Effects of Manipulating Enforced Attention and

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Master's Theses Graduate College

8-1972

Effects of Manipulating Enforced Attention and Reinforcement for Effects of Manipulating Enforced Attention and Reinforcement for

Correctness on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Correctness on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

Performances of Kindergarten Children Performances of Kindergarten Children

Galen James Alessi

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Alessi, Galen James, "Effects of Manipulating Enforced Attention and Reinforcement for Correctness on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Performances of Kindergarten Children" (1972). Master's Theses. 2741. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/2741

This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F2741&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1236?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F2741&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/2741?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fmasters_theses%2F2741&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



EFFECTS OF MANIPULATING ENFORCED ATTENTION AND REINFORCEMENT FOR CORRECTNESS ON THE PEABODY

PICTURE VOCABULARY TEST PERFORMANCES OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN

byGalen James Alessi

A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment

of theDegree of Master of Arts

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

August 19 72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It would be impossible to name all the persons who have contributed either directly or indirectly to a product as complex as a thesis. I would like to thank the kindergarten children, teachers and principal

(Ms. Baulky) of Schoolcraft, Michigan, for their contribution to the data substance of this study. Dr. William

Coats assisted in the initial study design and Charles Townsend was essential to the computer analyses. Particular thanks are due Dr. Roger Ulrich, the staff and children of the Kalamazoo Learning Village for teach

ing me whatever I now know about educating preschool and primary children. I am especially indebted to Dr. Jack Michael for taking an active interest in my education well beyond that required by thesis or

graduate work. Without saying, my greatest debt is to Dr. Robert Hawkins for his patient and careful mentor

ing during the entire course of this study. It was only through his encouragement and constructive criticism that this project was completed. Finally, I would like to thank Drs. Roger Mclntlre and John Boren for generating in me the interest to study psychology

at the graduate level.

Galen James Alessi


II

MASTERS THESIS M-40^2

ALESSI, Galen JamesEFFECTS OF MANIPULATING ENFORCED ATTENTION AND REINFORCEMENT FOR CORRECTNESS ON THE PEABODY PICTURE VOCABULARY TEST PERFORMANCE OF KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN.

Western Michigan University, M.A., 1972 Psychology, experimental

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

| T H IS D IS S E R T A T IO N HAS BEEN M IC R O F IL M E D E X A C T L Y AS R E C E IV E D .


PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have

indistinct print.Filmed as received.

University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company


TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGEI INTRODUCTION ............................. 1

II METHOD .......................................... 13

S u b j e c t s ................ 13S e t t i n g ....................................... 13Examiners . . . . . ....................... 13

Procedure . . . . . ....................... 14III R E S U L T S .......................................... 20IV D I S C U S S I O N ........................................27V R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ 35


INTRODUCTION

The past several years have witnessed enormous

expenditures of public wealth to develop and implement, on a wide scale, preschool educational and day care

programs for all types of children (Trezise, 1970). To account for such expenditures, educators and psychologists have devoted much time and effort to demonstrate the

effectiveness of such programs in improving various aspects of desirable child development (Circirelli, ££ al_. 1969 ;

Hawkridge, Chalupsky and Roberts, 1968; Jensen, 1969).To date, the most pervasively used indicators of the

success of preschool programs have been performances on

intelligence tests (Rohwer, 1971; Datta, 1969; Hawkridge, £t. ajL. 1968). Such measures were initially selected because of their ready availability, their applicability to the age range of the preschool child and their compre

hensiveness in terms of skills assessed. Grothberg (1969) states as one of the major obstacles to preschool evaluation "the limited availability of adequate measurement

techniques. Distressingly little progress has been made toward developing standardized, reliable and valid

measures of aspects other than intellectual ability during early childhood (p. 4)." Acceptable achievement indicators were not yet being developed for this age

group due to the fact that no widespread, systematic

1


2

preschool education was existent prior to the mid-sixties.

Additionally, since there was little consensus on educa

tional objectives for preschool programs, anything but the general scope of the intelligence test would seem to lack generality of application across different programs.

From the limited number of instruments available for the measurement of academic potential or intellectual development of the preschool child, a select few have come into dominant use. In order to be useful in evaluating preschool programs, test instruments must meet the following four requirements: (1) the time for administrationmust not be too long (if possible); (2) the amount of

training and sophistication required of the prospective examiners must not be excessive; (3) the test must appeal

to the interests of young children, and (4) the test must

sample behaviors that are significant at that age. As a result of these considerations, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) has evolved into one of, if not the most widely used instruments in preschool evaluation

(Ball-and Bogatz, 1970 ; Hamilton, 1970 ; Weikart, Deloria Lawser and Wiegerink, 1970; Circirelli, e_t ^1. , 1969 ;

Karnes, Hodgins, Teska and Kirk, 1969; Bittner and Rick- well, 1968; Schiefelbusch, 1968; Waller, 1968; Beller,1967; Gray, 1967; Van de Riet, 1967; Sigel and McBane,

1967).The data assembled to date with the PPVT and other


such instruments indicate much variability in results obtained by preschool programs. While most academically oriented programs reported 15 to 20 point IQ gains, other

programs failed to report significant gains on IQ measures (Miller, 1968; Hawkridge, e_t aJL. , 1968). Concurrent with

the appearance of these variable data has been the growth of criticism of many aspects of the preschool programs.

Jensen (1969) has gone so far as to conclude that "Compensatory education has been tried and it apparently has failed." The comprehensive report, Impact of Head Start

(Circirelli, e£ aJ . , 1969) is less pessimistic, but points out the difficulty of interpreting the results thus far because of diversity among implementation and delivery strategies and family backgrounds of the participants.

Lack of concensus on the program goals and absence of

adequate control groups further confound the issue.In a recent report on such problems, Lois-ellin Datta

National Coordinator of Head Start Evaluation, proposed

further research to explore at least four alternative explanations for the observed gains in IQ scores among

the "effective" programs. Briefly stated, her concern was to find out whether the observed gains were a result of: (1) actual cognitive growth in the children; (2)adaptation to an institutionalized and novel situation;(3) familiarity in dealing with academic materials and

other adults; and/or (4) increases in motivational effects


4

The last of the above questions was asked in reference to a classic study by Zigler and Butterfield (1968) in which procedures were designed to enable the separation

of motivational from cognitive changes in accounting for increases in scores obtained on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. The authors concluded that the preschool

environment under investigation did not increase actual cognitive growth, but instead decreased the debilitating motivational factors associated with lower scores on such instruments. The procedures in this experiment

involved comparisons of gains between "optimal" and standardized test conditions at both the beginning and end of the preschool year. Optimal conditions were

arranged by changing the order of introduction of subtests on the Scale (introducing easier subtests), and by

reverting to less difficult items each time the child missed two regularly scheduled items. Such procedures were designed to reduce what the authors term "debilitating motivational" conditions associated with a lengthy series of "missed" or failed items. With items and sub

tests so arranged to reduce or preclude long series of missed items, (so called "optimal conditions") the authors expected to find scores similar in value under optimal conditions both at the beginning of the school year and at the end of that year, but higher than those recorded under standard conditions. The results indicated


5

that indeed the optimal condition results were similar in

value and also higher than standardized conditions for both testings. Although optimal scores were similar for

both testings, standardized test scores were higher on the spring testing. Therefore, while optimal test scores remained constant, children increased on the standardized test scores. The authors thus concluded that the school experience was effective in reducing debilitating motiva

tional effects but not as obviously effective in teaching new academic skills as the standardized data might have

indicated without the control procedures of optimal test

conditions. --Other research cited by Datta (1969) indicates that

"immediate gains" have been recorded in various preschool programs. Pre and post-test measures taken one month

apart in the fall equal the gains measured for the entire year. The fast spurt in IQ gains, followed by a plateau for the remainder of the year suggests a change in perfor

mance rather than the acquisition of new skills (learning) and could be accounted for by reduction in fear of failure

through adaptation, in the form of increased familiarity with academic materials, academic situations, and persons in these situations. However, certain learning might

produce such rapid change also, such as increased reinforcing value of adult approval (due, perhaps, to its consis

tency), the acquired cue value of an adult request, or


6

the acquisition of behaviors such as attention to relevant stimulus cues or verbal responses requisite to correctly

answering questions in general. The Zigler and Butterfield report emphasized the reduction in debilitating motivational conditions as the major factor accounting

for such gains (as opposed to the traditional achievement-through-learning explanation).

None of these results should as yet suggest that one

stop exploring the possibilities of preschool programs, as Jensen's (1969) comments would seem to imply. There

is, of course, a need for improvement in program planning, implementation strategies and evaluation tactics. Perhaps well designed programs of only a month's duration

would have significant effects on the preschooler’s later achievement. Perhaps the observed growth during

preschool--the spurts and plateaus— follows a regular pattern throughout the grades, and is not specific to

preschool programs.The above findings concerning the effects of other

than academic learning on the test gains in preschool

programs have direct implications for the results from so called "behavioral" or "reinforcement" programs, such

as those of Becker and Engelmann (Karnes, e_t al . , 1969); the Juniper Gardens Project (Schiefelbusch, 1968); and the Learning Village (Ulrich, Alessi and Wolfe, 1971);

as well as the Behavioral Analysis Follow Through Projects


7

of Bushell and the Becker-Engelmann group (Bissel, 1971).

One of the characteristics of such preschools is the emphasis on delivering immediate reinforcement, either material or social in nature, for the child's correct or appropriate responses. If any programs have been successful in manipulating "motivational" variables, the reinforce

ment programs certainly rank near the top of the list; and, among the nation's preschools, the behavioral programs

in general yield the highest measured academic gains on standardized tests (Miller and Dyer, 1971). Therefore, it is important to discover how much of the measured gain on such tests is due to changes in motivation to perform among the measured population.

The history of the literature on incentives as facilitators for academic performance dates back beyond

the publication of the original Simon-Binet intelligence scale. As early as 1897, Binet and Vaschide measured the effects of prior verbal encouragement on physical

output and discovered great improvement in all subjects (Kennedy and Willcutt, 1964). Hurlock is perhaps most

commonly associated with research on the effects of verbal praise on academic performance. Her studies (1924, 1925a, 1925b) reported similar effects for either

praise or blame in increasing academic or intellectual performance, with either of these conditions more satisfactory than no incentive or just practice. In 1927,


8

Cohen replicated Hurlock's work with similar results.

Terrell and Kennedy (1957) however, in a more sophisticated study, found candy to be significantly more powerful as a reinforcer than either praise or reproof, in

learning and transposing new tasks; and the authors also found that neither praise nor reproof were more effective

than knowledge of the results. From an extensive review of the literature, Kennedy and Willcutt (1964) concluded that praise generally acts as a facilitator for perfor

mance, while "socioeconomic, school and examiner variables do not appear to be significantly related to the effectiveness of verbal incentives, with the exception of the Negro subjects' reactions to blame under Negro examiners" (Kennedy and Willcutt, 1964, page 331).

Most of the studies reviewed above dealt with incentives in task-learning situations. Only recently have studies appeared that have examined the effects of directly applying reinforcement techniques to performance on standardized tests. Douvan (1956) and Hoffman, Mitsos

and Potz (1958) investigated the effects of material rewards on achievement test performance, and concluded

that for working class adolescents, such rewards were very effective. Such rewards proved to be less potent for middle and upper class adolescents. In an unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sweet (1969) found that middle class white elementary school children did not change


vocabulary test performance under either feedback for

correct answers or monetary reward for correct responding. However, lower class whites did improve their scores under both experimental conditions, as compared

with standardized conditions. As with Kennedy, Sweet also found no significant examiner or examiner-by-

treatment interaction effects. In an unpublished master thesis, Kelly (1971) found that with a single exposure to reinforcement contingencies during achievement test performance, the experimental group obtained gains

parallel to those of the control group. However, when history of reinforcement experience was controlled, subjects under reinforcement conditions out-performed

their controls. Unfortunately, data are difficult to interpret in that children with reinforcement histories could also have learned significantly more academic

material between tests than their non-reinforced controls Tiber and Kennedy (1964) found no differences among

lower class black or white children on the Stanford-

Binet under four testing conditions: (1) verbal praise,(2) reproof, (3) candy reward, or (4) standard conditions

In a review of the literature on incentives and intelligence test performance, Kennedy and Willcutt (1964),

found varying results. In spite of numerous studies, it is not clear whether incentives act as facilitators for intelligence test performance.


10

The above discussion has emphasized the relationships

of consequent variables to performance outcomes. A second area for examination would be the effect of certain ante

cedent variables on performance. These variables might

be either antecedent stimuli or antecedent behaviors.An example of research regarding the latter would be the

demonstration by Cohen, Keyworth, Kleiner and Libert (1971) that on-task behaviors can be increased greatly

by establishing control over such antecedent behaviors such as having a pen, being in an assigned area at a designated time, or not disturbing other students. An

example of the former would be the use of fading techniques (Hauserman and Mclntire, 1970). The authors

reported that fading technique (an antecedent variable) was more effective than reinforcement (a consequent variable) in reducing error rates during the acquisition

of reading skills. (However, both conditions together were strikingly more effective than either alone, or

neither.) Broden, Hall and Mitts (1971) found that more on-task behavior was observed when a student had a card in front of her on which she was supposed to be self-recording her behavior.

Attention to task signals is another important antecedent variable (Skinner, 1968; Becker, ejt _ajL. , 1971). Obviously if a child is not attending to the appropriate visual and auditory stimuli, the accuracy of his responses


11

will be very limited. With some testing procedures, it is even possible that children who do not attend to instructions can be adventitiously reinforced for this

non-attending behavior. In the PPVT manual (Dunn, 1965 page 6) the examiner is instructed to be accepting of all responses made by the child. The manual states, "Even when an incorrect response is made, encouragement should

be given. If a subject says, 'Did I get that one right?' say: THAT WAS A GOOD ANSWER." Thus, a child who doesnot attend to the examiner's verbal signals could nevertheless receive verbal reinforcement for guessing or even randomly responding to the test stimuli.

Skinner (1968, page 73) proposes an arrangement to prevent the reinforcement of random responding in match- to-sample tasks. He suggests that the child be made to

at least look at the sample by requiring that he press the window behind which the sample is displayed. To

similarly control attending behavior during the PPVT examination, the child could be made to "listen to the sample" by having him repeat the verbal sample stimulus of the examiner when responding by pointing to the chosen picture stimulus. This form of antecedent response

control is commonly used in group testing of younger school age children, but it is apparently seldom used

in individually administered examinations.Although the PPVT is widely used for preschool evalua

tion, a review of the literature on this test (Dunn, 1965


12

pp. 34-40) indicates that the only extensive research on

it has to do with its reliability and concurrent validity with other established intelligence measures. There

have apparently been no studies examining the effect of either consequent or antecedent variables (as discussed

above) in changing performance levels on the PPVT. The present study analyzes the effects of one type of antecedent variable (attending) and one type of consequent variable (immediate reinforcement for correct responding) on test performance levels obtained on the PPVT.


METHOD

Experiment IS ub j e c t s

A total of 64 children comprising the total kinder

garten population in the small town of Schoolcraft,

Michigan (pop. 1,277), were the subjects for this study.The group consisted of 35 males and 39 females between

the ages of five years, six months and six years, 11

months. The classes were half-day sessions, with one meeting in the A.M. and two in the P.M. The children

came predominately from middle class backgrounds, with children from rural residences concentrated in the P.M.

sections. All children were white. Only two were repeating the kindergarten year.

SettingTesting under all experimental conditions was perform

ed within the Schoolcraft Elementary School building, in one of two vacant classrooms. Thus, the experimental

setting approximated as nearly as possible the natural academic environment of the children.

ExaminersEach subject was tested individually by one of two

graduate psychology students thoroughly familiar and practiced with the peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT),

13


14

each having administered the test at least 25 times

previous to the study. All testing was completed in the last week of May and the first week of June.

Procedure

A four cell design was employed, as shown in Table 1. The two independent variables were enforced attending and reinforcement of correct responding. Attending was enforced by requiring that the subject repeat the examiner's verbal stimulus as he pointed to his choice of the correct picture. For example, if the examiner said "Point to ball," the subject would then say "ball" as he pointed to a

picture. No response was accepted during this condition if the child did not respond as required; instead he was again instructed how to respond and the verbal stimulus

was repeated. The response-contingent reinforcement consisted of immediately presenting the child with praise

and a token contingent upon a correct response. The four cells of the design represented the following four conditions: (1) both attending and reinforcementconditions, (2) contingent praise and token reinforcement,(3) enforced attending, and (4) standard testing procedures.

In the standard testing condition (cell 4) each subject was tested according to the procedures specified in the PPVT examiner's maiiual (Dunn, 1965). No deviations were allowed. In test condition 2 (cell 2) each subject was required to repeat the exact verbal stimulus given by


15

the examiner while pointing to the picture that best matched the verbal referent. In this manner it could be assumed that the subject at least had "heard" the verbal

stimulus (Skinner, 1968, p. 73). In all other respects,

standardized procedures were strictly adhered to. In test condition 3 (cell 3) praise and pennies (as token

reinforcers) were delivered immediately contingent upon each correct response made by the subject. Praise con

sisted of brief statements such as "that's right" or

"good" given enthusiastically and with a smile. Token reinforcement procedures were adopted to eliminate antici

pated disruption or interference with test performance due to the delivery and/or consumption of back-up reinforcers such as candy or gum during the examination session. Pennies were chosen as tokens to eliminate the necessity for the "priming procedure" for establishing

a stimulus as a generalized reinforcer (Ayllon and Azrin, 1968, pp. 103-113). All the children were familiar with pennies and reported having exchanged such money for goods in the past. To further potentiate the reinforcement function of the tokens, only shiny, uncirculated

pennies were used.A long table was set up in the testing room and

covered with several bags of popular confections wrapped in individual portions. Such an assortment included various flavors of miniature candy bars, coconut and


multi-colored flavored marshmallows, large gumdrops and

Nonpariels, and many other selections. Each subject was directed to the table upon entering the testing situation

in order to visually sample the back-up reinforcers. An amendment to the prescribed manual instructions was read to the student during this condition: "For each correctanswer you give, I will give you one of these shiny new

pennies here (pointing) and when we are finished you can keep the pennies o_r spend them for the candy you see there

(pointing to the reinforcer table)."

TABLE 1Diagram of four cell design employed in this study, indicating the conditions present for subjects in each cell.

Reinforcement No Reinforcement

At tention

No Attention

After each examination, the subject was encouraged

to exchange the pennies for the candy. All subjects spent some pennies, while most spent about half of their earnings

All subjects also saved at least a few pennies, indicating some history with the generalized reinforcing properties of such tokens. In all respects other than those just described, standardized test procedures were adhered to.

In test condition 1 (cell 1) the attending and rein

forcement conditions described above were combined.

Cell 1 Cell 2

Cell 3 Cell 4


17

Otherwise, standardized conditions were employed.

Experiment I was conducted with Form A of the PPVT.With 64 subjects, there were 16 subjects in each of thefour conditions (cells). Test scores were obtained on

all of these subjects except one, who left early in the testing for summer vacation.

Experiment II

Experiment II was essentially a replication of the first experiment, with some of the testing overlapping

with Experiment I testing.* Subjects, setting and examiners for Experiment II were the same as in Experiment I. However, the procedure differed in two ways

from Experiment I. First, Form B of the PPVT wasemployed in order to reduce somewhat that effects of the

testing experience gained in Experiment I. Forms A and B

are very comparable forms, yielding an expected test- retest gain of approximately one IQ point (Dunn, 1965, Appendix). Second, those who were tested under conditions of cell 1 in the first experiment were switched to the

conditions of cell 4 for the second experiment, and those in cell 4 were switched to cell 1. Likewise, those who were tested under conditions of cell 2 in the first experiment were switched to conditions of cell 3 for the second

*See last paragraph of this section for elaboration.


18

testing, and those in cell 3 were switched to cell 2.These changes were made to explore the possibility that subjects who may have scored poorly under one set of

conditions would score better under a different set of conditions; in particular those in the two extreme con

ditions (cells 1 and 4). With 64 subjects in Experiment II, there were 16 subjects assigned to each cell.Of the possible 64 scores, 63 were obtained. One child left school early for the summer and consequently could not be tested.

During both experiments, two dependent measures were recorded. They were: (1) IQ test scores, and (2) totalnumber of errors after basal levels had been established.No test protocols were scored until all testing had been completed, thus minimizing possible experimenter bias

(Rosenthal, 1969) arising from feedback of results during the course of data collection. After all testing was complete, all protocols were scored according to the

manual instructions and interpreted according to the norms provided. Following this, all data were entered on prepared tables, punched on data cards and analyzed by computer. Although the scorers did know the test condition for each protocol, the records and scoring procedures are so objective (simple counting of missed items) that the opportunity for a scorer to bias results

is minimal. However, to test for such biases, 12 protocols


(three from each condition) were re-scored by an inde

pendent scorer without the presence of any marks indi

cating experimental condition or previous score. Comparison of the resulting IQ scores and number of

errors after basal level showed no differences from the original scorings of the same test protocols.

A complete format for the study, including all verbal instructions, was prepared in writing in advance and closely adhered to by both examiners during the entire course of the study. This procedure was employed to preclude a form of data-collector bias termed the "failure to follow protocol" bias (Barber, 1971).

In order to compare gains between the extreme condi tions of cell 1 and 4, for combined forms, the 16 subjec in cell 1 of the first experiment (Form A) were not tested until after these subjects had been tested under standard conditions in the second experiment (Form B ) . This arrangement yielded 31 score differences for analysis from the two extreme experimental conditions (standard conditions to reinforcement plus enforced attending conditions) as presented in Tables 6 and 7.


RESULTS

Table 2 presents the sums, means, and standard deviations of both IQ scores and number of errors after

basal for each cell of the design for Experiment I.Table 3 presents the F-ratio values, degrees of freedom and significance level for a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these data. From this table, it can be

seen that no significant main independent variable effects were recorded in this first testing. However, one

interaction effect (reinforcement by attention) for number of errors after basal level was significant (.05 level) for this testing. A statistical inspection of

the cell mean differences which could have accounted for . this effect was made using post hoc t^-tests (Winer, 1962).

This analysis indicated that the main cause of the interaction effect was that one cell (cell 3, reinforcement without attention) contained significantly (.05 level)

more errors than any other cell in the analysis.Table 4 presents the sums, means, and standard devi

ations for each cell within the design for Experiment II.

Table 5 presents the F-ratio values, degrees of freedom and significance level for a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of these data. From Table 5 it can be seen that no F-ratio values reached a significance level

20


of .05 for this second testing. The significant interaction effect for errors that was found in the first testing was not replicated in the secon*' experiment.

Table 6 presents IQ data for that half of the subjects (N»31) who were tested first in one extreme condition, (neither reinforcement nor attention) and later in the other extreme condition (both reinforcement

plus attention). The IQ scores are arranged in pairs for each subject, with the first score representing the

results of the first testing (Experiment I ) , and the second score the second testing (Experiment II). The right hand column indicates the difference between the two scores for each subject. The bottom of the table indicaces the summary data, ^-values (for correlated

pairs, Games and Klare, 1967, p. 338) and significance levels. For this table it can be seen that when subjects were switched from standard testing conditions

(neither reinforcement nor attention) to test conditions including both reinforcement plus enforced attending,

the level of IQ scores increased significantly (.05). However, when the t^-value is recalculated with a one

point test-retest gain factor built in, as might be suggested by the literature (as reported by Dunn, 1965, Appendix), the increase is no longer statistically

significant (.05), as indicated by the t* in Table 6.


22

TABLE 2

Sums, means, standard deviations and number of scores in each cell for the IQ scores and number of errors in Experiment I.

REINFORCEMENT NO REINFORCEMENT

c•o o<Uo <u n ft O 0)<4-1 4JC 4Jw <

0) c o oU -H O 4J IW Cc a)W *j 4Jo <6 z

Cell 1 N-16 Cell 2 N=16

IQ Errors IQ Errors

SumMeanS.D.

1660.00103.75

6.26137.00

8.561.87

SumMeanS.D.

1617.00101.6013.60

146.00 9.13 2 .60

Cell 3 N»15 Cell 4 N-16

IQ Errors IQ Errors

SumMeanS.D.

1546.00103.07

7.73

165.0011.003.20

SumMeanS.D.

1729 .00 108.06 10.78

135.00 8.44 2.24

TABLE 3

F-ratio values derived from a two-way analysis of variance, for IQ and number of errors, for two independent variables: reinforcement and enforced attending, for Experiment I.

IQ SCORES

ATTENTION 1.46REINFORCEMENT 0.19INTERACTION 2.16df 1/59.05 level @ 4.00

ERRORSATTENTION 1.79REINFORCEMENT 2.34INTERACTION 5.70df 1/59.05 level 0 4.00


No En

forc

ed

Enfo

rced

Atte

ntio

n At

tent

ion

23

TABLE 4

Sums, means, standard deviations and number of scores in each cell for the IQ scores and number of errors in Experiment II.

REINFORCEMENT NO REINFORCEMENT

Cell 1 N=15 Cell 2 N=16

IQ Errors IQ ErrorsSumMeanS.D.

1690.00112.6717.82

163.0010.872.94

Sum Me an S.D.

1596 .00 99.75 14.38

173.0010.812.81

Cell 3 N=16 Cell 4 N=16

IQ Errors IQ ErrorsSumMeanS.D.

1653.00103.3116.03

193.0012.063.25

SumMeanS.D.

1634.00102.1313.39

185.00 11.56 2.85

TABLE 5

F-ratio values derived from a two-way analysis of variance, for IQ and number of errors after basal, for two independent variables: reinforcement and enforced attending,for Experiment II.

IQ SCORESATTENTION 0.75REINFORCEMENT 3.0 7INTERACTION 2.12df 1/59.05 level @ 4.00

ERRORS

ATTENTION 1.5 8REINFORCEMENT 0.13INTERACTION 0.08df 1/59.05 level @ 4.00


24

TABLE 6

IQ scores for 31 subjects tested and retested under dif-ferent experimental conditions: First under standardconditions (cell 4) and then under reinforcement plusenforced attending conditions (cell 1) .S ub j e c t Standard Condition Reinforcement plus Diff

(First test) Attending (retest)

1. 139 140 12. 130 115 -153. 119 107 -124. 117 121 45. 117 115 - 26. 117 107 -107. 115 115 08. 115 98 -179. 113 125 12

10. 113 104 - 911. 110 107 - 312. 107 117 1013. 106 95 -1114. 106 104 - 215 . 10 4 107 316. 104 102 - 217. 102 103 118. 101 104 319. 101 106 520. 99 82 -1721. 99 100 122. 98 123 2523. 97 95 - 224. 96 99 325 . 95 100 526. 95 96 127. 93 115 2228. 93 103 1029. 89 109 2030. 82 10 3 2131. 80 93 13

Sum D =» 58.00Sum D2 = 3834.00(Sum D) - 3364.00

D = 1.87t_ = 2.64t* = 1.23.05 - 2.04.01 - 2.75

*This is the derived t^-value with a test-retest factor of one point built in. Such a gain is reported in the literature for the PPVT (Dunn, 1965, Appendix).


25

Table 7 presents the data on number of errors after basal level for that half of the subjects (N-31) who were tested first in standard conditions and later under both reinforcement and enforced attending. The error

scores are again arranged in pairs for each subject, with the first score indicating the first test and the second score the second test. The right hand column indicates the differences between the scores. The bottom of the table gives the summary data, jt-test value, and the

significance levels. From Table 7 it can be seen that when subjects were switched from standard testing condi

tions to conditions including both reinforcement plus enforced attending, no significant decline in errors was found, even without a built-in correction factor for

test-retest gains.


26

TABLE 7

Number of errors after basal level for 31 subjects tested and retested under different experimental conditions:First under standard conditions (cell A) and then under reinforcement plus enforced attention conditions (cell 1).

Subject Standard Condition Reinforcement plus Diff.(First test) Attending (retest)

1. 18 8 -102. 15 9 - 63. 15 7 - 84. 14 8 - 65. 13 14 16. 13 14 17. 13 13 08. 13 10 - 39. 12 9 - 3

10. 11 13 211. 11 10 - 112. 11 10 - 113. 11 7 - 414. 10 8 - 215. 10 9 - 116. 9 11 217. 9 9 018. 9 7 - 219. 9 . 6 - 320. 8 8 021. 8 7 - 122. 8 6 - 223. 8 6 - 224. 7 16 925. 7 14 726. 7 10 327. 7 10 328. 7 7 029. 6 14 830. 6 10 431. 6 9 3

Sum D = -12.00Sum 8 546.00(Sum D)2 “ 144.00

D n - 0.38t ■ 0.58.05 s 2.04.01 fiS 2.75


DISCUSSION

From the ANOVAs on both experimental testings, the conclusion can be drawn that the two main independent

variables (reinforcement and attention) by themselves had no significant effect on either dependent measure,IQ scores or number of errors after basal level. The

only significant differences that were found were the result of the presence of both of the independent vari

ables. In one case, for the first experiment, a clear interaction effect was found for number of errors and was significant at the .05 level. An inspection of the cell mean differences (by post hoc t^-tests) that could have contributed to this effect indicated significantly

more errors in the reinforcement without enforced attending condition (cell 3). This finding was not replicated in the second testing. In addition, t^-tests for correlated

pairs on the changes in IQ scores and total number of errors when subjects were switched from one extreme condi

tion (standard or combined reinforcement and enforced attention) to the other indicate no significant changes in performance, after expected test-retest gains are excluded.

There are many factors that could contribute to the "debilitating motivational" test situation as explored

in the classic study of Zigler and Butterfield (1968) and discussed earlier in this paper. Two of the possible

27


28

factors maintained in the introductory discussion were

attending behaviors (attention to task signals) requisite to adequate test performance, and the increasing reinforcement value of adults acquired through social interaction

in the academic setting. From the results of this study with this population of children, it might be argued that

attention and increased reinforcement by adults (due to direct manipulation of social and material reinforcers) are not particularly powerful variables in accounting for changes in test scores on the PPVT. Because of the short duration of the PPVT (15 minutes) it cannot be concluded

that such factors would not have a significant effect on tests of much longer duration (one hour) employed by Zigler and Butterfield.

These findings have implications for those employing the PPVT for preschool evaluations. To the extent that we can generalize beyond the population represented in

this study, it appears that very radical and complex changes would have to be made within the standardized testing situation in order to significantly change PPVT scores. Although standard testing procedures should be

respected, minor deviations (at least of the type made in this study) from such procedures would probably not significantly affect recorded scores. Such minor deviations could be expected when the PPVT is administered by various paraprofessionals in preschools. With this


29

study's findings, it could be argued more forcefully that PPVT scores are probably comparable (not necessarily valid) indicators of program effectiveness, regardless of the degree of emphasis placed on performance motivation in a particular school.

The precise interpretation of the factors contributing to changes in test scores after a preschool experience presents a quite difficult task. Table 8 indicates only a few of the complex behavioral effects that must be considered. This table describes the expected effects of

motivation (reinforcement contingencies) and learning (establishing new stimulus control functions) in both

antecedent and academic (cognitive) behaviors. Sudden jumps in performances would indicate the operation of motivational variables, while gradual performance changes

indicate acquisition of new behavior (learning).The complex verbal responses required to score high

on instruments such as a general IQ test involve interactions among many antecedent controlling stimuli as well as the presence of an adequate verbal repertoire in the

subject. The emission of a chain of verbal responses in the presence of such controlling stimuli is furthermore

controlled by the presence or absence of consequent stimuli of some reinforcing capacity. The acquisition of such a verbal repertoire requires complex situations

to consistently occur in which reinforcement contingencies


30

eventually produce a topographically adequate response that is reliably evoked by particular, often complex and subtle environmental cues. Depressed test performances could be attributed to weaknesses within the verbal repertoire itself, weakness of requisite antecedent behaviors, or to inadequate motivation.

In the final analysis, standardized intelligence test performances yield information more definitive of the particular child's environment than his learning potential per s e . These performances are more an indica

tion of the current and historical reinforcing contingencies to which the child has been exposed than a measure of his innate ability to adapt to future learning situations. Of course, a past history of adequate exposure to contingencies requisite to test performance increases

the probability that the child will adequately perform on such tasks at a future date. This phenomena is what Strodtbeck (1964) refers to as the "hidden curriculum in the middle-class home."

The quick gains frequently reported in the preschool

literature (Datta, 1969) could be interpreted within the above learning theory framework. In such programs the children may have already acquired the behavioral repertoire requisite to higher test performance, but lack in the requisite antecedent behaviors that would allow such

a repertoire to be fully displayed in a structured testing situation (see Labov, 1972). Bringing an already acquired


Reproduced with

permission

of the copyright

owner.

Further reproduction

prohibited w

ithout perm

ission.

Changes in Requisite Antecedent Behaviors

Changes inAcademic(Cognitive)TargetSkills

TABLE 8*Motivation Learning

(Performance Effects)___________________________(Acquisition Effects)

Subject suddenly pays attention, sits still, tries to perform assigned tasks as a result of application of more powerful consequences— including changes in satiation or deprivation.

Subject learns to pay attention, sit still when appropriate, discriminate situations where reinforcement will be available, understand instructions. Change may be rapid or gradual, depending on the skill, and it can produce, in turn, a sudden change in performance of academic skills.

Subject suddenly does well when reinforcers are given (or deprivation level is changed). Usually it would have been evident that subject had the necessary skills already since he occasionally did well on this or similar tasks.

Subject’s attention and perseverence are strong all the time, and his academic skill performance show a gradual improvement.

*The author is indebted to Dr. Robert Hawkins for the analysis presented in this table.

32

repertoire under the control of selected antecedent stimuli nay prove to be a much quicker task than the Initial generation of that repertoire itself.

The gains reported by Zigler and Butterfield (1968) could be also interpreted as due to just such a condition.

By changing the test situation (rearranging the difficulty of initial tasks and reverting to less difficult items immediately after each set of two missed items) the authors have arranged the situation so that cues indicating the availability of reinforcement (being correct)

would always be present. It would be expected that the absence of such cues or the presence of cues indicating a low probability of correct responding would result in a disruption of the performance yielding the differences recorded by the authors.

The learning theory perspective allows not only for the logical integration of varying data reported from

many sources, but also leads directly to the proposition that it is the responsibility of preschools (and all schools) to teach not only content but "motivation" per s e , i.e. the skills necessary to adequately respond under various antecedent and consequent stimulus conditions.Such a position would alleviate much of the controversy concerning the causes of gains in programs. The cognitive (learning) vs. motivational dispute becomes a moot point:

both are the legitimate and necessary responsibilities of


33

preschool programs.If it is true that what are commonly termed "motiva

tional" behaviors are more rapidly acquired than cognitive skills, a strong argument can be made for the feasibility

of short length (summer) preschool programs for children

who lack these requisite antecedent skills. Once these skills have been acquired, staff would be in a better

position to evaluate the extent of the child's cognitive

repertoire. At this point truly efficient and individualized instruction can be prescribed for the child.

In conclusion, the findings of this study are in agreement with those of Sweet (1969) concerning the general

lack of effect of feedback and rewards on the vocabulary test performances of middle class white children. Sweet also found, as here, no examiner effects. The short administration time of the PPVT (fifteen minutes) should caution one against the application of these findings

to tests of much greater length and involving different skills (e.g. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities). Indeed, as discussed above, every test situation should be analyzed as if it were a unique interaction of many factors. Only a small beginning has been made in conducting the research required to coherently explain reported differential test performances. Perhaps the recent

theoretical paper by Labov (1972) analyzing possible causes of spurious low test scores by black children and


research reported in this paper would provide a basis for further study.


REFERENCES

Ayllon, T. and Azrin, N. H. The Token Economy: A Motivational System for Therapy and Rehabilitation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968, pp. 103-113.

Ball, S. and Bogatz, G. A. Sesame Street, first year evaluation report, Princeton, N.J.: EducationalTesting Service, 1970.

Barber, T. X. Pitfalls in research: nine investigatorand experimenter effects. In R.M.W. Travers (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago: RandMcNally, in press.

Becker, W., Engelmann, S., and Thomas, D. Teaching:A Course in Applied Psychology, Chicago: ScienceResearch Associates, 1971, pp. 306-321.

Beller, Kuno E. Study I: Use of Multiple Criteria toEvaluate Effects of Early Educational Intervention on Subsequent School Performance. 1968.

Bissell, J. Implementation of Planned Variation in Head Start: first year report. Office of Child Development, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971.

Bittner, M. and Rockwell, R. An evaluation of preschool readiness centers in East St. Louis, Illinois.PS 001-277, Government Printing Office, 1968.

Broden, M . , Hall, R. V., and Mitts, B. The effect of self-recording on the classroom behavior of two eighth-grade students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1971, 4 , 3, pp. 191-199.

Cicirelli, V., e£ aL. The Impact of Head Start: AnEvaluation of the Effects of Head Start on Children’s Cognitive and Affective Development. Washington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity, 1969.

Cohen, A. A Study of Incentives Under Schoolroom Conditions. Unpublished master's thesis, Columbia University, 1927.

Cohen, S., Keyworth, J., Kleiner, R . , and Libert, J. Thesupport of school behaviors by home-based reinforcement via parent-child contingency contracts. In Ramp, E. and Hopkins, B. L. (Eds.) A New Direction for Education : Behavior Analysis, 1971, vol. 1 . Universityof Kansas, Support and Development Center for Follow Through, Department of Human Development, pp. 282-306.

35


Datta, L. A report on evaluation studies of project Head Start. Office of Child Development, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C., 1969.

Douvan, E. Social status and success strivings.Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1956,52, 199-220.

Dunn, L. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test; Manual. Circle Pines, Minnesota: American GuidanceService, Inc., 1965.

Games, P. and Klare, G. Elementary Statistics; Data Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1967, p. 338.

Grothberg, E. Review of research 1965 to 1969.Research and Evaluation Office, Project Head Start, Office of Economic Opportunity, June,1969, OEO Pamphlet 6108-13.

Gray, S. The early training project. Unpublished manuscript, 1967.

Hamilton, M. J. An assessment of project head start in Kalamazoo, master's thesis, Western Michigan University, 1966, p. 46.

Hauserman, N. and Mclntire, R. Training Elementary Reading Skills Through Reinforcement and Fading Techniques. Lida Lee Tall Learning Resources Center, Towson State College, Towson, Maryland,1970.

Hawkridge, D., Chalupsky, A. and Roberts, A. A study of selected exemplary programs for the education of disadvantaged children. Palo Alto: American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968

Hoffman, M. , Mitsos, S., and Protz, R. Achievementstriving social class and test anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1958, 56, 401-403.

Hurlock, E. The value of praise and reproof as incentives for children. Archives Psychology, 1924,71.

Hurlock, E. The effects of incentives upon the constancy of the IQ. Journal of Genetical Psychology. 1925a, J32 , 422-434.


37

Hurlock* E. An evaluation of certain incentives used in school work. Journal of Educational Psychology,1925b, 16, 145^1TIT

Jensen, A. How auch can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 1969,39 , 1-123.

Karnes, H . , Hodgins, A., Teska, J. and Kirk, S. Research and development program on preschool disadvantaged children: Investigation of classroom and at-homeinterventions. Washington, D.C. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,1969.

Kennedy, W. and Willcutt, H. Praise and blame as incentives. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 5,323-332.

Kelley, K. Effects of reinforcement on standardized test performance. Unpublished master's thesis,Georgia State University, 1971.

Labov, W. Academic Ignorance and Black Intelligence.The Atlantic, June, 1972, 229, 6, 59-67.

Miller, J. 0. Review of selected intervention research with young children. ERIC Occasional Paper, 1968, p. 17.

Miller, L. and Dyer, J. Two kinds of kindergarten after four types of Head Start. Paper presented at the 1971 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, Minn., April 1-4,1971.

Rohwer, W. Prime time for education: Early childhoodor adolescence? Harvard Educational Review, 4 1 , 3, August, 19 71, 318-319.

Rosenthal, R. Interpersonal expectations: Effects ofthe experimenter's hypothesis. In R. Rosenthal and R. L. Rosnow (Eds.) Artifact in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press, 1969,181-277.

Schiefelbusch, R. The Juniper Gardens parent cooperative nursery school, 1968. Unpublished manuscript,Bureau of Child Research, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.


38

Sigel, I., and McBane, B. The relationship between cognitive competance and level of symbolization among five-year old children. In J . Hellmuth (Ed.), Disadvantaged Child. Vol. 1 , Seattle, Washington: Special Child Publications, 1967.

Skinner, B. F. The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968, p. 73.

Strodtbeck, F. L. The hidden curriculum in the middle- class home. In H. Passow, M. Goldberg, and E. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Education of the Disadvantaged.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967, 244-259,

Sweet, R. Variations in the intelligence test performance of lower class children as a function of feedback or monetary reinforcement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1969.

Terrell, G. and Kennedy, W. Discrimination learning and transposition in children as a function of the nature of the reward. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 5_3, 257-260.

Tiber, N., and Kennedy, W. The effects of incentives on the intelligence test performance of different social groups. Journal of Consulting Psychologist, 1964, 2_8, 187. “ -------------------------

Trezise, R. Preschool education: A review of theory andresearch concerning the impact of early childhood education on the educational growth of children; for the information of the Board of Education,Bureau of Educational Services, Michigan Department of Education: Feb. 10, 1970, Lansing, Michigan.

Ulrich, R. , Alessi, G., and Wolfe, M. The LearningVillage: An alternative to traditional education.In Packham, D., Cleary, A. and Mayes, T. (Eds.) Aspects of Educational Technology V . Bath, England: Pitman Publishing, 1971, pp. 13-26.

Van de Riet, V. An evaluation of the effects of an unique sequential learning program on culturally deprived preschool children. (ED 019 994) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1967.

Waller, D . , and Connors, K. A follow-up study of intelligence changes in children who participated in project Head Start. (ED 020 786) U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1968.


39

Weikart, D . , Deloria, D., Lawser, S. and Wiegerink, R.Longitudinal Results of the Ypsllanti Perry Preschool Pro j ectTI Ypsilanti , Mi ch i g an : High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, August, 1970.

Winer, B. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Zigler, E. and Butterfield, E. Motivational aspects ofchange in IQ test performance of culturally deprived nursery school children. Child Development, 1968,39, 1-14.


Documents

Effects of Manipulating Enforced Attention and