This study examined the relationship between tempo, as measured by the Matching Familiar Figures Test, the ability to regulate tempo, and teachers' ratings of children's performance in first grade. Data suggest that both tempo and the ability to regulate tempo are related to children's performance in first grade, and that dimensions are additive. On all tasks administered, errors accounted for more of the variance in children's performance than did response time. These results are consistent with recent reports critical of the matching task. Sex differences were also noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AultR.MitchellC.HartmannD.Some methodological problems in reflection-impulsivity research. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 1975.
2.
BlockJ.BlockJ.HarringtonD.Some misgivings about the Matching Familiar Figures Test as a measure of reflection-impulsivity. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 611–632.
3.
EymanR.MeyersE.BendelR.New methods for test selection and reliability assessment using stepwise multiple regression and jackknifing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 883–894.
4.
FornessS.Screening kindergarten children for early intervention through direct observation of classroom behavior. Technical Report, Univer. of California, Los Angeles, 1973.
5.
HarrisonA.NadelmanL.Conceptual tempo and inhibition of movement in black preschool children. Child Development, 1972, 43, 657–668.
6.
KaganJ.Impulsive and reflective children: significance of conceptual tempo. In KrumboltzJ. D. (Ed.), Learning and the educational process. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Pp. 131–161. (a)
7.
KaganJ.Reflection—impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 609–628. (b)
8.
KaganJ.Reflection—impulsivity: the generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1966, 7, 17–24.
9.
KaganJ.RosmanB.DayD.AlbertJ.PhillipsW.Information processing in the child: significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, General and Applied, 1964, 78, No. 1 (Whole No. 578).
10.
KeoghB.DonlanJ.Field dependence, impulsivity, and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, 5, 331–337.
11.
KeoghB.HallB.BeckerL.Early identification of exceptional children for educational programming. Technical Report, Univer. of California, Los Angeles, 1974.
12.
LewisM.RauschM.GoldbergJ.DoddC.Error, response time, and IQ: sex differences in cognitive style in preschool children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 563–568.
13.
LooC.WenarC.Activity level and motor inhibition: their relationship to intelligence test performance in normal children. Child Development, 1971, 42, 967–971.
14.
MaccobyE.DowleyE.HagenJ.DegermanR.Activity level and intellectual functioning in normal preschool children. Child Development, 1965, 36, 761–770.
15.
MaccobyE.JacklinC.The psychology of sex differences. Palo Alto: Stanford Univer. Press, 1974.
16.
SalkindN.Errors and latency on the MFFT: a reassessment of classification strategies. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Meeting, Denver, Colorado, 1975.
