Literature which either supports or refutes a higher incidence of cognitive impulsivity in learning disabled (LD) children is critically reviewed to illustrate past inconsistencies in methodology and resulting interpretive distortions. Issues addressed include: the inappropriateness of generalizing from findings based on sample-specific methodologies with the Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT), the lack of research incorporating MFFT norms, inconsistent administration of the MFFT, and inconsistencies in sample characteristics. Cognitive-tempo classification methodologies are also discussed. Although conclusions suggest some evidence of a cognitive impulsivity-LD link, such a connection is clouded by past methodological inconsistencies. Methodological changes are proposed to aid future researchers in clarifying the relationship between impulsivity and LD.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArizmendiT.PaulsenK.DominoG. (1981). The Matching Familiar Figures Test: A primary, secondary, and tertiary evaluation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37 (4), 812–818.
2.
AultR.L.MitchellC.HartmannD.P. (1976). Some methodological problems in reflectivity-impulsivity research. Child Development, 47, 227–231.
3.
BarrettD.E. (1977). Reflection-impulsivity as a predictor of Children's academic achievement. Child Development, 48, 1443–1447.
4.
BeckerL.D. (1976). Conceptual tempo and the early detection of learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9 (7), 433–442.
5.
BeckerL.D.BenderN.N.MorrisonG. (1978). Measuring impulsivity-reflection: A critical review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11 (10), 24–30.
6.
BlackmanS.GoldsteinK.M. (1982). Cognitive styles and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15 (2), 106–115.
7.
BlockJ.BlockJ.H.HarringtonD.M. (1971). Some misgivings about the Matching Familiar Figures Test as a measure of reflection-impulsivity. Developmental Psychology, 10, 611–632.
8.
BrentD.I.RouthD.K. (1978). Response cost and impulsive word recognition errors in reading disabled children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 211–219.
9.
BrownR.T. (1980). Impulsivity and psychoeducational intervention in hyperactive children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13 (5), 19–24.
10.
CairnsE.CammockT. (1978). Development of a more reliable version of theMatching Familiar Figures Test. Developmental Psychology, 14, 555–560.
11.
CullinanD.EpsteinM.H.LloydJ.NoelM. (1980). Development of cognitive tempo in learning disabled and normal children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3, 46–53.
12.
EgelandB. (1974). Training impulsive children in the use of more efficient scanning techniques. Child Development, 45, 165–171.
13.
EpsteinM.H.CullinanD.SternbergL. (1977). Impulsive cognitive tempo in severe and mild learning disabled children. Psychology in the Schools, 4, 8–20.
14.
EpsteinM.H.HallahanD.O.KauffmanJ.M. (1975). Implications of the reflectivity-impulsivity dimension for special education. Journal of Special Education, 9, 11–25.
15.
HallahanD.O.KauffmanJ.M.BallD.W. (1973). Selective attention and cognitive tempo of low achieving and high achieving sixth-grade males. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 579–583.
16.
KaganJ. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36, 609–628.
17.
KaganJ. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 17–24.
18.
KaganJ.RosmanB.L.DayD.AlbertJ.PhillipsW. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 78, (whole no. 578).
19.
KeoghB.K.DonlonG.M. (1972). Field dependence, impulsivity, and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5 (6), 331–336.
20.
LoperA.B.HallahanD.P. (1980). A comparison of different statistical procedures for determining the relationship between cognitive tempo and reading achievement. Journal of General Psychology, 102, 89–97.
21.
MannL. (1973). Differences between reflective and impulsive children in tempo and quality of decision making. Child Development, 44, 272–279.
22.
MesserS.B. (1970). Reflection-impulsivity: Stability and school failure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 487–490.
23.
MesserS.B. (1976). Reflection-impulsivity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1026–1052.
24.
NagleR.J.ThwaiteB.C. (1979). Are learning disabled children more impulsive? A comparison of learning disabled and normal-achieving children on Kagan'sMatching Familiar Figures Test. Psychology in the Schools, 16 (3), 351–355.
25.
QuayL.C.WeldG.L. (1980). Visual and auditory selective attention and reflection-impulsivity in normal and learning disabled boys at two age levels. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8 (1), 117–125.
26.
RossA.O. (1976). Psychological aspects of learning disabilities & reading disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
SalkindN.J. (1978). Development of norms for theMatching Familiar Figures Test. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, No. 61 (Ms. No. 1718).
28.
SalkindN.J.WrightJ.C. (1977). The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency: an integrated model. Human Development, 377–387.
29.
WalkerN.W. (1981). Modifying impulsive responding to four WISC-R subtests. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 335–339.
30.
WalkerN.W. (1982). Comparison of cognitive tempo and time estimation in young boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 715–722.
31.
WalkerN.W. (1984). Cognitive tempo categorization inconsistencies as a function of the method of interpreting MFFT data. Manuscript submitted for publication. (a)
32.
WalkerN.W. (1984). Whatever happened to the norms for the Matching Familiar Figures Test? Manuscript submitted for publication. (b)
33.
WikeE.L. (1971). Data analysis. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
34.
ZuckerJ.StrickerG. (1968). Impulsivity-reflectivity in preschool headstart and middle-class children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 24–30.
