88 institutionalized retardates were dichotomized by sex and by two ordinal positions of birth, i.e., “first-born” and “later-born.” It was hypothesized that later-borns would improve more in academic achievement than first-borns over an academic year regardless of level of achievement. Also, it was hypothesized that females would improve more than males. The first hypothesis was supported, but no general sex differences were found. Results were discussed in relation to varied patterns of social reinforcement indigenous to institutional staffing patterns.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BensbergG. J.The relation of academic achievement of mental defectives to mental age, sex, institutionalization and etiology. Amer. J. ment. Defic., 1953, 58, 327–330.
2.
ClelandC. C.PattonW. F.Sustained versus interrupted institutionalization. Paper read at The Kennedy International Awards Symposium, Boston, Mass., April, 1966.
3.
CochranI. L.ClelandC. C.Manifest anxiety of retardates and normals matched as to academic achievement. Amer. J. ment. Defic., 1963, 67, 539–542.
4.
GrayH.VotawD. F.RogersJ. L.Manual of directions and interpretations for the Gray-Votaw-Rogers General Achievement Tests. Austin: Steck, 1962.
5.
JacobsJ. N.A study of performance of slow learners in the Cincinnati public schools on mental and achievement tests. Amer. J. ment. Defic., 1957, 63, 238–243.
6.
JonesR. L.GrossF. P.Van WhyE. L.A longitudinal study of reading achievement in a group of adolescent institutionalized mentally retarded children. Train. Sch. Bull., 1960, 57, 41–47.
7.
MalpassL. F.MarkS.PalermoD. S.Responses of retarded children to the CMAS. J. educ. Psychol., 1960, 51, 305–308.
8.
ManningW. H.DuBoisP. H.Gain in proficiency as a criterion in test validation. J. appl. Psychol., 1958, 42, 191–194.
9.
ManningW. H.DuBoisP. H.Correlational methods in research on human learning. Percept. mot. Skills, 1962, 15, 187–321. (Monogr. Suppl. 3-V15).
10.
RankinE. F.TracyR. J.Residual gain as a measure of individual differences in reading improvement. J. Reading, 1965, 8, 224–233.
11.
SchachterS.The psychology of affiliation. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1959.
12.
SchachterS.Birth order and sociometric choice. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1964, 68, 453–456.
13.
StevensonH. W.Social reinforcement with children as a function of CA, sex of examiner, and sex of subject. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 147–154.
14.
ThurstoneT. G.An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular classes. Washington: U. S. Office of Education, 1960. (Project No. 168).
15.
WellerL.The relationship of birth order to anxiety: a replication of the Schachter findings. Sociometry, 1962, 25, 415–417.
