Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Normally functioning children (22 each at grades K, 2, 4, and 6) were exposed to the iconic-symbolic (I-S) subtest of the Muma Assessment Program (Muma & Muma, 1979). Instructions recommended for the I-S subtest (a classification task) were revised to align them with other studies of classification found in the literature. In a further departure from standard I-S testing protocols, subjects were required to provide rationale statements that justified their object pairings. Rationales then were evaluated on the degree of isomorphism between the object grouping criteria presumed a priori by the I-S and the actual criteria provided by subjects. Compared to an earlier study that used I-S materials, current results showed a higher level of isomorphic rationale under revised instruction; a non-linear relationship between subject age and selection of symbolic (ostensibly more abstract) object pairings; a tendency for subjects at grade 2 and older to shift their classification criteria as the test progressed. Results are related to the stage model of representation on which the I-S is based. Implications for the clinical evaluation of classification are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abkarian, G. G. (1986). Object grouping strategies by adults: Evaluating a class act. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 110-119.

Abkarian, G. G. (in press) Clinical evaluation of children's classification behavior. Journal of Communication Disorders.

Anglin, J. (1977). Word, object and conceptual development. New York: Norton.

Bruner, J. , Olver, R. , & Greenfield, P. (Eds.). (1966). Studies in cognitive growth. New York: John Wiley.

Burgemeister, B. , Blum, L. , & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Clark, E. (1973). What's in a word? In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65-110). New York: Academic Press.

Crager, R. , & Spriggs, A. (1972). The Development of Concepts Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Greenfield, P. , Reich, L. , & Olver, R. (1966). On culture and equivalence: II. In J. Bruner , R. Olver , & P. Greenfield (Eds.), Studies in cognitive growth (pp. 270-318). New York: John Wiley.

Harris-Schmidt, G. (1983). Conceptualization. In C. Wren (Ed.), Language learning disabilities (pp. 217-236). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

10.

Inhelder, B. , & Piaget, J. (1969). The early growth of logic in the child. New York: Norton.

11.

Israel, L. (1984). Word knowledge and word retrieval. In G. Wallach & K. Butler (Eds.). Language learning disabilities in school age children (pp. 230-250). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

12.

Martin, A. , & Fedio, P. (1983). Word production and comprehension in Alzheimer's disease: The breakdown of semantic knowlege. Brain and language, 19, 124-141.

13.

Muma, J. , & Muma, S. (1979). Muma Assessment Program (MAP). Lubbock, TX: Natural Child.

14.

Muma,J. , Pierce, S. , & Muma, D. (1983). Language training in speech-language pathology. Asha, 25, 6, 25-40.

15.

Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: Interrelationship in acquisition and development. Psychological Review, 81, 267-285.

16.

Rosch, E. (1977). Human categorization. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1-49). London: Academic Press.

17.

Sigel, I. , & Cocking, R. (1977). Cognitive development from childhood to adolescence: A constructivist perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

18.

Whitehouse, A. , Caramazza, A. , & Zurif, E. (1978). Naming in aphasia: Interacting effects of form and function. Brain and Language, 6, 63-74.

Object Grouping in Children: A Revised Look at the Iconic-Symbolic Approach

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References