b tant speech comprehension skills the youth bring to the task. The add achieve^ also followed a path of language development that, in al, was similar to that of typical children. Precisee x ~ i n a t i o n the of age learning process strengthens our understandi of very early language development. some of the intricacies and variations

9.

Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1960). Stanford- ine et IntelZ~gence ScaZe, Boston: Houghton M~in. kinso son, K. N., Romki, M, A.,& Sevcik, R. A. (1994). Emergence of visualomb bin at ions by youth with moderate or severe mental r e t ~ d a t ~ o nof. Speech ~o~~~ and ~ e a ~ n g ~ e s37, e a883495. rc~, Words +, Inc. (1985). ~ o r d + s Portable Voice lZ User% Manual. Sunnyvale, C A : Author.

T

T

10.

ING

t

er-sound c o ~ e s ~ o n ~ e n c e s ~me-to-~~o~eme

of

is u ~ e a d a b l ebecause it has be true alphabet letters or

the sounds with letuses units larger than nemic, that is, it pres

*

Gentry’s (1982, 1984) model isverysi stages arethe same, f o ~ o ~ by e dtransitional ~ p h a b e t i and c phonetic strategies are replace ic rules, for example, inclusion of ological relations, for example, addmaster ort dopt visual c h e c ~ n g

; Children

ant for two reas

c rules and morpho10 S.

the stage approach to sp sion fiom stage to stage

A. comprehensive stage model of written communication does no

but the f o ~ o ~ summary ng integrates de~elopmentalsequences re in the literature for various phasesof the process, &om a ~ ~p e ~ o p e~c - ~

c

~

10.

focuses on i n t ~ i n d i ~ d u a l d ~ e r e thin n c e s a si ross multi~lecase studies may shed light

essio

at they can evaluaterelatio~st ~ intonaccount ~ the enf each m e ~ u r e d variable ( ~ u n n e b o& r ~Abbott, 1983). at the relation (Le., the shared v ~ i a n c e )bells and measu~esthought to be reitin~related ~rocesses at different develop-

skill. Such correlational analyses canbe i m ~ o ~ a mentalstudies. For example, the correlations ott (1gg~a)found that each

were come-

m q and intermediate grades.

10. READING AND WRITING ACQUISI~ON

7

Likewise, reading draws on subsystems and writing draws on subsystems, each on their own developmental trajectory. Little researchhas foon how the various§ubsystemsare orchestrated di~erently,depending on the task at hand and the developmental levelof readers and structural equation modeling writers. Abbot rninger (1995)used to showthat o hicandphonologicalfactorsareorchestrated d8ertion and beginning spel es (o~hographic, c n ~ i n g are ) orchestrated d~erently, ending on the component reading or writing skill and develo~mentallevel of indi~duals with learn children, the ortho~aphicand phonological factors had direct paths to accuracy, spelling, and composition; the o ~ h o ~ a p hand i c rapid factors had direct paths to reading rate; the Verbal IQ and phonoalfactors had direct paths to readingcomp nsion; andonly the graphic factor had a direct path to handwri For the adults, however, the ortho~aphicfactor andVerbalIQhadpaths to reading ac,and composition; the o~hographicand rapid naming facpaths to reading rate; o d y Verbal IQ had a direct path to comprehension; and only the o ~ h o ~ p hfactor i c had a direct path to ting. Only readingrateandhandwriting orchestrated the lanprocesses in exactlythe same way in children and adults with s a b ~ i This ~ . flexible orchestration would be missed with a age model of development. strate the notion of multiple evel lop mental domains (or works) for development, mod~cationsof Chall's and Frith's d. These modi~cationscontrast with the stage models in that eachof the stages is r~conceptual~ed as a developmental domainon its o m t ~ j e c t o ~ . 'S In Chall's sequential model, p~ehensiondoes not become impo~antuntil to read to learn. In our modified version,WO recognition and compreh~nsionare develop isition process, but each is on i ode1 is consistent with claims of the simple view of rea& unmer, 1993): ~eadingconsists of word compr~hension,both itself. Over the course ponents may change, bu & Walsh, 1991). c o ~ t r a i nreading comprehe~ioninitially, comprehe~ionis still possible

tions sstated in text, to und~rst

10.

TING A C ~ ~ S I ~ O N

not account for t

cedures that average deve analysis of dataatthe in terms of universal se~uencesand

more emphasis on the universal science focusedon the uni More attention should be

B E ~ I N G AND E ~ ABBOT"

(193'7, 195'7) insight that the same achievement outcome can be reached inqualitatively daerent ways. This notion of alternativepathways or routes to the same developmental outcomeis an important alternativeto model. A complete developmental science will be sequences abstracted from individual trajectories to describe universal developmental sequences andon individual developmental sequences to describe variations in those universal sequences. This notion of alternative pathways is illustrated with examples from search programs. S~~~~ of

~~~~~~~~~

Rea

Abbott (1992) applied four approaches to the analysis of data in alongitudina~study of first-grade reading.The first approach was the same as that used in research designs that compare ups of good andpoor readers. A top, middle, andl d on the basis of standardized tests of reading ac were drawn from different classrooms and did not expe~encea common instructio~al envir~nment. Variation among children within achievementroups was treated as error, as is typically done in studies in which up is the unit of analysis for individual difXerence variables. On the readin~relatedprocess variables (measures of lexical decision, na and written reproduction for phonically regularreal words, phonic regular realwords, and phonic~lyregular pronounceablepseudo~ords), p e r f o ~ a n cof e the low group at the end of fi de was comp~able to that of the middlegroup at the middle of firs ,and p e r f o ~ a n cof e themiddle group attheend of firstgradearable to that of the p at the middle of first grade.These results were consistent with lusion-alsoreachedbyBruck (1988) and Stanovich, ~ a t h a n , and ~ o l m a n(1988)-that there is one process of learning, butindi~duals vary in the rateof mastering that process.In the second, third and fourth approaches, a teacher's intact instructional groupsfor the and low achieving children from the same data set were us ability could be examined when instructional pro m was kept as constant as possible in a classroom. In the second approach, like the first, variation amo an instructionalgroup was treated aserror and the resultswere the same. Thus, whether achievement groupswere defined on the basis of standardized tests or teacher-created instructional groups, there appeared to be one process in learningto read andv~iationonly in the rateof m that process. In the third approach, variation among children in an instructional group was treated as systematic variance rather than error. Data were gregated over individual stimulus items rather than over individual sub-

10,.

ING A C ~ U I S I ~ O ~

Is and all interactions invol~n ese results were not consistentW

~hildren thin the same i n s t ~ c -

,

outcom~,even when the in

10.

ING AC~UISITION

etween ~ t t ane ~ there is an advanta~e hic-~honolo~ical co~ne~tions.

leastsquares re~ression.

ntalists have given little attention rner (1937,1957): Thesa nt out~omecan be re h rocesses. Contem~or ity and unilinearltyo ds not to consider the tories of the individua

to the valu

10. READING AND WRM'ING ACQUI§I~ON

posedconceptual f ~ e w o anddataanal ic ight applyto studying developmental c dividual levelto document the variability that does exist inrea the same developmental outcome. Research used these alternative tech,some of which focuson the individual aswell as the S and some of whichfocus on intraindi~dual as Resultshave been c o ~ i s t e nwith t the developmental neuro ical perspective described by Berninger(1994a) Reading and terized by normal variation, that is, diversity not re.Normal variation occurs along the continuum of si ns of processes relatedto the acquisitionof skills. Normal v~iation also occurs acrossthe mulmains. I n ~ ~ n d i ~ ddifferences ual emerge as the different evel lop mental d o m a i ~ develop at different rates the in same inand miting acquisition may follow alternat me. There is more than one way to learn mite. There is more than one way to teach reading and writ result in eBective learning. Individual differences in teachers and teachi methods are as great as indi~dualdifferences in learners. Yet most ch dren learn to read andwrite. V~iabilityis the hallrnark of the n o ~ areadl nd ~ i t i n gacquisition p ess, not an exception,and also occurs individ~alswithreadindwritingdisabilities. I

aration of this chapter was supported by grantsR01 2585 HZ, 33812-04 from the National Institute of Child Health an

velopment.

Abbott, R., & Berninger,V. (1993). Structural equation modelingof relationships among developmental skills and writing skills in primary- and inte~ediate- de writers.JournaZ of E ~ u c a t i o ~~Z ~ c b o85, ~ 478-508. o ~ , Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (1995).Structuralequationmodelingandhierarchicallinear modeling: Tools for studying theconstruct validity of orthographic processesin reading ~owZand writing development. InV. W. Berninger (Ed.),The varieties of o~tbog~apbic edge: LI. R e ~ t i o topbonoZo~ ~ ~ ~ s reading and writing @p. 321-353). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: IUuwer Academic. Abbott, S., & Berninger, V. (1999). It's never too late to remediate: A development^ approach to teaching word recognition. Annals of Dyslexfa, 49,223-250.

ties: New u i e ~ s

10. erninger, V., & Hm,T. (1993). From researchto clinical ~sessment of reading and writing disorders: The unit of analysis problem. In R. M. Joshi & C. K. Leong (Eds.),

CT: JM Press. Berninger, V., & Traweek, D.(1991). Effects of a two-phase reading intervention on three or~o~phic-phonological code connections. ~ e a ~ i and n g I n d i ~ d u a l ~ i ~ ~ e3 n,c e s , 323-338. R., Brooks, A., Abbott, S., Reed, E., Rogan, L., & ~ r ~ a m , Berninger, V.,V a u ~K.,~Abbon, , S. (1998). Early inte~ention for spelling problems: Teaching spelling units of varying size ~, within a multiple connections framework. J o u ~ a lof Educati~nal~ s y c h o l o 90, 587~05. A., Rutberg,J,,Remy, E., & Abbott, R. (1992). Lower-level Berninger, V., Yates, C., Cammight, g :r n t e r d i s c ~ I ~ developmental skills in beg inn in^ writing. ~ e a d i n gand ~ ~ t i nAn J~~rnal, 4, 25’7-280. Berninger, V., Yates, C.,& Lester, K.(1991). Multiple orthographic codes in reading and writg :I n t ~ d i s ~ p l i n aJournaC, ry 3,115-149. ing acquisition, Reading and ~ ~ t i nAn n, and structural equation Biddle, B., & Marlin, M, (1987). Causality, c o ~ ~ m a t i ocredulity, e n t4-17. , modeling. C h i ~ d ~ e v e l o p ~58, Biemiller, A. (19’70). The development of the use of graphic and contextual i~ormationas children learn to read. Rea~ing ~esearcb ~uarterly, G, 75-96. Bruck, M. (1988). The word recognition and spelling of dyslexic children. Reuding ~esearch ~ ~ a r ~23, ~ 51-69. l y , Bryk, A., & ~udenbush,S. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to ~sessing 101, 147-158. change. P~chological ~ulIetin, Can, T., & Pollatsek, A. (1985). Recognizing printed words: A loo at current models. In Reading ~esearch:~ v a n c e in s theory and prac~ice (Vol. 5, pp 1-82). New York: Academic Press. for reading stages. Chall,J.(1979). The great debate: Ten years later, with a modest proposal In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Beory and pra~ticeof early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 22-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L. (1992). Review and commentary: Stages of spelling development. InS. Templeton & D,Bear (E&.),~ e v e l o p ~ eon f orthographic t ~ n o ~ I e dand g e thef o u ~ d a t i oof~I i t ~ a ~ (pp. 307-332). H~llsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. o ~developmental (and acquired) dyslexia: A Ellis, A. (1985). The cognitive n e u r o p ~ c h o l of critical survey. Cognitive N e u r o p ~ c b o I o2 ~,, 169-205. Ellis, A. (1987). Review of problems in developing cogn~t~vely ~ ~ s m i t tcognit~ve ed modules.

ciates.

BE~INGERAND ABBOTI' Gibson, E., & Levin, H. (1975). Thep~chologyof reading. Cambridge, M:MIT Press. Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development.QuarterlyJ o u ~ l of ~ p ~ ~ nPsychology, t a l 40A, 239-268. Gough, P., Juel, C.,& GriBRth, P. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher.P. In Gough,L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.),Reading acqui~tion(pp. 3548). Hillsd~e, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gough, P., & Walsh, M. (1991). Chinese, Ph~nicians,and the ortho~aphiccipher of English. In S. A. Brady & D. P. Shankweiler (Eds.),Phonological~cessesf n Ziteracy:A tribute to~sabelleX Liberrnun (pp. 199-210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1996). The effects of whole language on children's writing:A review of literature. Educatio~lPsychologist, 19(4), 187-192, Graham, S., & Weintraub, N. (1996). Review of handwriting research: Progress and prospect from 1980 to 1994. Educatio~lPsycbology Review, 8(1), 7-87. Harm, N., & Seidenberg, M, (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models, P~chologicalReview, 106, 491-528. Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1980). Identwngthe organization of the writing process.In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitiveprocesses in writfng (pp. 3-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. InH. Henderson & J. W. Beers Henderson, E. H. (1980). Developmental concept of word. E. (Eds.), Developmental and cognitive aspects of learningto spell: A re~ectionof word owle edge (pp. 1-14). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Henderson, E. H. (1992). The interface of lexical competence and knowledge of written words. In S. Templeton & D. Bear (Eds.),Development of orthographic~ n o ~ l e d and ge f o u ~ a t i of o ~literacy (pp. 1-30). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hooven,W., & Turner, W. (1993). Thecomponents of reading.In G. Thompson, W. Turner, & T. Nicholson (Eds.),Reading acquisftionprocesses(pp. 1-19). Clevedon, UK: Multilin~alMatters LTD. Jackson, N., & Butterfield, E. (1989). Reading-level matched designs: Myths and realities. J ~ u of ~ Reading I Behavior, 21, 387412. Jastak,J., Bijou, S., & Jastak, S. (1978). Wide RangeAchievem~tTest.Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates. Test Red Level: Kiwlson, B., Madden, R.,& Gardner, E. (1976). Stanford Diagnostfc Readfng Manualfor a d ~ ~ n i s t and ~ n fnte~reting. g New York Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich. of reading disorders(p. Keeney,A., & Keeney,V. (1968). Dyslexfa. Diagnosfs and treatment 92). St. Louis: Mosby Co. Kim (Yoon), Y. H., & Goetz, E. T. (1994). Context effects on word recognition and reading comprehension of poor and good readers: A test of the interactivecompensato~ hypothesis, Readfng Research Quarterly, 29, 178-188. Kraus, P. (1973). Yesterday's children: A longitudtnal studyof childrenfrom k ~ n d e ~ a r t e n into tbe adult years. New York: Wiley. Lavine, L. 0. (1972). The develop~ntof perception of wrtting tn pre-reading children:A of Human Develop ~ o s s ~ u l t u rstudy. a l Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department ment, Cornell University. Levy, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1995a, April). Segm~tationversus whole word repeti~on: Optimal training methods for beginning and delayed readers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, San Francisco. Levy, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1995b). Beginning word recognition: Benefits ofW i n g by segt o~~ Ri e ~ci n1g(4), , 359-387. mentation and whole word methods. ~ ~ ~Studies Lundberg, I., & Rosen, M. (1995, April). Two-level structural~ d e l ~ of n reading g achievement asa basisfor evaluating teaching eflects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

10.

ING AND

~ T I N ACQUISITION G

t a ~ analjrsisfor the behavioral Lunneborg, C., & Abbott, R. (1983).~ Z ~ nmuztiva~ate s~ences.A m s t e r d ~North : Holland. Morris, D.(1992).Concept of word: A pivotal unders~ndingin l e a r n i n ~ t ~ r e process. ad In S. Templeton & D. Bear (Eds.), DeveZopment of orthographic owle edge a literacy (pp. 53-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. of disabled readers: Variables related to high Forell, E. (1973).A follow-up study 9, 110-123. school reading perfo~ance.Reading Research Quart~&l Nagy, W., Osborn, J., W i ~ o rP., , & O’Flahaven,J. (1994).Structural analysis: Some guidelines for i n s ~ c ~ oIn n F. . Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.), Readingl ~ n g u a g eG , L~teracy(pp. 45-58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. (2000). Report of then a t i o ~ l National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development. reading panel: An evide~e-basedassessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its impzications for reading i ~ t r u c t i oBethesda, ~. MD: NICHD Clearinghouse. O’Flahaven,J. 0. (1989).Second graders’social inteZlect~Z,and aflectivedevezop~entin varied groupd i s ~ s s i about o ~ narrative texts: An expzoration of participation structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana- champ^^.

Olson, R., & Wise, B, (1992).Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback. Reading and Writing: An Int~discipZina~ Journal, 4, 107-144. Rogosa, D.,Brandt, D., & Zimomki, M. (1992).A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. PsychoZogic~Z 3uZZetinl92,726-748. Sabatini, J., & Venezky, R. (1995,April). Visual a~phonoZogicaZskills in adult reading ac~uisition.Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Satz, P., Taylor, H.G., Friel, J., & Fletcher, J.(1978).Some developmental and predictive precursors of reading disabilities:A six year follow-up. In A. Benton & D. Pearl (Eds.), Dyslexia: An appraisaZ of current ~owZedge(pp. 313-4347).New York: W o r d University Press. S c ~ d a m ~ iM,, a , & Bereiter, C. (1987).~ e p s y c h o Z o of~w ~ t t e n c o m ~ s i Hillsdale, tio~* NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Siegel, L., Geva, E., & Share, D. (1995).The development of o r t h o ~ p h i cskills in normal and disabled readers. P~choZogicalScience, G, 250-254. Stahl, S., McKenna, M[., & Pagnucco,J.(1994).The effects of whole languageinst~ction: An update and a reappraisal. Educatio~lPsyc~oZogist,29(4),175185. Stanovich, K., Nathan, R.,& Zolman,J.(1988). The developmental lag hypothesis in reading: ~ n ~ ~ d iand n matched a l reading-level comparisons. Child Development, 59, 71-86. Traweek, D.,& Berninger, V. (1997).Comparisonof beginning literacy programs: Alternative paths to the same learning outcome. Learning DisabiZity Quarter&, 20, 160-168. Treiman, R. (1993).3eginning to speZl. New York: Oxford University Press. Varnhagen, C.K. (1995).Children’s spelling strategies. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.),n e varieties of o ~ h o ~ a p h i c ~ w l e idXgRe :e ~ t i o ~ to b ~phonoZogy s r e ~ i n gand ~ t i n g(pp. 251-290).brdrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. f ortho~t Vellutino, F. (1992).Afkerword, In S. Templeton & D.Bear (Eds.), ~ ~ e Z o p om graphic ~ w Z e d g eand the f o u n d a t i o ~of literacy (pp. 353-357). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Chen, R. (1995).The increasingly inextricable relationship between o ~ o ~ a p hand i c phonologicalcodinginlearning to read:Somereservations aboutcurrentmethods of operation~~ing o ~ o ~ a p coding. h ~ c In V.W. Berninger phonoZogy reading (Ed.), n e varieties of orthograp~ick~wZedge:II. ReZatio~hips to and writfng (pp. 47-111).Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Nuwer Academic. Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., & Spearing, D. (in press). Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers.Journal of ~ p ~ m e n t Child a l Psychology.

mer, H. ( 1 9 3 ~Process . and achievement. Abasic problem of educationand d~velopmen-

V., Johnston, J., & S ~ a ~ oH.n (1994). , In~aindi~du~ d~e~nces nguage in interm~diategrade writers: Implications for the translation process. Learning and ~ ~~ i ~ e r e n ic eG,s , 107-130. ~ i ~ ~ Willett, J. B., & Sayer, A. G. (1994). Using covariance structure analysis to detect correlates

~ t i ne~rosciences. ~ e

~

Os, much progress h been made in identiEyi ing a~~uisition succes tion has been paid t he role that theseskill lopment~reading disorders and mediators of in-

kills that predict re

L O ~ T ' I 'AND BARRON

3

i~ormation,involves pho

ons (e.g., Bakker, Bouma, & Gardien, 1990), neurologic^

soft signs such as finger agnosia(e.g., Benton, 1975), and aspectsof audi-

,1980) and visual (Lovegrove & ~ i l l i a m s1993) , temporal pro-

ner, Torgesen, and their c o l l e a ~ edeveloped s a comprehensive reto identify those nonreading skills that are causally linked to reading acquisition.These investigators confined their analyses to phonolo ical processingtasks because of the very large bodyof evidence indihat a core of phonological processingskills underlie success in acliteracy skill (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Goswami & Bryant, 1990; are, 1995; Stanovich, 1986; ~ a g n e & r Torgesen, 1987). on earlier research followed over a 3-year period formed 17 nonreadingtasksthafound correlated, latent phonolo ness: analysis (phoneme

to measure five distinct, yet

*

stable across kindergarten, grade 1, and grade 2, and were highly correlated with a print decoding latent variable. In addition, each of the nontent variables measured in kindergarten was causally related to n grade 1 when decoding performance in ~ d e r g ~ ethe n ,priictor of grade 1decodingperformance, was removed as an of the laive effect. A similar patternwras obtained between each tent variables measured in grade 1 and decoding p e r f o ~ a n c ein grade In a subsequentlongi~dinalstudy involvingmost of the same chi1 (N = 216), ~ a g n eet r al. (1997) examined the relative causal influencesof ed set of latent phonological processing variables over 5years (kinn-grade 4). Analysis and synthesiswere com~inedin this data set

11, DIFFERENCESINRESPONSETO

~ E D ~ T I O N

to produce a single latent variable of phonological awareness and the variable consisted solely of serial naming. Phonologic ness, memory, andn ~ i n were g very consistent across all 5 ye ability to predict word reading when each variable was considered separately. en each variablewas considered s~ultaneously,however, phonological awareness emergedas a unique predictor of word re ime interval across the 5 years (the autoregressive effect of wordrin earlier grades was removed). Serial namingwas of word reading from kindergarten to grade 3 and knowledge (Stadord-Binet Vocabulary subtest) a measure of v o c a b u l ~ redictor forgrades l through 3. Phonological memo^ any unique causal effect across the 5 years. (1997) reviewedseveral longi~dinalstudies predicting ng developmentand her findingsare consistent with those o f ~ a g net e ral. (1394,1997). Both phonological awareness andsergarten (or earlier) emerge as strong predictors of es 1 to 3, butearlyprintknowledgeinvolving letound association was also a very strong predictor (Barron, 1994,1998;Barron et al., 1992). In addition, memory measures involving sentences and stories, measures of general language ability, vocabu,receptive syntax, and Verbal IQ were also reasonably strong predictors. ~ o ~ i s t ewith n t earlier research (e.g., Vellutino, 1979), visual and visualmotor m e ~ u r e have s little predictive power. Stringer (1997) showed that auditory and visual temporal processing are not strong predictors. er, these resultssuggest that, although there isafairly possible la nonreading variables that might mediate individual differencesin dyslexicch~dren’s response to remediation, the most influential variables appear to be related to underlying phonological processing skill; these variables all involve lan~age-basedtasks that rely on phonological representatio~ tosupport their execution. It is possible, however, that only a subset of the phonological processing variables (e.g., phonological awareness,serial naming)issufficiently stable andindependent to predict gains inword ident~cationaccuracy beyond thatpredicted by the autoregressive effects of earlier reading p e r f o ~ a n c e(e.g., ~ a g n eet r al., 1997). In addition, many of these phonological processing variables may be of limited value in predicting individual differencesthe in remedial responses of reading disabled children because most of the supportingresearch reviewedinvolvesnormallydevelopingchildren (not i d e n t ~ e das developmentally dyslexicor at risk for such a class~cation) who are acquiring reading skill in normal classroom settings. These concerns are mitigatedby a greatdeal of research indicating that deficits in core phonological skills are linked to reading failure for chil-

tified one group of dyslexic ssing (developmental phonological dysle~a)and another with a deficit in o ~ h o g ~ p hprocessing ic (developmental surface dyslexia), more recent evidence from Manis et al. 1996 and §tano~ch,Siegel,and Gottardo (1997) indicatesthat only exia qualifies as a distinct and stable type of dyslexia controls are employed. M o ~ iet s al. (1998) showed that es of developmentally dyslexic readers can be identified itive skills, all of the subtypesare characterized by impairlogical processing skills. Furthermore, the phonological cessingdeficitsofdevelopmentaldyslexicspersist into adulthood, n when some literacyskills have been attained @ruck,1992; Pennington, van Orden, Smith, Green, & Haith, 1990), underlying the life-span n ~ c a n c eof this diagnostic marker. Finally, there is recent evidence netics su~esting a genetic linkage between phonologiadjacent markers on chromosome six ( G ~ ~ o rete ~ o however, is whether or stion for the present discussion, honological core, nonreading variables,either singly or de i ~ o ~ a t iabout o n i n d i v i d ~ ~ d ~ e r einn cdyses 'S response to remediation~beyondthat which might be he child's level of reading abili~/disabili~ at diagnosis. It is gical processing variables differ in their predictive lopment (i.e., there may be a development^ window levels of performance on the tasks that index these be effective (i.e., there may 1 level effect). Finally, the relative success of these variteraction between the spem and theprofile of stren ths and processing skills (see

11.

~ I F ~ E ~ N IN CES

3

LOVET" M D BARRON

dren following theDS program only, whereas rate-disabled children demonstrated word ident~cationgains followi both the DS and the OWLS Lovett, hnsby, Hardwick, Johns, and Don~dson(1989 described an intervention studyin which 178 disabled readers, with va spec~cityof reading deficit, were randomly assigned to S. This extended sample included the 112 subjects .(1988) study. Forty hours of remedi S yielded ~provementon selected tests sign~cant CSS control treatment. DS instructed children that observed following the improved intheir ident~cationof both nd demonstrated gains on two of three word ident~cationmeasures. OWLS instructed children were improved on e x p e r i ~ e nmeasures t~ of text reading and oral language skill, but the effects did not generalize to standardized measures in the same skill domain. the DS trained children demonstrated greater g e n e r ~ ~ a t i o n effects, successfulDS g~duates failed to abstract &omt ~ n e d tter-sound knowledge that could guidetheir ident~cation of ven when lette~-soundinvariants and pronunciation patterns were explicitly taught. These results focused attention on dyslexic S' tendency towarditem-spec~c learning andtheir d ~ l c ugenerl~ ome dimensionsof new languagel e a ~ i beyond ~g what had been s p e c ~ c ~taught. ly This interest in t~~fe~-of-learning, pa~icularly as it impacts on the word identification learning failures of severely dyslexic children, has fueled most recent intervention research, some of which is described later,

A multiple regressionme tho do lo^ was developed by Lovett, 990) to addressindividual d~erencesin response to the DS, nd CSS programs in Lovett et al. (1989). Because no consensus

n an appropriate subtyping schemefor the dyslexic population, emphasis was placedon the dimensions of cognitive and academichncon which the dyslexic subjects reliably varied in order to determine which of these was predictive of remedial outcome. pre- andposttestbattery,aset of s t a n d ~ d ~ readi ~d sound-symbol processing, and speech and l a n ~ a g measures e had been

11. ~ I F F E ~ N C IN E §~ § P Q ~ TQ § E~ ~ E ~ ~ T I Q N

for s u ~ s t a n t i ~ i n ~ i variavi~ua~

S, and CSS treatment

when explicitly taught). The children acqui therefore, but they failed to ac~uire gener and facilitate ident~cationof new The transfer failures of these ch readers who acquired and retained the training instance, were not reliably better in the This was even true of those who practic hildren in the letter-sound training condition words during their lessons. These transfer-o tributed to di~cultiesdyslexic childr~nexperience in p ~ s i n syllables g into subsyllabic units.These prevent the acquisition of word ident~cation S t r a ~ i o of n spellin to-sound patterns at both units (i.e., the rime-the vowel and and smaller u n i ~ (le~er-phoneme (bvett, 1991). This subsyllabic le manifestation of, the core deficits inphonologi~alprocesswith reading d i s a b ~ i ~ , general d~lcultiesin the be implicated in thisat tern of transfer fa be able to identq new u~amiliarword processing skills and adequate letter-sou ctive and flexible decoding tacognitive control over reading problems, cient andinef~cient in their applicatio sion, and other cognitive and acade Milstead, & Hale, 1989; Gaskins 1991; Paris & Oh,1989). Readin iz not reliablyusingwhateverth ut what they do not know ( nitive knowledge, although critical to transferin many learning domains, has not e word ident~cation learning

r-of-learning issueshas motivated some on the treatmentof severe de~elopmenta~ rea tion studiesbyLovett,Borden et al. (1994 (1999, children with severe reading disabili to one of two word ident~cationtraini

9

11. DIFFE~NCES IN ~SPONSE TO ~ M E D ~ T I O N

,the control treatment. Bothof the word ident~ca-

and promote transfer andgeneral~ationof trainey do so through somewhat different training approaches and at different levels of linguistic analysis. One p r o ~ a mis known PhonologicalAnalysisandBlendin rect I n s ~ c t i o nProgram /Dl). This program uses direct in tional m a t e ~developed a~ byEngel ann and his colleagues at the Univernandtrains phonolo a1 analysis,phonologicalblending, he contextof word recognition and decoding instruction (Engelmann & Bruner, 1988; Engelmann, Carnine, &Johnson, 1988; Engelmann,Johnson et al., 1988). The emphasis is one of addressing phonemic awareness and subsyllabic segmentation deficits through direct and very intensive phonological training and direct instruces. The second program, Word Identiu as a strong metaco~nitivefocus and teaches the childrenhow to use and monitorfour metacognitive decoding developed in laboratoryc l ~ s r ~ o at ms is based in part on the Benchm~k evelopment Program (I.W. Gass e ~ e n t a t i owith n units of differ-

I trains the smallest spellin~t~sound units

hasizes largerspe~ng-t~sound units, the rime. Both attempt to facilitate transfer in different waysI by intensive remediation of sound analysis and blending deficits, W§T by teaching a set of flexible word identification strategies and a set of specific skills and content needed for their successful ~plementation. Both inte~entionp r o g r ~proved s more effective than previous interventions and were associated with significant standardized and experimental measures: F011 severely disabled readers achieved transfer on a reading measures that included transfer probes varying in their distance from instructed targetwords. These results demonstrate thatthe transferdeficits undermining dyslexics' word identification learning ressed with systematic inte~entionsdesigned to remediate core learningdeficits.Beforetraining,severelydisabled readers were incorrectly i d e n t ~ none-syllable words like way, left, and put:After in WST, many of these children were able to decode m&lY owly) multisyllabic words like u~i~~eZZi~i~Ze, t ~ ~ and e ~~ i ~s ,e ~After ~ ~ 35 ~ hours e ~ .of inte~ention,they ~ ~ i c a ~ y were not yet reading at grade level, but they demonstrated S proved letter-sound knowledge, increased decoding a~ilities,and better word ident~cationskill followi~gtreatment. *

to date have been t thephonologicala

l skills were sign@

.though both the

ident~cationwas im-

-Chaplin et al., 1990),

3

eatment focus on core tcomes, the severity a reliable predictors of remedial response beyond that

pre-

11. D I F F E ~ N ~ EINS ~ S P O N S E

TO

~MED~TION

dicted by reading skill at entry. Earlier in this chapter, evidence was reviewedindicatingthatnonreadingcorrelates of readingdevelconsist of a core of phonologicalprocessingvariables.Based on ence to date, phonological awareness and serial naming speed have emerged stable andi~dependent predictors of early reading developme tudinal studies and of reading disability (Scarborough, 1997; nological awareness appears to play a role by impairing entation during word identification learning and thus preventing the acquisition of spelling-to-sound correspondences by severely readingdisabledchildren.Deficitsinvisualnaming speed disrupt reading development by preventing the effective development of connections between phonemicandorthographic representations at both word and subword levels of representation during word identification learning and by reducing the quality of orthographic codes in the disabled reader’s memory (Bowers& Wolf, 1993; Wolf & Bowers, 1999). Evidence on the role that individual differences in phonological a w ~ e ness plays in dyslexic readers’ response 30 remediation will be r e ~ e w e d first as it is the most widely researched potential predictor. This is followed by a consideration of the role of individual differences in visual naming speed, p ~ i c u l ~within l y the context of the “double deficit” hypothesis(Bowers & Wolf, 1993; Wolf, 1991, 1997; Wolf, Pfeil, Lotz, & Biddle, 1994) The role of individual differences in phonological awarenessskill was e ~ m i n e dbOlsonand Wise (1992) inresponse to their findingthat entation feedback was not more effective than whole remediation trainingfor disabled readers. Olson, Wise, and their colleagues (e.g.,Olson, Foltz&Wise, 1986; Wise et al., 1989) developed a computer speech-based training system employing high-level computer-synthes~edspeechgeneratedby DECtalk. Children in their studies were required to read a passage of text displayed on a computer monitor and then, using a mouse or light pen pointing device, words they did not h o w . An unknown word (e.g.,steam) in reverse video and DECtalk generated the pronunciation of the word under whole word or segmented feedback conditions consisting of syllables or of s~bsy~abic units co~esponding to onsets (S$ = /st/) and rimes ea^ = /i&, see Treiman, 1992) or graphemes and phonemes (S = /S/, t = /t/, ea = / i i , m = /m/).Following 6 to 8 hours of computer reading timeper subject, disabled readers produced greater gains in word and nonword readin than an untreated control group. Con e segmentation and whole word ive inproduci~ggains on the two

3

LOVET" AND BARRON

to the other conditions in a short-term (2-day) study (Wise, 1992; see also similarresultsbyvan Daal & Reitsma, 1990, andSpaai,Ellerman, 8s Reitsma, 1991, in Dutch). Olson and Wise (1992) found that phonological awareness and phonemedeletion task performance) was moderately correl both word and nonword gain scores, particularlyfor the onset-rime feedback condition. W%en their subjectswere divided into high and low phoS nologicalawarenessgroups,however,thecritical online feedbackinteractionwas not consistently S ficantacrossthe word and nonword gainscores. n thou^ these strong, they suggest the possibility that children with more severe phonological awareness deficits may be less likely to benefit from remediation train in^ involving subsyllabic segmentation (see also Lyon,1985a,b). The decision to seek feedback about an unknown word in the Olson and Wise (1992) study was largely at the discretion of the child as the online reading was not consistently monitored. Furthermore, segmental feedback about unknown words was not augmented by intensive training associating the subsyllabic segments (phonemes, onsets, rimes) with their corresponding graphemesandblendingthosesegments into asyllable.Effective remediation of blending diffkulties appears critical to the success of interventions with this population and a feature on which many phonologically based remedial reading programs vary. In contrast, Lovett, Barron, Forbes, Cuksts, and Steinbach (1994; see also Barron,Lovett, 8s McCabe, 1998) used aDECtalk-based bxining procedure that involved longer (24 45-minute sessions) and more intensive trainon onset-rime and phoneme units with both neurologically impaired developmentally dyslexic readers.In this DECtalkstudy, the groups receiving ~pheme-phoneme, onset-rime, and wholeword feedback all performed at a significantly higher level on measures of word identification and spelling than a control group instructed in mathematics. The onsetrime and~pheme-phoneme groups made the greatest word identification thatcouldbetrained with ntedspeechfeedback regular words). The p p honeme group was m the other two experimental groups on a measure of word recognition transfer following training. though the Olson and Wise (1992) results are consistent with other evidence, indicatingthat children with severe phonologicalprocessare less likelyto benefit from remediation involving subsyllabic on (e.g.,Lyon, 1985a,b), the Lovett, Barronet al. (1994) results t longer and more intensive inst~ctionalp r o g r ~that s specifically target the identification and blending of subsyllabic unitsmay ofbet such threshold effects. Hatcher, Hulme, and Ellis (1994), for example, provided 130 disabled readers with trainingon subsyllabic units that was

11. ~ I F F E ~ N C E IN§ ~ S P O N § TO E

d reading (readin~withgroup was signi~cantly n four dgferent word reading measures, and theother two groups did not differ from the control. The readin~with-phonolo~ group's superiQrperformance was maintained at 9 months later, indicating that establishing an explicit connection between the subsyllabic units of print and sound is important for img the word recognition skills of disabled readers. atcher et al. (1994) also found that a composite phonological processeasure was the best predictor of reading performance in the readi and readin~with-phonolo~ groups (r = .72 and 5 4 , respective ability was the best predictor for the phonolo (r = '54). These in~ividualdifference findings S logical skills are an i m ~ o ~ a n t ~ r e r e ~for uisite from t ~ i n i n that g involves teaching reading skills without any phonologip). In contrast, alower threshold for phowhen the training involves both readin nd Snowling (1996) pointed out, however that phonological process in^ deficits may h cognition skillseven when the instmc &e the connection between phonol (e.g., Hulme & Snowling? 1992a,b; Sn & Snowling, 1992). Finally, Hatch atchildrenwithhpretestlevels of readbe~efitfrom pu nological awareness rther evidence for a reciprocal relation beS and reading (e.g., Morais, Cary, ~ e g r i a& , ner et al., 1997). ined the relative effectiveness of d rns of i ~ t m c t i o for n 2 and 3 disabledreaders (N= 114). Like tt, Barron et al. (1994), and Olson and ,these investigators compared intervention programs that varied in theunit of inst~ction:analytic p nics (onset and rime units),s p thetic phonics honem me units), and si word approaches (whole word u ~ t s (1 ) hour of inst~ctiondaily).Syntheticphonicsemerged as the most effective instmctiQnal interventioneven when the variables of SES,

test levels of orth

were given one semester

nte~e~tion. ~ellutino

of the e~sier-to-r were not o~taine

ual differences i

response to treatment in the D§, achievement when the predictive contribution of initial level of reading isability was removed. With the development and ad~ptationof ved i n t e ~ e n t i o for ~ teaching word ident~cationskills to severely I), it is of interest to ask whether predict a child’s response to active inte~ention jects to complete 35 hours of trainingin

I, WST, or CS§ (Low

;Wolf, 1997) conts in visual naming ents to reading acquisi-

and ~te-disabled,and far more impaired than the earlier described ratedisability character~in~ the i re than one half of the low the first percentile for

11, ~ I F F E ~ N IN CE~

cated on other outcome measures. Childrenwith ~honological-onlydeficitswereintermediate

m1 tests. Athou

on ~eading ac~uisition are in d

to the

L

S

what is left is a

N

L

11. ~ I F F E ~ N C EINS ~ S P O N S E TO ~

~

E

~

~

T

I

O

~

esen et al., 1997).

esearch has been

Bakker, I). J., Bouma, A., & Gardlen, C,J.(1990). Hemisphere-speci~c treatm~ntof dyslexia subtypes: A field experiment.J o u ~ a Baron, R.W. (1994). The sound-t~spe~i word r e c ~ ~ i t i and o n its ~mplicatio~ er literacy skills. In V. W. ~ e r f f l n ~(Ed.), ~@~icaZ and

~c~emic.

~ @ v @ Z o issues p ~ ~ t@p. ai

L

D

nectiQn. re, 301, 419421.

ng: ~ e c o d i n str~tegies, ~ decodin~ Bl. Chica~o:Science Research ~ s ~ ~ i a t e § .

11. DIFFE~NCESIN RESPONSETO

~MED~TION

Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Steubing, K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1994). Measurement of change: Assessing behavior over time and within a developmental context. R. In G. Lyon (Ed,),Frames of refeencefor the a s s e s s m t of learning disabilities: New views on m e a ~ r e m e nissues t (pp. 29-58). Baltimore: PaulH. Brookes, Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaydtz, B. A., & Fletcher,J. M. (1996). Develof reading disability:A longitudinal, individualgrowth opmental lag versus deficit models curves analysis.Journal of Educational Psychologyp88(1), 3-17. Gaskins, I. W., Downer,M. A., Anderson,R. C., Cunningham,P. M,, Gaskins, R. W., Schommer, M,, & School, Teachers of the Benchmark School. (1988). A metacognitive approach to phonics: Using what you know to decode what you don’t know. ~ ~ e d iand a l Spe~aZ Education, 3,36-41, 66. Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., & Gaskins, R. W. (1986). Introduction to the B e n c h m ~ r ~ School Vord Ident~ication~ocabulary Developm~t Program. Media, PA: Benchmark School. Gaskins, I, W., & Elliot, T, T. (1991). I m p l e ~ t i n gcognitive strategy training across the Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. school: Tbe B ~ h manual ~ rfor teachers. ~ Gittleman, R. (1983). Treatment of reading disorders. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Developm~tal n e u ~ ~ s y c h i a t r(pp. y 520-541). New York: Guilford. Goldman, R., Fristoe, M., & Woodcock, R. (1974). G-F-W Sou~-SymbolTests. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Goswami, U,, & Bryant, P. E. (1990). Pho~ologicalskillsand learning to read.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grigorenko, E. L., Wood, F, B., Meyer,M. S., Hart, L. A., Speed,W. C., Shuster,A., & Pauls, D. L. (1997).Susceptibility loci for distinct components of developmental dyslexiaon chromosomes 6 and 15. AmericanJournal of Human Genetics, Go, 27-39. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C.,& Ellis, A. W.(1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by inte ing the teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkagehypothes~s. Child Development, 65, 41-57. Hewison, J. (1982). The current status of remedial intervention for children with reading problems. Develop~ental ~edicine and Child Neurology, 24, 183-186. Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (1992a). Deficits in output phonology:A cause of reading failure? Cognitive N e u ~ p ~ c h o l9, o~ 47-72. , Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (1992b). Phonological deficits in dyslexia: A “sound reapInN. Singh & I. L. Beale (Eds.),Learning dispraisal of the verbal deficit hypothesis? N. abilities: Nature, theory, and treatment (pp. 270-301). New York: . Kade, K.A. (1980). The reasoning abilities ofnormal and learning disabled readerson measures of reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarter&, 3,34-45. Levy, B. A,,Abello, B.,& Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer kom word trainingto reading in contern Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability Quarter&, 20(3), 173-188. Levy, B. A., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Beginning word recognition: Benefits of training by segmentation and whole word methods. J.InP. Williams (Ed.),Scientific studies of reading (pp. 359-387). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lindamood, C., & Lindamood, P. (1974). Auditory disc~minationin depth. Columbus, OH: Science Research Associates. Lovegrove, W. J.,& Williams, M. C. (1993). Visual temporal processing deficits in specific reading disability. In D. M. Willows, R. S. Kruk, & E, Corcos (Eds.), ~isualprocessesin reading and reading disability (pp. 3 11-329). Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lovett, M. W, (1984). A developmental perspective on reading dysfunction: Accuracy and rate criteria in the subtyping of dyslexic children.Brain and Language, 22, 67-91.

BAREON 334:

AND

LOVE"

Lovett, M.W. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. Child ~ e v e l o p ~58, ~ t234-260. , Lovett, M. W. (1991). Reading, writing, and remediation: Perspectives on the dyslexic learningdisabilityfromremedialoutcomedata, Learning and I ~ i v i d u a Diflwences, l 3, 295-305. Lovett, M.W. (1992). Developmental dyslexia, In I. Rapin & S. J. Segalowirz (Eds.), HandVol. : 7. Child neuropsychology (pp.163-185).Amsterdam: book of n e u r o p ~ c h o l o ~ Elsevier Science. In T.E.Feinberg & M. J. Farah Lovett,M,W.(1997).Developmentalreadingdisorders. (Eds.), Beha~oralneurology and n e u r o ~ s y c h o l o(pp. ~ 773-787). New York: McGrawHill, Lovett, M. W., Barron, R. W., Forbes, J. E.,Cuksts, B., & Steinbach, K. A. (1994). Computer speech-based trainingof literacy skills in neurologicall~impa~ed children: A controlled evaluation. Brain and lungwage, 47, 117-154. Lovett, M. W., Benson, N. J.,& Olds, J.(1990). Individual difference predictors of treatment l outcome in the remediationof developmental dyslexia.Learning and I ~ i v i d u aDiflerences, 2(3), 284-314. Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L,, DeLuca, T.,Lacerenza,L., Benson, N. J., & Brackstone,D. (1994).Treatingthecoredeficits of developmentaldyslexia:Evidence of transfer-ofDevellearning following phonologically- and strategy-based reading training programs. o p ~ t aPsychology, l 30(6), 805-822. Lovett, M. W., Hinchley,J., & Benson, N.J. (in preparation), Assessingthe remedial gainsof disabled learners: Conceptual, measurement, and statistical considerations in the evaluation of remedial outcome. Lovett, M.W., Ransby, M.J., & Barron, R. W. (1988). Treatment, subtype, and word type effects in dyslexic children's response to remediation. Brain andlanguage, 34,328-349. Lovett, M. W., Ransby, M.J., Hardwick, N., Johns, M. S., & Donaldson, S. A. (1989). Can dyslexia be treated? Treatment-specific and generalized treatment effects in dyslexic children's response to remediation. Brain and Language, 3 7 , 90-12 l, Lovett, M.W,, & Steinbach, K.A. (1997). The effectiveness of remediation for reading disabled children of different ages: Is there decreased benefit for older children?Learning isa ability Quarterly, 20(3), 189-210. Lovett, M.W,, Steinbach, K.A., & Frijters, J. C. (2000). Remediating the core deficitsof developmental reading disability:A double deficit perspective.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 334-358. Lovett, M. W., W~ren-Chaplin,P, M*,Ransby, M. J., & Borden, S. L. (1990). Training the word Journal of recognition skillsof reading disabled children: Treatment and transfer effects. Ed~cationalP ~ c h o l o82, ~ , 769-780. Lyon, G. R. (1985a). Educational validation studies of learning disability subtypes. In B. P, Rourke (Ed.), ~ e u r o p ~ c h oof l olearning ~ disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis (pp. 228-253). New York: Guilford. Lyon, G. R. (1985b). Identification and remediation of learning disability subtypes: Preliminary findings, Learning ~ i s a b i l Focus, i~ 1(l),21-35. Lyon,G.R,(1996).Learningdisabilities, In E.Marsh & R. Barkley(Eds.), Childhood p ~ c h o p a t h o ~(pp. o ~390-435). NewYork:Guilford. Lyon, G. R., & Moats, L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(6), 578-588, Manis, F. R., Seidenbert, M. S., Doi, L. M., McBride-Chang, C,, & Peterson, A, (1996). On the bash of two subtypes of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 58, 157-195. Meltzer, L. J. (1991).Problem-solvingstrategiesandacademicperformanceinlearningdisabled students: Do subtypes exist? In L. V. Feagans, E. J. Short, & L. J. Meltzer (kids.),

11. RESPONSE TO DIFFERENCES IN

REMED~~ON

33

SubtyBs of learning disabilities: ~eoretica~perspectives and research (pp. 163-188). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates. Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria,J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Doesawareness of speech as a seriesof phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323-331. Fletcher, J.N., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., S h a ~ e i l e rD., , Morris, R. D., Stuebing, K. K., Kim, L., Francis, D. J., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Subtypes of reading disability:Variab~ity around a phonological core. Journal of Educatfonal Psychology, 90(3), 1-27, Olson, R. K.,Foltz, G., & Wse, B. (1986).Reading instruction and remediation with the of aid and Computers, 18,93-99. computer speech.Eebavior Research Metbods,Inst~ments, Olson, R. K.,& Wise, B. W, (1992). Reading on the computerwith o ~ o ~ a p hand i c speech feedback. Reading and Writing: An I n t e r d i s c i p i i ~Journal, ~ 4,107-144. Olson, R. K,,Wise, B. W., Ring, J.,&Johnson, M. (199'7). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effectson the posttrainingdevelop ment of word recognition. Scientijic Studies of Reading, l@), 235-253. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). The reciprocal teachingof comprehe~ion-fostering and comprehe~ion-monitoringactivities. Cognitfona d r ~ t ~ c t ~ l, on 117-175. , Paris, S. G., & Oka, E. R. (1989). Strategies 'for comprehending text and coping with reading difficulties. learnfng Disability Quarterly, 12, 32-42. van Orden, G. C., Smith,S. D., 'Green,P. A., & Haith, M.M. (1990). PhonologiPennington, B. F., cal processing skills and deficitsin adult dyslexics.C h i ~ D ~ e l o p m e nG1,1753-1778. t, Prior, M.,Frye, S., & Fletcher, C. (198'7). Remediation for subgroupsof retarded readersusing a modllledoral spelling procedure.D e v e i o p ~ t aMedicine l and Child N ~ r o l o ~ , 29,64-71. Rogosa, D,R., & Willitt,J. B. (1985). Understanding correlates of change by modelling individual differences in growth. Psychometrika, 50, 203-228. Scanlon, D. N.,& Vellutino, F.R. (199'7). A comparison of the instructional backgrounds and cognitive profdes of poor, average, and good readers who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure, In J. P. Williams (Ed.), Scientijic studies of readfng (Vol. 1, pp. 191-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scarborough, H. S. (1997, April). Predicting thepredictors of reading: Earlyprecursors to p b o ~ l o g i c aawareness, l naming,letter knowledge in k i n d ~ a r tPaper ~ . presented to of the Society for Research in Child Development, Washin~on, DC. the biennial meetings Shanahan, T.,& Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery:An independent evaluationof the effects Reading Research~uarterly, 30, of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. 958-996. Shahveiler, D,,Grain, S., Kau, L., Fowler, A., Liberman, A., Brady, S., Thornton, R., Lundquist, E., Dreyer, L., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., Shaywitz, S,, & Shaywitz, B. (1995). Cognitive profilesof reading disabled children: Comparison of language skills in phonology, morphology and syntax. Psycholo~calScience, G, 149-156. of reading acquiShare, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching. Sine qua non , 15 1-2 18. sition. C o ~ i t f o n55, Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (1994)).Measuring and analyzing change. In G. R Lyon (Ed.), Frames of mfwme fw tbe assessment of learning d ~ b ~ i t i eNew s : views on ~~~t lssues (pp. 59-68).Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes. Snowling, M. J. (1996). Annotation contemporary approaches to the teaching of reading. Journal of Child Psycboiogy and Psycbiat~~ 37, 139-148. Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (1989). A longitudinal case studyof developmental phonological dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychol~~, G, 379-401. Spaai, G. W. G., Ellermann, H. H., & Reitsma, P. (1991). Effects of segmented and wholeword sound feedback on learning to read single words. Journal of E d u c a t i o ~Research, l 84,204-2 13.

LOVETT AND BARRON

Stackhouse,J., & Snowling, M. J. (1992).Barriers to literacy developmentin two cases of developmental verbal dyspraxia. Cognitive ~europsychology,9, 273-300. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407. Stanovich, K. E.,& Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profileof children with readingdisabilities: A regression-basedtestofthephonological-core ~iable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, %(l),2 4 5 3 . Stanovich, K. E., Siegel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (1997). Converging evidence for phonological and surface subtypes of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(l), 114127. Stringer, R. (1997). Adult readingdisability andtemporaIprocessingde$cits. ~npublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto. in children. Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities Brain and Language, 9, 182-198. Torgesen,J. K., Wagner,R. K., & Rashotte, C. A.(1997). Prevention and remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping theend in mind. InJ. P. Williams (Ed.),Scientvic studies of reading (Vol. 1, pp. 217-234). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Torgesen,J. K., Wagner,R. K., Rashotte, C.A., Alexander, A. W., & Conway, T. (1997).Preventive and remedial interventions for children with severe reading disabilities. Learning Disab~lities:A ~UItidiscipIina~ Journal, 8, 51-62. Treiman, R, (1992). The role of intrasyllabic units in learning to read and spell. InP.B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition @p. 65-106). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van Dad, V. H. P., & Reitsma,P. (1990). Effects of independent word practice with segmented and whole-word sound feedback in disabled readers. Journal of Research in ~eading,13, 133-148. Vellutino, F, R. (1979). Qyslexia: Beery and research. Cambridge, W MIT Press. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay,E. R., Small,S. G., Pratt, A., Chen,R., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profdes ofd~cult-to-remediateand readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential de& cits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of E d u c a t i o ~ lPsychology, 88(4), 601-638. Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen,J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 10.2,192-212. Wagner, R. K., Torgesen,J. K,, Laughon,P,, Simmons, K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1993). Develop rnent of young readers’ phonological processing abilities.Journal of E d u c ~ ~ i Psyo~l chology, 8.5(1), 83-103. Wagner, R. K.,Torgesen,J.K,, & Rashotte, C.A. (1994). Development of reading-related phonological processing abilities:New evidence of bidirectional causality from a latent miable longitudinal study. Deuelop~ntalPsychology, 3U( l), 73-87. Wagner, R K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. A., Burgess, S. R., Donahue, J., & Garon, T. (1997). Changing relations between phonological processing as children develop from beginning to skilled readers:A abilities and word-level reading five year longitudinal study. D e u e l o p ~ t aPsychology, l 33(3), 468-479. Wise, B., & Olson, R. K. (1995). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 4.5, 99-122. Wise, B. W. (1992). Whole words and decoding for short-term learning: Comparisonson a “ t ~ n g ~ o m p u system. t e ~ ” Journal of tal Child Psychology,.54(2), 147-167. Wise,B. W., Olson, R., Anstett, M., Andrews, L., Terjak,M., Schneider, V., Kostuch, J., & Kriho, L. (1989). Implementing a long-term computerized remedial reading program Behavior Rewith synthetic speech feedback: Hardware, software, and real world issues, search Methods, Instrumertts, and Computers, 21, 173-180.

REMEDIATION TO RESPONSE 11. DIFFERENCES IN

7

Wise, B. W., Ring, J., Sessions, L., & Olson, R. K. (1997).Phonological awareness with and without articulation:A preliminary study.Learning Disability Quarterly, 2O(3), 211-225. Wolf, M. (1997). A provisional integrative accountof phonological and naming speed deficits in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and intervention, In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundstiom of reading acquisition a d dyslexia: I~plicationsfor early i n t ~ ~ ~ (pp. i o n 67-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Wolf, M. (1997).RAVE-0:A cuwiculurnfor the development of skills in retrie~al-rate, accuracy,vocabuhry elaboration, and orthography. Instructional manual, Tufts University, Medford, MA. Wolf, M. (1991).Naming speedandreading:Thecontribution of thecognitiveneurosciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 123-141. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999).The“double-deficithypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias.Journul of Educational Psychology, pf(3), 415-438. Wolf, M., Pfeil, C., Loa,R.,& Biddle, K. (1994).Towards a more universal understandingof the developmentaldyslexia: The contributionof orthographic factors.In V.W. Berninger (Ed.), B e varieties of orthographic knowledge(Vol. 1,pp. 137-1171),Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

A

N.,2 2 6 , 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 Anderson, J.,49, 51 Anderson, J.R.,7 2 , 7 7 M R , 258,272 Anderson, P.,152, 153, 176 Abbeduto, L., 258, 273 Anderson, R.,3 1 8 , 3 3 3 Abbott, R.,280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 290, 291, 292, 294, Anderson, V., 1 5 2 , 1 5 3 , 1 7 6 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, Andrews, L., 293, 321, 308, 336 Anstatt, M., 293, 321, 308, 336 302,304,305,307,329,332 Ant*, B.,6 6 , 7 7 Abbott, S., 286, 291, 292, 294, 301, Antonak, R., 5, 20 303,304,305 Anthony, B., 47, 51 Abello, B., 327, 329, 333 Anvret, M., 66, 7 8 Adamlab, 2 6 1 , 2 7 2 M A , 68, 7 7 Adasns, A., 155, 156, 176, 179 Appel, K.,121, 135 Adams, M., 2 7 6 , 3 0 4 226,227,252,254 Aram, D., Admson, L., 2 5 7 , 2 6 5 , 2 6 9 , 2 7 2 , 2 7 3 Arcus, D.,7 2 , 7 9 Adler, A., 2, 21 Amstrong, D.,66, 7 7 Adolfsson, R.,60, 7 8 Agronin, M., 28, 31, 34, 35, 36, 47, 50 Arthur, G., 2 6 0 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 2 Ashbaker, M., 166, 183 Ahearn, M., 47, 5 1 Atkins, M., 23, 50, 168, 184 Akhtar, N.,85, 103, 109 Auld, P.,124, 127, 136 Aldenderfer, M., 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 Avenovoli, S., 6 4 , 7 9 Alegria, J.,323, 335 Aylward, E., 6 5 , 7 7 Alexander, A., 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 6 Azuma, H., 8 6 , 1 0 9 Allen, D.,69, 7 9 Allen, T., 162, 182 B MS,H., 2 0 9 , 2 2 0 Albert, J.,1 5 8 , 1 8 0 Baddeley, A., 153, 154, 176 Aman, C.,167, 176 Baer, R., 114, 134, 148, 151, 177 Amir,

339

340 Baillargeon, R., 122, 125, 126, 133 man, R., 83, 264, 265, 267, 109, 273 Baldwin, C., 85, 111 Balla, D.,2 3 2 , 2 5 0 Ballard, J.,87, l09 Sally, H., 227, 238, 254 Balow, B., 5 , 2 2 , 4 7 Barkeley, R., 47, 50, 117, 133, 163, 167,168,176 Barker, T., 3 1 0 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 , 3 3 3 Barkovich, A.,129, 133 Barnard, K., 4, 18,83, 20, 109 Barmas, R., 18, 22 Baron-Cohen, S., 160, 176 Barr, R., 2 7 6 , 3 0 4 , 3 3 5 Barron, R., 311, 314, 322, 323, 326, 329,331,332,334 Barta, P.,6 5 , 7 7 Barthelemy, C., 164, 185 Bartolucci, G., 164, 184 Bartsch, K., 121, 124, 137 Bates, E., 271, 272 Batshaw, N.,6 5 , 7 8 Battig, W., 234, 254 Bauman, N., 7 0 , 7 7 , 7 8 Bayley, N.,89, 109, 203, 209, 220 Bayles, J.,159, 181 Bayles, K.,159, 181 Beaver, S., 119, 135 Beck, B., 18, 22 Beck, E., 191, 192, 193, 221, 223 Beck, F., 5, 20 Becker, N.,1 4 9 , 1 5 2 , 1 7 6 Becker, W., 3 1 9 , 3 3 2 Beckwith, L., 1 8 8 , 2 2 1 Bee, H., 4, 1 8 , 2 0 , 8 3 , 1 0 9 Bell, J.,160, 176 Bell, N., 122, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,133 Bellugi, U.,67, 68, 78,79 Belichenko, P.,66, 78 Benedict, H., 271, 272 Benersky, N., 8 8 , 1 0 9 Bennett, W., 197, 221

AUTHOR INDEX Bennetto, L., 117, 136, 141, 143, 144, 147,165,166,167,176,182 Benson, D., 142,143, l83 Benson, N., 3 1 4 , 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 , 324,326,329,330,334 Bentler, P., 19, 20, 284,304 Bento, S., 187, 223 Benton, A., 133, 140, 141, 147, 151, 152, 153, 176, 180, 234, 252, 310.332 Bereiter, C., 280, 307 Berko Gleason,J.,2 5 7 , 2 7 2 2 5 2 Berndt, R., 225 Berninger, V.,275, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290,291,292,294,295,296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301,302,

303,304,305,307,308,.329, 332 Bernstein, A., 6, 2 1 Berry, H., 1 6 7 , 1 8 2 Bertelson, P.,323, 335 Bertolino-Kusner~,L.,1 2 0 , 1 3 0 , 1 3 6 Bertrand, J.,271, 273 Best, C., 168, 180 Betz, J.,1 9 0 , 2 2 2 B h a n t t a c h a ~A,.,168, 176 Biddle, B., 2 5 3 , 2 9 9 , 3 0 5 Biddle, K., 114, 115, 134, 228, 227, 233, 250, 252,266, 283, 305, 321,337 Biemiller, A., 276, 305 Bihrle, A.,234, 252 Bijou, S., 291, 306 Belichenko, P.,66, 78 Birbaumer, N., 1 9 0 , 2 2 3 Bjorklund, D., 5 9 , 7 4 , 7 8 , 1 4 5 , 1 5 0 , 160,161,176,179 Black, J.,122, 125, 126, 133 Blashfield, R., 132, 133, 136 Bliss, L., 2 5 2 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 3 , 2 6 6 Blumenstein, E.,120, 137 Blum, L.,49, 51 Bocian, K., 50, 51 Bockes, T., 158, 162, 166, 172 Bohan, T., 119, 135 Bolter, J.,147, 148, 176 Bonjean, C., 9, 2 0

AUTHOR INDEX

341

Buhrke, R., 208,222 Boone, K.,144, 176 Borden, S., 316, 317, 318, 320, Bullugi, 323, U., 67,78 Burgemeister, B., 49, 51 325,329,334 Burger-Judisch, L., 208, 222 Borkowski, J.,116,134,318,332 Bornstein, M., 86, 105, 109 Borys, S., 152,176 Burgoyne, K.,83, 110 Boucher, J.,163,176 Burke, J., 116, 134 Boucugnani, L., 167,176 Burstein, R.,87, 111 Bouma, A., 310, 331 Burstein, V.,87, 111 Bowers, P., 248, 249, 252, 321,326, Busk, J., 193, 197, 198, 221 328,332,337 Butler, B., 198, 199,203, 221 Boyd, R.,58,79 Butterfield, E., 285, 306 Boyes-Braem, P.,234,254 Butterworth, G., 91, 110 Bracken, B., 18,20 Brackstone, D.,316, 318, 320, 323, C 325,329,334 Bradley, L., 310, 312, 332 Cairns, N., 65, 70, 78 Bradley, R., 9, 20 Caldwell, B., 9, 20 Brady, S., 312, 335 Callender, G., 127, 134, 158, 162, 166, Bragg, R., 281,284,286,305 174,178 Braine, M.,265, 272 Callaway, C., 190, 221 Brandt, D., 291, 307 Callaway, E .,193, 195, 197, 198, 205, Brandt, T., 119, 135 223 Brazelton, T., 209, 220, 221 Campbell, T., 156, 179 Brennan, M., 175,184 Cannon, A., 226,253 Breslau, N., 2, 21 Caramazza, A., 225,252 Bringle, R., 4, 22 Carlton, M., 226, 227, 254 Broekhoven, L.,3,21 Carnine, L.,319,332 Brooks, A., 294, 305 Caroll, J.,234, 252 Brooksher, R., 294, 304 Carpenter, P., 153, 157, 176 Brookshire, B., 119, 135 Carr, R., 167, 184 Broverman, D., 189,224 Carr, T., 297, 305 Brown, A., 325, 335 Carrel, T., 191, 206, 221 Brown, I., 312, 332 Cartwright, A., 282, 286, 304, 305 Brown, JE., 163, 179 Carullo, J., 156, 178 Brown, JV.,83,109 Carvajal, H., 5, 20 Brown, R., 271, 272 Cary, L., 323,335 Brownell, H., 234, 252 Case, R., 141, 145, 148, 153, 154, 155, Bruce, D,, 120,130,136,140,180 156,164,166,176 Bruce, O., 226,253 Castles, A., 312, 332 Bruck, M.,290,312,332 Ceci, S., 6, 17, 18, 21 Bruhn, P.,162, 180 Chajcsyk, D.,167, 184 Bruner, E., 319, 332 Chalke, Bruner, J., 82,90, 110, 111, 271, 273F., 193, 194, 196,203,205,221 287, 305 Bryant, P.,310, 312, 332, 333 Chall, J.,276, Chamove, A., 162, 176 Bryk, A., 102, 110, 119, 134, 281, 301, Chan, M.,65,77 305 Chance, G., 187,223 Buck, R., 63, 77

342

Chandler, M., 1 6 , 2 2

change^, J.,1 4 4 , 1 4 5 , 1 7 6

Chapieksi, N.,83,84,85,94, 110 Chapman, R.,2 6 3 , 2 6 4 , 2 7 2 Chapman, S., 1 8 0 , 2 2 6 , 2 5 3 Chapman, S.B., 120, 130, 136, 140 Charraro, A., 1 8 0 , 2 5 9 Chase, G., 1 6 3 , 1 7 9 Chattopadhyay,P., 168, 176 Chelune, G., 114, 134, 148, 151, 167, 176

Chen, R.,284,

285, 307, 312, 324, 325, 329,336 Chou, C., 19, 20 Chueh, D., 6 5 , 7 8 Chugani, H., 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 , 1 4 8 , 1 7 1 , 1 7 6 Cicchetti, D.,2 3 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 7 1 , 2 7 2 Cicerello, A., 175, 184 Clark, B.,4, 18, 20 Clark, H., 6 1 , 6 2 , 6 3 , 7 2 , 7 7 Clark, W., 119, 137 Clinton, A.,286, 291, 292, 301, 304 Cloninger, C., 6 0 , 7 8 Cochran, K.,1 6 6 , 1 8 3 Cohen, D., 1 6 2 , 1 8 3 Cohen, J.,140, 144, 145, 176 Cohen, S., 3, 16, 21, 188, 221 Cohen, H., 2 0 7 , 2 0 8 , 2 2 3 Cole, L., 260, 272 Collins, K.,156, 178

Collins, P.,60, 78 Coltheart, M., 3 1 2 , 3 3 2 Connell, F., 6 5 , 7 9 Conway, A.,145, 176 Conway, T., 325, 328, 331,336 Cookson, N.,1 7 5 , 1 8 0 Cooley, E., 47, 51 Cooper, F., 207, 221 Copeland, D.,82, 108, 11 1 Corter, C., 84, 110 Costa, P.,157, 176 Cote, F., 167, 178 Cournoyer, M,, 1 5 9 , 1 7 6 Cox, C., 1 6 3 , 1 7 9 Crain, S., 312, 335 Crammond,J., 154, 176 Crawfosd,J.,83, 110

Crisafi, N.,2, 2 1 Critchey, M., 1 1 9 , 1 3 4 Crnic, K.,83, 110 Crockenberg, S., 8 1 , 1 1 0 Crook, C., 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 Cross, D., 121, 124, 137 Cross, P.,160, 176 Crowson, M,, 1 6 0 , 1 7 6 Cuksts, B.,3 2 2 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 4 Culbertson, W., 144, 176 Cuhane, K.,114, 117, 120, 130, 136,

140, 175,180,226,253 176,184

Cuneo, K.,159, 160,171,175, C u n n i n ~P., ~3,1 8 , 3 3 3 Curtis, M[., 233, 253 Curtis, S., 219, 221

D Dabholkar,A., 1 2 9 , 1 3 6 Damasio, A,, 114, 134 Damasio, H., 114, 134 Daneman, N.,1 5 7 , 1 7 6 Das, J.,1 6 8 , 1 7 6 Davidson, K.,118, 119, 135 Davies, P.,234, 252 Davis, D., 167, 178 Davis J.,248, 254 Davison, R., 157, 135 Dawson, G., 148,. 178 Day, L., 158, 180 de Jong, L., 1 6 3 , 1 6 4 , l 8 3 Deffebach, K.,265, 272 Dehaene, S., 144, 145,176 Delis, D., 120, 137 DeLuca, T., 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 , 3 2 0 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 5 , 329,334

Dembure, P.,162, 180 Dempster, F., 158, 176 Denckla, M,, 1 4 0 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 6 ,

178, 179, 182, 226, 227, 253, 254, 312, 315, 324, 325,329, 332,336 Dennis, M., 226, 227, 228, 234, 252, 253,254 Denson, S., 8 4 , 8 8 , 1 1 0 Depue, R.,60, 7 8

AUTHOR INDEX

343

Deser, T.,2 2 6 , 2 5 3 DeVos, J.,122, 125, 126, 133 Diamond, A., 121, 123, 125, 126, 127,

128, 129, 131, 134, 140, 144, 147, 158, 159, 162, 166, 167, 171,174,176,179 Dim, S., 1 5 4 , 1 7 8 Dickey, T.,167, 176 DiLaila, L., 4, 21 Doar, B.,1 2 3 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 6 , 1 2 9 , 1 3 4 Dodge, K.,81, 110 Doi, L., 3 1 2 , 3 3 4 Donahue, J.,3 1 0 , 3 1 1 , 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 , 3 3 6 Donaldson, S., 314, 315, 316, 334 Dorans, B.,152,162, 165, 167, 176 Douglas, V., 1 6 5 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 Downer, M.,3 1 8 , 3 1 9 , 3 3 3 Downes, J.,141, 181 Doyle, A., 155, 184 Dreyer, L., 312, 335 Drillien, C., 83, 110 Driscoll, J.,2, 21

Driver, M., 87, l09 Drudge, O., 4 , 2 1 Druin, D., 127, 134, 158, 162, 166, 174,178

Dubes, R., 1, 21 Duncan, C., 47, 51 Dunham, F., 8 5 , 1 0 3 , 1 0 9 D u n h ~P,, , 85,103,109 Dunn, K.,6 6 , 7 7 Dunn, L., 209, 232, 253, 260, 221

Dunn, L. M.,209,

272,221

270, 272,

232, 253, 260, 270,

Dunn, M.,6 9 , 7 9 DuPaul, G,, 1 6 3 , 1 6 8 , 1 7 6 Dustman, R., 191, 192, 193, 221, 223

E Edgell, D., 142, 168, 183 Edwards, R., 4, 5, 21 Ehri, L., 278, 305 Eimas, P., 206, 208, 221 Eisele, J.,319, 332 Eisenberg, H., 120, 130, 136, 140, 151, 152,153,180

Ekelman, B.,2 2 6 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 2 Ekman, P., 60,78 Elbert, T., 190, 223 Eliez, S., 67, 79 Ellermann, H., 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 Ellingson, R.,189, 221, 224 Elliott, T., 318, 333 Ellis, A. E., 124, 127, 128, 131,

136, 286 Ellis, A. W., 305, 322, 323, 325, 333 Elsas, L., 1 6 2 , 1 8 0 Embretson, S., 117, 134 Engel, R., 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 203, 205,206,221 Engelmann, S., 3 1 9 , 3 2 2 Engle, R. W., 1 4 5 , 1 7 6 , 1 7 8 E d , J.,190, 191, 193, 194, 196, 203, 205,221 Escobar, M.,29,43,48, 52, 119, 137 Eslinger, P., 114, 115, 116, 134, 227, 250,253 Espy, K.,119, 123, 126, 130, 134 Estrada, M., 3 1 8 , 3 3 2 Evankovich, K.,114, 117, 136 Evans, B.,187, 223 Evans, W., 1 2 1 , 1 3 5 Everett, J.,167, 178 Ewers, C., 166, 183 Ewing Cobbs, L., 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 , 1 3 6 , 226,253 Eyres, S., 4 , 1 8 , 2 0

F Fang-Fircher, S., 6 5 , 7 0 , 7 8 Farah, N.,1 4 0 , 1 4 4 , 1 4 5 , 1 8 0 Farrar, J.,85, 103, 110 Faust, D., 164, 178 Fay, W., 198, 199, 203,205,206, Fedorov, A.,66,78 Fein, D.,6 8 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 7 9 Feinstein, C .,6 9 , 7 0 , 7 9 Felton, R., 312, 332 Ferguson, J.,7 5 , 7 8 Ferguson, W., 1 6 7 , 1 7 6 Ferris, G., 5, 22 Fiducia, D., 150, 153, 178 Fiedorowicz, C., 313, 332

221

AUTHOR INDEX

344

Figueroa, R., 2 6 0 , 2 7 2 Fink, R., 296, 305 Fischer, M., 4, 2 1 Fiske, A., 5 9 , 7 8 Flavell, J.,141, 178 Fletcher, C.,313, 335 Fletcher, J.,5 1 , 5 2 , 8 8 , 2 3 , 2 9 , 4 3 , 4 7 , 48, 110, 114, 115, 117, 118,

119, 120, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 140, 180,226,253, 295,307, 312, 323,325, 328, 330,331,332,333,335 Flick, G., 5, 22 Flower, L., 280, 306 F l p n , J.,6, 21 Foltz, G., 3 2 1 , 3 3 5 Foorman, B., 3 2 3 , 3 2 5 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 1 , 3 3 2 Forbes, J.,3 2 2 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 4 Foreman, N., 1 5 4 , 1 5 6 , 1 7 8 Forell, E., 295, 307 Foster, R., 270, 272 Fowler, A.,312, 332, 335 Fowler, D., 4, 18, 21 Fox, N.,122, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,133,312,334 Francis, D., 23, 51, 118, 119, 134, 135, 312,330, 331,323, 325, 328, 331,332,333,335 Franklin, K.,270, 272 Freeman, R., 222 Friedes, D.,162, 180 Friedman, S., 1 7 5 , l 8 3 Friel, J.,295, 307 Frijters, J,,326, 329, 334 Fristoe, M.,315, 333 Frith, U.,163, 179, 277, 287, 288, 305 Fruth, M.,1 6 1 , 1 7 9 Frye, S., 313, 335 Fuerst, D.,82, 110 Fuller, F., 281, 304 Fuster, J.,135, 179

Galbraith, R., 3 , 2 1 Gallaburda, A., 67,624 78 Gardien, C., 310, 331 Gardner, E., 2 9 3 , 3 0 6 Gardner, H.,2 2 5 , 2 5 3 Gamer, P., 8 2 , 8 5 , 9 0 , 9 4 , 1 0 8 , 1 1 0 , 111

Garon, T., 310, 311, 321,323, 336 Garreau, B., 164, 185 Gartner, G.,8 4 , 1 1 0 Gaskins, I., 318, 319, 333 Gaskins, R., 3 1 8 , 3 1 9 , 333 Gathercole, S., 155, 156, 176, 179 Geary, D., 5 9 , 7 4 7 8 Gelfer, M., 208, 221 Gentry, J.,2 7 9 , 3 0 5 German, D., 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 5 , 2 4 7 , 253

Gerstadt, C., 159, 179 Geva, E., 2 8 5 , 3 0 7 Gholson, B., 160, 179 Giannuli, M., 5, 21 Gibson, E., 280, 306 Giddan, J.,270, 272 Gifford, E., 117, 135 Gill, L., 201, 222 Girnius-Brown, O., 86, 105, 110 Gittleman, R., 313, 329, 333 Glassman, M.,2 , 2 1 Gliddon, J.,193, 197, 198, 221 Glisky, M.,123, 126, 130, 134 Glosser, D., 228, 253 Glosser, G., 226, 253 Gnys, J.,140, 179 Goel, V., 140, 141, 175, 179 Goetz, E., 2 8 4 , 3 0 6 G o h a n , E.,6 1 , 6 2 , 7 2 , 7 8 Goldberg, S., 84, 105, 110, 111 Golden, C., 114, 135 Golden, J.,311, 332 Goldman, P.,121, 132, 135 Goldman, R., 315, 333 Goldman-Rakic, P,,129, 134, 135, 140, 175,179,180

Goldstein, H., 119, 131, 135 Gonzalez,J.,1 4 4 , 1 7 6 Goodglass, H., 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 5 , 253,254,255

A ~ T H O RINDEX

345

Hager, L., 140, 144, 146, 147, 174, 182 Gopnik, A.,60,78 Haier, R., 65, 78 Gorenstein, E., 165, 167, 179 Haines, L.,311, 331 Gorsuch, R., 144, 176 Haith, M.,312, 335 Gomami, U.,278,306,310,333 Halberstadt, A.,161, 179 Gottardo, A., 312, 336 Hale, C., 318, 332 Gough, P.,278,287,288,306 Hall, S., 83,84,94, 110 Gould, J.,68, 79 Halliday, S., 154, 155, 156, 179 Graber, M.,122,125,126,133 Grafman,J., 140, 141, 175, 179 Halminski, M.,162,180 Hamburger, S., 163, 167, 182, 183 Graham, P.,52 M,, 4, 18, 20, 83, 109 Graham, S., 117, 135, 280, 294, Hammond, 305, Hamsher, D.,234,252 306 Hans, L.,208, 222 Grant, E., 187,224 Hardwick, N.,314,315,316,334 Gratch, G., 121, 135 Grattan, L., 114, 115, 134, 227, Harlow, 250, J.,114, 135 Harm, M.,289,295,306 253 Harnishfeger, K.,145, 150, 160, 161, Gray, C,, 4, 18, 20 176,179 Gray, J.,60, 78 Harris, E.,140, 163, 167, 179, 182 Gray, W., 234, 254 Harris, K.,117, 135, 294, 306 Green, L.,70,79 Harris, P.,121, 135 Green, P.,312, 335 Harris, Y., 160, 181 Greenberg, M., 83, 110 Hart, L., 312, 333 Greene, C., 163, 181 Hart, T., 275,288,297,298,304,305 Greenspan, S., 18, 22 H., 114, 117, 120, 130, 136, Greep, K.,286, 291, 292, 301, Harward, 304 140, 180,226,253 Gresham, F.,50, 51 Hatcher, P.,322, 323, 325, 333 Griffith, P,,278,288,306 Hartmann, J.,114, 117, 136 Grigorenko, E.,312, 333 Hayes, A.,65,78 Grodzinsky, G., 140,163,167,168, Hayes, J.,280,306 176,179 Groisser, D.,114, 117, 132, 137, Hayes, 148,S., 117, 135 Hearn,163, E., 75,78 150, 151, 152, 153, 158, Heaton, R., 114, 131, 135 171, 174, 182,184 Hecht, S., 310, 311, 321, 323, 336 Gross Tsur, V.,226, 228, 253 Helwig, S., 16, 21 Grossman, F.,4, 18, 21 Henderson, E.,278, 280, 306 Grossman, H., 260,272 Henderson, N.,191, 192, 193, 198, Grotjohn, D.,161, 179 199,204,205,221 Grover, W,, 158, 162,166,178 Henriksen, L., 162, 180 Gualin, C., 156, 179 Hermelin, B.,163, 179 Gualtieri, C., 156, 179 Heron, C., 140, 144, 146, 147, 174, Guess, D., 258, 272

182

Hack, M.,2, 21 Hagberg, B.,66,78 Hagen, E.,9, 22,

231,

254

Hertzog, C., 120, 135 Hess, T., 207, 208, 222 Hewison, J.,313, 329, 333 Hicks, R.,162, 179 Hill, R., 9, 20

AUTHOR INDEX

346

Johnson, G., 319,332 Johnson, H., 2,21 166, Johnson, K., 4, 18, 21 176,179,184 Johnson, M.,30,317,324,325,335 Hoffman,W., 167,182 Johnson, Hofstadter, N.,124, 126, 128, 131, 135 M.B.,30,52 Johnston, 281, 299, 308 Holahan, J., 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, J., 35, Jones, R., 167, 176 36,47, 50, 51 Jones, W., 67, 79 Holcomb, L., 16, 21 Jordan, F., 226,253 Hollingsh~ad, A., 87, 110 J o m , A., 48,49, 51 Honeycutt, N., 65,77 Juel, C,, 278,288, 306 Hong, Y., 159, 179 Jusczyk, P.,206, 208, Hooper, S., 147,184 Just, M.,153, 176 Hooven, C., 286, 291, 292, 301,304 Hooven, W., 287,306 Horn, J .,193, 195, 196, 197, 203, 205, 223 Horner, R.,258,272 Kagan,J., 72,78, 79, 158, 180 Horowitz, S., 254 Kaler, S., 89, 110 Howe, M.,121,136 Kalverboer, A., 163, 164, 1 Hughes, C., 167,179 Kaplan, E., 228, 233, 245, 253, 254 Huisman, .,163, 164, 183 Karchmar, E., 3, 21 Hulme, C.,153, 156, 157, 166,322, Karlson, El., 293, 306 323,325,333,335 Karnes, F., 4, 5, 21 Humes, G., 175, 179, 180 fitada, A., 168, 184 Hunt, M.,167, 182 K a t z , K.,187,224 Hurwitz, W., 158,162,166,176 Katz, L., 23, 51, 312, 332, 335 Huttenlocher, P,, 129, 148, 180 Kaufman, J., 6, 22 Hutton,J., 1, 21 Kaufmann, P,, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, Hynd, G., 149,150, 152,176,181 131,134,136 Kavale, K., 318, 333 x Keeney, A.,295,306 Keeney, V.,295,306 Kellam, S., 47, 51 Kelly, h%., 168, 180 Kemper, T., 70, 77, 78 Keogh, B.,23, 50, 51 J Kepler, M.,152, 153, 161, 180 Keppel, G,, 118, 136 Jackson, N.,285,306 Kiessing, L.,226, 227, 254 J a n o ~ sJ.~ ,131,136 , Kim (Yoon),Y., 284, 306 Jaspser, H., 190,221 Kimberg, D., 140,144, 145,180 Jastak, J., 291, 306 Kinchla, R.,47, 51 Jastak, S., 291, 306 King, S., 5,20 Jensen,J., 163, 164, 167, 168, 181 Kirk, U.,168, 180 Jerram, M,,65, 77 Kitao, S., 168, 184 Johns, M.,314, 315,316,334 Klahr, D., 152,180 Johnson, C.,161, 179,180 Klausmeier, K.,5, 21 Johnson, D., 234,254

Hinchley,J., 330, 334 Hitch, C., 153, 154, 155,

156,

A U T ~ O RINDEX

Kochanska, G., 8 6 , 9 2 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 Koch, D., 1 9 1 , 2 0 6 , 2 2 1 Koegel, L., 73, 78 Koegel, R.,7 3 , 7 8 Kohn, B.,2 2 6 , 2 5 3 Kohn, S., 225, 254 Kolb, B.,141, 158, 180 Koon, R.,167, 176 Kopp, C., 89,91, 159, 108, 110, 180, 184 slow, S., 190, 221 Kostuch,J.,2 9 3 , 3 2 1 , 3 0 8 , 3 3 6 Kovar, C., 163, 181 Krakow, J.,159,184 Kramer, J.,157, 181 Krasnegor, N., 1 1 3 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 0 , 180

Kraus, N., 1 9 1 , 2 0 6 , 2 2 1 Kraus, P.,295, 306 Krause, W., 162, 180 Kreder, S., 162, 183 Kritho, L., 293, 321, 308, 336 cqnski, L., 8 6 , 9 2 , 1 0 5 , 1 1 0 Kusnerick, L., 130, 140, 180

L Labudova, O., 6 5 , 7 0 , 7 8 Lacerema, L., 316, 318, 320, 323, 325, 329,334

Lai, Z.,67, 79 Lajoie, G., 152, 153, 176 Lalonde, C., 171, 178 Lambert, N., 260,272 Landry, S., 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 4 , 8 5 , 8 6 , 8 8 , 9 2 , 9 4 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 103, 108, 110, 111

Laughon, P., 3 1 0 , 3 3 6 Laure-Kamionowska,M.,6 5 , 7 9 Lavine, L., 280, 306 Lechan, S.,71, 78, 121, 130, 131, 136 LeCompte, G., 121, 135 Lecours, A.,148, 185 Lee, E., 158, 162, 166, 176 Leech, G., 6 1 , 6 3 , 7 8 Leicht, D.,208, 223 Lelord, G., 164, 185 Lemos, Z.,294, 305 Lenneberg, E .,1 8 9 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 6 , 2 2 1 , 2 5 4

347

Lenzenwager, M.,7 2 , 7 9 Leontovich, T.,66, 78 Leslie, N.,167, 182 Lester, B.,209, 220 Lester, K.,297, 305 Leung, E., 92, 11 1 Levesque, J.,167,178 Levin, H., 70,79, 114, 117, 118, 120,

130, 135, 136, 140, 151, 152, 153,180,226,252,280,306 Levine, D., 145, 180 Levine, M.,160, 179 Levy, B.,2 9 3 , 2 9 4 , 3 0 6 , 3 2 7 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 3 Lewis, M.,88, 105, 109, l 1 1 Lewis, V.,271, 273 Li, Q., 65, 77 Liberman, A.,48, 51, 207, 221, 312,335 Liberman, I., 23, 48, 51, 312, 332 Libon, D., 164, 178 Liederman,J.,225, 254 Lilly, M.,120, 130, 136, 140, 180 Lindamood, C .,324, 325, 333 Lindamood, P,, 324, 325, 333 Lindsey,J.,5, 2 0 Linnviile, S., 208, 222 Littman, B.,209, 222 Livesey, P.,160, 176, 180 Llinas, R.,251, 252, 254 Loew, D.,4 , 2 1 Logan, G., 1 6 7 , 1 6 8 , 1 8 3 , 1 8 4 Logan, C., 167,183 Lojkasek, M.,84, 110 Long, C., 1 4 7 , 1 4 8 , 1 7 6 Logue, A.,159, 180 Lord, C., 7 3 , 7 8 Lorge, I., 49, 51, 235, 254 Lott, I., 65, 78 Lotz, R.,321, 337 Lou, H., 162,180 Lovegrove, W., 3 1 0 , 3 3 3 Loveland, K., 167, 182 LoVerme, S., 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 Lovett, M.,226, 253, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 329, 330, 332,333,334 Low, J .,3 , 2 1

348

Lev, J.,5, 20 Lubec, G., 6 5 , 7 0 , 7 8

Lund~uist,E., 312, 335 ,C., 282,299, 306, 307 Luria, A., 116, 136, 141, 142, 180 Lyon, G., 113, 116, 131, 136, 140, 180, 322,329,330,334,335 L ~ n c ~ u cL., k ,293, 294, 306, 327, 329,333

Macar, F., 1 9 0 , 2 2 3 Maccoby, E., 8 2 , 8 5 , 1 1 1 Mackenzie, S., 153, 156, 157, 166, 179 Maclean, R., 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 1 Madden, R.,2 9 3 , 3 0 6 MacMillian, D., 50, 51 Mahoney, A., 168, 184 Maker, J.,5, 21 Mammato, C., 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 , 1 7 9 Manis, F., 312, 334 Manor, O., 2 2 6 , 2 2 8 , 2 5 3 Marchione, K.,23, 51 Marfo, K.,1 0 5 , 1 1 1 Marlin, M., 299, 305 M a ~ u r e kW., , 311,332 Marriott, M., 167, 183 Martin, J.,82, 111, 162, 183 Matthews, A., 124, 127, 128, 131, 136 Matthew, R., 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 1 Mattson, A., 114, 117, 136 ma^^ M., 7 5 , 7 8 Maurice, C., 73,78 Mazzocco, M., 1 6 3 , 1 8 1 McALeer, O., 1 1 7 , 1 3 6 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 3 , 1 4 4 , 147,182 McArdle, J.,131, 136 McAuley, E., 166, 179 McBri~eChang, C., 312, 334

AUTHOR I ~ D E ~ McCabe, A .,2 2 8 , 2 3 3 , 2 5 2 , 2 6 6 McCabe, E., 140, 152, 162, 163, 166, 167,182,184 McCabe, R.,3 2 2 , 3 3 2 McCall, R., 158, 181 McCallum, S., 4 , 5 , 2 1 McCarthy, D.,1 8 , 2 1 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 2 McCrae, R.,157, 176 M c ~ i a ~ iM., d , 123, 126, 130, 134 McDonald, S., 226, 254 McDonald, L., 162, 180 McEvoy, R., 1 2 4 , 1 2 7 , 1 6 4 , 1 6 7 , 1 8 1 McGee, R.,47,49, 51, 52, 188,221,224 McGee, T., 191, 206, 224 McIntyre, C., 167, 178 Mc~enna,M., 2 8 8 , 2 9 4 , 3 0 7 McKnab, P,,5, 20 McLemore, S., 9, 2 0 M c M ~ o nW., , 164,167,181 Mearn, E,, 75 Mehta, P.,323,325,328, 331, 332 Meisels, S., 8 5 , 1 1 1 Meltzer, L., 3 1 8 , 3 3 4 Meltzoff, A.,60, 78 Mendelsohn, D., 120, 130, 136, 140, 180,226,253 Menkes, J.,118, 136 Menna, R.,154, 181 Mensink, D., 168, 176 Merrill, M., 203, 224, 273 Mervis, C., 234, 254, 271, 273 Mesulam, M., 2 3 2 , 2 5 4 Meyer, L., 319, 332 Meyer, M., 312, 333 Michaud, D., 1 6 7 , 1 7 6 Michelow, D., 234, 252 Milich, R,, 157, 181 Miller, B., 144, 176 Miller, J.,263, 264, 272 Miller, P.,160, 181 Miller-Loncar, C., 8 2 , 8 5 , 8 6 , 9 5 , 9 8 , l 1 Milner, B., 140, 141, 181 Milstead, M., 318, 332 Mims, S., 167, 178 Minarcik, C., 158, 162, 166, 178 Miner, M., 120, 135, 136 mi rend^, P.,257, 270, 273 *

A ~ ~ INDEX O R Mirsky, A.,4 7 , 5 1 Mischel, W., 159, 181 Mishra, R.,168, 176 Mishra, S., 5, 21 Mizohwa, D., 2 8 1 , 2 8 4 , 2 8 6 , 2 9 7 , 3 0 5 Moats, L., 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 4 Modahl, C., 68,70,79 Moenkernann, H.,6 5 , 7 0 , 7 8 Mohr., 1 6 3 , 1 7 9 Moho, C., 155, 181 Molfese, D., 187, 190, 198, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 215,219,220, ,222,223,224 Molfese, V.,3, 4, 16, 190, 198, 200, 201, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 212,213,214,215,219,223 M o l i n ~ oT., , 162, 176 Morgan, G., 160, 180 Morias, J.,323, 335 Morine Dershher, G., 50, 51 Morra, S., 1 5 5 , l 8 1 Morris, D., 277, 307 Morris, M., 70, 7 9 Morris, R., 47, 51, 69, 119, 132, 137, 227,238,225,335 Mostafapour, E., 2 9 4 , 3 0 4 Muehl, S., 295, 307 Muir, D.,3,2 1 Muir, S., 1, 21 Mukhina, J.,66, 78 Munson, R., 1 9 0 , 2 2 3 Murdoch, B., 2 2 6 , 2 5 3 Murray, M., 167, 178 Murray, P., 154, 156, 178 Mutter, B., 154, 160, 171, 181

N Nagy, W., 2 8 9 , 3 0 7 Nass, T.,124, 127, 136 Nathan, R.,290, 307 Neale, N., 49, 51 Nelson, C.,124, 127, 128, 131, 136, 140, 151, 152, 155, 174, 180, 190,223 Nelson, K.,271, 273 NICHHD, 2 9 5 , 3 0 7

349 Nicol, T.,191, 206, 221 Nolen, S., 280, 286, 301, 304 Nord, A.,163, 181 Norman, D., 1 4 3 , 1 8 1 Norton, A., 167, 182 Novak, K., 8 7 , 1 0 9

Oades, R., 162, 181 Obregon, M., 2 2 5 , 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 , 2 4 9 , 2 5 4 O’Brien, D.,7 1 , 7 8 Oconnor, M., 3 , 2 1 O’Connor, N., 1 6 3 , 1 9 9 O’Flahven,J.,288, 289, 307 Ogier, S., 294, 304 O’Gorman, A.,2 2 6 , 2 2 7 , 2 5 4 Ojernann, G., 2 2 8 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 Oka, E., 3 1 8 , 3 3 5 Olds, J.,314, 316, 324, 326, 334 OLeary, D.,1 5 0 1 5 3 , 1 7 8 Olson, R.,293, 307, 308, 319, 321, 322, 323,324,325,335,336,337 Olson, S., 159, 181 Ort, S., 121, 130, 131, 136, Osborn, J.,289, 307 Owen, A., 141, 181 Ozonoff, S., 140, 152, 162, 1 169, 168, 181, 182,

Pagnucco, J.,288, 294, 307 Palermo, D., 222 Paiincsar, A.,325, 335 Palmer, J.,8 3 , 8 4 , 9 4 , 1 1 0 Papile, L., 87, 1 3 1 Paris, S., 318, 335 Parmelee, A., 3, 16, 21, 188, 179, 209, 218,221,222 Parpal, M., 85, 1 1 1 Passler, M., 149, 150, 152, 181 Pate, J.,258, 270, 273 Patterson, C. J.,159, 181 Patterson, C.M,,120, 137 Pauls, D., 312, 333 Pearlson, G., 65, 77 Pearson, D., 167, 182

350

A~THORINDEX

Rahn, C., 86, l09 Pecheux, M., 86,109 Rankin, J.,254 Pederson, D., 187,223 Pelham, W., 23,50 Ransby, MI., 313,314,315,316,317, 320,326,334 Pennington, B.,82, 108, 114, 116, 117, 124, 127,1 3 2 , 133, 136, 137, Rapoport, J.,162,185 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, Rashotte, C., 310, 311, 321, 323, 324, 325,328,331,336 147, 148, 150,1 5 1 , 1 5 2 , 153, 158, 161,162, 163, 164, 165, Raskind, W., 287,304 166, 167, 168, 171, 174, 176,Raudenbush, S., 102,110,119,134, 181,182,184,312,335 301,305 Reader, M.,140,163,167,179, 182 Perecman, E., 140, 182 Reed, E., 286, 291, 292, 294, 301, 304, Perret, E., 141, 182 Peterson, A,, 312, 334 305 Reilly, T., 4, 2 1 Peterson, S , , 47, 5 1 Pfeil, C., 321, 337 Reiss, A., 67, 79 Phelps, M., 129, 134 Reitsma, P., 322, 335, 336, 337 Remy, E., 282, 283,305 Phillips, G., 270, 272 Remy, P,, 164, 185 Phillips, S,, 160, 179 Phillips, W., 158, 180 Retzlaff, P., 175,180 Reurnann, R., 258,273 Piaget, J.,1 2 1 , 1 2 5 , 126, 136 Rey, H., 2 , 2 1 Pinion, D., 132, 137 Pirie, D., 82, 90, 111 Reynolds, V.,72,79 Reznick, J.,124, 126, 128, 131, 1 3 2 , Plotkin, H., 72, 79 Plunkett, J.,85, 110 135,137 Pogge Hesse, P., 271,272 Rheingold, H., 92, 111 Pokey, D., 141,181 Rhodes, L., 191, 192, 193, 223 Richardson, M.,83,84,94, 110 Pollatsek, A., 297, 305 Pontoon, M., 144,176 Richerson, P., 58,79 Richrnan, B.,234,252 Porter, T., 1 5 5 , 184 Posner, M., 47, 5 1 Richman, N., 52 Riese, M., 119, 134 Pratt, A., 312, 324, 325, 329, 336 Prevor, M., 127, 134, 158, 162, 166, Ring, J.,317, 324, 325, 335, 337 174,178 Ringholtz, G., 114,117,134 Prewett, P., 4, 5 , 18, 21 Ris, M[., 167, 182 Prior, M. N., 313, 335 Risser, A., 142, 168,183 Prior, M. R.,167, 182 Robbins, P., 167, 182 Prueitt, P., 145, 180 Robbins, T., 141, 167, 181,192 Roberts, R., 117, 136, 141, 140, 143, Pueschel, S., 164, 178 144, 146, 147, 167, 174, 176, Pulsifer, M.,65, 66, 77,79 182 Robertson, N., 160,176 Robinson, B., 264, 265, 266, 267, 271, Quiatt, D., 72, 79 273 Robinson, S., 82, 108,11 Rocissano, L., 85, 110 Rockstroh, B., 190, 223 Radke Yarrow, N., 86,105,110 Rogan, L., 294,305 Rahbar, M., 6 , 2 1

AUTHOR INDEX

351

Scanlon, D., 284, 285, 307, 312, 324, 165,166,167,176,181 325,329,335,336 Scarborough, H., 311,321,335 Rogosa, D., 291,307 Scardamalia, M., 280,307 Rogosa, D. R., 330, 335 Scarr, S., 65, 73,79 Romski, M., 257,258,259,260,261, Schachar, 264, 265,266, 267, 268, 270, R., 167,168,183 Schafer, E., 190, 191, 193,205,221 271,272,273,274 Schaffer, H., 81,103,110 Rosch, E., 234,254 Schaimberg, L., 18,22 Rose, D., 226,252 Schatschneider, C., 120, 323, 325, 328, Rosen, J.,4, 21 Rosen, M., 301,306 331,332 Schmidt, A., 208, 223 Rosen, T., 2,21 Schmitt, J.,67, 79 Rosenberg, S., 258,273 Schneider, V., 293, 308, 321, 336 Rosenthal, R., 162, 182 Scholnick, E., 175, 183 Rosman, B.,158,180 Schommer, M., 318,333 Ross, G., 124, 127, 136 Schraagen, J., 154,155, 156, 179 Rosvold, H., 121, 135 Schucard, D., 193, 195, 196, 197, 203, R o t h l i s b e ~B., , 5,22 Rourke, P.,82, 110 205,223 Rouse, B.,140, 152, 162, 163, Schuerholz, 167, 184 L., 140,163,167,179,182 Schwartz, S., 159,184 Rubin, R., 5,22 Scopesi, A., 155, 181 Ruchkin, D.,190,223 Scottish Council for Research Ruckstuhl, L., 117, 135 Education., 49, 51 Rudel, R., 227,233, 253, 315, 332 Searock, K.,198, 200, 205, 210, 223 Ruff, H., 95,110 Segal, D., 233, 254 Rumbaugh, D., 261,273 208, 223 Rumsey, J.,163, 167, 182, 183 Segalowitz, S., 207, Sahakian, B.,141, 181 Russell, J.,167, 179 Seidenbert, M.,312,334 Rutberg, J., 282, 283, 305 Seifer, R,, 18, 22 Rutter, M., 49, 51, 118, 136 Seldon, D., 311, 332 Ryan, E., 165, 183 Sellmann, A., 5,22 Servan Schreiber, D.,145,176 S Sessions, L.,325, 337 Sevcik, R., 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 264,265,266,267,268,269, Sabatini, J.,296, 307 270,271,272,273,284 Sahakian, B.,141, 181 Shalev, R., 226, 228, 253 Salapatek, P.,190, 223 Shallice, T., 143, 181 183 Salvo, R., 162, 180 Shanahan, T., 329,335 Sameroff, A., 16, 18, 22 Sharkveiler, D., 48, 51, 207, 221, 312, Samson, Y., 164, 185 332,335 Sandy J.,165,167,179 51, 285,310, 325, 335 Satterlee Cartmell, T., 140, 175, 185Share, D.,48,49, Shatz, M,, 85,110 Sattler, J.,9, 22, 231, 254 Satz, P.,119,132,136, 137,295,307 Shaywitz, B.,23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 50,51, 52, 36, 43,47,48, Sayer, A., 300, 308 119, 131, 135, 137, 162, 183, Scaafstal, A., 154, 155, 156, 179 312,330,332,333,335 Scaife, M,,90, 110

Rogers, S., 124,127,136,162,164,

352

A ~ O INDEX R

S h a ~ i S., ~ 23, , 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, R.,23,52 Sprague, 34, 35, 36, 43, 48, O., 142,168,183 50, 47, Spreen, 51, 52, 119, 131, 135,Spring, 137,C., 248, 254 162, 183, 312, 330, Spruill, 332, J.,18 Spurlock, D,, 5, 20 333,335 S h e i ~ eL., ~ 64,79 , Stack, D., 160, 185 Shepherd, G., 79 Stackhouse, J.,323, 336 Shneider, A., 23, 51 Stage, S., 156, 183, 298, 304 Shue, K.,165, 183 Stahl, S., 288, 294, 307 S h u ~ e f fH., , 300,304 Stamm, J.,162, 183 Shuster, A., 312, 333 Stanovich, K., 48, 52, 290, 307, 310, Siedenberg, M., 289, 295,306 312,336 Siegel, L., 2, 3, 4,8, 16, 18, 22, Stark,165, J.,270, 272 R., 248, 252 183, 187,223, 285, 307,Steffy, 312, Steinbach, K., 316, 318, 322, 323, 325, 336 Siegler, R., 141, 183 326,329,224 S i g u e l ~ dE., , 206, 208, 221 Stemerdink, N., 163, 164, 183 Sigman, M., 188, 221 Sternberg, R., 6,22 Silva, P.,47,49, 51, 52 188, 224 Steubing, K.,23, 51, 118, 312, 330, S ~ m o n sK., , 310, 336 332,333,335 Simon, H., 115, 131, 137 Steubing, S., 119, 131, 135 Simos, P.,201, 208, 222, 224 Stevenson, J.,52 Singer, H., 163, 179 Stine, M.,140,175, 285 Sipay, E.,312, 324, 325, 329, Stoff, 336 D., 168, 184 Sleator, E., 23, 52 Straus, E., 67, 79 Slijper, F., 163, 164, 183 Strayer, D., 164, 167, 168, 181 Small, S., 312,324, 325, 329,335, Strich, 336 S., 120, 137 Smith, A.,5, 22 Stringer, R.,311, 336 Smith, C., 50,51 Strumpf, H., 126,137 Smith, K., 82,85,86,95,98, 11 1 Studdert-Kennedy,M., 207,221 Smith, P.,65,77 Stuss, D., 142, 143, 183 Smith, R.,52 Sueko, T., 86, 109 Smith, S., 312, 335 Sutton, S.K., 190,223 Smith, Y., 187,224 Sutton, S., 157, 183 Snell, M., 258,273 Svanunm, S., 4,22 Snidman, N.,72, 79 Svrakic, N., 60, 78 224 Snowling, M., 317, 323,333, 335, Swallow, 336 J.,219, Snyder, C., 4, 18,20 Swank, P.,82,84, 85,86,90,95,98, Soltis, J.,58, 79 110,111 Sostek, A., 187, 224 Swanson, H., 166, 183, 184, 280, 281, Spaai, G., 322, 335 282,286,299,304,305,308 Sparrow, S., 232,254 Swanson, L.,249,252 Spearing, D., 307 Sylvester, L., 280, 286, 291, 292, 301, Speed, W., 312,333 304 Sperber, D.,61, 62, 72, 79 Syrota, A., 164, 185 Spietz, A., 4, 18, 20 Szekeres, S., 226, 255 Spitz, H., 152,176 Szamari, P.,164, 184

353

AUTHOR INDEX

U

T

Uilman, R., 23,52 Tait, C., 311, 332 Umetani, T., 168, 184 Tal, J.,86, 109 Tallal, P.,310,335 Tamis-~Monda, C.,86,105, 109 Tan, A.,201, 222 Vacc, N., 4, 22 Tannock, R.,167,183 Van Daal., 332,336 Tate, E., 248, 252 van der Meere,J.,163,164, 183 Taylor, H., 115, 117, 120, 135, van 137, der Molen,M., 163,164,183 295,304 van Doorninck, W., 163,166,167,181, Taylor, J.,286, 291, 292, 301 182 Terjak, M,,293,308, 321,336 van Orden, G., 312,335 T e m a n , L., 203, 223,274 van Spronsen, F., 163, 164,183 Tesman, J.,124,127,136 Vardi, D., 86, 109 Teuber, H., 141,184 Vargha Khadem, F., 226,227,254 Thatcher, R., 132, 137 Varnhagen, C., 279,307 Thomas, J.,167, 178 Vaughan, K.,294,305 Thompson, L., 151,176,178 Vaughn, B.,159,184,279,307 Thompson, N., 118,119,135 Vellutino, F., 278, 284, 285, 307, Thomson, A.,83,110 312,324,325,329,335,336 Thomson, J.,287,304 Venezky, R., 279,296,307,308 Thorndike, E.,235,254 Verderk, P.,163, 164, 183 Thorndike, R., 9, 22, 231,254 Vigorito, J.,206, 208, 221 Thornton, R.,312, 335 Vitiello, B.,168, 184 Tipper, S., 168, 184 Vogel, W., 188, 189, 224 Tizard, J.,49, 51 Volpe, J.,86, 110 Toglia, M., 234,254 Vygotsky, L., 81,110 Tomasello, M.,85, 103, 110 Torgesen, J.,310, 311, 321, 323, W325,

v

328,331,336

Touchette, P., 65,78 Trahan, M.,166,184 Tramontana, M.,147, 184 Trannel, D., 114, 134 Travis, L.,209, 224 Traweek, D., 280, 292, 294,

307

Treiman, R., 279, 321, Tronick, E.,209,220 Trudel, M., 159, 176 Tucker, D., 64,78 Tueting, P,,190, 221 Tuff, L., 164, 184 Tunrner, W., 287,306 Turkeimer, E.,58,79

Wagner, R., 156,

31

183,310,311, 321, 323,324,325,328,331,336 Wahlstroem, J.,66, 78 Walker, P., 155, 184 Wallner Allen, K.,175, 183 M.,287,306 299,Walsh, 305, Wang, S., 208, 222 307,336 Warren, A.,65,77 Warren Chaplin, P.,317,320, 334 Warry, R., 154,156,178 Waterhouse, L., 68, 69,70, 79 Waters, G., 226, 227, 254 Weaver, K.,5,20 Wechsler, D., 6,9, 22, 30,49, 52,216, 224,234,254

1,

AUTHOR INDEX

354 Weinberg, H., 194, 197, 224 Weintra~b,N., 280, 306 W e i n t ~ u b ,S., 233, 254 Wellman, H., 121,124,137 Welsch, M.,82, 108, 110, 114,

Wisniemki, K.,65,79 Witelson, S., 219, 224 Whitmore, K.,49,51 Wolf, C . ,321 Wolf, 117, M[., 228, 225, 227,

228, 232, 233, 137, 139, 140, 142, 148, 150, 238, 239, 240, 248, 251, 252, 254, 255, 286, 308, 321, 326, 151, 152, 153, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 167, 171, 174,332,337 175,176,180,182,184,185 Wood, F.,312, 333 Woodcock, R., 30, 52, 291, 308, 315, Wen, G., 65,79 Werker, J.,171, 178 333 Woodin, M.,154, 156, 179 Werner, E.,52 Woodward, S., 72, 79 Werner, H., 289,291,292,302,308 Word inc., 261,274 Wertsch, J.,83, 110 Wright, N.,121, 135 Wetzel, W., 208, 223 Whishaw, I., 141,158,180 Wu, E.,284, 304 Whitaker, D,, 280, 281,286, 299, 301, Y 304,308 Whitaker, H., 226, 227, 228, 252 Yafee, L.,167, 182 Winsor, P., 289, 307 Yakolev, P., 148, 185 Whorton, J.,5, 22 Wiegel Crump, C., 227,234,239,241, Yatchmink, Y., 85, 110 Yates, C.,282, 286, 304, 305 249,254 Yeates, K., 120, 137 Wilkinson, G., 216,224 Yehigiazaryan, K.,65, 70, 78 Wilkinson, J.,3, 21 N.,226, 251 Wilkinson, K.,264, 265, 266,267, Mvisaker, 273 Young, L., 75,78 183 Wiilats, P., 171, 185 Young, J.,162, 136 Willett, J.,300, 308 Yule, W., 118, 136 Williams, M.,310, 333 Williams, R., 257, 273 Williams, S., 47, 49, 51, 52, 167, z 182, 188,224 Zelazo, P., 132, 137, 160, 170, 185 Willis, G., 140, 179 Zametkin, A., 162, 185 Willitt, J.,330, 335 Zax,M.,18,22 Wilson, D., 61, 62, 72,79 Zecker, S., 191,206,221 Wilson, R., 3, 22 Zelazo, P., 160 ~ i n d m i ~ e M., r , 260, 272 Zibovicius, M.,164 Wing, L.,68, 72 Zillmer, E.,144 Winikates, D., 323, 325, 328, 331, 322 %irnowski, M.,291 Winslow, J.,75,78 o h a n , 322, J.,290 Wise, B.,293, 302, 308, 317, Z321, Zook, D., 294 323,324,325,335,336,337

+

A Achievement Tests, 1 AB, 125,126,127,128,129,130 AB Performance, 125 ABDR, 130,132 Academic, 24,31,35 42,44,47 Academic Attention, 34 Academic Difficulties, 24 Academic performance, 24,25 Academic Status, 24 Achievement, 42,269,270,285,291,292, 293,294,295,298,214, 295, ' 314,315,316,327,328,329 Achievement Scores, 4, 5,6,7, 10, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20 Achievement Tests, 2, 5, 6,7,8,9, 16, 17,18 Activity, 24, 31, 35, 40, 47, 49 Activity Category, 29 Activity~mpulsivi~, 31, 34, 47 ADHD, 29, 30,44,45, 47,49, 144, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173 Adolescent MIT (ADMIT), 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36,40,42,43,44,47, 48, 49, 50 Affective Signifkance, 68

A-not-B (AB) Tasks, 121 Asociality, 68 Attention, 24, 29, 31,36,40,42,47, 49,113,143,286 Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 24, 162 Attention Scale, 28 Attentional Status, 24 Autism, 68, 70, 71, 72,77, 162, 163, 164,165,167,168,172, 173 Autistic, 67, 73, 77, 127, 164

B Behavior, 31, 34, 36,40,47,49 Behavior Scale, 33 Behavior Scales, 28 Behavioral, 47 Behavioral Broadband Scale,47 Behavioral Scale, 28 Behavioral Status, 24, 28 Biomedical, 2 Biomedical Risk, 2, 3, 5, 8, 17, 18 Biomedical Risks, 4,6, 16, 70 Brain Deficit, 70 Brain Deficits, 57,64, 71, 77 Brain Disorders, 189 Brain Structures, 57

355

356

S U B J E C ~INDEX

om,228,231,232,233,244, Downs, 197 DR, 125,126,127,128,129,130 248 Brain Wave 220 DS, 314,315,317,326 ivity, 188, 189, 193, DS205 Program, 316 Relation, 116 Dyslexia, 118,288,312,313,317,327 B ~ i n - B e h a ~Relations, or 114,115,132 Dyslexic, 217, 311, 314, 316, 318, 320, 321 Dyslexic Children, 216, 217 Dyslexic’s, 319 Canalesthesia, 68 Canalization, 76 E Canalized, 70 Central Nervous System (CNS), 57,133 Ecological Domain, 59 Ecological Domains, 75 ~ h Model ~ of sStages of Reading Ehri’s Model,278 287, 288 Development, 276, E l e c t r o e n c e p h a l o ~(EEG), 188, 189 17 Chronological Age, 2,7, 15, Environmental Factors,6 Classroom Survival Skills Program (CSS), 313,314, 315, 317,Environmental I d u e n c e s , 329 Event-Related Potential (ERP), 192, 326,327 196, 198, 206, 207, 208, 209, CLS, 43 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, CNS,252 217,218, 219, 220 Cognitive Broadband Scale,47 Executive Function, 113, 115, 116, Cognitive Scale, 28 120, 130, 131, 142, 143, 144, C o ~ u n i c a t i o n 232, , 257, 258, 259, 145, 148, 149, 151, 161, 162, 263,264 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 171, Communication Coding Scheme 172,173,174 (CC§), 263 Executive Functions, 114, 115, 117, C o ~ u n i c a t Use ~ e Probes (CUPS), 263 133, 139, 140, 141, 146, 147, Comprehension, 282, 285, 287, 288, 152,153,286 297,298,318,326,329 Connecticut Longitudinal Study (CB), Executive Skill, 132 Executive Skills, 113, 114, 117, 120 24,29 Extended Selective Attention,68 onv versa ti on, 61,62,63,64 Crystallized Intelligence, 196 F CSS, 327 False Negative, 187 Family E n v ~ o n m e n t58 , Flexibility, 141, 143,

Decoding Skills,(DS), 313 144, 151, 158, 161,163,164,166,167 Delayed Response, 121 Developmental Disabilities,116, 133 Flexible, 148, 152 Developmental Disorders,64, 65, 69 Fluid Intelligence, 196 evel lop mental N e u r o p s y c h o l o ~113, , Flynn effect, 6 Focal Cerebral lesions, 226 289,303 Focal ~ a ~ a g225 e , Dexterity, 33,35,36 Disabilities, 18 Frith’s Modelof Word Recognition Down Syndrome, 57,65,66,69,70, Development, 277, 287, 288 Frontal Cortex, 115, 141, 143, 147, 157 71, 72, 73,76, 77, 166

357

SUBJECT

66, 114, 116, 128, 141, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 162,164,173,226 Frontal Lobes, 6 5 , 6 8 , 1 8 9 Frontal Metaphor, 133, 143

Frontal Lobe,

GC, 1 9 7 Gender, 2 8 , 3 5 , 3 6 , 4 7 , 4 9 , 2 0 9 , 3 2 4 Gene, 60 General Ability, 196 Genes, 5 7 , 5 8 Genetic, 65, 73, 133,162, 218, 219,

296,312

Gentry’s Model, 279 Gf, 197

Hemidecorticate, 226 Henderson’s Model, 278 Hippocampus, 6 5 , 6 6 , 6 8 , 7 6 Home Observation for Measurementof the Environment, HOME, 2, Horn,

3,4,6,7,9, 10, 15, 16, 18

l97

I Individual Difference, 323 Individual Differences, 113, 118, 119,

126, 129, 130, 132, 146, 275, 309, 311, 312,313, 315, 316, 321,325,326 Individual Patterns, 1 1 3 Inhibition, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 155, 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172,173,174 Inhibitory Process, 1 7 1 Instructional Methods, 3 1 3 Intellectual, 196, 316 Intellectual Intelligence, 193 Intelligence, 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 118, 188, 189, 190, 193, 196,

198, 204, 205, 218, 231, 232, 258,259,312 Intelligence Scores, 4 , 5 , 6 ,10, 15, 16, 18,20 Intelligence Tests, 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 16, 17, 18 Intentional Communication, 259 Intraindividual, 297 Intraindividual Differences, 2 9 9 , 3 0 3

L Language, 24, 33, 35,47, 142, 143,

187, 188, 190, 193, 203, 204, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 219, 220, 226, 233, 248, 251, 252, 257, 258, 259, 260, 263, 266, 269, 271, 276, 313,314,316,324,326 Language Development, 258 Language Disorders, 226 Language II,42 Language Sample, 245 Learn to Read, 296 Learned To Read, 277 Learning Disabilities, 1 Learning To Read, 2 9 0 , 2 9 1 Left Brain Lesions, 227 Left Hemisphere Lesions, 226 Left Lesions, 227

M Mean Categories Per Utterance,246 Mean Length o f Utterances, 247 Medical Risk, 7 Memory, 1 1 3 , 1 1 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 4 3 , 2 8 2 , 2 8 6 ,

311,324

Mental Retardation, 257, 258, 259, 266 Mimic, 65, 66 Mimicry, 6 0 , 6 1 , 6 4 , 7 4 , 7 5 Multigrade Inventory for Teachers (MIT), 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34,

3 5 , 4 0 , 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 7 , 4 8 , 4 9 , 50

MIT Language, 31 Models of Spelling, 278 Models of Written Communication,279 Modified Mean Length of Utterance, 245

358

SUBJECT INDEX

Monitoring, 143

Phonological Awareness,310, 31 1, 322,323,324,325

Phonological Processing,312, 315, 316,318,321,327,328

Naming, 225, 2 5 1 , 290, 310, 311, 313,

Place of Articulation (POA), 206, 207,

Naming Errors, 227,240,242,246,

Planning, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 150,

Naming Problems, 228 Narrative, 226, 288 Neuroimaging Technologies, 148 Neurotransmitter, 75 Neuro~nsmitters,71 Non Speech Sounds, 2 11 No~eadingSkill, 3 1 5 Nonreading Skills, 310 Nonword Reading, 315

Posterior Lesions,225 Prefrontal, 162 Prefrontal Cortex6,66, 114,1 1 5 , 128, 129, 141, 142, 149, 157, 162, 165

321,324,326,328

248,249

Occipital Lobe,67 Occipital Lobes,67 Oppositional-De~ant Disorder (ODD), 29, 31, 34,47,49 Oral Written Language Stimulation (oms), 313,314, 315, 317, 326 Orthographic, 278, 282, 284, 285, 287, 288, 289, 292, 294, 296, 297, 300

Orthography, 3 16

208

151,163,164,171,280

R Read To Learn, 277,287 Reading, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 294, 295,296,298,300, 301, 309,310,317,323,326

Reading Acquisition,310 Reading Comprehension, 315 Reading Disabilities, 168, 285,328, 329

Reading Disability,42,43, 48, 49, 50, 163,310,313,315,318

Reading Disabled, 166, 309,312, 326 Reading Skill, 310, 31 1 Reading Skills, 216, 218,316 Remediated, 313 Remediation, 311, 312, 321, 322, 329 Rett Syndrome, 57,65,66,69,70,71, 72,75,76,77

Parietal Lobe,68 Parietal Lobes, l 8 9 Perception, 143

PH”D1,319,320,326,327

Phenylketonuria ( P W , 162, 163, 164, 165,166,168,172,173, 197 Phineas Gage, 114

Right Brain Lesions, 226,277 Right Hemisphere, 64,129,210,211, 213,215,217

Right Hemisphere Lesions, 226 Right Lesions, 227 S S W , 258,259,260,262,263,264,265,

Phonemic Awareness,319 266,269,270 Phonics Method, 276 SES,2 , 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 1 01,5 , 16, 18 Phonological, 282, 283, 284, 285, 287, Sex Differences, 126, l 8 9 Sight Work Method,276 288, 289,292,294, 296, 297, Social Cohesion,59, 60,64 300

359

SUBJECT INDES Social Domain, 5 9 , 7 5 Social Interaction, 6 0 , 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 4 , 6 6 , 67, 6 8 , 7 0 , 7 2 , 7 3 , 7 4 ,77 Social Interaction Skills, 57 Social-Env~onment Scores,18 Social-Env~onmental Measures, 9 Social-Env~onmental Variables, 16 Speech Disorders, 226 Speech Perception, 206, 207 Speech Skills, 218 Speech Sound Discrimination,206,208 Speech Sounds, 2 0 5 , 2 0 6 , 2 0 9 , 2 1 1 , 212,216 Stage Model, 2 7 7 , 2 8 1 Stage Models, 275, 286,289,295 Structural Equation Modeling,131 St~cture-FunctionRelation, 119 Structure-Functions Relations, 132 System For ~ugmenting Language, 271

T TBI, 228 Temporal, 66 Temporal Lobe, 68 Temporal Lobes, 189 Text Generation, 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 Time In School, 2 , 6 , 7 , 10, 17 Tower of Hanoi ("OH), 1 3 1 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , 151, 152, 162, 163, 164, 165, 169,171 Tower of London (TOL), 141,151, 152,171 Total Verbalizations,245 Total Word-Finding Categories, 246 Transcription, 280 Traumatic Brain Injury 226, 250, 251

True Positive, 187 Tumor Subgroup, 2 4 6 , 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 Tumor Subgroups, 2 3 5 , 2 3 8 , 2 3 9 , 2 4 0 , 242,244,249 Tumors, 228

V Verbal Abilities, 17, 18 Verbal Scores, 2,20, 203 Verbal Scores, 2 0 , 2 0 3 Verbal Skills, 2 1 3 , 2 1 4 Visual Event-Related Potential@%RP), 190, 192, 193, 196, 197, 198, 203,204,206 Vocabulary Assessment Measures (VAMs), 263, 265 Voice Onset Time(VOT), 206,207,208

W Williams Syndrome, 57,65, 67,68,69, 70, 7 1 , 7 6 , 7 7 Wisconsin Card Sorting Test(WCST), 141,148,151,158,167 Word Identification Strategy Training (WIST), 3 1 9 , 3 2 0 , 3 2 6 , 3 2 7 Word Recognition Skill, 277 Working memo^, 1 2 1 , 1 4 0 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 , 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151,152 153,154,155,156, 157, 158, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174,282,184,310 Writing, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 294,295,298,299 Written Communication, 280