A COMPAMSGN OF THE PERFORMANCE Q? KENQEgGAM-‘EN CHILDREN WON! CULWEALLY DEPRWED HOMES AND CHILD-REM FRGM NORaCULTUfiALLY DEPRNEE} HQMES USING THE ELLENCIIS TEST OF PSYCHCLINGUWTIC AEELETIES Thesis for flu Degree of M. A. WCHEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Suzanne B. Miils £966 L I B R A R Y ‘ Michigan State University THESIS ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN FROM CULTURALLY DEPRIVED HOMES AND CHILDREN FROM NON-CULTURALLY DEPRIVED HOMES USING THE ILLINOIS TEST OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ABILITIES by Suzanne B. Mills The purpose of this study was to determine whether any difference existed between children from culturally deprived homes and children from non-culturally deprived homes in the area of psycholinguistics as measured by the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). Psycholinguistic abilities which were studied and compared were those defined by the authors of the ITPA, Samuel Kirk and James McCarthy. There were nine such abilities assessed in the nine subtests which make up the battery of the ITPA. There was a total of sixty subjects used in this study, thirty who were from culturally deprived backgrounds and thirty who were from at least middle class backgrounds. The control group was matched with the experimental group on the basis of race, sex, and age. All subjects were enrolled in the Public Schools in Lansing, Michigan. The culturally deprived children had been enrolled in the Operation Headstart Program the previous summer. Suzanne B. Mills The experimental edition of the ITPA, developed in 1961 at the Institute for Research of Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, was used in this study. Statistical comparisons were made between the nine subtests and the total test performance for the control and experimental groups based on the raw scores obtained by each subject. The results of this study indicated that there was a significant difference in the performance of children from culturally deprived homes when compared to the subtest performance of children who were not culturally deprived, the latter being superior. A significantly greater psycho- linguistic ability was evident in children who were not culturally deprived when the results of the total ITPA bat— tery were statistically analyzed. In analyzing the differences between the nine sub- tests, it was evident that children from culturally deprived homes were weaker in certain areas of psycholinguistic abilities than they were in other psycholinguistic areas. It was possible to rank the nine subtests in the order of greatest difference of ability between the two groups. It was suggested that using the above ranking of subtests and with knowledge about the ITPA, this test might be used as a diagnostic tool for planning remedial therapy for culturally deprived children. The author suggests that this be done in pre-school nursery programs or programs like Operation Headstart to help a culturally deprived Suzanne B. Mills child to be more ready to adjust to the classroom situation upon entering kindergarten. A COMPARISON OF THE PERFORMANCE OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN FROM CULTURALLY DEPRIVED HOMES A AND CHILDREN FROM NON—CULTURALLY DEPRIVED HOMES USING THE ILLINOIS TEST OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ABILITIES By Suzanne B. Mills A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Speech 1966 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF APPENDICES . Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE III. SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURE IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDICES . 11 Page iii iv 20 25 35 58 42 Table LIST OF TABLES Mean Scores on Subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for the Control and Experimental Groups . Mean Scores on Total Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for the Control and Experimental Groups . Mean Scores on Subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Negro Subjects in Experimental and Control Groups . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Total Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Negro Subjects in the Control and Experimental Groups . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Mexican Subjects in Control and Experimen- tal Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Total Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Mexican Subjects in the Control and Experimental Groups . Mean Scores on Subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Caucasian Subjects in Control and Experi- mental Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Total Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Caucasian Subjects in the Control and Experimental Groups . Analysis of Difference of Means for Signifi- cant Difference Between Children from Culturally Deprived Homes and Children from Non-culturally Deprived Homes Relative to Performance on the ITPA . iii Page 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 31 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, Development, Model, and an Outline of Psycholinguistic Abilities . . . . . . . . . 43 B. The Clinical Model for the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities . . . 50 C. Raw Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 iv CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introductigg Language is generally admitted to be the most out- standing feature that distinguishes man from the lower animals.l When we consider the tremendous gap between man and the lower animals in intellectual development, we realize to some extent the vast importance of language. The greatest contrast in intellectual development between primitive peoples and the civilized world is essentially a matter of language.2 The acquisition of this important tool, language, is dependent on many things. Recently our attention has been directed to the effects of environment on all phases of child development. But as early as 1951 Goodenough and Anderson found that: Upon the average, children who come from the better socio-economic classes stand higher on intelligence tests, are more advanced in language, sleep more, are less likely to fail in school . . . 5 lDorothea McCarthy, The Language Development of the Preschool‘Child (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1950), p. 2. 21bid. 5F. Goodenough and J. E. Anderson, Eggeptional Child Study (New York: Century 00., 1931), p. 235. 1 Since language is so important in intellectual development, the effect that the environment of the culturally deprived child might play on language ability should be researched. Statement of Problem and firpoge othudy Language ability involves more than the production of words. It includes the psychological foundation for this behavior, the structures of language, and the rela- tionship of the two (psycholinguistics).l Many children from culturally deprived homes have difficulty adjusting to the classroom situation upon entering school in the early years. Often the adjustment problem is due to communication difficulties. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) developed in 1961 by Samuel Kirk and James McCarthy is a diagnostic test designed to detect specific abilities and disabilities in children. It defines nine psycholin- guistic abilities and has subtests for each one so that specific psycholinguistic problems can be pinpointed. The purpose of this study is to see how children from culturally deprived homes compare with children from non- culturally deprived homes in the area of psycholinguistics as measured by the ITPA. It is thought that the answers 1Dorothy Sievers et a1., Selected Studies on the Illinois Tegtgof ngcholinguistic Abilities (Madison, Wisconsin: Photo Press, Inc., Xer-Lite Service, 1965), p. 27. to the following questions can, in part, be obtained: (1) Do children from culturally deprived homes perform differently than children from non-culturally deprived homes in the areas of psycholinguistics which are measured by the ITPA? (2) If so, in what areas (subtests) are there significant differences? (3) With knowledge about the ITPA, can it be used with children from culturally deprived homes as a diagnostic tool to design a school program in language to meet their needs? Hypotheses The first two questions can be used for the follow— ing null hypotheses: 1. There is no significant difference between the mean scores obtained by the children from culturally deprived homes and children from non-culturally deprived homes on any of the nine subtests of the ITPA. 2. There is no significant difference between the ITPA mean total scores obtained by children from culturally deprived homes and non-culturally deprived homes. Importance of Stggy It is clear that children do not come to school equally prepared for the learning tasks of the first 4 grade.1 Until recently, differences in children's IQ's were attributed largely to native endowment; very little of the variation was attributed to the effects of environment. At the present time, the literature is filled with reports of studies which relate socio-economic level and results of intelligence tests; and the general conclusion is, as Kawin states it: The literature, reporting various types of studies in various parts of the world reveals a general trend for the level of intelligence (as measured by standard intelligence tests) to rise with socio-econgmic level, so far as children are concerned. However, McCarthy points out: It is possible that the lower intelligence test scores obtained by the children of the lower occupational group may be a function of slower linguistic development and since tests involving linguistic ability preponderate in the standard intelligence tests, the children in the upper occupational class may be placed at an advantage in the test situation.3 Goodenough and Shapiro, when examining the language factor in standard intelligence tests concurred with McCarthy's thoughts when they found that I'the greatest 1Benjamin S. Bloom et al., Compensatory Education for Cultugal Deprivation (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965), p. 12. 2Ethel Kawin, Children of Preschool Age: Studies in Socio-Econgmic StatusL Social Adjgstment and Mental Ability, with Illustpative Caseg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 119-120. 3McCarthy, op. cit., p. 148. superiority of the group from the upper socio-economic group was on language tests."l There are presently two points of view on intelligence and language ability: 1. One point of view holds that language ability is a measure of intelligence. 2. The opposing viewpoint is that language is chiefly a product of environment, dependent upon environmental richness and paucity. Kawin feels it is impossible at the present time to determine which of these hypotheses is correct. But she states: "Language development certainly appears to be intimately associated with growth in intelligence gg measured by,;ptelligence pggpg."2 In a study which juggled the language factor in the tests between two different socio-economic groups, Kawin concluded that " . . . the significant differences found between the test results . . . are primarily due to lan- guage factor.“5 If we could single out this factor of language and analyze it through a battery of tests designed to detect specific abilities and disabilities in the children tested, 1F. Goodenough and G. Shapiro, ”The Performance of Preschool Children of Different Social Groups on the Kuhlmann-Binet Tests,“ qurnal of Educational Research, XVIII (November, 1928), 361. 2Kawin, op. cit., p. 153. 5Ibid., p. 152. we would be able to work on the areas of language in which children from culturally deprived homes prove to be the weakest. This would help them upon entering school to be equally prepared, at least in the areas of language, for the learning tasks of the first grade. The author hopes that the results of this study will help fill this need. Definition of Term; For the purpose of this study, the terms used are defined in the following manner: Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilitigg (ITPA)-- A standardized test developed in 1961 by Samuel A. Kirk and James J. McCarthy for the purpose of identifying psycholinguistic abilities and disabilities in children between the ages of two and one-half and nine (See Appendix A). Psycholinguistic Abilities--The relationship between the psychological foundations for the production of speech and the structures of the language. Language--Any system of recognized symbols to pro- duce or prevent specific responses of thoughts, or feelings, or actions.1 Children from Culturally Depgived Homegg-Children who were included in the Operation Headstart Program in the 1Jon Eisenson, The Psychology of Speech (New York: F. S. Crofts, and Co., 1938), p. 3. Public Schools of Lansing, Michigan, and were selected by officials of the program as meeting the following United States Government regulations: The children were to be from disadvantaged homes, most of which were on public assistance. A family of four could have an income of no greater than $3,000 annually with an allowance of 8500 for each additional child. Organization of the Thegig Chapter I contains a statement of the problem and the purpose of the study. It sets forth the hypotheses to be considered, the importance of the study, and defines certain terms as they are to be used in this study. Chapter II contains a review of the literature which pertains to this topic. Chapter III contains a discussion of the subjects used in this study, the equipment employed, and the procedures employed in securing and analyzing the rele- vant data. Chapter IV contains a discussion of the results of the study. Chapter V contains a summary, the conclusions of the study, and implications for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Very few problems in the field of education are as complex as the problems of cultural deprivation. In order for educational facilities to meet the needs of all children, research is continually being conducted. A great deal of research has been done on the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and intelligence. This prompted researchers to delve further into the part language played in determining the intelligence quotient and in turn led researchers to studies on language alone. It is necessary to be acquainted with the Goodenough Scheme of Classification1 in order to understand research done among various social classes, as it is the scale that is used by a majority of researchers. It is based on the occupation of the father and grouped according to the following classifications: lFlorence L. Goodenough, "The Kuhlmann-Binet Tests for Children of Preschool Age: A Critical Study and Evaluation,” University of Minnesota Institute of Child Welfare, Monograph Series, No. 2 (1928), 146. 8 Group I: Professional Group II: Semi-professional, managerial Group III: Clerical, skilled trades, retail businessmen Group IV: Semi-skilled Group V: Slightly skilled Group VI: Day laborers The reader is to assume that all research cited in this study is based on this scale unless otherwise indicated. Relationship Between_§ocio-economic Status (SES) and Intelligence One of the early researchers from the standpoint of children and their abilities in reflection to their back- ground was Ethel Kawin. In the early 1930's she compared two groups with very different socio-economic backgrounds. In one group, ninety percent of the fathers were profes- sional and in the other group fifty percent of the fathers ‘were unskilled laborers. 0n the Merrill-Palmer Tests she found very little difference on the IQ scores between her two groups. Laborers' children were not as high, but the clifference was not significant. 0n the Binet, however, the professional children did significantly better.1 Beth Wellman, in her research in connection with the Standies in Child Welfare at Iowa University found similar results to Kawin. Comparison of scores on Merrill-Palmer Tests did not reveal differences between the children \ 1Kawin, op. cit., p. 138. 10 whose fathers were in Group I (Professional) and the children.whose fathers were in lower classes.1 But she, like Kawin, also found that on entrance to preschool, children from higher professional classes have been found to have a significantly higher Binet IQ than child- ren from lower classes.2f Wellman went one step further and placed the child- ren into groups based on parental education. She found no outstanding differences in Merrill-Palmer test results between children whose parents were better educated and children whose parents were less well educated. This again was in contrast to the results she secured on the Binet.5 Morris Krugman, the Associate Superintendant of Schools in New York City states: City wide testing in New York City Schools showed that third graders in a large, low socio-economic district had a median IQ ten points lower than that of all third graders throughout the city. The median IQ of sixth graders from the same area was seventeen points lower and that of eighth graders, twenty points lower than the median IQ for the entire city.4 1Beth Wellman, "The Intelligence of Preschool Children as Measured by the Merrill-Palmer Scale of Per- formance Tests," Ipwa:gniversity, Studie§_in Child Welfare, XV, No. 3 (1938), 80. 21bid., p. 78. 31b1d., p. 94 4Morris Krugman, "The Culturally Deprived Child in School," NEA Journal, L (April, 1961), 23. ll Atkins compared a combined Group I (Professional), Group II (Semi-professional), with a Group VI (Day laborers) on a general intelligence Object-Fitting Test. On the basis of non-verbal actions, results showed the mean IQ of Group I-Group II, was sixteen points higher.1 McHugh studied a select group of children, only two of whom were from laborers' families. The test employed was the 1937 Stanford-Binet Revision. McHugh found in a test-retest situation of kindergarteners that the socio- economic and educational status of the parents and home ratings were not found to be specifically related to IQ gains on a test-retest basis, but evidence was offered for a positive relationship between lack of school-like experience before entrance to school (Sunday School, camp, etc.) and gain in IQ after school experience. He concluded that IQ gains resulting from the experience in school were adjustmental gains rather than growth in IQ.2 We can see that the literature reveals a general trend for the level of intelligence to rise with socio- economic level. But the author restates McCarthy's view, previously cited in Chapter I: 1R. E. Atkins, “The Measurement of the Intelligence of Young Children by An Object-Fitting Test,” University of Minnesota Institute of Child Welfare, Monograph Series, No. 5 (1930), 201. 2Gelolo McHugh, "Changes in IQ at the Public School Kindergarten Level," Psychological Monographg, LV, No. 2, Whole No. 250 (1943), 29-32. 12 It is possible that the lower intelligence test scores obtained by the children of the lower occupational group may be a function of slower linguistic development and since tests involv- ing linguistic ability preponderate in the standard intelligence tests, the children in the upper occupational class may belplaced at an advantage in the test situation. This leads up to the literature on the relationship between socio-economic status and language. Relationship_Between Socio-economic Status and Language When studying the development of language, we must study a child from the moment of birth. Irwin studied the relationships between age, parental occupational status, and the use by the infant of speech-sound types. He found that during the first eighteen months, there was little difference in sound production of infants whose parents were professional, business, or clerical workers as compared with infants reared in homes where the fathers were laborers. After eighteen months, however, clear-cut differences began to appear in favor of children from the professional, business, and clerical groups. Irwin attributed the dif- ference to the greater amount of parental stimulation for speech the infants receive in the non-laboring group.2 lMcCarthy, loc. cit. 20. C. Irwin, "Infant Speech: The Effect of Family Occupational Status and of Age on Sound Frequency,” Journal 9f Speech and HearingDisorders, XIII, No. 4 (1948), 322. 13 Different aspects of language have been analyzed in separate studies. McCarthy studied, among other things, the mean length of response; and she found interesting trends when considered in relation to parental occupa— tion. She found a clear superiority of Group I (Profes- sional) over all occupation groups, and the occupation groups appeared in the expected positions at nearly all age levels.1 In connection with length of response, McCarthy examined the test results of children from bi-lingual homes. It is interesting to note that: The hearing of a foreign language in the home does not seem to be a serious handicap to linguistic development as measured by the mean length of response. McCarthy also studied the mean length of sentence. For this study she combined Groups I, II, and III, (pro- fessional, semi-professional, and clerical) and compared their test results with a combined Group IV, V, and VI, (semi—skilled, slightly skilled, day laborers). The mean length of sentence proved to be significantly superior statistically for the upper groups."5 In an analysis of parts of speech based on parental occupation, McCarthy found "nouns are a higher percentage of the total number of words used by the children who 1McCarthy, op. cit., pp. 56-57. 21bid., p. 67. 51b1d., p. 57. l4 belong in the lower occupational group."1 This is in line with other findings on occupational group differences be- cause a larger percentage of other types of words indicate a higher stage of linguistic development. When making a construction analysis of language, McCarthy found the children of upper occupational groups to be markedly superior to those of the lower occupational groups on all items.2 In a functional analysis of language McCarthy found that children in the upper occupation groups have much larger proportions of adapted information and of questions than do those in the lower occupation groups, based both on chronological age and when compared on mental age."5 In 1941, Florence Young did several studies on aspects of language when comparing two groups of children of different SES. One group, labeled Regular Subjects, came from homes "of superior socio-economic status.” The other group, labeled Relief Cases, were from "less fortunate circumstances where government aid was being received." Young's results on the study of length of response supported McCarthy's earlier findings when Young stated: ”Regular subjects were superior to relief lIbid., p. 125. 21bid., p. 110. 31bid., p. as. 15 cases in mean length of response."l Young also found that "when compared as to amounts of verbal behavior . . . regular subjects are superior to relief subjects, the difference being statistically reliable."2 In all of Smith's studies on language development, the relationship between language and mental age was found to be as close as between language and chronological age.:5 Kawin ran several studies on language tests between groups of children classified according to Goodenough's scale and found that "children in Class A (Groups I, II, III--professional, semi-professional, clerical) were found definitely superior in language tests to those in Class B (Groups IV, V, VI--semi-skilled, slightly skilled, day laborers).4 While studies on language were flourishing in the United States, A. F. Watts, in 1948, did an extensive study using his vocabulary tests on . . thousands of Birmingham [England] children. The children were divided into two groups 1Florence M. Young, ”An Analysis of Certain Variables in a Developmental Study of OLanguage,' Genetic Psychology Monographs, XXIII (1941), 21bid., p. 31. 5M. E. Smith, "An Investigation of the Development of Sentence and Extent of Vocabulary in Young Children, Universit of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, III, No. 5 (1926). 4Kawin, op. cit., p. 122. 16 representing poor and comparatively well-to-do districts respectively. The results showed that at ten (10) years of age the children from the latter districts were able to score an average of fifty (50) percent more marks than their less fortunately placed fellows, but that as age rose, this advanta e gradually slipped away, and at age fourteen (14 there was little to choose between the two types of child.1 Studies Available Using the ITPA It is only natural that since the ITPA was developed in 1961, it has been the testing tool employed in several research projects. Unfortunately many of these studies are not published, so they are unavailable for review at the present time. Those which have been published used the ITPA with children who have a variety of disorders, hoping to determine the ITPA's ability to differentiate and diagnose these disorders. A selected few of the pub— lished studies will be reviewed here to place more light .on information about the ITPA as a diagnostic tool. James L. Olson used the ITPA to study three groups of children with extreme language disabilities: recep- tive aphasics, expressive aphasics, and deaf children. Olson felt that these children were often mislabeled and that by comparing the behavior of the three groups on the ITPA, their differing patterns of responses would point a 1A. F. Watts, The Language and Mgntal Development of Children (London: D. C. Heath and Company, 1948), pp. 25—26. 17 way toward a relatively clear-cut method of differential diagnosis. His study showed that the clinically diagnosed receptive aphasic children achieved a profile of scores on the ITPA which were similar to the clinical diagnosis. The ITPA profile also seemed to assess more clearly lin— guistic strengths and weaknesses than did the case study type of diagnosis.1 Barbara Bateman used the ITPA on partially seeing children in search of a relationship between the ability to read and the psycholinguistic process. She concluded that the ITPA appears to be an excellent diagnostic aid for determining the level of the visual functioning in partial-seeing children.2 Corrine Kass used the ITPA with children who had severe reading disability not due to mental retardation or to sensory defects. She found that these children tended to have more deficiencies at the integration level than at the representational level of psycholinguistic functioning.5 1James L. Olson, "A Comparison of Receptive Aphasic, Expressive Aphasic, and Deaf Children on the ITPA,” in Dorothy Sievers, et al. (ed.) Selected Studies on phe_;TPA (Madison, Wisconsin: Photo Press, Inc., Her-Lite Service, 1963), pp. 46-69. 2Barbara D. Bateman, "Reading and Psycholinguistic Processes of Partially Seeing Children,‘I Dorothy Sievers, et al. (ed.), ibid., pp. 70-84. 5Corrine E. Kass, "Some Psychological Correlation of Severe Reading Disability," in Dorothy Sievers, et al. (ed.), ibid., pp. 87—95. 18 Smith, using matched pairs of children who were classified as educable mentally retarded ranging in age from seven to ten years, was interested in seeing whether their language age could be increased in a significant amount as a result of three months experimental treatment. In this study on the effects of group language development, he was able to demonstrate that the language age could be increased significantly as obtained by the ITPA.l Janet Kinstle compared two groups of children on the ITPA, one with functional articulation defects and the other with normal speech. She wanted to determine whether any difference existed between their psycholin- guistic abilities. The results of this study indicated that there were only slight differences in the perfor- mances of the children with functional articulatory defects when compared to the subtest performance of children with normal speech, but on the total ITPA battery children with functional articulatory defects did better. She concluded that the ITPA can be useful as a diagnostic tool for plan, ning remedial therapy for children with functional articu- lation defects when working with each child separately.2 1James Otto Smith, "Group Language Development for Educable Mental Retardates," Exceptional Children, XXIX (October, 1962), 95—101. 2Janet S. Kinstle, "A Comparison of the Performance of Children with Functional Articulation Defects to Child- ren with Normal Speech on the Illinois Test of Psycho- linguistic Abilities,“ (Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964). 19 Since the ITPA is such a relatively new test there is always a need for further research to determine its practical application. CHAPTER III SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, AND Paocsnuns Subjects A total of sixty subjects was used in this study, thirty who were from culturally deprived backgrounds and thirty who were from at least middle class backgrounds. The thirty culturally deprived children made up the experimental group and the thirty non-culturally deprived children were considered as the control group. The experimental group consisted of subjects who had all been enrolled in the Operation Headstart Program in the Public Schools of Lansing, Michigan, in the summer of 1965 and were, in order to qualify for this program, from culturally deprived backgrounds as determined by Government standards. There were one hundred and seventy children enrolled in the pre-school program in centers scattered throughout the city. At the request of the Lansing School Research Director only the children from three schools were available for this study. These three schools--Ka1amazoo Street School, Allen Street School, and High Street School--had a total of sixty-six children who had been enrolled in the pre-school program and who were presently enrolled in regular kindergarten classes. 20 21 These subjects' names were divided into three groups-- Negroid, Mexican, and Caucasian--and a random sample of ten (five boys and five girls) was selected from each group. All of the subjects in the experimental group were of legal kindergarten age as determined by the Lansing Public Schools. They were five years of age on or before December 1, 1965. The mean age of the group was five years, ten months at the time of testing. The mean age for the Caucasian children was five years, nine months; for the Negroid children five years, ten months; for the Mexican children five years, ten months. The IQ's of the subjects were determined by the author on the basis of the results of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT).1 The mean IQ for the experimental group was 92.7. The mean IQ for the Caucasian children was 103.5; for the Negroid children, 89; for the Mexican children 85.6. The children in the control group were matched to the children in the experimental group on the basis of race, sex, and age (all met the stipulation of the legal kindergarten age). At the request of the Lansing School Research Director these children were selected from the lLloyd M. Dunn, Peabody Pictupe Vocabulary Test (Minpeapolis, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, Inc., 1965 . 22 remaining kindergarteners in the same three schools. After the total group of remaining kindergarteners was divided into six groups (three by race, and again divided by sex), the final control group was randomly selected. For informational purposes it is pointed out that this randomly-selected control group had a mean age of six years. The mean age for the Caucasian children was six years even; for the Negroid children six years, three months; and for the Mexican children five years, nine months. The IQ's for the control group were determined by the author on the basis of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. The mean IQ of the control group was 101.1. The mean IQ for the Caucasian children was 110.8; for the Negroid children 99.7; and for the Mexican children 93. As the reader can easily detect, the author did not match the two groups on the basis of IQ. Nine out of the thirty children in the experimental group had an IQ which fell below 80, the cut-off point for the classification of educable mentally retarded in the Lansing Public Schools. In this experience of testing the IQ's of children from homes not classified as low socio-economic status, only one child was found to be below 80. A review of the literature had revealed statistical evidence that the IQ's of children from lower socio-economic status are lower on standard intelligence tests, due probably from the standpoint of 23 the language factor inherent in the standard intelligence test. Therefore, the IQ factor in the study was not used as a basis of matching groups. The author's purpose in doing this study was to see in which areas of language the typical culturally deprived child, competing academically in the regular classroom, was weakest. By eliminating approximately one-third of a given sample on the basis of IQ, the picture of the language pattern on the ITPA of a ”typical culturally deprived child" would have been destroyed. Eguipment The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), devel— oped by Lloyd M. Dunn, Ph.D., Director, Institute on Mental Retardation and Intellectual Development, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tennessee, was used for testing the intelligence of the children. Sixty appro- priate record forms were used to record each child's responses individually. The Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities, developed by Samuel A. Kirk and James J. McCarthy at the Institute for Research on Exceptional Children, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, was used for the language testing. Sixty record forms were used to record each child's responses individually. Testing was done in the individual schools in any available room designated by the Principal. At all times 24 only the examiner and the subject were in the room while the individual tests were administered. Procedure Before any testing was done, the examiner visited each classroom from which subjects would be taken and was intorduced to the class by the teacher. Each child used in the study was seen twice. The first time was for the administration of the Peabody and as a get- acquainted session to establish rapport. The PPVT was administered to all subjects according to the standardized procedure as outlined in the manual. At a follow-up session each child was given the ITPA which was also administered according to the standardized procedure outlined in its respective manual. All of the subjects in the experimental group were tested first; then the subjects in the control group were tested. The subjects were not informed that they were in a test situation because of their age, although they were encouraged to do the best they could at the various tasks. Test results were recorded with as little writing as possible according to the instructions in the manuals. Total ITPA Scores, Language Age Scores, and Standard Scores were assigned to each subject (See Appendix C). CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The test results of the experimental group (thirty children from culturally deprived homes) and the control group (thirty children from non-culturally deprived homes) on the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) were analyzed and compared to determine how these two groups performed on this test. These results may give some indication whether there is a relationship between psycholinguistic ability (as determined by the ITPA) and cultural environment. Methodology Upon the completion of testing with the ITPA, the following scores were obtained for each subject: (1) the raw score of each subtest, (2) the total raw score, (3) the language age for each subtest, (4) the total language age, (5) the standard score for each subtest, and (6) the total standard score (see Appendix C). The mean of the raw scores for each subtest and the total score was calculated for the control group and the experimental group to determine if any difference existed between the mean scores of the two groups on this test performance. The formula described in Blalock's Social 25 26 Statistics1 was employed. The means of the ITPA subtests by groups appear in Table l. The means of the ITPA total scores appear in Table 2. The means of the ITPA subtests and total score were also computed for the experimental and control groups when classified as to whether the subjects were Negroid, Mexican, or Caucasian. This information appears in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The latter material is presented here for information only and will be discussed further in Chapter V under implications for future research. A difference of means test (firtest), as employed by Blalockz, was done to determine if there were a signi- ficant difference in the variation of the test scores in these two groups' performance on the ITPA. The analysis was done between the means of each of the nine subtests for the control group and the experimental group and between the mean total score for the control and experi- mental groups. The results of this analysis are found in Table 9. Results According to Fisher and Yates' Table of the Distribu- tion of 3? with 58 degrees of freedom and a significance lHubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960), p. 46. 21bid., p. 170. 31bid., p. 442. 27 TABLE l.--Mean scores on subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for the control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Subtests Group Group Auditory Decoding 20.50 16.93 Visual Decoding 14.77 12.13 Auditory-Vocal Association 15.80 12.60 Visual-Motor Association 16.77 11.10 Vocal Encoding 18.83 12.93 Motor Encoding 14.87 11.63 Auditory—Vocal Automatic 10.37 6.83 Auditory-Vocal Sequencing 22.06 17.93 Visual-Motor Sequencing 13.23 11.47 TABLE 2.--Mean scores on total Illinois Test of Psycholin— guistic Abilities for the control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Total ITPA Group Group Total ITPA Mean Score 147.23 113.57 28 TABLE 3.—-Mean scores on subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Negro subjects in experimen- tal and control groups. Control Experimental Subtests Group Group Auditory Decoding 19.9 14.4 Visual Decoding 15.2 11.0 Auditory-Vocal Association 16.0 13.0 “ Visual-Motor Association 18.3 10.0 _ Vocal Encoding 17.4 10.8 L! Motor Encoding 14.7 11.0 Auditory-Vocal Automatic 9.6 6.2 Auditory-Vocal Sequencing 23.7 21.3 Visual-Motor Sequencing 13.8 10.9 TABLE 4.--Mean scores on total Illinois Test of Psycho- linguistic Abilities for Negro subjects in the control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Total ITPA Group Group Total ITPA Mean Score 148.7 108.6 29 TABLE 5.--Mean scores on subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Mexican subjects in control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Subtests Group Group Auditory Decoding 18.0 16.9 Visual Decoding 14.3 12.6 Auditory-Vocal Association 13.3 11.6 Visual-Motor Association 15.6 11.6 Vocal Encoding 15.3 13.4 Motor Encoding 12.1 11.9 Auditory-Vocal Automatic 8.9 5.6 Auditory-Vocal Sequencing 19.3 15.8 Visual-Motor Sequencing 12.6 12.0 TABLE 6.-—Mean scores on total Illinois Test of Psycho— linguistic abilities for Mexican subjects in the control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Total ITPA Group Group Total ITPA Mean Score 129.4 111.9 —111 .-_._-—.—--..-~.—T—i __ ._ _ _ L 30 TABLE 7.--Mean scores on subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities for Caucasian subjects in control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Subtests Group Group Auditory Decoding 23.6 19.5 Visual Decoding 14.8 12.8 Auditory-Vocal Association 18.1 13.2 Visual-Motor Association 16.4 11.7 Vocal Encoding 23.8 14.6 Motor Encoding 17.8 12.0 Auditory-Vocal Automatic 12.6 8.2 Auditory—Vocal Sequencing 23.2 16.7 Visual-Motor Sequencing 13.3 11.5 TABLE 8.—-Mean scores on total Illinois Test of Psycho- linguistic Abilities for Caucasian subjects in the control and experimental groups. Control Experimental Total ITPA Group Group Total ITPA Mean Score 163.6 120.2 31 TABLE 9.--Analysis of difference of means for significant difference between children from culturally deprived homes and children from non-culturally deprived homes relative to performance on the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Subtests .3 score Auditory Decoding -2.86 Visual Decoding —3.73 Auditory-Vocal Association -3.69 Visual-Motor Association —5.84 Vocal Encoding -5.31 Motor Encoding -3.29 Auditory—Vocal Automatic -4.l6 Auditory—Vocal Sequencing -3.08 Visual-Motor Sequencing -2.83 Total ITPA -6.59 Degrees of Freedom: 58 Significance Level: .05 Two—tailed Test ,3 of (+-) 2.004 (interpolated) or greater is needed to show a statistically significant difference 32 level of .05 on a two—tailed test, a,3 score of at least (+-) 2.004 is needed to show a statistically significant difference. Looking at the 3 scores for the nine subtests as they appear in Table 9 we can see that each,§ score is greater than (+-) 2.004. The null hypothesis number one, stating that there is no significant difference between these two groups on any of the nine subtests of the ITPA can, therefore, be rejected. In examining the 3 score obtained for the total ITPA, it may be seen that it is greater than (+-) 2.004. The null hypothesis number two, stating that there is no significant difference between the total test performance of the control group and the total test performance of the experimental group, can be rejected, also. As a result of this experiment it appears evident that there is a significant difference between the psycholinguistic ability of children from culturally-deprived homes and children from non-culturally deprived homes. The psycholinguistic ability of children from non- culturally deprived homes is significantly greater statistically in each of the nine subtest areas and in the total area of psycholinguistics than is the psycho- linguistic ability of children from culturally deprived homes. 33 Discussion In analyzing the individual 3 scores obtained for each of the nine subtests and the total score, it is interesting to note that the greatest difference statis- tically was not between the two groups on any one particular subtest area of psycholinguistics. The greatest difference was between the two groups when considering the total area of psycholinguistics. It may be seen, also, in analyzing the differences between the nine subtests that children from culturally deprived homes are weaker in cer- tain areas of psycholinguistic abilities than they are in other areas. If the nine subtests were ranked in the order of greatest difference of ability to least difference of ability they would appear as follows: Visual-Motor Association Vocal Encoding Auditory-Vocal Automatic Visual Decoding Auditory-Vocal Association Motor Encoding Auditory-Vocal Sequencing Auditory Decoding Visual-Motor Sequencing The final and third question raised in Chapter I (With knowledge about the ITPA, can it be used with child- ren from culturally deprived homes as a diagnostic tool 34 to design a school program in language to meet their needs?) may be considered, now, in the light of the above results. It appears to the writer the ITPA could be and should be used as a diagnostic tool to determine the needs of cul- turally deprived children in the area of language. The results of the ITPA testing administered to a group of culturally deprived children in a classroom would show areas of greatest weakness in language and these results could be used to plan a remedial program in language to be adminis- tered to these children before they enter school. Work in the area of psycholinguisticsiJIpre-school programs, such as Operation Headstart, would help a culturally deprived child to be more ready to adjust to the classroom situation upon entering kindergarten. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary Children of different socio-economic backgrounds have been compared in relation to their language develop- ment including length of sentence response, frequency of parts of speech used, and vocabulary. They have also been compared to each other in relation to certain psychological factors. But the combination of these two growth areas-- language and psychological (psycholinguistics), has not been studied previously. With the development of the ITPA in 1961, this type of comparison is now possible. The purpose of this study has been to determine whether a difference exists in the area of psycholinguistics between thirty children from culturally deprived homes and thirty children from non-culturally deprived homes, as evidenced by the results of their performance on the ITPA. Comparisons were made of the mean raw scores of the nine subtests and the mean raw scores of the ITPA total score. These data were treated in a statistical manner and were analyzed accordingly. The composition of the two groups was controlled on the basis of sex, age, and minority 35 36 group, although individuals were not matched on a one-to- one basis. Conclggiong A comparison of the mean raw scores indicated that the control group had a higher score than did the experimen- tal group on the total ITPA test score. Statistical treatment indicated that the difference was significant. A comparison of the mean raw scores on each of the nine subtests indicated that the subjects in the control group were superior in each area. Statistical treatment of these data proved the differences in raw scores to be significant and allowed the ranking of the nine subtests in order of greatest variation. 0n the basis of the results the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The ITPA, when used to compare the psycholinguis— tic ability of children from culturally deprived homes to the same ability in children from non-culturally deprived homes, indicates a significant difference between the two groups. 2. When comparing the same two groups on the indi- vidual subtests, there is a significant difference in the performance on each subtest, with some subtests pointing out a greater degree of variation than other subtests. 37 Implications for Future Research This study has been limited to the anlaysis of the performance of all children in the culturally deprived group to the performance of all children in the non- culturally deprived group on the basis of test results obtained on the ITPA.) It has been suggested in a previous discussion that the ITPA might be used with children from culturally deprived homes as a diagnostic tool to design a remedial program in language. Designing a program based on the results of this study would be a natural area for further research. It would be interesting to study the relationship of race or minority group to psycholinguistic ability. In this study the influence of race and minority group was controlled, and the comparison of control and experi- mental group performance in each of the three groups (Negroid, Mexican, and Caucasian) was presented in Chap- ter IV in tables three through eight on the basis of raw scores alone. Since the groups were so small (only ten in each) further statistical treatment was not pursued. In reviewing the tables, it is evident that in each in- stance the control group did better than the experimental group on the basis of raw score. But an analysis on a larger scale between racial and minority groups might bring further light into psycholinguistic areas which could be pinpointed in a remedial program based on the composition of the group involved. v—n.1—.—_. BIBLIOGRAPHY 38 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Berry, Mildred F., and Eisenson, Jon. Speech Disordergy Principles and Practices of Therapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960. Bloom, Benjamin S., et. at. Compensatory Education for Cultural Deprivation. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965. Eisenson, Jon. The Psychology of Speech. New York: F. S. Crofts, and Co., 19 8. Ford, Donald. The Deprived Child and the Community. London: Constable Publishers, 1955. Goodenough, F., and Anderson, J. E. Exceptional Child Study. New York: Century 00., 1931. Kawin, Ethel. Children of Preschool Age: Studies in Socio-Economic_Statuei Social Adjustment and Mental Abilit with IllustrativppCaaeg. hicago: Univer- sity of hicago Press, 1934. Lewis, Hilda. Deprived Children. London: Oxford Univer— sity Press, 1954. Lewis, M. M. How Children Learn_to Speak. London: George G. Harrop & Co., Ltd., 1957. McCarthy, Dorothea. The Language Development of the Pre- gchool Child. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1930. Terman, L. M., et. a1. Genetic Studies of Genius. Vol I. Stanford University Press, 1926. Watts, A. F. The Language and Mental_Development of Child- ren. London: D. C. Heath and Company, 1948. 39 40 Articles and Periodicalg Atkins, R. E. "The Measurement of the Intelligence of Young Children by An Object-Fitting Test," Univer- sity of Mipnepota_institute of Child Welfare, Monograph Series, No. 5 1930 . Dennis, Wayne. "Infant Development Under Conditions of Restricted Practice and of Minimum Social Stimulation," Genetic Psychology Monographs, XXIII (1941), 145—189. . and Najarian, Pergrouhi. “Infant Development Under Environmental Handicap," Psychological Mono ra hs: General and Applied, LXXI, No. 7 (1957), 1-13. Goodenough, Florence L. "The Kuhlmann—Binet Tests for Children of Preschool Age: A Critical Study and Evaluation," University oprinnesota, Institute of Child WelfareLiMonograph Serieg, No. 2 (1928). . and Shapiro, G. "The Performance of Preschool Children of Different Social Groups on the Kuhlmann- Binet Tests " gournal of Educational Research, XVIII (1928), 3563362. Hollister, William G. "Homes That Nurture Intellect," The PTA Magazine, LVII (May, 1963), 8-10. Irwin, 0. C. "The Infant Speech: The Effect of Family Occupational Status and of Age on Sound Frequency," Journal of S eech and Hearing Disorders, XIII, No. 4 (1948), 320—323. Krugman, Morris. "The Culturally Deprived Child in School," NEA Journal, L (April, 1961), 23—24. McHugh, Gelolo. "Changes in I. Q. at the Public School Kindergarten Level," Ps cholo ical Mono ra hs, LV, No. 2, Whole No. 250 (1943), 1—34. Riessman, Frank. "Teaching the Culturally Deprived," NEA Journal, LII (April, 1963), 20-22. Smith, James Otto. "Group Language Development for Educable Mental Retardates,“ Exceptional Children, XXIX (October, 1962), 95—101. Smith, M. E. "An Investigation of the Development of Sentence and Extent of Vocabulary in Young Children," University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, III, No. 5 (1926). 41 Utter, Lawrence W. "Helping Our Culturally Impoverished Children,“ NEA Journal, LII (November, 1963), 28-30. Wellman, Beth L. "The Intelligence of Preschool Children As Measured by the Merrill—Palmer Scale of Performance Tests, Iowa University, Studies in Child Welfare, XV, No. 3 (1938), 1—149. Young, Florence M. "An Analysis of Certain Variables in a Developmental Study of Language," Genetic Psychology_ Monographs, XXIII (1941), 3141 Reports McCarthy, James and Kirk, Samuel. The Construction, Standardization and Statistical Characteristics of the Illinois Test of Psycholipguistic Abilities. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois_Press, 1963. Sievers, Doroty, et. a1. Selected Studies on the Illinois Test of rPsycholinguistic Abilities. Madison, Wiscon- son: Photo Press, Inc., Ker-Lite Service, 1963. Unpublished Material Kinstle, Janet Stash. "A Comparison of the Performance of Children with Functional Articulation Defects to Children with Normal Speech on the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities." Unpublished Master's dissertation, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, 1964. Other Dunn, Lloyd M. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Minneapolis, Minnesota: American Guidance Service, 1965. APPENDICES 42 APPENDIX A 45 APPENDIX A THE ILLINOIS TEST OF PSYCHOLINGUISTIC ABILITIES Development In order to better understand the results of this study, which uses the ITPA as a basis for comparison between two groups, the author feels that some background informa- tion on the ITPA is essential. The following information is taken from a supplementary booklet by the authors of the test, James J. McCarthy and Samuel A. Kirk entitled: Egg Construction, Standardization and Statistical Characterigr tics of the_;111nois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. The ITPA is the result of a work begun over a decade ago. It was designed to meet the need for one comprehensive instrument for the assessment of psycholinguistic develop- ment in children. The only tests available for linguistic assessment before the development of the ITPA were tests of the picture identification type and normative surveys of language development. A psychological theory of language acquisition and use had to be developed previous to the development of a diagnostic test. This was accomplished in 1952, by Pro- fessor C. E. Osgood of the University of Illinois. As with the development of any new test, the ITPA has gone through several stages. The first test battery 44 45 was constructed in 1955. In 1957, after experimental work with the Differential Language Facilities Test, James J. McCarthy developed a new approach with individual tests, each to assess a discrete psycholinguistic function. Several years of work were required to develop a suitable test battery. In 1959 and 1960 the present test battery was standardized on seven hundred children between the ages of two and one-half and nine years of age. The authors point out that the present ITPA is an experimental edition in recognition of the probability that subsequent clinical and theoretical work will point up needs for ‘ future revision. A Model of Psycholinguistic Abilities The nine tests used in the battery of the ITPA were generated from Osgood's communication model which defines three major dimensions of psycholinguistics which are (1) Channels of Communication, (2) Levels of Organization, and (3) Processes I. Channels of Communication This channel refers to various combinations of stimulus input and response output. The three major divisions of modes of input are auditory, visual, and tactual and the major modes of out- put are vocal and motor. The channels include various combinations of these. II. III. 46 Levels of Organization A. The Representation Level mediates activities requiring the meaning or significance of linguistic symbols. The Integration Level mediates activities of a more automatic or habitual nature including the acquisition of linguistic symbol sequences and response chains. The Projection Level deals primarily with innate physiological processes and since it cannot be altered through learning, it is dropped from further consideration. Processes includes the acquisition and use of habits required for normal language usage. The three main sets of habits considered are: A. Decoding or the sum total of habits required to ultimately obtain meaning from either auditory or visual linguistic stimuli. Encoding or the sum total of those habits required to express oneself in words or gestures. Association or the sum total of those habits required to manipulate linguistic symbols. 47 An Outline of Psycholinguistic Abilities in the ITPA The nine psycholinguistic abilities assessed in the ITPA are defined below. (Numbers 1, 2, etc., correspond to Figure 1, page 51). I. Tests at the Representational Level A. DeoodingTests. Test 1, Auditory Decoding.--This ability, to comprehend the spoken word, is assessed by questions of object junction, such as, "Do banannas telephone?" Test 2, Visual Decoding.—-This test assesses the ability to comprehend pictures and written words. After exposure to a stimulus, the subject identifies one from four others which is semantically, not physically, identical. Association Tests Test 3, Auditory-Vocal Agsociation.--The ability to relate spoken words in a meaning— ful way is tested by using familiar analogies which the subject must complete such as, "A red light says stop, a green light says ___." Test 4, Visual—Motor Association tests the ability to relate meaningful visual symbols by having the subject select from among a set of pictures one which most meaningfully re- lates to a given stimulus picture. 48 Encoding Tests Test 5, Vocal Encoding.--This is the ability to express one's ideas verbally, and is as- sessed by asking the subject to ”tell me all about" an object such as a ball, block, etc. Test 6, Motor Encoding.--This ability, to express one's ideas by gestures, is tested by asking the subject to supply the appro- priate motion for an object shown to him. II. Tests at the Automatic—Sequential Level A. The Automatic Tests Test 7, Auditory-Vocal Automatic.--This ability permits one to predict future linguistic events from past experience. It is assessed by asking the subject to supply the last word to a test statement and is basically a test of grammar. The SequencingTegtg Test 8, Auditory-Vocal Sequencing.--The ability to correctly repeat a sequence of symbols previously heard is tested by a modified digit repetition test. Test 9, Visual-Motor Sequencing.--This is the ability to correctly reproduce a sequence of symbols previously seen. It is tested by 49 requiring the subject to duplicate the order of a sequence of pictures or designs from memory. APPENDIX B 50 APPENDIX B FIGURE 1 The Clinical Model for the Illinois Test 0 Psycholinguistic A 1 ities Association B Representational Level B Decoding ------------------ Encoding E] E Auditory and Visual Stimuli BEBE Lil Automatic Sequential Level El Vocal and Motor Responses Representational Level 1. (DUHFUN Auditory Decoding Visual Decoding Auditory—Vocal Assoc. Visual-Motor Assoc. Vocal Encoding Motor Encoding Automatic-Sequential Level 51 7. Auditory-Vocal Automatic 8. Auditory-Vocal Sequen- tia 9. Visual-Motor Sequential APPENDIX C 52 APPENDIX C RAW DATA Raw Scores for Non-culturally Deprived Subtest AD VD AVAs VMAs VE ME AVA AVS VMS TOT. Subject 1 19 13 13 8 23 17 11 10 13 127 2 24 14 19 17 24 17 12 21 16 164 3 26 14 17 19 28 19 12 24 9 168 4 25 16 22 17 23 13 14 22 11 163 5 25 13 2O 18 28 19 13 2O 14 170 6 19 14 18 12 23 17 15 23 17 158 7 19 13 18 16 24 22‘ 14 32 13 171 8 28 17 21 17 27 17 14 32 14 187 9 23 19 15 18 19 15 11 19 13 152 10 28 15 18 22 19 22 10 29 13 176 11 5 11 6 18 11 8 6 12 12 89 12 16 18 11 13 9 13 6 21 13 120 13 16 13 14 18 13 19 10 19 12 134 14 15 15 12 10 16 13 9 15 10 115 15 28 8 18 18 2O 13 11 31 15 162 16 16 14 8 14 15 10 3 14 9 103 17 28 17 14 17 14 13 12 22, 11 148 18 25 14 17 16 25 12 13 23 16 161 19 14 l7 13 19 13 5 6 15 12 114 2O l7 16 2O 13 17 15 13 21 16 148 21 16 13 12 20 12 11 3 27 12 126 22‘ 22 13 15' 15 15 10 7 21 13 131 23 15 17 13 25 20 13 5 25 15 148 24 21 15 17 10 20 10 12 24 13 142 25 22 17 18 12 2O 17 13 18 12 149 26 22 l4 17 19 17 14 11 28 16 158 27 25 16 19 18 17 17 12 32 12 168 28 2O 14 19 18 16 15 11 19 17 150 29 17 14 15 24 16 2O 9 20 15 150 3O 19 19 15 22 21 2O 13 23 13 165 53 54 Raw Scores for Culturally Deprived Children Subtest AD VD AVAs VMAs VE ME AVA AVS VMS TOT. Subject 1 20 ll 6 4 11 13 3 14 11 93 2 18 15 16 8 16 14 6 16 13 122 3 19 13 13 12 12 11 8 21 12 121 4 12 10 10 14 11 6 10 10 11 94 5 17 12 9 12 14 7 6 18 7 102 6 26 17 15 12 19 17 3 19 13 141 7 30 14 15 13 18 13 8 15 15 141 8 15 12 17 10 14 16 12 18 11 125 9 19 14 15 l4 14 10 11 19 12 128 10 19 10 16 18 17 13 15 17 10 135 11 13 12 10 10 16 16 5 24 12 118 12 19 8 12 12 11 11 4 17 11 105 13 15 9 14 11 12 9 6 17 14 107 14 17 16 8 9 9 9 4 11 14 97 15 21 15 14 9 18 12 11 22 16 138 16 17 12 8 14 10 12 3 5 6 87 17 16 15 10 15 13 14 5 18 13 119 18 18 14 12 11 17 10 6 15 13 116 19 19 13 14 11 11 13 7 10 10 108 20 14 12 14 14 17 13 10 19 11 124 21 14 6 10 12 5 9 4 22 9 91 22 10 2 10 10 10 9 12 19 19 101 23 15 11 14 14 12 7 4 22 9 108 24 15 13 13 13 11 8 2 23 10 108 25 19 11 16 10 12 13 7 21 12 121 26 10 13 9 1 16 8 3 18 9 87 27 21 15 14 8 8 9 9 2O 10 114 28 12 11 14 6 9 11 7 21 11 102 29 15 14 17 16 12 14 7 22 12 129 30 13 14 13 10 13 22 7 25 8 125 55 Standard Scores for Non-culturally Deprived AD VD AVAs VMAs VE ME AVA AVS VMS TOT. Sub— ject . 1 - .52 .19 -1.30 -l.83 1.49 .59 - .31 -1.92 - .39 - .81 2 .50 .48 .59 .59 1.67 .58 .02 - .03 .53 1.29 3 .91 .48 - .04 1.12 2.39 1.10 .02 .48 -1. 62 1.52 4 .70 1.05 1.54 .59 1.49 - .45 .67 .14 -1. 00 1.23 5 .70 .19 .91 .86 2.39 1.10 .34 - .20 - .08 1.63 6 — .52 .48 .28 — .76 1.49 .58 .99 .31.84 .95 7 - .52 .19 .28 .32 1.67 1.87 .67 1.86 -1. 39 1.69 8 1.44 1.55 1.56 1.15 2.87 .79 .72 2.21 .33 2.71 9 .29 1.91 - .67 .86 .78 .07 - .31 - .37 - .39 .61 10 1.02 .59 - :15 1.23 .48 1.37 -1.04 1. 01 - .62 1.26 11 -2. 41 .23 -2.80 1.45 - .70 - .99 -1.79 -1. 37 — .20 -2.05 12 - .57 1.84 -1.35 - .02 -1.14 .00 -1.79 .24 .07 - .54 13 - .57 .36 .48 1.45 - .25 1.18 - .53 - .12 - .20 .13 14 - .74 .95 —1.06 - .89 .42 .OO - .85 - .83 — .73 — .79 15 1.44 .23 .69 1.45 1. 31 .OO - .22 2.03 .60 1.49 16 —1.14 .48 -2.88 — .22 .06 -1.22 -2.91 -1. 23 -1.62 -2.18 17 1.32 1.34 — .99 .59 - .12 - .45 .02 .14 -1.00 .38 18. .70 .48 - .04 .32 1.85 - .70 .34 .31 .53 1.12 19 -1. 54 1.34 -1.30 1.12 - .30 -2.51 -1.94 -1. O6 - .70 -l.55 20 — .93 1.05 .91 - .49 .42 .07 .34 - .03 .12 .38 21 -1. 71 .02 -2.65 .77 - .88 - .98 - N .61 - .86 -1.85 22 .09 .19 - .67 .05 .06 -1.22 -1.61 - .03 - .39 - .59 23 —2. 04 1.06 -1.57 1. 61 .21 -1.26 -1.96 .21 - .37 — .79 24 - .11.76 - .04 -1.29 .96 -1.22 .02 .48 - .39 .04 25 - .35 1.19 — .15 -1.08 .67 .31 - .15 -l. 20 - .86 - .42 26.09.48 — .04 1.12 .42 - .19 - .31 1.17 .53 .95 27.70 1. 05 .59 .86 .42 .58 .02 1.86 - .70 1. 52 28 - .88 .02 .20 — .07 - .42 - .72 - .58 - .78 .15 - .70 29 — .93 .48 - .67 2. 47 .24 1.36 - .96 — .20 .23 .49 30 -1.03 1.80 -1.40 1. 23 .86 .95 - .15 - .20 - .62 .58 56 Standard Scores for Culturally Deprived Children AD VD AVAe VMAs VE ME AVA AVS VMS TOT. Sub- Ject l - .32 - .23 -3.00 -2.91 - .66 - .45 -2.91 -1.23 —1.00 -2.75 2 - .05 1.07 .99 - .84 .92 .61 -1.00 - .58 .34 .38 3 — .07 .36 — .77 — .31 - .47 - .40 -1. 16 .24 - .20 - .50 4 —l.24 - .53 -1. 64 .28 - .70 -l.39 - .53 -1.73 — .47 -l.81 5 - .40 .07 -1. 93 - .31 - .03 -1.19 -1. 79 - .30 -1.53 -1.42 6 .91 1. 34 - .67 - .76 .78 .58 -3. 00 - .37 - .39 — .02 7 1.77 .66 ~ .18 — .02 .86 .00 -l.16 .83 .60 .47 8 -1.34 - .09 - .04 -1.29 - .12 .33 .02 - .54 -l.00 - .93 9 - .52 .48 .67 - .22 - .12 -1. 22 - .31 - .37 — .70 - .76 10 - .07 — .53 .11 1.45 .64 .00 1.04 - .48 - .73 .18 11 —l.75 - .09 -2.25 —l.29 .24 .33 2. 26 .48 - .70 -l. 33 12 - .07 -1. 12 -1.06 - .31 - .70 - .40 -2. 41 - .48 - .47 —1.27 13 -1.34 — .95 - .99 -1.03 - .48 —1.48 -L 94 - .72 - .08 -1.95 14 - .40 1.25 -2.22 -1.19 -l.14 - .80 -2. 41 -1. 55 .33 -1. 66 15 .27 .95 - .48 -l.19 .86 - .20 — .22 .42 .86 .33 16 - .93 - .09 -2.88 - .22 - .84 - .70 -2. 91 -2. 77 -2.54 -5, 00 17 - .57 .95 -1.64 .53 - .25 .19 -2. 10 - .30 .07 - .59 18 - .73 .48 -1.62 -1.03 .42 —1. 22 -1.94 -1.06 - .39 -1.44 19 - .07 .36 - .48 - .89 - .70 .00 -l. 47 -1.73 - .73 -1.13 20 - .90 .07 - .48 .28 .64 .00 - .53 - .12 - .47 - .35 21 -l.54 -1. 81 -2.25 - .76 -1.73 -1.48 -2. 59 .14 -1. 62 -2.86 22 -2.36 -2. 96 -2.25 —1. 29 - .84 -1.48 .02 - .37 L 46 —2.29 23 - .74 - .23 - .48 .28 - .47 -1.19 -2.41 .42 -1. 00 -1.13 24 -1.34 .19 -l.30 - .49 — .66 -1.74 —3.00 .31 -l. 31 -l.90 25 - .07 - .23 .11 - .89 - .47 .00 -1.47 .24 — .20 - .50 26 -1.66 .62 -l.l2 -2.84 .92 - .99 -1.88 - .25 - .72 -1.53 27 - .11 .76 - .99 —1.83 -l.19 -1.48 - .96 - .20 —1.31 -1.55 28 -1.95 - .38 - .99 -2. 37 -1.01 - .96 -1.61 - .03 -1.00 -2.24 29 - .74 .66 .40 .86 - .47 .19 -l.47 .42 - .20 - .11 30 -1.07 .66 — .77 - .89 — .25 1.78 -1.47 .96 -l.27 - .30 57 Language Age for Culturally Deprived Children AVA AVS VMS TOT. ME VE VD AVAB VMAs AD Subtest Sub ect 4-5 7-4 4-4 5-5 6-4 3-6 2-9 5—1 4-7 4-3 -N 6-8 5-6 5-5 6-11 5-5 4-7 4-4 6-4 5-11 4-7 5-10 6-1 4-4 5-8 6-10 6-1 5-1 5-1 5-5 5-5 6-8 5-6 5-9 5-8 4-2 5-9 5-4 5-4 5-6 5-5 5-2 5-10 7-2 6-7 5-5 7-3 4-10 4-10 5-9 4-3 5-10 4-2 4-4 6-4 6-10 3-6 7-0 5-4 5-2 5-5 4-5 4—8 5-1 4-9 4-7 3-1 4-10 5-1 4-9 4-7 4-9 5-3 4-8 5-1 5-10 3-10 4-10 6—0 4-10 5-0 7—10 3-8 4-0 4-1 3-10 5-1 3-7 6-0 4-6 5-11 7-3 5-3 4-0 6-11 5-0 5-9 6-5 6-9 5-10 5-0 5-10 3-8 5-9 4-5 5-0 2-9 2-7 3-11 4-3 4-9 7-5 4-2 6-1 5-4 5-10 3-6 5-1 5-8 5-5 4-2 4-4 4-5 3-10 6-1 5-4 8-5 4-8 5-2 6-8 4-8 4-8 6-7 4-2 5-10 4-4 5-8 5-2 5—5 6-3 5-5 4-8 4-9 5-5 4-5 3-5 4-10 4-10 5-6 5-3 2-3 4-9 5-5 2-9 4-2 5-1 4-5 -2 7-5 5-10 5-8 6-4 5-10 5-10 4-7 5-8 5-4 5-5 6-3 4-11 5-1 5-1 4-7 4-7 5-11 5-4 5-5 4-1 5-2 4-2 5-9 4-9 2-11 5-4 5-5 5-1 4-5 5—0 5-10 3-11 5-1 5-8 3-2 3-10 5-1 4-2 4-8 7-6 8-9 5-6 5-1 7-4 7-4 2-9 5-4 5-8 5-11 4-5 5-10 5-3 5-9 6-7 5-5 5-4 5-4 5-1 5—4 4-5 3-8 4-2 5-1 2-10 3-10 5-1 6-3 4-7 4-4 -N 3-8 4-7 5-6 5-3 5-9 5-1 3-2 3-1 6-5 4-7 4-10 4-7 6-3 4-11 5-5 4-9 3-6 2-4 6-7 4-10 4-10 5-5 5-6 5-10 4-4 5—1 5-5 4-3 5-11 5-4 5-4 5-8 6-3 3-11 -N 5-11 7-3 5-3 3-8 3-10 3-10 5-0 5-7 4-10 5-1 4-1 5-6 5-3 2-11 4—1 4-7 4-3 5-11 5-1 4-8 4-7 6-8 6-1 6-6 5-1 5-10 4-5 6-3 5-4 5-6 4-3 6-8 4-11 4-4 5-4 5-8 5 -N 125456789m 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 50 58 Language Age for Non-culturally Deprived Children AVA AVS VMS TOT. VE ME VD AVAe VMAs AD Subtest Sub ect 0571-«w3 5-8 7-2 6-0 8-1 6 6 7 5-6 7—2 7-4 6-4 5-9 5-4 5-8 6-4 8-10 7-3 6-6 8-7 7-4 +N 5-8 7-6 6-9 5-4 6-6 6-7 5-8 6-11 5-0 5-7 6-4 6- 6-10 +N 5-4 +N 7-4 6-1 5-11 6-9 6-10 7-4 6-10 +N 8-8 6-1 7-0 4-7 7-1 8-8 6-6 5-7 6-0 7-2 7-4 7-3 6-7 7-4 6-7 5-0 6—6 6-7 6-9 6-9 -4 2-9 3-10 4-4 5-4 5-1 7-4 6-9 3-5 5-8 5-6 5-5 6-10 6-3 5-1 6-10 +N 7-9 5-5 3-6 7-4 6-4 6-2 N 5-0 7-10 7-3 5-5 6-7 6-4 6-6 5-11 6-9 6-2 ‘fN 4-9 6-3 4-8 7-10 5-1 4-7 2-9 8-6 5-4 5-5 5-5 6-3 6-6 6-6 +N 8-10 8-9 7-8 6-10 +N 6-5 +N 6 7-2 7-9 5-5 5-9 8-6 6—4 6-9 8 5-9 6-0 4-2 2-9 4-2 4-7 4-9 3 6-10 5-8 5-5 6-1 6—3 5-1 6-2 8 3 9 5 7-1 6-8 6-1 6-6 4-5 5-5 4-1 5-5 3-10 5-11 5-8 5-3 4-7 7-3 4-8 4-4 6-4 5-5 5-0 4-4 4-10 5-1 4-9 6-3 5-3 7-2 5-4 8-8 5-4 5-4 5-4 5-8 8-10 4-5 6 4-9 6- 2-9 5-6 5-5 7-2 4-9 3-6 3-10 3-9 5-4 4-5 5-6 8-7 8-11 +N 6-2 6-3 5-6 6-1 6-0 4-2 4-3 5-11 5-8 5—7 4-7 8-9 4-11 +N 5-11 7-3 6-1 4-4 7-9 4-2 6-1 7-0 5-8 6- 6-2 8-9 6-6 5-1 7-9 7-4 6-6 5-1 5-4 6-2 6-8 6-1 7-6 6-7 5-10 5-9 +N 7-1 7-10 6-10 7-2 7-4 6-7 6-1 +N 5-8 6-8 6-8 7-2 6-4 6-4 5-9 5-4 7-4 6 5-5 6-3 4-11 3-8 +N 6-9 6-8 6-10 6-10 fN 7-6 6-8 6-1 7-6 fN 7-1 7-10 8-3 6-10 +N 7-1 6-3 7-5 7-2 +N 5-0 6-8 5-6 9-3 6-4 +N 5-5 +N 5-5 6-8 6-6 5-1 4-5 8-9 4-11 7-6 4-9 +N 8-10 8- 1234567890 234 6 1i .lal1l .l 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 l 5 l l u i