INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. I f copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy lias been filmed.

University MicrxSilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M I4 8 1 06

8526137

Ashbrook, Richard McBride

MEMORY ORGANIZATION IN ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER CHILDREN

The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1985

University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1985 by Ashbrook, Richard McBride All Rights Reserved

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or p ag es ______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______

3. Photographs with dark background _____

4. Illustrations are poor copy ______

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages V

8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print v"

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) ______‘ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered . Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received _

16. Other ______

University Microfilms International

MEMORY ORGANIZATION IN ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER CHILDREN

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate school of

The Ohio state University

By

Richard McBride Ashbrook, B.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University

1985

Reading Committee: Approved By

Peter Magaro, Ph.D. - |/VU-y^ Andrew Schwebel, Ph.D. Peter A. Magaro, Ph.D. Adviser Steven Beck, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Copyright by

Richard McBride Ashbrook

1985 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

portions of this project were supported by an Ohio state

University Graduate student Alumni Research Award (1984) for the project entitled "Information processing In

Childrenf" and from the Ohio Department of Mental Health

Small Grants Program (1984) for the project entitled

"Information processing Differences in Attention Deficit

Disorder, Conduct Problem, and Control children."

The author is grateful to Mr. John Maloney, Director, St.

Stephan's Community Center, Columbus, Ohio, and to Ms.

Billie Brown, Director, Neighborhood House Community

Center, Columbus, Ohio for permitting access to their clientelle and for providing research space. VITA

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Name: Richard McBride Ashbrook D.O.B.: 12/11/57 Address: 206 West North Broadway, Columbus, Ohio 43214

EDUCATION

Psychology Intern, 1985 University of Rochester Medical center Strong Memorial Hospital Division of Psychology (APA-Approved) 300 Crittenden Boulevard Rochester, New York 14642

Doctoral Candidate, 1985 Ohio state University Department of Psychology (APA-Clinical) 164 West 19th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210-1110

Master of Arts, 1982 Ohio state University Department of Psychology (APA-Clinical) 164 West 19th Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210-1110

17 graduate semester hours, 1980 University of Maryland, Baltimore county Department of Community-Clinical Psychology 5401 Wilkens Avenue Catonsville, Maryland 21228

Bachelor of Sciences, 1979 University of Maryland, University College University Boulevard at Adelphi Road College Park, Maryland 20742

iii SCHOLARSHIP

Elkridge Rotary Pour Year Academic Scholarship (1977). Maryland House of Delegates Two Year Academic Scholarship (1975) . Bauch and Lomb science Award, Howard County, MD (1975). Optimist club Youth Appreciation Award, Ellicott City, MD (1975).

AFFILIATIONS AND PUBLIC SERVICE

Editorial consultant, The Psychological Record, (1984). Association for the Advancement of Psychology (student), (1982-1984). Midwestern Psychological Association (student), (1982-1984). American Psychological Association (student), (1982-1984). Howard County Mental Health Advisory Board, Chairperson-New Programs Evaluation Committee, county Executive appointment, (1979). Governor's Youth Advisory Council, Howard County, Maryland, Gubernatorial appointment, (1977). International Order of DeMolay, Howard chapter, Maryland, Past Master councilor, (1976).

CLINICAL PRACTICA

St. Stephans & Neighborhood House community Center, 1982-84 (1000 hours) 1700 Cleveland Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 Supervisor: Peter A. Magaro, Ph.D., Professor, Licensed Clinical Psychologist Responsibilities: psychotherapy with outpatient adults, adolescents, and children, intellectual and personality assessment of children and adults.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 1982 (70 hours) London Correctional Institution, Department of Psychology P. 0. Box 69, London, OH 43140 Supervisor: R. C. Rahn, M.A., Director of psychology, Licensed clinical psychologist Responsibilities: cognitive and personality assessment of inmates.

iv Ohio State University Hospital/ Hyperactivity Clinic, 1982 (30 hours) 473 West 12th Avenue, Columbus-, OH 43210 Supervisor: L. Eugene Arnold, M.Ed., M.D., Professor of psychiatry and Pediatrics Responsibilities: Co-therapy with attention deficit disorder children and their families. psychoeducational Clinic, Ohio state University, 1982 (80 hours) 164 West 19th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 Supervisor: Beverely Thorn-Gray, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Licensed clinical psychologist Responsibilities: co-therapist for the treatment of sexual dysfunction, marital therapy.

Cleveland Avenue Medical center, 1981 (200 hours) 1570 Cleveland Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210 Supervisor: George Serednesky, Ph.D., Licensed clinical Psychologist Responsibilities: intellectual and personality assessment in adults and children, psychological assessment of medically referred outpatients, vocational counseling, relaxation training, and stress management.

Central Ohio psychiatric Hospital, 1981 (300 hours) 1960 West Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43203 Supervisor: Mel zwissler, Ph.D., Director of psychology, Licensed Clinical Psychologist Responsibilities: Individual psychotherapy with chronic inpatients, intellectual and personality assessment in adults with chronic mental illness and neurological disorder.

Children's Mental Health Center, East Central, 1980 (400 hours) 721 Raymond Street, Columbus, OH 43205 Supervisor: Robert Carlton, Ph.D., Director of Psychology, Licensed Clinical Psychologist Responsibilities: Individual psychotherapy with children, family therapy, intellectual and personality assessment of children, primary prevention program for children at-risk for psychopathology.

Taylor Manor Psychiatric Hospital, 1979-80 (300 hours) 4500 College Avenue, Ellicott City, MD 21043 Supervisor: Barbara Seidal, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical psychologist Responsibilities: Individual psychotherapy with inpatient adolescents.

v EMPLOYMENT

The Ohio State University - Department of psychology (9/81-6/84) 1945 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43210 position: Clinical Teaching Assistant

The Ohio State University - Department of Psychology (9/80-6/81) 1945 North High Street, Columbus, OH 43210 position: Research Associate

Stromberg publications - The Howard County Times (1/79-7/80) P. 0. Box 312, Ellicott City, MD 21043 Position: correspondent

Taylor Manor Psychiatric Hospital (6/78-7/80) 4500 College Avenue, Ellicott City, MD 21043 Position: Adolescent Counselor

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Ohio State university, Department of Psychology 1981-1984 Courses Assisted: Clinical Psychology in Urban Settings, Abnormal Psychology, Sociological Models of Madness, Cognitive Assessment.

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORSHIPS

Information processing differences in children. Ohio State University Graduate student Alumini Research Award (1984) $700.00.

Information processing differences in Attention Deficit Disorder, conduct Problem, and control children. Ohio Department of Mental Health Small Grants program (1984) $2700.00.

PRESENTATIONS

Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) The psychological and social effects of micro-computers on education, presented at Microcomputers and the Learning Process Conference. Clarkson University Center for Liberal Studies, Potsdam, New York.

vi Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) Instruction in the use of minicomputers for assessing cognitive deficiencies, and the use of video games for treating cognitive deficiencies. Presented at Understanding and Treatment of Cognitive Deficiencies conference. Ohio state University, Columbus, Ohio. Ashbrook, R.M., & Magaro, P.A. (1984) Information processing differences among primary and secondary psychopaths and inmate controls. Presented at Eastern Psychological Association Convention. Baltimore, Maryland.

Magaro, P.A., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) The application of an information processing model to the diagnosis and treatment of functional disorders through the use of microcomputers, presentation at Models and Techniques of Cognitive Rehabilitation - IV: Fourth International Symposium. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Ashbrook, R.M., & Magaro, p.A. (1982) Hyperactivity and psychopathology. Presented at Cognitive science and Educational Practice Conference. Columbus, Ohio.

Thorn-Gray, B.E., Ashbrook, R.M., & Johnson, M.H. (1981) Cross-toleranced between neuroanatomical sites in the periaqueductal grey. Presented at International Association for Neuroscience convention. Los Angeles, California.

PUBLICATIONS

Magaro, P.A., Ashbrook, R.M., Lesowitz, T.E., & Johnson, M,H. (1985) The consistency of hysteric traits accross three situational contexts. Personality and Individual Differences, in press.

Magaro, P.A., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1985) The personality of societal groups. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, in press.

Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) What will we do for the poor, disadvantaged, and computer illiterate? instructional Innovator, 29, 22-23.

Magaro, P.A., Smith, P., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) Personality style differences in visual search performance, psychiatry Research, 10, 131-138.

vii Ashbrook, R.M., & Magaro, P.A. (1984) Cognition in psychopathy and hyperactivity. In M. Languis, P.J. Naour, D.J. Martin, & J.J. Buffer (Eds.) Cognitive science: Contributions to Educational Practice. Columbus, Ohio: Educational Research Information Center.

Magaro, P.A., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) character disorder. In R. Corsini (Ed.) Wiley Encyclopedia of Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Magaro, P.A., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1984) immature personality. In R. Corsini (Ed.) Wiley Encyclopedia of Psychology. New York: Wiley.

Thorn-Gray, B.E., Johnson, M.H., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1982) cross-tolerance between two brainstem sites supporting stimulation-produced analgesia. Behavioral and Neural Biology, 36, 69-76.

Ashbrook, R.M. (1982) Information search and cognition in psychopathy. Masters Thesis, Ohio state University.

MANUSCRIPTS IN PREPARATION OR SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION

Ashbrook, R.M., Spaulding, W . , & Cromwell, R. Computer assessment of psychopathology: A stages of information processing approach. In J. Mancuso (Ed.) Computers in psychology. New York: pergamon Press. In preperation.

Ashbrook, R.M. psychological and social effects of computers on educacation. Submitted.

Ashbrook, R.M., & Magaro, p.A. Cognition in Attention Deficit Disorder children. In preperation.

Magaro, R.M., & Ashbrook, R.M. Report on the development of a computer-based cognitive testing battery. In preperation.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...... ii

VITA...... iii

LIST OF TABLES...... Xi

LIST OF FIGURES...... xii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

II. DIAGNOSIS...... 4

III. PROBLEMS IN THE INTERPRETATION OFRESEARCH.. 16

IV. COGNITIVE MEASURES OF ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER...... 27

V. SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH LITERATURE...... 62

VI. METHOD AND HYPOTHESES...... 74

VII. RESULTS...... 84

VIII. DISCUSSION...... 96

APPENDIXES

A. COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: PROGRAM...... 134

B. COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM. 141

C. COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT.... 145

D. SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: PROGRAM...... 148

E. SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM ...... 152

F. SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT...... 156

ix G. CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: PROGRAM...... 159

H. CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM 16 2

I. CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT... 173

J. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPUTER-ADMINISTERED COGNITIVE BATTERY...... 175

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 195

X LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. DSM-III Criteria for Attention Deficit Disorder...108

2. Recall Words for the categorized Recall Test...... 109

3. Correlation of Conners Rating Scale Factors...... 110

4. Correlation of Non-clinical Conners Rating Scale Factors...... Ill

5. Correlation of Severity Measures...... 112

6. correlation of Age with Intelligence and Severity Measures...... 113

7. comparison of classification procedures...... 114

8. Univariate Comparisons of Non-cognitive Measures by Achenbach Checklist Groups...... 115

9. Univariate Comparisons of Non-cognitive Measures by Conners Hyperactivity Factor...... 116

10. Univariate comparisons of Non-cognitive Measures by Conners Hyperactivity Factor with Unclassifiables...... 117

11. univariate comparisons of Non-cognitive Measures by Conners Hyperactivity and Conduct Problems Factor...... 118

12. Univariate Comparisons of Non-cognitive Measures by Loney Factor Groups...... 119

13. Color Distraction Test Variables By Classification Method...... 120

14. Categorized Recall Test Variables By Classification Method...... 121 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Ignore Word Errors: Hyperactive vs. Delinquent... 122

2. Ignore word correct Response Time: Hyperactive vs. Delinquent...... 123

3. Ignore Word Response Time interaction: Hyperactivity vs. Delinquent...... 124

4. ignore Word Errors: Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 125

5. ignore Word Response Time: Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 126

6. Ignore Word Response Time interaction: . Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 127

7. ignore Color Errors: Hyperactive vs. Delinquent..128

8. Ignore color Response Times: Hyperactive vs. Delinquent...... 129 9. Ignore color Errors:. Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 130

10. Ignore color Response Time: Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 131

11. Words Recalled: Hyperactive vs. Delinquent...... 132

12. Words Recalled: Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyp/agg...... 133

xii CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This paper attempts clarification of the attention deficit disorder syndrome by offering aspects of cognition as the explanatory basis by which it may be understood.

To this end, emphasis is placed on reviewing the attentional and stimulus processing capacities of attention deficit disorder children. Since inattention, impulsivity, and motoric hyperactivity are believed to characterize the attention deficit disorder child, experimental measures that operationalize these constructs are examined. In addition, other measures that assess information processing capacity in attention deficit disorder children are reviewed. A hypothesis is offered that relates the symptoms of attention deficit disorder to difficulty in the conceptual organization of information in memory. To test this hypothesis, a battery of computer-administered cognitive tasks was developed.

Attention deficit disorder children and appropriate control children were then administered the test battery, and performance measures were contrasted among the experimental groups and compared to theoretical models of memory search and organization.

Prior to a discussion of cognitive functioning in attention deficit disorder, diagnostic and research problems are addressed. The symptoms of attention deficit disorder are placed within a historical context to contrast the medical and psychological models of this diagnostic category. The constructs of inattention and impulsivity that are used to organize current diagnostic symptoms are viewed as inadequate in that they do not lead to the identification of discrete behaviors nor do they reflect specific theoretical models. Issues of deficit specificity, inappropriate comparison samples, gender differences in prevelance, untoward effects of medication, and the presence of measurement artifacts are considered as possible confounds to the interpretation of research with this population. Other problems with the current diagnostic approach include the the failure to consider the developmental and situational reliability of symptoms, the inability to track childhood symptoms through maturing developmental periods, and difficulty relating central deficits to the correspondence between attention deficit disorder and greater risk for adjustment problems and the development of specific psychopathologies in adulthood.

A particular problem addressed is the differential diagnosis of attention deficit disorder children compared to other seemingly related nosological groups, especially conduct disorder and delinquent children. Consequently, a portion of the research study compares and contrasts some popular diagnostic methods employing rating scale measures of child psychopathology. The construct of problem severity is offered as one factor responsible for similarities and differences among diagnostic subtypes.

Another approach to discriminating subtypes that is considered is the comparison of different grouping methods on the basis of their performance on cognitive tasks. CHAPTER II

DIAGNOSIS

HISTORY

Behavioral hyperactivity was first described as a symptom of a variety of diseases observed in a clinical population of children presumed to have undergone some degree of brain damage (still, 1902). The belief that the behavioral symptom of hyperactivity reflected organic brain damage was strengthened by the descriptions of behavioral sequelae to known neurological disease (Ebaugh,

1923; Hohman, 1922; Strecker & Ebaugh, 1924), the accidental discovery of improved school performance in emotionally disturbed children following administration of stimulants (Bradley, 1937), and animal research that linked motoric hyperactivity to cerebral ablations (e.g.,

French & Harlow, 1955). Behavioral aberation in the form of motoric hyperactivity became explicitly accepted as the result of brain alteration and authors began describing a brain damage syndrome whose primary feature was some form of motoric hyperactivity (Strauss & Lehtinen, 1947).

The undemonstrable existence of brain damage in cases where hyperactivity was present led to a questioning of the physical pathology hypothesis (Childers, 1935; Wender,

1971), and later nomenclature reflected^ softening of this etiological stance. The expression brain damaged was gradually replaced by minimally brain damaged (Box &

Mackeith, 1963), hyperkinetic syndrome (Rutter, Lebovici,

Eisenberg, Snezhevskij, Sadoun, Brooks, & Lin, 1969), and hyperkinetic reaction of childhood (American psychiatric

Association, 1968). The search for organic based explanations continued, as emphasis shifted to detecting milder signs of neurological dysfunction. Results from studies in this area were disappointing and conclusions were much the same as those regarding brain damage (Camp,

Bailer, Sverd, & Winsberg, 1978; McMahon & Greenberg,

1977; Werry, 1979).

As support for the Medical model diminished, organic explanations were de-emphasized and cognitive models became prominant. The hyperactive symptom was recast as an "attention deficit disorder" syndrome (American

Psychiatric Association, 1980) reflecting the recognition that motoric hyperactivity was but one symptom of the hyperactive child and that this and other symptoms could be understood as the result of an attentional problem.

The nomenclature change marked a new shift toward the

Cognitive Psychological Model whereby symptoms were seen as the product of cognitive activity. It is now time for 6 an examination of the constructs in this diagnostic system. To this end, it is necessary to consider symptoms that are believed to reflect the cognitive deficit, evaluate these symptoms against different diagnostic criteria, and then relate the symptoms to constructs of cognition that allow discrete experimental measurement.

DIAGNOSTIC METHODS

Formal Diagnostic Criteria: The Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-III) organized symptoms into three primary categories, problems of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity (American

Psychiatric Association, 1980). Symptoms from the first of these two categories are necessary for diagnosis, while the presence of hyperactivity serves only to place individuals in one of two diagnostic subtypes, attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity (Table 1).

Unlike inattention and impulsivity, the construct of hyperactivity has been readily translated into experimental measures of activity level, thereby providing empirical support for this symptom category. Hyperactive t children's behavior is characterized by overactivity in standardized playroom settings, where it is often measured simply by the child's crossing the lines of a grid on a playroom floor (Abikoff, Gittlemen-Klein & Klein, 1977;

Hutt & Hutt, 1964; Montagu, 1975; Pope, 1970), and classroom observations of these children documented

increased activity levels in less restrictive "open"

classrooms (Jacob, O'Leary, & Rosenblad, 1978; Routh &

Schroeder, 1976). In summary, the symptom of overactivity

is supported by experimental measures, especially in cases

where the situation calls for moderation of activity

level.

Overactivity is a primary defining criterion for the

diagnosis of the attention deficit disorder syndrome and

its presence is often assessed by global ratings of a child's behavior (Shaffer & Greenhill, 1979). Teacher

ratings of activity level accounted for the most variance

in clinician's diagnosis of hyperactivity (Ullman, Egan,

Fiedler, Jurenec, Pliske, Thompson, & Doherty, 1981).

Other symptoms were judged important by certain raters,

but there was little agreement as to which symptoms were

necessary beyond that of overactivity. Thus, there is a

concensus for the use and the importance of the symptom of

overactivity,

Inattention and impulsivity are problematic in that

their presence is not generally accepted as necessary for

diagnosis and the specific symptoms are not readily

distinguishable from one another. For instance, "fails to

finish things" does not appear any more related to

inattention than it does to impulsivity. Failing to finish things may be another way of saying a child is distractible, has difficulty concentrating, has difficulty sticking to a play activity, shifts from one activity to another, or needs a lot of supervision. Each of these is offered as a discrete symptom, although in fact, they may represent no more than a collection of nearly synonomous statements, since the symptoms of inattention and impulsivity are rather vague in terms of discrete behaviors, likely co-occur in a manner that makes the seperate items behaviorally indistinguishable, and do not obviously reflect discrete theoretical constructs, a main purpose of this paper is to clarify the cognitive processes that are subsumed under the symptoms of inattention and impulsivity.

Alternative Methods of Diagnosis: Aside from the diagnostic criteria of DSM-III and global ratings of overactivity, behavioral checklists are sometimes employed in the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder children

(see review in Barkley, 1981). The Conners Teacher Rating

Scale (Conners, 1969), the most widely used rating instrument, yields five general item clusters, although only an elevated score on the Hyperactivity Factor or the

Hyperactivity Index is considered pathognomonic of the attention deficit disorder syndrome. Overactivity is strongly represented by items on the Hyperactivity index and factor. Among those items with the strongest factor

loadings are "restless in the squirmy sense", "restless or overactive", "excitible", and "restless, always up and on

the go" (Arnold, Barnebey, & Smeltzer, 1981; Goyette,

Conners, & Ulrich, 1978). The success with which these

items discriminate between groups of hyperactive and control children (Conners, 1970; Kupietz, Bialer, &

Winsberg, 1972; Sprague, Christensen & Werry, 1974) could be attributed simply to their sensitivity to overactivity,

independent of inattention and impulsivity.

The literature on factor studies of childhood behavior ratings supports the presence of a hyperactive factor or syndrome (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1978;

Achenbach, 1980; Edelbrock & Achenbach, 1980), although no support was found for an attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity (Achenbach, 1980). Moreover, other groups of pathological children are sometimes described as

inattentive, although this symptom does not appear unique to any single group. Consequently, the constructs of

inattention and impulsivity must be called into question since these symptoms do not appear to sufficiently characterize the attention deficit disorder syndrome.

PROBLEMS WITH THE DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA

There are a number of problems with the diagnostic

criteria some of which are especially relevant to the 10

selection of subjects for research. Ultimately, the

reliability and generalizability of research is

diminsished if these problems are ignored.

Developmental Reliability of Symptoms: A challange

to the current diagnostic approach is the failure to

consider developmental differences in symptom expression.

The symptoms of attention deficit disorder children vary as a function of developmental age. For instance, in

infancy these children more often develop colic (Stewart,

Pitts, craig, & Dieruf, 1966), fail to reach developmental milestones (Denoff, 1973) and are prone to deviations in activity level (Werry, Weiss, & Douglas, 1964). By the preschool years, these children fail to follow through when given chores, behave disruptively towards their siblings, and generally are considered temperamental and emotional (Schain & Reynard, 1975). Upon entering school,

these children become a source of distress for others by

leaving class without permission, fighting, failing to complete assignments, appearing overactive, and having difficulty with nearly every aspect of school work

(Stewart et al., 1966).

Factor analytic studies of behavioral rating scale

items support the developmental variation of symptoms.

Age of child was found to account for a significant portion of the variance on the Hyperactive and Conduct problem factors of the Conners scales (Goyette, Conners, &

Ulrich, 1978) and the composition of item clusters differed as a function of age {Arnold, Barneby, &

Smeltzer, 1981). In short, only one set of symptoms may correspond to referral problems at a particular age.

Extending these same symptoms to younger or older samples of children may violate diagnostic validity in that heterogeneous groups may be selected with respect to the underlying deficit responsible for the problem behavior.

Situational Reliability of symptoms: Just as age influences the expression of symptoms, situations contribute to variations in problem behaviors. Only 25 percent of a sample of clinic referrals were unanimously

judged as hyperactive by teachers, mothers and clinicians

(Klein & Gittelman-Klein, 1975). Another study found over half of the children referred for hyperactivity were not

judged hyperactive by any staff member in the clinical setting (Kenny, Clemmens, Hudson, Lentz, Cicci, & Nair,

1971) and even when the presence of motoric overactivity was noted in the clinic assessment, it was not a good predictor of differences at follow-up (Sleator & Ullman,

1981). The disagreement in these studies among the raters is seen as a failure to consider variations in symptoms across disparate settings. A resoJution to this problem may be the specification of particular cognitive deficts 12 unique to the attention deficit disorder syndrome that can be assessed through a standardized task, for the most part

irrespective of the environmental setting.

Reliability of Symptoms Over Time: There is a

relationship between the diagnosis of attention deficit disorder in childhood and greater risk for psychopathology in adulthood (see review by Amado & Lustman, 1982).

Follow-up studies of hyperactive children demonstrate that they tend to become less impulsive and less motorically overactive when they reach adolescence, although they remain more distractible, restless, emotionality immature, and aggressive than matched control children (Minde,

Weiss, & Mendelson, 1972; Weiss, Minde, Werry, Douglas, &

Nemeth, 1971). These adolescents continue to perform poorly in school and employ impulsive rather than reflective strategies in performing cognitive tasks

(Cohen, Weiss, & Minde, 1972). Other studies support the general finding of adjustment problems in children first diagnosed with symptoms consistent with an attention deficit disorder syndrome (Borland & Hackman, 1976;

Morris, Escoll, & Wexler, 1956; Menkes, Rowe, & Menkes,

1967). There is also some data suggesting that these children as adults display an impulsive life style, as evidenced by more geographic moves, more vehicular accidents, inferior performance on cognitive style tests, 13

impulsive-immature personality traits (Hopkins, Perlman,

Hechtman, & Weiss, 1979; Weiss, Hechtman, Perlman,

Hopkins, & Wener, 1979) and an increased incidence of

illicit drug use (Kramer & Loney, 1982). Another study suggested that attention deficit disorder children suffer

various social disabilities in adulthood, including less education, more divorces, more problems while serving in the military, less liklihood of achieving higher job status, and greater propensity for violence and legal

involvement than matched controls (Morrison, 1980).

There are serious methodological problems with several of the longitudinal and retrospective studies just described. studies using subjects diagnosed several years earlier often lack specific diagnostic symptoms that have counterparts in today's classification systems (e.g.,

Huessey & Metoyer, 1973) making any direct comparison with current diagnostic standards difficult. Other studies utilized control groups that may inadvertently bias follow-up resul

Relationship of Diagnosis to Adult psychopathology:

Some authors have noted a relationship between attention deficit disorder and specific adult psychopathologies

(Satterfield, 1978). Family studies support a relationship between attention deficit disorder and the syndrome of adult psychopathy, parents of hyperactive children compared to parents of matched control children exhibited a greater frequency of psychopathy, alcoholism, and hysteria (Cantwell, 1972; Morrison & Stewart, 1971).

A greater percent of second-degree male relatives of hyperactive children were alcoholic or psychopathic as adults and more female relatives were hysteric (Cantwell,

1972). Family studies of adult psychopaths also reveal increased prevalence for alcoholism, psychopathy, and hysteria (Guze, Wolfgram, McKinney, & Cantwell, 1967).

Thus, close relatives of attention deficit disorder children have an excess of the same psychiatric disorders

found in the families of psychopathic adults (Cloninger,

Christian, Reich, & Gottesman, 1978). The present symptom approach to attention deficit disorder does not promote a comparison of childhood and adult syndromes in terms of the relevant cognitive processes. Needed is a way of measuring the more central deficit and relating it to the behaviors seen at different ages. CHAPTER III

PROBLEMS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF RESEARCH

Diagnostic factors that are potentially confounding

to the interpretation of research in the attention deficit

disorder syndrome will now be discussed, and where possible, suggestions are offered to avoid these problems.

It should be recognized that the state of current research

is such that many studies would be rendered

uninterpretable in light of these criticisms.

Nevertheless, studies will be reviewed despite their

inadequacies, although we encourage the reader to

recognize the limitations in terms of the ensueing discussion.

COMPARISON GROUPS

A serious problem with studies that utilize symptoms

to discriminate between a known pathological group and a

sample of nonpathological control children is the failure

to consider the issue of deficit specificity (Neale &

Oltmans, 1980; Neale, 1982). Use of a poorly defined contrast group cannot identify a symptom that is specific

to attention deficit disorder. The use of nonpathological control children is especially problematic since there is

16 17 an increased chance that differences may be attributed to

factors other than the diagnostic syndrome. put another way, differences between experimental subjects and

non-clinical control children may be due to a general

level of disorganization or psychopathology that is

unrelated to the specific syndrome, a superior research strategy is to select at least one comparison group that

shares a dimension of pathology or risk for pathology. If dependent measures are then shown to discriminate between

these two groups, we can be more confident that the

observed differences are unique to the particular

syndrome.

A related issue in the selection of comparison groups

is the adequacy of a matched sample. Even when control

children are matched on identifying variables, such as

socioeconomic status or intelligence, there is no reason

to assume that a significant group difference is due to a

specific deficit. Furthermore, while matching provides a

means of controlling for the nonspecific effects of the

matching variables, it may also produce comparison groups

that are systematically "unmatched" on the other variables

(Meehl, 1970). To overcome this problem, it is advisable

to employ two normal comparison groups, subjects in one

group ay be assigned on the basis of particular matching

varia -les and subjects in the other group may be drawn 18 randomly from the population. If differences on the dependent measures are found between these two group, then it is possible that the matching variables created a systematic bias.

A further issue is the differentiation between attention deficit disorder and the seemingly related learning disorders and conduct disturbances. There is a substantial overlap between learning disorder and attention deficit disorder (Rutter, 1984). For instance, there is a greater incidence of learning disabilities among hyperactive children than control children (Lambert

& Sandoval, 1980) and academic achievement, especially reading ability, is generally determined to be lower among samples of hyperactive children compared to their peers

(Cantwell & Satterfield, 1978; Keogh, 1971; Mine, Lewin,

Weiss, Lavigueur, Douglas, & Sykes, 1971). Other studies have indicated discriminability of these groups on the basis of cognitive performance. Learning disabled children exhibited selective attention deficits and normal intellectual functioning while hyperactive children had difficulty with vigilance and obtained lower intelligence scores (Delamater, Lahey, & Drake, 1981; Douglas & Peters,

1979). Biographical variables also reveal similarities an d .differences between groups. Learning disability has been related to large, low-socioeconomic families prone to 19 experiencing stressors with a positive family history of learning difficulties while hyperactive children show a positive family history of hyperactivity and little association to a specific socioeconomic level (Nichols &

Chen, 1981). On the other hand, the similarities among these disorders is quite striking in that both shared a male preponderance, an association with maternal smoking during pregnancy, perinatal and early developmental difficulties, inpaired right-left discrimination, and the presence of a retarded sibling (Nichols & Chen, 1981).

The need to be mindful of subtle sample characteristics, such as socioeconomic level, family and developmental history, and intelligence, is stressed since these variables may point toward etiological factors and refinements in diagnostic classification.

Discrimination between conduct disturbances and attention deficit disorder is perhaps the most puzzling diagnostic dilema. The overlap of attentional symptoms among childhood psychopathologies has already been mentioned, and this is especially the case with respect to disturbances of conduct. Hyperactivity and conduct disorder measures are highly intercorrelated. Even among children randomly sampled from an educational setting, the correlation between Conner's Hyperactivity Index and the

Conduct Problems Factor reached a value of 0.79 (Goyette, Conners, & Ulrich, 1978). Orthogonal factor and cluster

analytic solutions applied to rating scales have sometimes yielded items which seem to discriminate among hyperactive

and conduct disorder children (Achenbach & Edelbrock,

1978; Lahey, Green, & Forehand, 1980; Nuechterlein, Soli,

Garmezy, Devine, & Schaefer, 1981; Soli, Nuechterlein,

Garmezy, Devine, & Schaefer, 1981; Quay, 1979), although these subject classification methods have yet to be widely used in clinical and research settings.

A further refinement to the diagnostic task has been consideration of blended subtypes. Loney (Langhorne &

Loney, 1979; Loney, Langhorne, & Paternite, 1978) has studied children- divided into groups of pure hyperactives, pure aggressives, and hyperactive aggressives on the basis of rating scale scores. The later of these groups was found to exhibit greater severity across measures and seemed least like either of the other groups. The groups with an aggressive component to their behavior were found to come from homes of lower socioeconomic status, have

less loving parents, few neurological "soft" signs, and present as more aggressive at follow-up, while pure hyperactives committed more errors on a visual-motor task and responded more favorably to an initial drug trial.

Similarly, pure hyperactives have been shown to have less severe behavior disturbance but greater incidence of learning disability compared to children with unsocialized

aggression and both hyperactivity and unsocialized

aggression (Stewart, Cummings, Singer, & deBlois, 1981;

Stewart, deBlois, & Cummings, 1980). Pure hyperactives were also found more likely to have a positive family

history for antisocial personality and alcoholism. The presence of a distinct hyperactive group was supported by

another study that found most aggressive children to also be hyperactive, while the converse of this was not

necessarily true; that is, there were a number of hyperactive children who were not aggressive (Prinz,

Connor, & Wilson, 1981).

In summary, research into the attention deficit

disorder syndrome is complicated by the multiplicity of

associated symptoms among and within diagnostic subtypes.

A step toward resolution of this issue is the inclusion of

related pathological control groups in studies of

attention deficit disorder. Likewise, within a single

study, several methods could be utilized to cull subjects

into groups. In this manner, dependent measures could be

examined across groupings to detect similarities and

differences in the convergence of symptoms.

CONFOUNDING VARIABLES

Sex Differences: Varying prevalence estimates between males and females for attention deficit disorder lead to a consideration of sex differences in this syndrome. Across sexes, some authors have estimated between 10 and 20 percent of school-age children are hyperactive (Huessy, 1967, 1974? Huessy St Gendron, 1970?

Huessy, Marshall, & Gendron, 1973), while others have placed the rate between one and five percent (Lambert,

Sandoval, & Sassone, 1978? Bosco & Robin, 1976). The prevelance for males alone is sometimes placed between five and twelve percent of the school-age male population

(Jones, Loney, Weissenburger, & Fleischman, 1975? Miller,

Palkes, & Stewart, 1973? Sprague, Cohen, & Eichlseder,

1977). Miller, Palkes, and Stewart (1973) reported an incidence of one in 100 girls, and other studies reported ratios ranging from three or four boys to every girl

(Safer & Allen, 1976) to nine boys for every girl (Werry,

1968). There have also been some tenative indications that the antecedents and concommittants of hyperactivity in girls may differ from those in boys (Battle & Lacy,

1972? Prinz & Loney, 1974). In addition, sex differences contribute to a significant amount of the variation in the behavioral ratings of psychopathological children

(Achenbach, 1980).

For the most part, studies of attention deficit disorder restrict sample composition to.males. While this is partly justified in light of the difference in 23

prevelance estimates, it is necessary to keep in mind that

generalizability of results is probably limited to the sex

that was studied. seperate statistical analyses for males

and females are advised in those studies with both sexes

represented in the sample.

Medication: Medication effects may be a confounding

variable in studies of cognition in attention deficit

disorder children. The use of stimulant treatment for

attention deficit disorder is widespread (Conway, 1976;

Sprague and sleator, 1973; Bosco & Robin, 1980; Sandoval,

Lambert, & Sassone, 1980; Greenberg and Lipman, 1971) and

stimulant medication is known to influence performance on

selected measures of attention or vigilance, choice

reaction time, cognitive style, and concept learning

(Aman, 1978; Baxley & LeBlanc, 1976; Conners, 1976;

Douglas, 1976; Sprague & Sleator, 1973; Stroufe, 1975).

Effects have also been seen on paired associate tasks and

seem to be particular to positive drug responders

(Swanson, Kinsbourne, Roberts, & zucker, 1978). Thus,

even within a group of medicated subjects, response to

medication may be quite different. Stimulants have been

shown to affect learning and retention in several other

studies jl instance, Ritalin improved recall of story

content over a two hour period, but not over a two day period (Rie & Rie, 1977). State-dependent learning 24 effects on paired associate tasks have also been reported in hyperactive children that is unlike that in nonhyperactive children {Kinsbourne & Swanson, 1979;

Fisher, 1978). Given the consistent interaction of stimulant treatment with task performance, it is critical to control for these medication effects by accounting for their effect on dependent measures.

The side effects of medication may also interact with experimental variables in a way that affects task performance. Side effects of psychostimulants include decreased appetite, sleep disturbance, headache, stomachache, skin rash, sadness, social withdrawal, lethargy, irritability, decreased emotional responsivity, pschotic-like symptoms, increased heart rate, elevation of blood pressure, decreased oxygen expenditure during exercise, and possible growth retardation (see Whalen &

Henker, 1980). Given the wide range of effects of medication on cognitive tasks, somatic states, emotional mood, and physiological arousal, it becomes increasingly difficult- to seperate these contaminating effects from the effects of experimental measures.

Some studies include both medicated and unmedicated children in a single sample, although most studies attempt control of the confounding effects of medication by selecting subjects who are unmedicated or by discontinuing the dosage for a specified period of time prior to

testing. Unmedicated children may not be representative

of the population of attention deficit disorder children since they may represent those children with milder symptoms. Discontinuing medication for a brief period may be an inadequate control of its effects since residual

levels of stimulant may persist. Discontinuation of medication for a substantial time, prior to testing is one solution, although admittedly in certain circumstances this may be impossible due to ethical considerations that preclude the withdrawal of an effective treatment for the purpose of research.

Measurement Artifacts: Artifacts of the experimental measures are also a source of confound in studies of cognition in attention deficit disorder. Most hypotheses about cognitive deficits are tested in designs in which two or more error scores are compared. These designs are prone to two general types of problems (chapman & Chapman,

1973). A single score per subject is not sufficient to measure a specific deficit because subjects with cognitive pathology typically show generalized cognitive deficit; that is, they show low scores on almost any measure.

Meaningful statments about specific deficits must be in terms of differential deficits; that is, there should be a greater loss in one ability than in one or more other abilities. Another problem arises as the result of differences in the discriminating power of the test.

Discriminating power refers to the extent to which the score differentiates the more able from the less able subjects in the ability measured. If the tests are not matched on other variables that affect the discriminating power, such as item difficulty and reliability, group differences may emerge that are the result of measurement artifacts.

An example from the attention deficit disorder literature of a measurement artifact that leads to misinterpretation of results is the effect of task order.

Failure to counterbalance conditions has been shown to be a plausible explanation for many of the studies that find distractability problems in attention deficit disorder children (Douglas & peters, 1979). These children appear to be particularly sensitive to the effects of having to repeat a task. Thus, if tasks that are administered last in a long series of testing operations are found to discriminate groups, this result may be mistakenly attributed to the nature of the task, when in fact it is due to the order in which the task was presented. The importance of counterbalancing task order and limiting test administration time is stressed. CHAPTER IV

COGNITIVE MEASURES OF ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY

Theoretical constructs which define the attention deficit desorder syndrome have shifted drastically in recent years toward cognitive and attentional terms (e.g.,

Rosenthal & Allen, 1978). The time has come to examine the construct validity of the cognitive approach, consequently this chapter considers the relationship between symptoms of attention deficit disorder and experimental measures of cognitive constructs. Construct validity for a syndrome is established by defining a domain of symptoms on the basis of their perceived relationship to a hypothesized central deficit (cronbach,

1970). When measures of two or more distinct constructs are developed at the same time and administered together convergent and divergent evidence for the construct is obtained, while method contaminants are suppressed

(Jackson, 1971; Messick, 1981). Within such a perspective, the measurement of certain cognitive processes should show a strong relationship to the symptoms specified in the diagnostic category. That is,

27 28 symptoms which are related to the proposed theoretical constructs should correlate with experimental measures of such constructs and be able to distinguish between attention deficit disorder and control groups. The following discussion of experimental measures follows this approach.

IMPULSIVITY

The DSM-III offers impulsivity as a superordinate category under which several specific symptoms are organized such as "acts before thinking", "frequently calls out in class", and "difficulty awaiting turn". In addition, the Conners scale lists "excitable, impulsive" and "temper outbursts, unpredictable behavior" as symptoms on the hyperactivity index. Our interest is in operationalizing impulsivity in terms of an established experimental measure to determine whether a problem on this dimension is supported, and if it is, whether it may be related to a more central hypothesized deficit.

The Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT? Kagan,

Rosman, Day, Albert, & Phillips, 1964) in which a familiar visual stimuli is presented simultaneously with six variants, is the common measure of the impulsive style.

Campbell, Douglas, and Morgenstern (1971) found hyperactive children to have shorter response latencies and more errors on this test than did control children. Firestone and Martin (1979) studied four groups of school-aged children on this measure: hyperactive children; behavior problem children; asthmatic children; and normal control children. Hyperactive children made significantly more matching errors than did both the asthmatic and control children, but not significantly more errors than did the behavior problem group. Response latency measures did not differentiate among the four groups. Thus, hyperactive and behavior problem children who may be considered impulsive were deficient only in respect to response accuracy. Since the response latency measure did not discriminate between groups, the decision-making component of this task may be problematic for these children independent of their need to respond quickly. Campbell (1973) found a group of hyperactive children to make more errors and to have shorter response latencies than did a group of normal control children who were previously classified as reflective on the basis of their MFFT scores. Hyperactive children, however, did not differ on either measure when compared to normal control children who had been classified as impulsive.

Thus, the presence of impulsivity does distinguish the attention deficit disorder child from the average child or from the reflective child, but not from impulsive or behavior problem child. 30

A children's version of the MFFT in a pre-school age sample supported the discrimination of groups on the basis of error scores (Schleifer, Weiss, Cohen, Elman, Cvejic, &

Kruger, 1975), although the error pattern did not remain reliable at a two-year follow-up (Campbell, schleifer,

Weiss, & Perlman, 1977). As mentioned earlier, the presence of overactivity in this young of a sample may be insufficient evidence on which to base a diagnosis of hyperactivity, thereby questioning these results even further. Adults orginally diagnosed as hyperactive also made more errors on the MFFT than did matched controls

(Hopkins, Perlman, Hechtman, & Weiss, 1979).

In summary, there is. evidence for the presence of the impulsive cognitive style in school age attention deficit disorder children in terms of their performance on the

MFFT. Mainly, these children exhibit more matching errors than other children. The significance of this result for the study of cognition is clouded by three problems.

Since attention deficit disorder children perform in a manner identical to the performance of impulsive and behavior problem children, discriminatability between groups in other studies may simply reflect endorsement of a particular response style that is not unique to the attention deficit disorder syndrome (Sergeant, van

Velthoven, & Virginia, 1979). The global nature of the reflection-impulsivity

.■cognitive style tells little about the particular

..cognitive deficifcrthat affects performance on a task of

'•'this type. component cognitive skills necessary for

•reflective task performance include adequate feature

sampling, short-term memory, comparison strategies, and

decision making (Sergeant et al., 1979). Without

operationalizing these component skills for experimental

analysis, only inappreciable information is learned about

the true cognitive deficit. A third problem arises when

considering that only the response accuracy component of

impulsivity is consistently found to be deficient in the

attention deficit disorder child. Quick response latency

is central to the construct of impulsive behavior (Kagen

et al, 1964). Thus, it is not entirely clear to what

* e'xtent the impulsive style as assessed by

'reflection-impulsirvity is related to a central deficit in

■this syndrome. =

In short, the impulsive cognitive style may apply to

non-attention deficit disorder children with an impulsive

cognitive style, iand to children with behavior problems or

other signs of pathology (Campbell, 1973; Firestone &

Martin, 1979; Schleifer et al., 1975). While there is

support for the symptom of impulsivity in attention

deficit disorder in terms of an experimental measure, 32

impulsivity does not appear to be the predominant problem.

INATTENTION AS SELECTIVE ATTENTION

A persistent difficulty in attentional constructs has been the diversity of meanings ascribed to attention

(Mostofsky, 1970). As mentioned earlier, the organization of symptoms under the heading of inattention in DSM-III is of marginal value in specifying the type of attentional dysfunction present in attention deficit disorder. So that some of this confusion may be avoided, components of attention that have been operationalized in terms of distinguishable experimental measures or paradigms are described.

Selective attention involves the seperation of relevant from irrelevant simultaneous stimuli (Zubin,

1975). Irrelevant information within a task is distracting in the sense that it obscures the critical stimulus dimensions (Alabiso & Hansen, 1977). Symptoms of attention deficit disorder are suggestive of a selective attention deficit. For instance, the DSM-III lists

"easily distracted" as one of the symptoms and

"distractibility" is an item on the Conners Teacher Rating

Scale. Since selective attention has been operationalized using different experimental paradigms, these studies will be organized by their predominant experimental method.

Figure-ground Relationships: One experimental 33 technique that can be construed as a gross measure of selective attention is the ability to distinguish figure-ground relationships as assessed by tests of field dependency-independency (Witkin, Syk, Patterson,

Goodenough, & Karp, 1962). Children who are field-dependent fail to separate visual stimuli into composite parts, instead they appear to process all stimuli as a diffuse whole, making little differentiation among components. In a sense, they are distracted by the context and cannot select the central stimulus.

Campbell, Douglas, and Morgenstern (1971) found hyperactive children isolated significantly fewer embedded figures than control children on the children's Embedded

Figures Test (Karp & Konstadt, 1963), although this relationship is not always found (Hommatidis &

Konstantareas, 1981). Schleifer et al. (1975) did not discover overall between group differences between pre-school hyperactive children and controls, although when a subset of the orginal sample was distingushed on the basis of symptom severity, the severely hyperactive pre-schoolers appeared more field-dependent. It is likely that field dependency, in this case, was related to the severity of problems present rather than to any specific problems, such as those comprising an attention deficit disorder syndrome. Degree of pathology may have decreased 34 any test performance, regardless of the specific task.

When these same children were assessed at a two year follow-up, differences in field dependency were not present (Campbell et al., 1977), thereby suggesting that this measure is unreliable for distinguishing between attention deficit disorder children and control children.

Adults who were initially diagnosed hyperactive appeared more field dependent than controls (Hopkins,

Perlman, Hechtman, & Weiss, 1979), although sampling error may be responsible for this finding. Twenty percent of the follow-up population refused to participate because

"they were doing well and did not wish to be reminded of their problems." As a result, it seems likely that individuals with more adjustment problems were over-represented in the sample. Again, if more adjustment problems indicate a severity measure of psychopathology, then the more field dependent style may be expected on this basis rather than because of its relation to the attention deficit disorder syndrome.

It seems unlikely that field dependency is specific to attention deficit disorder or that it is characteristic of some underlying cognitive deficit. That the existence of field dependency is occasionally observed in this population may be attributable to the association of field dependency with symptom severity or level of pathology. 35

Thus, selective attention, in so far as is assessed by this measure of cognitive style, does not appear uniquely impaired in attention deficit disorder.

Extraneous Distraction: Another method of studying selective attention is the presentation of supplemental stimuli that is unrelated to the task. The effect of this extraneous information is examined to determine whether it differentially detracts from performance.

Only a few studies can be found to support a selective attention deficit and their results are either unclear or subject to methodological problems. Worland,

North-Jones, and stern (1973) found a differential deficit in performance for hyperactive children on one of three tasks administered under visual and auditory distraction.

The experimental tasks were not counterbalanced, the task on which the deficit was found was always given last, and the entire testing session lasted apporximately 2.5 hours.

The significant effect for distraction therefore may be accounted for by the hyperactive children's inability to maintain attention over time, or their greater susceptibility to fatigue and boredom (Douglas & Peters,

1979). Radosh and Gittlemen (1981) found a differential distraction effect for hyperactive children on a task requiring subjects to complete arithmetic problems under a condition in which a border surrounding the problem 36

contained colorful fragments of pictures free of content.

Results of this study do not lead to a clear

interpretation in favor of distraction since the effect was not produced in a condition in which the border was

filled with colorful magazine cutouts that were hypothesized to be the most compelling distraction. In addition, an assumption of the distraction method that the presence of extraneous stimuli interfere with task performance was not upheld since control children were unaffected by the presence of picture fragments. Observed differences on this task in the presence of the fragmented pictures may therefore have been due to an effect of the specific picture content rather than to its distraction properties since it may be that hyperactive children persisted in an attempt to supply the extraneous material with meaning despite the ill-defined content while other children dismissed the fragmented material as meaningless.

The deficient baseline performance of the hyperactive group together with their perception that the task was aversive raises the possibility that they may have had insufficient scholastic background in arithmetic skills.

Any additional processing of information therefore may have produced a disproportionate cognitive burden for the hyperactive children. In any case, the results of this study are equivocal with respect to selective attention. By far, the majority of studies do not support a selective attention deficit. Hyperactive children's performance on a visual vigilance task was not differentially affected by the intermittent presence of 80 decibel white noise {Sykes, Douglas, Weiss, & Minde,

1971). Campbell, Douglas, and Morgenstern (1971), using the Color Distraction Test (Santostefano & paley, 1964), found hyperactive children equally distracted by black and white peripheral pictures of familiar objects during a color naming task. Sykes, Douglas, and Morgenstern (1973) failed to find a differential deficit between hyperactive and control children on a reaction time discrimination task in which white colored stimuli appeared on a colored screen and response buttons were painted with the identical stimuli but a discrepant color. A study of adolescents previously diagnosed hyperactive failed to find a differential distraction effect (Cohen, Weiss, &

Minde, 1972) Stroop Color Test (Stroop, 1935). Subjects named the color in which color words were printed, where the color of the ink and the color word were not the same.

Peters (1977) used a variation of the color distraction test (Campbell et al., 1971) in which the presence of irrelevant shapes of fruit served as a distraction compared to a trial in which subjects had only 38 to name color patches. Hyperactive children were no more susceptible to this distraction than were control children. When this task was given a second time a differential deficit emerged for the hyperactive children, a result that suggested a time contingent problem, an idea that will be pursued in a later section. Hyperactive children appeared more responsive than control children to auditory distractors on a reading task in terms of the number of looks toward the stimulus display, although these children were not differentially affected in terms of reading performance (Bremer & Stern, 1976). It is important to consider central task behavior as the cirterion variable by which performance is judged since attention to extraneous stimuli does not necessarily detract from performance.

Some studies can be found suuggesting the performance of attention deficit disorder children is improved by the presence of distraction. Scott (1970) found extraneous music improved hyperactive children's performance on an arithmetic task, and Zentall and Zentall (1976) observed a tendency for hyperactive children to perform slightly better on a letter circling task under conditions of visual and auditory distraction then when distraction was absent. Neither study employed control children as a comparison group, thus it is not clear to what extent 39

improved performance under distraction is unique to

attention deficit disorder children. Nonetheless, these

results argue against a detrimental effect due to extraneous distraction.

In agreement with Douglas and Peters (1979), "...we must conclude that many ... studies ... have

overemphasized the importance of the selective aspects of

attention and underemphasized the importance of other

cognitive processes tapped by their tasks" (p. 196).

Incidental Learning: Another paradigm used to study

selective attention is incidental learning. Incidental

learning occurs when a child acquires responses or

information that are irrelevant to a central task defined by the experimenter (Stevenson, 1972).

Peters (1977) compared incidental learning in hyperactive and control children on a task requiring children to remember the order in which animal pictures appeared. Animal pictures were paired with pictures of

household objects which subjects were instructed to

ignore. Correctly remembered pairs was the measure of

incidental learning. Hyperactive children were not more distracted by the presence of the incidental material, nor were they able to superiorly recall the incidental material, although it should be stressed that the presence

of pictures of household objects did not produce the 40

detriment in performance in either group that would

normally be expected within this paradigm since central

memory measures did not differ between distraction and

nondistraction conditions.

Peters (1977) also employed a selective listening or

shadowing task in which children were required to repeat

and try to remember target words spoken by a male voice

binaurally through earphones, while a female voice

simultaneously dictated irrelevant words that the child

was instructed to ignore. A recognition task was used to

assess memory of central (male voice) and incidental

(female voice) items. There were a number of significant

results, although it is unlikely that these were due to

the distracting influence of the female voice. For

instance, hyperactive and control groups did not differ on

the number of words correctly shadowed, nor were these

groups differentially affected by the distraction

condition. Hyperactive children however made more

instrusion errors than control children while shadowing,

that is, they were more likely to repeat a word that the

female voice had dictated. In addition, they performed more poorly on the recognition task than the control

children under both distraction and non-distraction

conditions. Repetition of the words by the subject

encouraged a rehersal strategy, although the type or extent of rehersal was determined by the subject. Poorer

recognition would be expected if the word were simply repeated, rather than elaborted in terms of existing

information (Tulving & Madigan, 1970). Thus, low recognition scores may reflect that the stimulus words were not processed by the attention deficit disorder children in such a way as to trigger associations, images, or stories that were already present in the long-term store. In other words, the items were not organized in terms of their meaning, but rather they may simply have been voiced on the basis of their phonemic properties. In light of the greater number of intrusion errors evidenced by the attention deficit disorder children, it is also possible that they had difficulty conceptualizing the task in terms of the response elements that were required.

In conclusion, there is little support for the hypothesis that attention deficit disorder children are more vulnerable to extraneous visual or auditory stimuli or that they have a deficit in the selective aspects of attention. Even when selective attention is operationalized in terms of figure-ground relationships, extraneous distraction, and incidental learning, no evidence is found for a characteristic deficit. Such clear experimental evidence as this must lead to a questioning of the present conception of distractibility 42

as a symptom of attention deficit disorder.

INATTENTION AS MAINTENANCE ATTENTION

Maintenance attention, the extension of a focus over

time after a selection of focus is completed (Zubin,

1975), is the second component of attention to be

considered. it is the child's ability to remain at a

given task for a specified length of time without a

significant deterioration of performance (Alabiso &

Hansen, 1977). Several symptoms of attention deficit

disorder can be construed as reflecting a deficit in the maintenance of attention. "Attention span problems" is an

item on the Conners Teachers Rating Scale, the DSM-III

identifies "difficulty concentrating" as a symptom, and

some of the items that seemed related to a problem of

distractibility could be interpreted as problems in

maintenance attention. For instance, "fails to finish

things" and "difficulty sticking to a play activity" may

reflect a failure to remain on task rather than a tendency

to be drawn away by distracting influence. As in the case

of selective attention, the literature will be organized

by the experimental paradigm.

Vigilance: Maintenance attention is usually studied

in relation to a task requiring vigilance, vigilance is

seen as the ability to sustain attentiveness, or more

operationally, as the capacity for detecting changes in 43 stimulus events over relatively long periods of observation (Frankmann & Adams, 1962; Levy, 1980).

Hyperactive children detected significantly fewer target stimuli and they made more responses to non-target stimuli than did control children under a condition of slow interstimulus intervals on a task requiring detection of a letter, a two letter sequence, or a geometric pattern

(Sykes et al., 1971). A replication of this study yielded similar results (Sykes, Douglas, & Morgenstern, 1973), as did an auditory version of this task in which children listened to dictated letters and were required to respond to the two letter sequence (Sykes, Douglas, & Morgenstern,

1973). The hyperactive subjects made significantly more anticipatory errors, responding "to the first letter of the two-letter sequence and more random errors, responding to letters other than the targets. It seems that the hyperactive children did not discriminate in terms of a response between the two target stimuli. They seem to respond to the first element in the response category rather than use the first item as a cue to listen carefully for the second element of the two item pair.

The longer the hyperactive children remained on task, the more pronounced their deficit became. These children do not improve their performance given longer interstimulus intervals, thus they are unlike control children who actually appear to benefit from the extra processing time.

It would seem that control children may use this additional time to critically evaluate the elements of their response categories, and by doing so, these children are able to decrease their number of errors. Likewise, when the task continues for more than a few moments, control children gradually improve their performance, while the performance of hyperactive children appears to deteriorate. Thus, the control children seemed to benefit from continued practice with the task, perhaps by a process that allowed them to strengthen the category associations between elements of the response, while hyperactive children never benefited from this practice, and may in fact, become more deficient in performance.

On a task requiring adolescent boys formerly diagnosed hyperactive to listen to an 18 minute tape recording of words and detect those words containing the letter S the hyperactive group identified as many words as did the control group, although they responded to significantly more words not containing the target letter, an error of commission {Hoy, Weiss, Minde, & Cohen, 1978).

We can begin to see a pattern to the type of errors committed by the attention deficit disorder child. These children respond more often than the task dicates is necessary, thus they appear to have difficulty in 45 inhibiting responses or they have a response bias that is too lenient. A failure to carefully seperate the elements of a stimulus set may lead to a response style that does not make the differentiation necessary for accurate responding.

Neuchterlein (1983) provided further insight into the unique response strategy of the attention deficit disorder child by employing signal detection analyses and pathology control groups. Testing included six versions of the

Continuous Performance Test (CPT) one of which required subjects to respond if a playing card face was identical in number and suit to that of the previous slide. Data was converted through signal detection analyses to measures of perceptual sensitivity and response bias, the latter is the criterion point set by the subject above which will determine whether a response is emitted.

Significantly more offspring of schizophrenic mothers obtained extremely low scores on the perceptual sensitivity measure as compared to the scores of a stratified normal sample. Other groups did not differ on measures of perceptual sensitivity. The children in the hyperactive group obtained low scores on the response bias measure relative to the stratified normal group, matched group, and two groups determined by maternal psychopathology. It seems that the children of 46 schizophrenic mothers showed impaired sequential discrimination of relevant from irrelevant stimuli in a task demanding sustained attention whereas attention deficit disorder children displayed a willingness to respond to stimuli as relevant even when there was meager sensory evidence for their relevance. It is possible that a response strategy such as this one could be the product of an organizational deficit in that the elements of a response pair, such as the suit and number of a playing card, are not organized in a manner that promotes consideration of both attributes prior to responding.

Rather, one stimulus dimension, like the number of the card, is encountered and the second dimension is ignored because it was not related to the response requirement of identical number and suit.

In summary, some tentative conclusions can be advanced in light of these studies. Attention deficit disorder children produce more commission errors, anticipatory errors, and generally have a more lenient response criterion than do control children. As a result, attention deficit disorder children do not process task stimuli to the extent necessary to respond accurately to task demands. possibly, they are unable to inhibit responding because they do not have the same organization of stimulus properties. put another way, they seem to lack the faculty that directs, organizes, and maintains task performance. The problem is aggrevatea by longer interstimulus periods most likely because normal children utilize the extra time available to improve their decision-making and stimulus processing tasks while the attention deficit disorder child, whose characteristic response strategy is so accelerated, forgoes any extra stimulus processing of the other elements necessary for successful task completion.

Delayed Reaction Time: Delayed reaction time tasks

(DRRT) are a variation of the vigilance paradigm.

Basically, these tasks consist of a warning signal followed by a preparatory interval and a reaction signal to which the child is to respond.

Goldberg and Konstantareas (1981) studied the performance of hyperactive children on a task in which they were instructed to press one response key to illuminate a happy clown face after which the clown's nose could light up, thereby signalling that the child need alert the clown of this matter by pressing another response key. Hyperactive children detected fewer signals

(red noses) than control children, confirming the presence of a vigilance problem even in self-controlled situations.

In addition, hyperactive children compared to control children expressed a greater willingness to indicate that they had detected a signal when in fact they frequently

had not. These children also emitted fewer observing

responses, decisions to illuminate the clown's face, than

the control children. Attention deficit disorder children were more willing to respond quickly than were other children, and since they were less likely to initiate an opportunity to observe the clown's face, it would appear

that they may not have fully realized the relationship between the opportunity to observe and the chance to detect. This failure to comprehend the task may reflect an organizational problem in that the response of observing was not considered superordinate to the response of detecting.

Another study found hyperactive children responded more slowly with greater variability, and made more

interstimulus responses than did control children on a delayed reaction time task (Firestone & Douglas, 1975).

Thus, these children responded when it was inappropriate,

that is, they responded after the warning signal but prior

to the reaction signal. These results are consistent with

those of two other studies employing similar paradigms

(Cohen & Douglas, 1972; zahn, Abate, Little, & Wender,

1975). One of these studies noted a worsening of performance over time (cohen & Douglas, 1972).

Again, the data points to a problem in maintaining 49' task appropriate processing over time and utilizing available time to maximize performance. The most prominant of these error patterns is a tendency to respond prior to receiving enough information about which to make an informed decision. That the attention deficit disorder child responded before other children and in a manner that is more often incorrect suggested that some processing that is normally done on a task is bypassed. Specifically lacking may be the ability to respond to the task demand calling for more time consuming and thoughtful cognitive processing. The question to ask is which specific cognitive ability is responsible for this type of performance. it is true that attention deficit disorder children have a problem on tasks that operationalize maintenance attention/ although we hold that this effect does not clearly lead to any conclusions about the specific cognitive ability that is deficient. Rather/ these studies provide a sophisticated description of the types of errors that are characteristic of the deficit.

The next step is to consider other components of cognition to determine whether the problem of the attention deficit disorder child can be related to a particular stage or aspect of information processing.

MEMORY

Attention deficit disorder children are not generally 50 thought to have a deficient memory, except for one study so far reviewed (peters, 1977). None of the current diagnostic symptoms lead to a prediction of a memory deficit, although the performance of these children on tests of intellectual functioning, such as the ACID pattern on the Wechsler Scales, may be suggestive of some memory difficulty (Barkley, 1981). The focus of this section will be to examine literature that has evaluated memory abilities in attention deficit disorder children in terms of performance across different memorial stages

(Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968).

Sensory Register: The sensory register is a nearly literal record of the perceptual image. Information is lost rapidly from the register, although the span of apprehension can be calculated to reflect the amount of information gained or encoded (Lachman, Lachman, &

Butterfield, 1979).

Denton and McIntyre (1978) investigated the span of apprehension in hyperactive children on a task requiring forced-choice letter-recognition responses to brief tachistoscopically presented displays of one of two signal letters. In one condition, no noise letters were presented; in the other conditions, the signal letter was surrounded by either two, four, or eight letters.

Overall, the probability of a correct recognition was 51 higher for control children than for hyperactive children.

When no noise letters were present, the spans of hyperactive and control children were approximately equal, although as the size of the set of noise letters increased, hyperactive children's performance deteriorated at a faster rate than that of the control children.

The idea that the noise letters may act as more potent distractors on this task was investigated by varying the amount of physical signal-noise similarity and noise redundancy (McIntyre, Blackwell, & Denton, 1978).

Physical similarity of the noise letters was varied by choosing distractors that varied in the number of physical features shared with the target letter and redundancy was manipulated by providing repetitions of the same noise letters within a single display. The failure to find a significant group by noise conditions interaction indicated that the distractibility of the noise letters, represented by signal-noise similarity and redundancy, influenced the efficiency of the central search process equivalently for hyperactive and control children. Thus, the distractibility hypothesis is unsupported leaving other interpretations for consideration. The decreased span of apprehension in hyperactive children may be due either to the pickup of information from the decaying afterimage being much slower in the hyperactive sample, or 52 to the decaying afterimage fading more rapidly for hyperactive children {McIntyre, Blackwell, & Denton,

1978). A third alternative is that the child employs a processing strategy that results in less information extraction, but that no deficiency in the sensory register itself is responsible for this strategy. Further research is neeeded to establish which of these interpretations or others is correct. Clearly, the effects of distraction are not responsible for the observed difference in spans of apprehension.

Short-term Memory: The short-term store is a working memory where conscious mental processes are performed on information from both the sensory register and the long-term store (Lachman, Lachman, & Butterfield, 1979).

Benezra (1978) found hyperactive children performed as well as control children on a number of short-term memory tasks. Included among these were tasks for digits forward and digits backward tested by recall, and memory for three letter consonant trigrams with variable delay intervals of up to 30 seconds tested by recall. Even when the delay interval was filled with a counting task, performance levels were maintained.

Short-term memorial processes were studied in an experiment by sergeant and Scholten (1983) using a variation of the Sternberg (1969a) procedure. subjects 53 were required to hold in memory two, three, or four target letters and respond "yes" or "no" to an audio voice recording of words beginning (yes) or not beginning (no) with the target letter. Hyperactive children, defined by high levels of activity, impulsivity, distractability, and somewhat hyperactivw children, defined by less severe manifestations of these same symptoms were slower than the control children to respond to the stimuli. Memory load, as manipulated by the increase in target letters, did not differentially affect the reaction times of any group. in other words, the slope of memory load plotted against reaction time remained the same for all groups, despite the significant differences between groups on the intercept of reaction time. A closer examination of the significance of the intercept difference may provide a clearer idea of the deficit in these children.

Sternberg's (1969a, 1969b) model presumes that the memory scan is identified with the slope of the line relating set size to reaction time. The intercept is a measure of the stimulus encoding, binary decision, and response organization stages of processing. They add together with scanning time to determine reaction time. The deficit in these children appears to be in one of these stages of information processing, thus it is not related to a specific short-term memory deficit, such as less capacity 54 in the store.

Long-term Memory: Information is transfered to the long-term store by using control processes to relate the contents of new information to that which already exists

(Lachman, Lachman, & Butterfield, 1979).

Benezra (1978) identified several long-term memory tasks on which hyperactive children performed as well as control children. Among these tasks were the recall and recognition of a series of twelve word-picture pairs, the recall and recognition of lists of 17 meaningful word-pairs using the paired associates paradigm, and the recall and recognition of meaningful word pairs on a paired associates task after a 45 minute delay. Thus, on tasks of long-term memory that employ meaningful word pairs, or other content that is supplied with meaning, such as the word-picture pairs, attention deficit disorder children do quite well.

Benezra (1978) reported one type of long-term memory task on which hyperactive children performed more poorly than control children. Paired associates performance when the word pairs were arbitrary was lower for hyperactive than control children. Thus, when the task involved a more sophisticated organizational or rehersal strategy the attention deficit disorder child had a problem. It is our hypothesis that the deficit in memory performance was 55 related to these children's inability to organize the material in the long-term store. Thus, given a task that does not have some intrinsic organizational features, such as arbitrary word pairs, these children are unable to supply the necessary meaning, organization, or order to the stimuli, and as a result they are unable to recall this information as well as do other children.

The positive effects of meaningfulness on long-term memory is well documented in the experimental literature and a number of competing theories have been advanced to explain these findings (see Crowder, 1976). Generally, the advantage of meaningfulness is related to the subjective or task supplied organization of the material in relation to other information or its categorization within some type of superordinate category.

Alternatively, the advantage may be explained by the manner in which information is encoded into memory, such that, the more enriched the encoding the stronger the memory trace. Enrichment can be understood here as the level to which information is processed, with semantic levels being seen as advantageous to sensory levels (craik

& Lockhart, 1972). Given these explanations, the problem for the attention deficit child appeared to be in ordering information in relation to existing ideas, or in enriching the code of information that is not already enriched with 56

organization or semantic features. To pursue this idea,

tasks that more directly address encoding or organization strategies will be considered.

Encoding: Encoding theories of memory assume that the internal representation of information is determined by operations performed during the initial input stages of processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).

Hyperactive and control children were tested on a memory measure using the depth of processing paradigm

(Weingartner, Rapoport, Buchsbaum, Bunney, Ebert,

Mikkelsen, & Caine, 1980). Words were either semantically or accoustically encoded into memory following an adaptation of the Craik and Tulving (1975) procedure in which children were asked to listen to sets of three words and determine whether two of the words were semantically related or whether they sounded alike, control children remembered significantly more semantically processed words than did the hyperactive children, although recall of acoustically processed words did not differentiate the two groups. Hyperactive children were less likely to recall semantically related words consecutively, thereby revealing a clustering strategy that did not utilize semantic meaning as the basis for organization. They did appear to organize on the basis of acoustic properties, thus encoding appears driven by the sensory rather than 57 the conceptual aspects of stimuli. These results suggested that attention deficit disorder children have a particular difficulty in encoding semantic types of information into memory.

If the attention deficit disorder child usually encodes on the basis of sensory properties, this would imply that tasks requiring them to switch encoding strategies to a strategy that is more conceptual or not based in sensory features could be more difficult. The additional burden of using the non-preferred style could then result in more errors. Sykes et al. {1971) demonstrated hyperactive children exhibit a deficit on a task that required them to access memory to find the correct color of a shape that had been visually presented with an inappropriate color. For instance, bananas were shown as either blue, red, or green, but never yellow and the subjects were instructed to name the color that should be present, rather than the one that could be seen.

Hyperactive children made significantly more errors of commission, saying an incorrect color, than did control children, whereas the control children were more likely to begin to say an incorrect color but spontaneously correct themselves. One way to view these results is to imagine the attention deficit child as having greater difficulty with the encoding of the fruit in a way that permits 58 memory search for its usual color. The hyperactive child

in this case is more struck by the sensory attributes, such as color, and finds it more difficult to encode beyond this level, for instance, to encode that it is a fruit. It is not that the hyperactive child cannot encode

in the more sophisticated manner, but rather that it is not the customary method employed. As a result, his decision to respond may be premature in that the response occurs to the sensory feature, rather than to the more semantic one.

PROBLEM SOLVING AND CURIOSITY

problem solving and curiosity tasks involve more complex demands on cognitive activity than simple attentional or memory tasks. For instance, problem solving may involve a combination of decision making, choosing among response alternatives, and encoding styles.

If attention deficit disorder children organize information on the basis of different properties, than other children then we might expect to observe this strategy on tasks of problem solving and curiosity.

Problem solving was examined in groups of hyperactive, reading disabled, and control children using a structured variation of the game twenty-questions (Tant

& Douglas, 1982). The subjects' task was to ask questions that could be answered with yes or no responses in order 59

to find the correct stimulus among an array of stimulus

dimens ions.

Hyperactive children were less efficient problem

solvers than either control or reading disabled children,

as evidenced by their clearly lower score on the average

bits of information extracted per question. In generating questions, hyperactive children relied more on concrete

guesses or single-item elimination strategies. For

example, the number matrix required imposing structure on

the elements of the array without the aid of perceptual

cues such as deriving the stimulus properties of oddness

or evenness. Hyperactive children were less likely than

the other two groups to produce this conceptual distinction and they were less likely to name all the

dimensions that could vary in the matrix. They seemed to

lack knowledge of the most effective decision making

strategy and appeared unequipped to organize the elements of the stimulus in a way that promotes discrimination

among them.

The number of noninformative questions asked did not differentiate the groups, thus helping to rule out

detriments of performance caused by memory lapses,

illogical deductions, or carelessness. Had either of

these events occured, it would have resulted in asking a question whose answer would be non-informative, in that 60

the child should have known the answer but had forgotten

it, or had information available to determine the answer but misinterpreted it. It is also unlikely that a failure

in perceptual processing of the stimulus could account for

the deficit as even when these children were aware of the presence of a stimulus dimension they did not always employ it as part of the problem solving strategy. The results point to an interpretation that is consistent with the idea of a decision-making deficit because of organizational difficulaties with stimulus elements.

Fiedler and ullman (1983) administered curiousity tasks to hyperactive and control children. Object curiosity was assessed by observing the number of physical manipulations and verbal comments a child made while guessing by touch the objects in a closed box. Conceptual curiosity was determined by having subjects describe conventional toys yielding measures of "meaning values", responses that communicated something about the object such as its size, and "meaning dimensions" responses addressing function or mode of operation.

Measures of manipulative and perceptual curiosity did not distinguish hyperactive and control children.

Hyperactive children obtained higher scores on the object curiosity task than did control children, while control children tended to use more meaning values and meaning 61 dimensions than hyperactives. Hyperactive children seem to exhibit a greater tendency to use physical means such as manipulation of objects to understand their environment/ whereas normal children tend to use verbal and descriptive forms of comprehension. These results suggested the use of differing strategies in gathering and integrating information from the environment. Consistent with the idea of an organizational problem, the attention deficit disorder child prefers a sensory based exploration of the world, in lieu of a more conceptual orientation requiring the elaboration of complex stimulus properties such as common operation. CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH LITERATURE

As the literature is summarized, consideration will be given to the hypothesis of a deficit in the manner in which information is organized in the memory of attention deficit disorder children. There is some evidence for the presence of the impulsive cognitive style in attention deficit disorder children. This is shown by these children exhibiting more matching errors compared to other groups (Campbell, 1973; Campbell et al., 1971; Firestone &

Martin, 1979; Schleifer et al., 1975). In order to select the correct variant from the pictures on the Matching

Familar Figures Test (MFFT; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, &

Phillips, 1964), it is necessary to direct an organized search. Take for example the picture of a ship which is characterized by the presence of two steamer pipes, three masts, and a curved bow. To select successfully from among six variants of this picture it is required that the search of those variants be based on a comparison of these specific stimulus features. Lacking in the attention deficit disorder child is the ability to extract those critical features of the steamer pipes, masts, and bow

62 63 shape that determine the defining property of one variant to the standard. it is as if the child has the whole concept of ship but has trouble extracting from this concept the specific components that contribute to its perception as a whole. Thus, the problem appears mostly associated with the decision making or problem solving component of this task. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis of an organizational deficit in that a failure to select the correct variant from pictures of the

MFFT is seen as a problem in the ability to extract the stored defining properties of a concept in order to compare them to the visual standard. In effect, the comparison of features is performed in a manner that is holistic and impressionistic. As a result, similarity judgements are made without careful, sequential, and logical comparison, thereby allowing for more matching errors.

This interpretation would also apply to tests of the ability to discriminate figure-ground relationships.

Sometimes attention deficit disorder children perform deficiently on these tasks (Campbell et al., 1971), although this result was not always found (Hommatidis &

Konstantareas, 1981), and it may have related more to level of pathology than to the specific type of pathology

(Schleifer et al., 1975). If the attention deficit 64

disorder child employs a style of feature comparison that

is not as critical/ the defining properties of a geometric

context might be overlooked/ however, the task demand for

critically comparing shapes is so strong that the tendency

to rely solely on holistic comparisons is easily overcome.

In addition, the geometric context is of sufficient

novelty and complexity to be unfamilar to subjects, thus

there is not the tendency to make a decision on the basis

of a shared superordinate concept, such as could be done

on the MFFT.

When selective attention is operationalized in terms

of tasks that introduce distraction in the form of

extraneous stimuli or incidental material, the majority of

studies found no difference between the performance of attention deficit disorder children and control children

(Campbell et al., 1971; Cohen et al., 1972; Peters, 1977;

Sykes et al., 1973; Sykes et al., 1971). Within the present model, such a finding would be predicted since

extraneous distraction does not require comparison of

features or rely on organization of stored concepts. such

clear experimental evidence as this leads to a questioning of the present conception of symptoms in the attention deficit disorder syndrome. Specifically, the symptom of distractibility is not characteristic of attention deficit disorder in terms of the experimental measures that 65 operationalize this construct.

Only when attention is construed as the extension of focus over time was there evidence of a differential deficit in these children. On vigilance and delayed reaction time tasks, attention deficit disorder children make more errors than control children. The type of error characteristically observed among these children is responding before the target stimulus, or responding to a stimulus that was not the designated target (Firestone &

Douglas', 1975; Goldberg & Konstantareas, 1981; Hoy et al.

1978, Sykes et al., 1971; Sykes et al, 1973). Attention deficit disorder children do not benefit from additional time between task stimuli (Sykes et al., 1971) and their performance deteriorates rather than improves the longer they continue a task (Cohen & Douglas, 1972; Sykes et al.,

1973). It would seem that attention deficit disorder children do not discriminate in terms of a response between a two-part target stimulus, for instance, a letter sequence that is to be dectected. They seem to respond to the first element in the response category rather than use the first item as a cue to listen carefully to the second element of the two item pair. These children do not improve their performance given longer interstimulus intervals or given more practice with the task, as they do not utilize this time in the same manner as control 66

children who seem to improve under these conditions.

Instead, the attention deficit disorder child employs a

response strategy that is too lenient (Neuchterlein,

1983), possibly because the requirements of responding are never organized in a manner that relates the defining properties of the different response elements. The

response strategy is accelerated since decision making is conducted at a more superficial level, or in other words,

in a manner that avoids feature analysis where comparisons

are made sequentially on the basis of an evaluation of particular defining features.

Studies that examined memory from a multistore theoretical framework found no evidence for a global memory deficit in the sensory register, short- or

long-term stores. Despite performance differences on a measure of the span of apprehension between attention deficit disorder children and control children (Denton &

McIntyre, 1978), these differences were not related to deficienies in memory load (McIntyre et al., 1978). Thus,

the problem is in other aspects of task processing such as

the strategy of coding, or the decision making components of performance. Likewise, short-term memory ability is generally found to be adequate among attention deficit

disorder children (Benezra, 1978). When performance differences are found on a short-term memory task 67

(Sergeant & Scholten, 1983), the problem is not related to limitations of memory load. Rather, the problem is related to the intercept measure of performance, the combination of several cognitive activities such as encoding, response organization, and decision making.

Evidence from studies of long-term memory offered a clue as to the type of strategy used by these children.

Generally, equivalent performance levels on long-term memory tasks are found for attention deficit disorder children and control children (Benezra, 1978). Both recall and recognition of meaningful word pairs, even after substantial time delays, were performed adequately.

On one type of task, however, performance was deficient for attention deficit disorder children. This task is one that required memory of arbitrary paired associates

(Benezra, 1978). Thus, given a task that does not have some intrinsic organization, such as arbitrary word pairs, these children appear unable to supply the necessary meaning, organization, or order to the stimuli in a way that secures the persistence of the memory trace in the long-term store. In other words, the stimulus is not elaborated or enriched in a manner promoting retention over long intervals of time. The strategy of encoding is then likely one that does not emphasize the defining features of meaning, and as a result, the stimulus 68 representation is ill-equipped for the organization in the long-term store that is known to favor good retention

(Crowder, 1976). Information in the memory store may be undifferentiated and the hierarchy of concepts may not be well organized since less extensive coding of information yields less defining features or organization driven by more superficial or sensorial stimulus elements.

So far, the results of several studies are consistent with the notion of an organizational deficit in the information processing. The strategy that is used by these children is one that appears unequipped to deal with meaning or higher level organization. This deficit is most apparent in the task which used the depth of processing paradigm to study memory. Attention deficit disorder children remembered less semantically encoded words compared to control children, although they remembered just as many phonemically encoded words as the other children (Wiengartner et al., 1980). Despite the task demand to encode some words on the basis of their semantic properties, these children continued to rely more on the word's acoustic properties. When organization was examined using clustering techniques, these children more often grouped words by their phonemic properties, e.g., sounds alike, than on their semantic attribute, e.g., means the same. These results suggest that the attention 69 deficit disorder child is biased toward encoding and organizing information in its sensory or more perceptual form. The world of the attention deficit disorder child is likely one of sensation in which stimuli are perceived on the basis of their sensory properties, such as their orthographic features or their phonemic quality. This type of orientation does not rely on comparisons where information is evaluated by the defining features or the careful analysis of semantic attributes. Rather, the style is impressionis'tic, even superficial in the sense that sensory features drive organization more than semantic ones.

If the style of the attention defict disorder child is more perceptually based and less conceptually organized in terms of meaning than that of other children, then several other characteristics of this processing style can be generated from the experimental literature describing different processing levels. For instance, when other things are held constant, shallower levels of processing require less time for analysis (craik & Lockhart, 1972).

Thus, their response style may sometimes appear accelerated compared to that of other children since generally less time is needed for non-semantic analysis.

The shallower level of analysis associated with the less elaborate trace will not last as long as deeper, more elaborative encoding and organization. Since it does not last as long, and since it is of a more superficial quality, the trace is less likely to undergo further processing by enrichment or elaboration. For instance, the initial trace is less likely to trigger associations, images, or stories on the basis of subjects' experience and recall will be poorer if the task is such that more elaborative rehersal is needed to strengthen the trace.

The retrieval of information will be best when the context in which it is to be recalled is consistent with the context in which it was encoded (Thompson & Tulving,

1970). Thus, the attention deficit disorder child is predicted to be well-equipped to deal with questions or tasks requiring knowledge or manipulation of the sensory attributes of a stimulus, but less able to operate on information in a conceptual, abstract, or semantic manner.

The levels view also included a distinction that is superficailly similar to the one between the short- and long-term store. The sensory register and short-term memory can be seen as that component of processing that is more shallow or more oriented to deal with the sensory features (craik & Lockhart, 1972). Thus, it is not surprizing that experimental manipulations of these stages do not yield a memory deficit in terms of vulnerability to distraction or an inability to tolerate load. Rather, 71 when a problem is seen, it is related to some difficulty in the actual organization of the content where elaboration, meaning, or complex decision making is needed.

Performance on problem solving and curiosity tasks supports the hypothesis of poor organizational ability.

Attention deficit disorder children were less likely to produce conceptually sophisticated questions and were more likely to rely on strictly perceptual cues in forming questions compared to other children. Thus, the attention deficit disorder children organized perceptual cues to generate questions rather than manipulate the more semantic or abstract concepts, such as the number properties of oddness or evenness, to generate a planful approach to problem solving. As a result, these children were unble to extract as much task relevant information as were control children (Tant & Douglas, 1982). Likewise, when curiosity is examined in attention deficit disorder children they are found to prefer exploration based on object curiosity and they do not employ as many meaning values and meaning dimensions as do control children

(Fiedler & Ullman, 1983). Their results suggest the use of differing strategies in seeking information from the environment, consistent with the idea of an organizational deficit, the attention deficit disorder 72

child prefers sensory based exploration of stimuli in lieu of a more conceptual orientation requiring elaboration of meaning dimensions.

In conclusion, the deficit in these children is seen as a problem in decision making reflecting a failure to consider defining features of concepts and thus reflecting an organizational strategy in memory that does not differentiate concepts on the basis of their defining elements or properties. They rely on an information processing strategy that codes information on the basis of its more superficial properties, possibly those that are more likely to be non-semantic properties or elements that are only characteristic of the concept. Thus, the organization in memory is less differentiated than that of other children. The hierarchy by which concepts are organized is less dependent on defining features since elements or features of stimuli or ideas are not isolated, coded, and organized into a network of horizontal structures that are capable of elaborating and discriminating ideas. As a result, decision making follows a course that is comparable to the Stage 1 comparison strategy (Smith et al., 1974). Judgement is holistic, intuitive, and error prone because features are considered as a whole without attention to the critical and defining elements. Decision making is likely to be 73 accelerated since time is not spent elaborating the stimulus or enriching its code in memory by using semantic or other higher-order attributes. CHAPTER VI

METHOD AND HYPOTHESES

METHOD

Subjects: Referrals were solicited from two urban community centers, Saint Stephan's community center and

Neighborhood House Community Center, Columbus, Ohio.

These centers provide a combination of psychological, educational, recreational, and social services to a catchment area of predominately low socioeconomic minority families. Children are referred to these centers by parents, teachers, social welfare agencies, and juvenile justice agencies for treatment of behavioral and academic problems. Other children attend the centers primarily to use their recreational facilities. Each child who regularly attends the centers is assigned a caseworker who monitors participation in center programs, conducts regular home and school visits, and leads group and individual activities for the child. Consequently, caseworkers are well-informed as to a child's history, social and academic functioning. Caseworkers were asked to refer behavior problem children to the author, who was a psychological services provider at these agencies.

74 75

Referral of such children was a routine practice.

Additionally, caseworkers were asked to designate children who were in their judgement free of behavior problems for the purpose of this study.

Children eldgible for inclusion met the following criteria: 1) male; 2) chronological age between 8 years,

0 months and 12 years, 11 months; 3) a scale score of greater than 5 on both the vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for

Children-Revised (Wechsler, 1974); 4) a negative medication history or willingness to observe a medication holiday of three days; 5) informed and voluntary consent

(Appendix A) and consent to secure behavioral ratings from teachers (Appendix B). Of the initial 41 behavior problem children referred, three failed to obtain the intellectual criteria, six of the families could not be reached for consent, and one family refused participation. Of the initial 20 behavior problem free (control) children referred, three families could not be reached for consent.

The children's public school teacher or their caseworker were provided with the following assessment instruments for completion:

1) The Conners Teacher Rating Scale (Conners, 1968;

Appendix C). This scale is a 28 item behavioral survey that yields three factor scores (conduct problems, Hyperactivity, Inattention-passivity) and a Hyperactivity

Index (Goyette, et al., 1978). The scores were derived by assigning 0, 1, 2, or 3 points to the answers "not at all", "just a little", "pretty much", and "very much", respectively for each item. Factor scores were expressed in age corrected z-scores. The norms from which these scores were calculated is reproduced in Appendix D. This rating scale was also scored using factor scores which discriminate between aggression and hyperactivity (Loney, et al., 1978). Factor items are provided in Appendix E.

2) The School Situations Questionnaire {Barkley, 1981;

Appendix F). This scale lists 12 situations to which the informant responds true or false as to the presence of problems. If a true response is endorsed, the rater is then required to rate the severity of the problem on a 1-9 scale. Thus, two scores are derived from this measure, number of problem areas, and severity of problems.

Normative data was unavailable on this instrument.

3) The Behavior Rating scale (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979;

Appendix G). This scale contains 33 questions that are designed to assess self-control. Each item is rated on a

7-point continuum, and the total score is based on the sum of these ratings. Normative data is reproduced in

Appendix F, although present scoring did not adjust for age differences. 4) The Child severity Index (Appendix H). This scale was developed by the author to provide an assessment of problem severity, for the most part independent of specific symptoms. The construction of this scale relied heavily on the Gosset-Timberlawn scale of Adolescent

Psychopathology (see Gossett, Barnhart, Lewis, & Phillips,

1977). The scale contains five items which assess autonomy, subjective discomfort, environment effect, quality of relationships, and projected development. Each item is rated on a 15 point continuum with descriptive anchors at alternative points.

Parents or legal guardians of each child were visited by the author and following a developmental history interview, the following questionnaire was administered:

1) The Conners parent Rating Scale (Goyette et al., 1978;

Appendix I). This scale is a 48 item behavioral survey that yields five factors (Conduct Problems, Learning

Problems, psychosomatic Problems,

Impulsivity-hyperactivity, Anxiety) and a Hyperactivity

Index (Goyette et al., 1978) The scores are derived by assigning 0, 1, 2, or 3 points to the answers "not at all", "just a little", "pretty much", and "very much", respectively for each item. Factor scores are expressed in age corrected z-scores. The norms from which these scores were calculated is reproduced in Appendix J. The author, after reviewing rating scale data and

following interview with the child, parent, and caseworker

or teacher, rated each child according to the presence of

behavior problems on the Achenbach Checklist (Achenbach,

1966). Following the conjunctive decision rules obtained

from factor and cluster analysis of this inventory

(Nuechterlein, et al., 1981; Soli, et al., 1981) which yields, among others, diagnostic discrimination between

Hyperactivity and Delinquency, children were assigned to

one of these groups. The items associated with these two

diagnostic categories are provided in Appendix K.

Procedure: Each subject was administered the

cognitive test battery that was described in detail in

Chapter 6. Tests were given in the following order -

Color Distraction Test, semantic categorization Test,

Categorized Recall Test, subjects were given a rest period between each test to prevent a performance confound

with time on task. This rest interval was for a duration of at least 20 minutes and usually subjects rejoined their

recreational group activities during this time.

HYPOTHESES

The hypothesis offered is that the attention deficit

disorder syndrome can be understood as operating analagous

to that of Stage 1 (Smith, et al., 1974). The following qualities would then describe the cognitive activity of 79 attention deficit disorder children:

1. The organization of information in memory is not as ordered because these children do not encode the defining featural properties or elements of stimuli.

Thus, they have difficulty differentiating defining features from characteristic ones, it is important to stress that the difficulty arises because the defining features are not stored in memory, and thereby they are unavailable for use in decision making. On tasks in which stimuli are not required to be manipulated conceptually, i.e., memorial operations are not required or are not central to the task performance, no deficit would be expected.

2. Since the attention deficit disorder child does not store defining features, the organization of concepts and their elements in memory can be viewed within a hierarchical model as lacking extensive horizontal structure, concepts are then linked by superordinate relationships, those that primarily are responsible for shared characteristic features, with little elaboration of the features or elements that differentiate concepts of approximately equivalent ordinate position. Thus, memory organization is not as differentiated as that in other children in terms of defining elements. The deficit is , expected to be exacerbated by tasks that require these 80 children to employ organizational strategies, such as those requiring elaboration of stimulus materials in memory. Specifically, tasks requiring semantic manipulations are difficult since organization by characteristic relationships, rather than defining ones, are likely to yield only a shallow grasp of the information. The organization is shallow or superficial in the sense that superordinate relations and characteristic elements are stressed, and thereby critical differences in elements are unnoticed.

3. The cognitive style of these children is construed as holistic, impressionistic, accelerated, and intuitive, conversely, they do not usually process information in a detailed, sequential, systematic, or critical fashion. These descriptors of the attention deficit disorder style of thinking can be referenced within the context of Stage 1 type processing. Thus, the style is holistic in the sense that all features are considered regardless of relative definingness, intuitive and impressionistic in that only overall similarity is considered, and accelerated since the shorter response latencies of Stage 1 processing would be preferred in a decision making task.

It is possible to derive some specific predictions about the performance of attention deficit disorder 81 children on decision making tasks. First, with respect to a category-instance decision task, the following predictions are offered.

1. Over all subjects,

a. reaction times will be longer for low frequency items than for high frequency items;

b. errors will be greatest for high frequency items than for low frequency items.

2. For Attention deficit disorder subjects,

a. reaction times for low frequency items will be shorter than those of control subjects, since they will attempt a stage 1 decision making strategy even when the task calls for a more critical strategy using defining features.

b. errors for low frequency items will be greater than that of control subjects, since stage 1 decision making is error-prone as it does not consider the defining features necessary to categorize a low frequency item.

c. errors for low frequency, incorrect items, will be greater than that of control subjects since they will more likely attempt a Stage 1 decision strategy.

On a visual distraction task requiring color naming in the presence of discrepant color words the following prediction is offered.

1. Attention deficit disorder children will perform 82

superiorly to or at least as well as other children on

this task, since the introduction of the discrepant color

words is conceptual in the sense that it introduces a

semantic confusion. Since these children rely on stage 1

decision processes which do not differentiate

characteristic features from defining ones, the actual physical color of stimuli is seen as predominant, since

the color words require elaboration along some semantic dimension to be understood. In addition, this task places no requirement on memorial processes, thus problems described above in the organization of information in the store would not be expected.

On a memory organization task that uses repeated recall to examine clustering strategies the following predictions are offered.

1. Attention deficit disorder children will display poorer recall compared to other groups.

2. The poorer recall performance will be attributed to poorer recall of words that have low production frequencies, such that these words will not readily be associated with the superordinate category and as a result recall will not benefit from the established effect of category membership. Low production frequency words will not be associated with the category because inclusion of them in the category requires an analysis of their defining features.

3. Clustering measures of this task will be lower for attention deficit disorder children because only the high production frequency words in the categories will be recalled. CHAPTER VII

RESULTS

NON-COGNITIVE VARIABLES

Correlation of Non-cognitive variables

The Conners Teacher and parent factors were highly correlated (Table 3). This was especially the case for certain item sets such as those that measure hyperactivity, conduct problems, or learning problems.

There were two notable exceptions to this tendency. Item sets that measure psychosomatic problems and anxiety did not correlate highly with other item sets or with one another.

Scores on other rating scale measures such as the

School situations Questionnaire, the Behavior Rating Scale for children and the Child Severity Index were also highly correlated with one another and with the Conners' scales

(Table 5). The Conners' hyperactivity and conduct problems factors shared approximately 52 percent of the variance with item sets from different tests that were constructed to measure other forms of behavioral symptoms.

84 85

The corrrelation of age with other selected scales indicated age was independent of intelligence and symptom severity (Table 6).

Comparison of Classification Procedures

Five methods were chosen for assigning subjects to groups. The different procedures are summarized in Table

7. Comparison of classification procedures revealed a pattern to the assignment of individuals across methods

(Table 7). The subjects on the left side of Table 7 can be contrasted to those on the right. In terms of classification methods 1, 2, and 3, this partition successfully discriminates most hyperactives from delinquents, or most hyperactives from nonclassifiables.

As this comparison is extended to methods 4 and 5, this pattern continues. Eleven subjects rated hyperactive/aggressive by Method 5 were rated hyperactive/conduct problem by Method 4, and all the subjects rated aggressive by Method 5 were rated conduct problem by Method 4. In short, there appeared a shared structure among the classification of individuals by different methods.

A series of tables (8, 9, 10, 11, 12) summarize the performance of subjects on the non-cognitive variables. 86

Age and intelligence did not differ significantly among any group. Thus, it is unlikely that these variables accounted for differences in the way subjects were assigned to groups or in the performance of subjects on other variables.

If the two groups in Method 5 that scored similarly are taken as one (H & H/A), then there is a consistency of ratings that transversed all rating methods. Put another way, it would seem that irrespective of the rating method, three types of children were identified. One of these groups was the control children who were for the most part symptom free, and as a result, the lowest on all measures of symptom severity. Another group, sometimes called hyperactive, hyperactive/aggressive, or hyperactive/conduct problems, was the most behaviorally disordered as indicated by their higher scores on most measures of symptom severity. A third group was clearly distinct from control children, but had somewhat less severe problems than did the preceeding group. These children were referred to as delinquent, unclassifiable, conduct problems, or aggressive by the different classification methods.

COGNITIVE VARIABLES The ensuing presentation of results considers each test of the cognitive battery using general linear model techniques (RMANCOVA, ANOVA, MANOVA). The known effect of age and intelligence on performance of cognitive measures suggested that these variables could be valuable covariates. As suspected, these variables were often significant covariates. when this was the case, and when there existed significant group effects, adjusted treatment means were generated and compared with unadjusted means. In no case did the direction of mean differences change when the covariate was used.

Consequently, true means are reported in all tables.

Duncan multiple range tests were used to contrast cell means.

Group differences on cognitive variables are first presented for the classification method which yields two groups, hyperactive and delinquent. Then, results from the classification method which yields three groups is presented, hyperactive, aggressive, and combined hyperactive/aggressive.

COLOR DISTRACTION TEST

There were no significant group differences on the non-distraction conditions (Table 13). 88

Word Distraction

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: The first distraction condition required subjects to name colors while ignoring color words. Hyperactive children made more errors than did delinquent or control children, who did not differ from one another (F=8.29; df=2,44; p<=.01) (Figure 1).

Time on task improved accuracy for all groups (F=5.94; df=l,44; p<=.05). Hyperactive children had longer response times than did delinquent or control children who did not differ from one another (F=16.03; df=2,44; p<=.01)

(Figure 2). Hyperactive children took longer to respond on the second set of trials compared to the first, while control and delinquent children either showed little change or a slight decrease in response time (Group X

Time: F=3.62; df=2,44; p<=.05) (Figure 3).

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs.

Hyperactive/aggressive: Hyperactive children made more errors than did hyperactive/aggressives, aggressives, or controls, who did not differ from one another (F=4.15, df=3,38; p<=.01) (Figure 4). Hyperactive/aggressive and hyperactive children took longer to respond than did control or aggressive children, who did not differ

(F=14.02; df=3,38; p<=.01) (Figure 5). Hyperactive/aggressive and hyperactive children had larger response times on the second portion of the task while aggressive and control children had smaller response times on the second portion (Group X Time: F=3.19; df=3,38; p<=.05) (Figure 6). The three group comparison clarifies the results of the comparison between hyperactives and delinquents. There are two sources of problems on this distraction task. One of these is a deficit in accuracy, which by definition is construed as selective attention.

Only one subgroup in the present sample experienced this problem, pure hyperactive children. The other problem on this task is related to response speed. This problem manifested in two ways, slower response times overall and a decrease in speed as a function of time on task. The later can be construed as a maintenance attention deficit.

Both hyperactive and hyperactive/aggressive children were deficient on this aspect of the task, although they remained distinct from aggressive and control children.

Color Distraction

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: The second distraction condition required subjects to read color names while ignoring the color. Hyperactive children made more errors than did delinquent or control children, who did not 90 differ from one another (F=6.03? df=2,44; p<=.01) (Figure

7) . Less errors were made for the second set of trials compared to the first set (F=4.06; df=l/44; p<=.05).

Hyperactive children had larger response times than did delinquent children, and delinquent children had larger response times than did control children (F=29.74; df=2,44; p<=.01) (Figure 8). Response times were larger for the first set of trials than the second set (F=8.46; df=l,44; p<=.01).

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs.

Hyperactive/aggressive: children classified by this method did not significantly differ on accuracy (Figure

9). Hyperactive/aggressive children had larger response times than any other group (F=33.38; df=3,38; p<=.01).

Aggressive children had larger response times than control children, while hyperactive children did not differ from these two groups (Figure 10). Response times were larger for the first set of trials than the second set (F=7.18; df=1,38; p<=.05).

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST

Subjective Organization

There were no significant group differences on the 91 bidirectional pair frequency measure {Bousfield &

Bousfield, 1966; Sternberg & Tulving, 1974, 1979) of subjective organization (Table 14).

Words Recalled

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: Hyperactive children recalled less words than did controls, while delinquent children did not differ significantly from either group

(F= 5.69; df=2,44; p<=.01) (Figure 11). The expected progression in learning across trials was confirmed

(F=35.04; df=4,44; p<=.01).

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs. Hyperactie/aggressive:

Hyperactive/aggressive children recalled less words than did any other groups, who did not differ significantly among themselves (F=10.10; df=3,38; p<=.01) (Figure 12).

The trial effect was upheld (F=33.88; df=4,38; p<=.01).

Thus, the three group comparison more precisely identifies the source of the recall deficit in the two comparison.

Only the combined hyperactive/aggressive showed deficient memory performance.

Commission Errors

No group, regardless of classification method, was 92 significantly more likely than any other group to make a commission error, recalling a word that never appeared on the list.

Other variables of the categorized Recall Test may shed some light on the group differences described above

(Table 14).

Repetition of Words

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: The first variable to be reported is the number of repetitions, the number of times the same word was repeated on a single recall trial.

Hyperactive children repeated more words than did control or delinquent children (F=4.56; df=2,44; p<.05).

Repetitions increased across trials (F=11.66; df=4,44; p<=.01).

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs.

Hyperactive/aggressive: There were no significant differences between groups on the number of repetitions.

Serial position

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: Serial position may be one variable that affected performance differentially between groups, i.e., certain groups may have been less 93

able to recall words that were presented within a

particular segment of the study list. For the present

purpose, the study lists were divided into four segments

of five words each. Words presented in the earliest

portion of the study list were not recalled differently.

For the two middle portions and the final portion of the

study list, there were no significant main effects for

groups.

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs.

Hyperactive/aggressive: Hyperactive/aggressive and hyperactive children recalled less words in the early serial position of the study list than did control and

aggressive children (F=2.77; df=3,38; p<=.05). There were no significant group differences for words in the middle serial positions. Hyperactive/aggressive and hyperactive children recalled less words in final serial position segment than did aggressive and control children (F=2.95; df=3,38; p<=.05). The three group comparison localized the portions of the memory list to which the recall deficit can be traced. This finding is especially significant for the hyperactive/aggressive group since this group demonstrated an over-all memory impairment

relative to the other groups.

Production Frequency: 94

Hyperactive vs. Delinquent: The next set of variables to be considered are those that related production frequency to the number of words recalled.

There were five levels of production frequency. Words of the highest production frequencies (words most often associated with the category) produced no group differences. Delinquent and hyperactive children recalled less words than did control children on one level of words with relatively low levels of production frequency (level

4: F=6.01; df=2,44? p<=.01). There were no significant group differences for the words in the lowest production frequency.

Hyperactive vs. Aggressive vs.

Hyperactive/aggressive: Words of the two highest production frequencies (words most often associated with the category) produced no group differences.

Hyperactive/aggressive and hyperactive children recalled less words than did aggressive children on the next lower level of production frequency (level 3: F=4.23; df=3,38; p<.01). control children did not differ significantly from aggressive or hyperactive children.

Hyperactive/aggressive children recalled less words than did any of the other groups, which did not differ among themselves, on the next to the lowest level of production frequency (level 4: F=6.99; df=3,38; p<=.01). There were no significant group differences for the lowest level of production frequency.

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST

This test was unsuccessful in discriminating among the groups. Inspection of variance estimates (R-square values) from univariate analyses revealed values that were quite low, suggesting that even if the power of the tests were increased by additional subjects, it would be unlikely that the group factor would explain significant portions of variance in the dependent variables. Possible explanations for the failure of this test to discriminate among groups is addressed in the Discussion chapter. CHAPTER VIII

DISCUSSION

The high degree of correlation among the rating scales, especially for the Conners' item sets that measure hyperactivity and conduct problems, call into question the validity of DSM-IIl's classification of the attention deficit disorder and conduct disorder syndromes, since the qualitative aspects of symptomatology, i.e., whether one is hyperactive versus a conduct problem versus a learning problem, are so highly correlated, there seems little possibility for discriminating these diagnostic types based on behavioral symptoms. The current results are consistent with previous work which has shown high intercorrelations among behavioral rating scales for children (Arnold et al., 1981; Goyette et al., 1978).

Differences on behavioral symptoms among diagnostic groups in the present study can be attributed to variations in the degree of symptom severity rather than the type of symptomatology. Simply put, there are qualitatively two types of children. There are children with symptoms and those without. Quantitatively, there are three general types of children: children with no

96 97 severity (control children), mild severity (aggressive or conduct disturbed children), or high severity (hyperactive or blended hyperactive with conduct disturbed children).

Thus, there is an overlap in the type of symptoms characteristic of these diagnostic categories. The overlap of symptoms among hyperactive and conduct disordered children has been observed by others (Rutter,

1984; Shaffer & Greenhill, 1981) and several studies have noted the difficulty in establishing consensual diagnosis of attention deficit disorder (Kenny et al., 1971; Lambert et al., 1978; Ullman et al., 1981).

Cognitive Measures

Cognitive measures were examined to explore information processing differences among the diagnostic categories and test specific hypothesis about cognitive deficits in attention deficit disorder.

Contrary to the prediction, hyperactive children evidenced a selective attention deficit. That is, they made more errors than other children on the task involving a color-word distractor. The classification method which distinguished among hyperactive, aggressive, and blended children permited a finer analysis of the source of this deficit. Accuracy was only impaired for hyperactive 98 children/ not combined hyperactive/aggressive or aggressive children. Thus, there is evidence of an information processing difference between these two groups, which is mainly distinguishable on the basis of accuracy. This decrement in accuracy can be understood as a selective attention deficit, and its presence is unique to the purely hyperactive group of chilren.

The other distraction condition did not reveal group differences in accuracy under the more discriminating classification method. This may be because the presence of color was not especially distracting as evidenced by the relatively low number of errors compared to the previous condition and the small difference between the distraction and baseline conditions.

A selective attention deficit is not generally characteristic of the hyperactive child (Bremer & Stern,

1976; Campbell et al., 1971; Cohen et al., 1972; Peters,

1977; Scott, 1970; Sykes et al., 1973; Sykes et al., 1971;

Zentall Et zentall, 1976). perhaps this is because these studies have not employed classification methods which permit identification of purely hyperactive children.

When a selective attention deficit is observed, it is only present for a subsample of the orginal hyperactive group, as in the case of Schleifer et al. (1975). This finding supports the present results in that there is evidence for 99 a purely hyperactive child who is characterized by a selective attention problem.

Now attention can be given to the problems which are characteristic of both hyperactive/aggressive children and hyperactive children. The greater response times on the distraction task reflects either slow encoding of the stimulus, slow decision making, or slow response generation. Since response times were not slower for the non-distraction trials, a simple response generation deficit is unlikely. An encoding problem is also unlikely since it would necessarily be a function of increased load, i.e., the addition of color or letters to the stimulus compared to the non-distraction condition.

Increases in load have been shown not to affect the hyperactive child's performance (McIntyre et al., 1978;

Sergeant & scholten, 1983). Thus, the problem appears related to decision making.

The presence of a time on task deficit for the hyperactive and hyperactive/aggressive groups on the first distraction condition is suggestive of the type of decision making problem encountered, control and aggressive children became quicker as a function of time on task, while the hyperactive and hyperactive/aggressive group became slower. The reason decision making is impaired may be because these children

There is anecdotal support for this type of deficit.

In speaking with children after the testing, many of the control children explained they had found ways to "not get confused." A frequent strategy was to only look at some portion of the stimulus display, for instance, only one letter of the color-word. in this way, they avoided encoding the color-word and were left only with a sensorial image of color. The hyperactive and hyperactive/aggressive may have recognized the potential for applying such a strategy on some trials, but may not have maintained this knowledge through rehearsal. Thus, the continual pattern of encoding the color-word, then determining that it was extraneous to the task, may have created an additional cognitive burden, thereby leading to even longer processing times.

The failure to observe a time on task deficit for the second distraction condition likley reflects the unimportance of rehearsal to this task. Anecdotally, nearly all children stated they performed the task "just by reading the words." Unlike the preceeding condition, it is difficult to imagine how rehearsal would have been 101 helpful in ignoring the color of the stimuli.

Additionally, it appeared that the presence of color was not especially distracting since the response times overall were much quicker compared to the preceeding condition and since the difference between the baseline performance condition and the distraction condition was less in magnitude than that of the preceeding condition.

The presence of a time on task deficit (maintenance attention) is consistent with results of other studies

(Firestone & Douglas, 1975; Goldberg & Konstantareas,

1981; Hoy et al., 1978; Peters, 1977; Sykes et al., 1971;

Sykes et al., 1973). The present finding suggests that the maintenance attention deficit is not pervasive.

Rather it occurs under certain task conditions that require the adoption of a rehearsal solution. The absence of effective problem solving stratgies in attention deficit disorder has been demonstrated (Tant & Douglas,

1982), although based on other results (Benezra, 1978;

Fiedler & Ullman, 1983) it was hypothesized that this was due to a preference for sensory rather than semantic information processing styles. It was this reasoning that led to the prediction of deficient performance on' the second distraction task and not the first. Since a deficit was found on both distraction tasks, the prediction is only partially supported. 102

As predicted, hyperactive children recalled less words than did delinquent or control children on the CRT.

Results derived from the classification method which distinguished hyperactive, aggressive, and blended subtypes explained the source of variation on this task.

Only children who were labeled hyperactive/aggressive showed a deficit on this task. The other pathological groups, including hyperactive children, did not recall significantly less words than did controls. Therefore, further support is offered for two cognitively distinguishable types of behavior problem children.

A time on task deficit cannot account for differences in the number of words recalled since the slope of the learning curves was not significantly different. Other measures of performance on this test were examined to determine factors responsible for the memory deficit.

Contrary to prediction, there were no significant differences in subjective organization in recall as assessed by bidirectional pair frequency. Thus, the data argues against the hypothesis of a problem in subjective organization.

Hyperactive and hyperactive/aggressive children recalled less words in the first and last serial position segments of the study list than did control or aggressive children. The so-called "active hypothesis" holds that 103 the primacy effect results from some strategy applied to a list by a subject (Crowder, 1969; Tulving, 1968). The usual strategy envisaged in the active approach is rehearsal (Crowder, 1976). The recency effect is generally attributed to information held in primary memory

(the short-term store). In the short-term store, the most important voluntary process is rehearsal (Crowder, 1976).

Thus, on both aspects of this measure on which a deficit is found, rehearsal is the underlying process responsible for performance, consequently, a rehersal deficit is postulated to account for the poorer recall of this group.

These children may not employ rehearsal.

Consequently they resemble chronologically younger children who have not as yet mastered rehearsal processes, an ability which is acquired around age seven (Kail,

1984). It may have been precisely this phenomenon which led early authors to conceptualize the hyperactive child as developmentally delayed (see Ross & Ross, 1976).

This difficulty may manifest in several ways.

Failure to rehearse may result in less information transferred to secondary memory. When this occurs, results like those of Wiengartner et al. (1980) in which hyperactives recalled less semantically encoded words would be expected. This would also account for the effects in which hyperactives seem to prefer a physical 104 exploration of the world rather than a conceptual one

(Fiedler & Ullman, 1983) and attempt to problem solve by using perceptual cues rather than conceptual ones (Tant &

Douglas, 1982). The physical/perceptual world is always present, as a result, knowledge about it does not call for rehearsal.

Rehearsal may be attempted, especially when the situation strongly calls for some memory strategy as in the case of a memory experiment. Since rehearsal is not the customary strategy for these children, attempting to rehearse may slow their task performance or limit the amount of information which can be processes in a fixed amount of time. In either case, recall would be poorer.

Without rehearsal, decay from the short-term store is more likely. This type of deficit may account for the somewhat perplexing results in studies of short-term memory in ADD. A variation of the familiar Sternberg procedure produced differences in performance not attributable to memory load (Sergeant & Scholten, 1983).

Rather, the problem was related to the intercept measure of performance, the combination of several activities such as encoding, response organization, and decision making

(Sternberg, 1969). A deficit in rehearsal could produce this result since the intercept measure would be sensitive to processing time, while the slope or load measure would 105 not.

Other performance differences in ADD may be explained by a rehearsal deficit. For instance, a maintenance attention deficit may result from failure to place information in the secondary store, even simple information about response requirements of the task. This information would then require processing during each trial, a constant and continuous attention to preserve the memory trace. This may place a cumulative burden on the information processing system by limiting the attentional capacity available for allocation.

Finally, the failure of the categorized Recall Test to discriminate groups can be addressed. The most parsiminous explanation would be that the deficit does not lie in the cognitive processes tapped by this measure.

That is, the groups studied do not have a problem in memory organization and search processes. An alternative explanation is that the current task did not successfully enable the experimental memory paradigm.

Summary

The present study offers a finer diagnostic discrimination within the attention deficit disorder syndrome based on cognitive performance. One subgroup of 106 behaviorally disordered children were identified who have a selective attention deficit. This group of children is offered as a pure hyperactive group. It is "pure" in the sense that it can be distinguished from aggressive children and from combined hyperactive/aggressive children. Another cognitive deficit was discovered for hyperactive/aggressive children and hyperactive children.

These children had difficulty with decision making components of tasks. More specifically, this problem in decision making was likely due to a failure to use rehearsal strategies.

This distinction is valuable for two reasons. One, current behavioral symptoms do not lead to the identification of qualitatively distinct groups of children. This is the case even when several different symptom mesures are employed, as was done in this study.

Two, current behavioral symptoms do not lead to a clear understanding of deficits in these children. The high correlations among and between the different symptom measures attests to this. We must conclude that the classification of symptoms, in terms of their measurement from behavioral rating scales, has already realized its potential. The present results suggest that future investigations into attention deficit disorder, and into childhood psychopathology in general, would be more 107 profitably conducted if cognitive information processing differences were investigated.

A superior approach may be the diagnosis of children based on performance patterns on multi-task cognitive assessment batteries. 108 TAELE 1

DSM-III CRITERIA FOR ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER

INATTENTION (At least three of the following.) often fails to finish things he or she starts often doesn't seem to listen easily distracted has difficulty concentrating on school work or other tasks requiring sustained attention has difficulty sticking to a play activity

IMPULSIVITY (At least three of the following.) often acts before thinking shifts excessively from one activity to another has difficulty organizing work (this not being due to cognitive impairment) needs a lot of supervision frequently calls out in class has difficulty awaiting turn in games or group situations

HYPERACTIVITY (At least two of following.) runs about or climbs on things excessively has difficulty sitting still or fidgets excessively has difficulty staying seated moves about excessively during sleep is always "on the go" or acts as if "driven by a motor"

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Third Edition. TABLE 2

RECALL WORDS OF THE CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST

MOUNTAIN DOCTOR HAMMER RAIN HILL LAWYER RULER WIND LAKE TEACHER PENCIL COLD CAVE NURSE KNIFE FOG DITCH FARMER GLUE WARM TABLE 3

CORRELATION OF CONNERS RATING SCALE FACTORS

Cl —

C2 84 — * + p< = 0.001 ** * p< = 0 .01 + p< = 0.05 C3 68 77 — N= 49 fo r C1-C4 * * * * N= 35 for P1-P6

C4 91 96 84 __ * * *★ **

Pi 55 49 63 57 _ **** #* **

P2 63 67 75 68 69 _ #* * * * * ** * *

P3 21 28 35 30 16 49 + +

P4 57 69 63 65 55 70 26 — * * ** ** # * ** **

P5 -21 -20 01 -12 -10 -04 24 07

P6 60 68 72 69 76 90 43 84 * * ** * * * * * * **

Cl C2 C3 C4 PI P2 P3 P4

Legend

Cl-Conduct problems (Teacher) C2-Hyperactivity (Teacher) C3-lnattention-passivity (Teacher) C4-Hyperactivity Index (Teacher) Pl-Conduct Problems (parent) P2-Learning problems (parent) P3-Psychosomatic Problems (parent) P4-impuIsivity-hyperactivity (parent) P5-Anxiety (Parent) P6-Hyperactivity Index (Parent) Ill

TABLE 4

CORRELATION OF NON-CLINICAL CONNERS RATING SCALE FACTORS

normal sample C2 68 — N=529 Parent Factors N=383 Teacher Factors N=350 Teacher/Parent Factors C3 49 60 —

C4 79 90 79

PI 33 29 27 34 - -

P2 28 34 45 44 45 —

P3 -0 9 -0 4 04 -0 3 22 21 —

P4 31 36 24 39 55 44 19 —

P5 -0 7 -1 2 -0 2 -0 9 09 20 22 01 —

P6 37 42 41 49 66 79 29 81 15 —

Cl C2 C3 C4 PI P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

Legend

Cl-Conduct Problems (Teacher) C2-Hyperactivity (Teacher) C3-Inattention-passivity (Teacher) C4-Hyperactivity Index (Teacher) Pl-Conduct problems (parent) P2-Learning Problems (parent) P3~Psychosomatic problems (parent) P4-lmpulsivity-hyperactivity (parent) P5-Anxiety (parent) P6-Hyperactivity Index (Parent)

Goyette, C.H., Conners, C.K., s. Ulrich, R.F. ( 1978). Normative data on revised Conners Parent and Teacher Rating scales, journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 6, 221-236. TABLE 5

CORRELATION OF SEVERITY MEASURES

S i - -

S2 92 — ** p <= 0.001 * + * p<=0.01 + p<=»0.05 S3 68 71 — N= 46 for S1-S5 * * ** N= 49 fo r C1-C5 N=<35 fo r P7 S4 66 70 67 — ** * it **

S5 77 74 65 90 _ *# ** *■* * ★

cj. 68 70 66 68 70 ** ** ** ** * *

C2 82 82 75 68 74 85 — ** ** ** ** ** **

C5 85 83 80 79 83 85 87 — ** ** ** ** * it

P7 60 60 63 71 1 2 54 57 69 ** ik ** ** * + ** ** **

SI . S2 S3 S4 S5 Cl C2 C5

Legend

51-School Situations Questionnaire (Number of problems) 52-School Situations Questionnaire (Severity) 53-Behavior Rating Scale for Children s4-child Severity index (Teacher) S5-Child Severity Index (Psychologist) Cl-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (conduct Problem) C2-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Hyperactivity) C5-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Total score) P7-Conners parent Questionnaire (Total. Score) 113

TABLE 6

CORRELATION OF AGE WITH INTELLIGNECE AND SEVERITY MEASURES

IQ l IQ2 IQ3 S2 S3 S4 S5

AGE -27 -02 -16 -22 -25 -2 2 -08

N 46 46 46 47 47 47 47

(No c o r re la tio n s s ig n if ic a n t . )

Legend

IQ1-WISC-R Vocabulary subtest. IQ2-WISC-R Block Design Subtest. IQ3-WISC-R IQl + IQ2. 52-School Situations Questionnaire (Severity) 53-Behavior Rating Scale for Children 54-child Seve'rity index (Teacher) 55-child Severity Index (psychologist) TABLE 7 114

COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATION PROCEDURES

Classification Method Classification Method

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

H H . H H H HH/C H HH HH/CH/A H H HH/C H HH H H/CH/A D H HH/CH/A HH H H/C » D HHH/C H H H H H/C H/A D « • H H H H/C H/A □ H C * H HH H/C H/A DC A H H • « a D c A H H H H/CH D H c A H H H H/CH/A D H c A HH « C A D c A H H H H/C H/A D c » HH H H/C H/A □ c H/A H HH H/C H D H c H/A HH . H/C H/A D HH H/C H/A D ,. c A

Legend

1 - psychologist Ratings on Achenbach Check List Factors following Soli, et al. (1980) classification rules. H=Hyperactivity D=Delinquency 2 - Conners Teacher Rating scale. H=Hyperactivity Index >* 2.0 s.d., irrespective of other scores 3 - conners Teacher Rating scale. H=Hyperactivity Factor >= 2.0 s.d., irrespective of other scores 4 - Conners Teacher Rating Scale. H=Hyperactivity Factor >= 2.0 s.d.,* conduct problems Factor < 2.0 s.d. (note: no subjects received ' h ') C=Conduct Problems Factor >= 2.0 s.d.; Hyperactivity Factor < 2.0 s.d. H/c=Hyperactivity Factor >= 2.0 s.d.; conduct Problems F acto r >« 2 .0 s .d . 5 - Conners Teacher Rating Scale classified by Ldoney (1984) factors for Aggression and Hyperactivity. H^Hyperactivity Items >■ 9; Aggression Items < 7 A=Aggression Items >»7; Hyperactivity Items < 9 H/A=Hyperactivity Items >■ 9; Aggression Items >*» 7 TABLE 8

UNIVARIATE COMPARISONS OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES BY ACHENBACH CHECKLIST GROUPS

VAR. HYPERACTIVE DELINQUENT CONTROL F VALUE MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N

Age 1 1 .0 4 /0 .5 0 1 1 .1 1 /0 .4 0 1 0 .9 2 /0 .4 1 n .s . A /17 A/14 A /18 I.Q. 1 6 .8 2 /0 .9 1 1 7 .7 9 /1 .3 1 1 7 .0 0 /0 .7 0 n .s . A /17 A /14 A/18 S i 9 .9 4 /0 .6 0 7 .4 6 /0 .7 3 2 .1 3 /0 .5 0 46.17 A/17 B/13 C/16 S2 61.53/5.75 4 0 .2 3 /6 .4 7 5 .4 4 /1 .9 5 34. 32 A/17 B/13 C/16 S3 157.06/6.37 142.85/9.99 9 2 .8 8 /6 .0 6 22.23 A/17 A/13 B/16 S4 34.82/2.55 32.08/3.85 16.41/1.16 16.20 A/17 A/13 B/17 S5 3 7 .4 1 /2 .1 4 3 5 .0 0 /2 .5 8 1 6 .0 6 /0 .8 7 39.87 A /17 A/13 B/17 Cl 3.18/0.33 3.21/0.44 -0.12/0.09 43.15 A/17 A /14 B/18 C2 2 .6 8 /0 .1 8 1.39/0.28 -0.41/0.10 73.84 A/17 B/14 C/18 C3 1. 33/0.20 0.94/0.31 - 0 . 4 6 /0 . 0 9 23.36 A /l7 A /14 B/18 C4 2 .8 5 /0 .1 6 1 .9 7 /0 .3 4 - 0 . 3 9 /0 . 0 8 7 6 .1 0 A /17 B/14 B/18 Pi 2 .2 5 /0 .3 8 2.24/0.50 -0.49/0.21 16.74 A/15 A /9 B / l l P2 2.38/0.47 1.24/0.43 - 0 . 5 0 /0 . 2 5 12.63 A/15 B/9 C / l l P3 0.84/0.37 . -0.34/0.14 - 0 . 1 2 /0 . 1 6 4 .6 6 A/15 B/9 B / l l P4 2 .2 0 /0 .1 7 0 .9 6 /0 .4 6 - 0 . 4 2 /0 . 2 7 24. 65 A/15 B/9 C / l l P5 - 0 . 1 1 /0 . 2 9 0 .0 4 /0 .2 2 0 .0 9 /0 .2 7 n .s . P6 2 .4 8 /0 .2 9 1 .4 5 /0 .3 5 - 0 . 4 9 /0 . 3 2 23.99 A /15 B/9 C /11

Legend

51-School Situations Questionnaire (Number of problems) 52-School situations Questionnaire (severity) 53-Behavior Rating scale for Children 54-child Severity Index (Teacher) 55-Child Severity Index (Psychologist) Cl-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Conduct Problem) C2-(Hyperactivity) C3-(Inattention-passivity) C4-(Hyperactivity Index) Pl-Conners parents Questionnaire (Conduct Problems) p2-(Learning problems) P3—(Psychosomatic Problems) p4-(impuIsivity-hyperactivity) P5-(Anxiety) P6-(Hyperactivity Index) TABLE 9

UNIVARIATE COMPARISONS OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES BY CONNERS HYPERACTIVITY FACTOR

VAR. HYPERACTIVE CONTROL F VALUE MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N

Age 1 1 .2 0 /0 .5 6 1 0 .9 1 /0 .4 1 n .s . A/15 A/18 I .Q. 1 6 .0 0 /1 .0 0 1 7 .0 0 /0 .7 0 n .s . A/15 A/18 SI 1 0 .0 7 /0 .6 0 2 .1 3 /0 .5 0 105.14 A/15 B/16 S2 6 1 .0 7 /6 .1 5 5 .4 4 /1 .9 5 78.57 A/15 B/16 S3 161.53/7.16 9 2 .8 8 /6 .0 6 54.05 A/ IS B/16 S4 3 6 .4 0 /3 .0 2 1 6 .4 1 /0 .2 9 41.82 A /15 B/16 S5 3 8 .2 7 /2 .4 0 1 6 .0 6 /0 .2 1 83 .3 9 A /15 B/16

Legend

51-School situations Questionnaire (Number of Problems) 52-School situations Questionnaire (Severity) 53-Behavior Rating Scale for Children 54-Child Severity Index (Teacher) 55-Child Severity Index (psychologist) TABLE 10

UNIVARIATE COMPARISONS OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES BY CONNERS HYPERACTIVITY FACTOR WITH UNCLASSIFIABLES

VAR. HYPERACTIVE UNCLASS. CONTROL F VALUE MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N

Age 1 1 .2 1 /0 .5 6 1 0 .9 5 /0 .3 5 1 0 .9 2 /0 .4 1 n . s . A/15 A/16 A/18 I.Q. 1 6 .0 0 /0 .9 9 18.44/1.10 17.00/0.70 n . s . A/15 A/16 A/18 si 10.07/0.60 7 .6 7 /0 .7 2 2 .1 3 /0 .5 0 45.59 A/15 B/15 C/16 S2 6 1 .0 7 /6 .1 5 4 5 .5 3 /6 .4 2 5 .4 4 /1 .9 5 31.01 A/15 B/15 C/16 S3 161.53/7.16 140.27/8.15 92.88/6.06 24.71 A/15 B/15 C/16 S4 3 6 .4 0 /3 .0 2 3 0 .8 7 /3 .0 8 1 6 .4 1 /1 .1 6 17.76 A/15 A/15 B/17 S5 38.27/2.40 34.47/2.20 1 6 .0 6 /0 .8 7 41.54 A/15 A/15 B/17

Legend

51-School Situations Questionnaire (Number of Problems) 52-School Situations Questionnaire (Severity) 53-Behavior Rating sdale for Children 54-Child severity Index (Teacher) 55-Child Severity Index (Psychologist) TABLE 11

UNIVARIATE COMPARISONS OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES BY CONNERS HYPERACTIVITY AND CONDUCT PROB1

VAR. HYP/CONDUCT CONDUCT CONTROL F VALUE MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN. 05/1

Age 1 1 .1 2 /0 .5 3 1 0 .6 1 /0 .3 5 1 0 .9 2 /0 .4 1 n .s . A/16 A /12 A/18 I.Q. 16.38/1.00 1 8 .3 3 /1 .3 8 1 7 .0 0 /0 .7 0 n .s . A /16 A /12 A /18 s l 1 0 .1 8 /0 .5 7 7 .9 1 /0 .8 0 2 .1 3 /0 .5 0 52.15 A /16 B / l l C /16 S2 61.75/5.79 4 5 .1 0 /7 .9 9 5 .4 4 /1 .9 5 33.13 A /16 B / l l C /16 S3 162.56/6.77 138.82/9.90 9 2 .8 8 /6 .0 6 26.04 A/16 B / l l C /16 S4 36.56/2.83 30.36/4.17 16.41/1.16 17.02 A/16 A / l l B/17 55 38.00/2.26 3 4 .1 8 /2 .9 6 1 6 .0 6 /0 .8 7 37.90 A /16 A / l l B/17

Legend

51-School situations Questionnaire (Number of Problems) 52-School Situations Questionnaire (severity) 53-Behavior Rating Scale for Children 54-Child severity Index (Teacher) 55-child Severity Index (psychologist) TABLE 12

UNIVARIATE COMPARISONS OF NON-COGNITIVE MEASURES BY LONEY FACTOR GROUPS

VAR. HYPERACTIVE AGGRESSIVE HYPER/AGGR CONTROL F VALUE MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. MEAN/S.E.M. DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N DUNCAN.05/N

Age 1 2 .0 1 /0 .7 0 1 0 .4 4 /0 .4 7 1 0 .3 0 /0 .5 1 1 0 .9 2 /0 .4 1 n . s . A/7 A / 7 A /12 A/18 I.Q. 1 6 .5 7 /1 .7 2 1 8 .4 2 /2 .0 5 1 6 .1 7 /1 .0 5 1 7 .0 0 /0 .7 0 n .s . A/7 A /7 A/7 A/18 SI 9.43/0.97 7.50/0.96 10.83/0.42 2.13/0.SO 48.79 A/7 B/6 A /12 C/16 S2 57.00/9.99 4 2 .1 7 /7 .9 3 6 7 .4 2 /4 .8 0 5 .4 4 /1 .9 5 33.17 A/7 B/6 A/12 C/16 S3 165.43/9.64 123.67/9.99 161.42/7.56 9 2 .8 8 /6 .0 6 19.89 A / 7 B/6 A/12 C/16 S4 35 29/3.29 2 4 .3 4 /3 .6 3 3 9 .5 0 /3 .6 4 1 6 .4 1 /1 .1 6 18.39 A /7 ' B/6 A /12 C/17 S5 3 4 .5 7 /2 .1 9 3 0 .3 4 /2 .9 6 4 1 .5 0 /2 .8 8 1 6 .0 6 /0 .8 7 35.47 A/7 B/6 A/12 C/17 C l 3 .1 9 /0 .4 2 2 .8 5 /0 .4 2 3 .6 9 /0 .5 1 - 0 . 1 2 /0 . 0 9 33.57 A/7 A/7 A/12 B/18 C2 2 .8 2 /0 .2 5 1.17/0.17 2.65/0.29 - 0 . 4 1 /0 . 1 0 77.21 A/7 B/7 A/12 C/18 C3 1 .8 0 /0 .3 6 . 0.19/0.26 1.50/0.19 - 0 . 4 6 /0 . 0 9 35.09 A/7 B/7 A /12 C/18 C4 3.10/0.18 1 .6 8 /0 .2 5 2 .9 3 /0 .2 3 - 0 . 3 9 /0 . 0 8 107.15 A/7 B/7 A/12 C/18

Legend

51-School situations Questionnaire (Number of problems) 52-School Situations Questionnaire (Severity) 53-Behavioc Rating Scale for Children 54-child Severity index (Teacher) 55-child Severity Index (psychologist) Cl-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Conduct Problem) C2-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Hyperactivity) C3-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Inattention-passivity) C4-Conners Teacher Questionnaire (Hyperactivity Index) TABLE 13

COLOR DISTRACTION TEST VARIABLES BY CLASSIFICATION METHOD

HYPER DELQU HYPER HYPER HY/AG AGGRE CONTR X/SEM X/SEM X/SEM X/SEM X/SEM X/SEM X/SEM N=17 N=14 N=15 N=7 N=7 N=12 N=18

Color Naming Errors .41 .14 .40 ' .43 .33 .29 .28 .15 .10 .16 .30 .14 .18 .14

RT Correct .812 .832 ■* .838 .809 .855 .838 .800 .060 .049 .067 .093 .064 .088 .034 Color Reading Errors .06 .07 .07 0. .17 0 . .11 .06 .07 .07 0. .11 0. .11

RT C orrect .828 .733 .846 .751 .913 .668 .678 .116 .044 .130 .092 .155 .047 .028 Ignore Word Errors 2.79 1.54 2.93 3.21 2.04 1.93 1.86 .63 .30 .67 1.02 .67 .37 .46

RT C orrect 1.677 1.380 1.727 1.597 1.766 1.312 1.324 .235 .090 .275 .278 . 286 . .153 .098

RT Incorrect 1.847 1.321 1.821 1.612 2.012 1.342 1.403 .257 .124 .259 .168 .342 .183 .136 Ignore Color Errors 1.21 .61 1.27 .93 1.13 1.21 .69 .65 .36 .71 .54 .87 .75 .26

RT Correct 1.176 .996 1.192 .978 1.312 1.021 .887 ..193 .086 .217 .155 .261 .110 .049

RT Incorrect 2.174 1.328 2.255 1.674 2.693 1.415 1.687 .836 .390 .845 .452 1.253 .291 .244 TABLE 14

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST VARIABLES BY CLASSIFICATION METHOD

HYPER DELQU HYPER HYPER HY/AG AGGRE CONTR MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN MEAN N=17 N=14 N=15 N=7 N=7 N=12 N=18

R ecall 1 6.71 6.07 6.40 .6 .4 3 6.17 5.57 7.05 R e c a ll 2 7.94 8.86 8,07 8.57 7.33 9.57 8.83 R e c a ll 3 9.24 9.79 9.00 9.29 7.58 11.00 10.67 R e c a ll 4 9. 62 10.57 .9.87 11.00 9.17 10.29 10.67 R ecall 5 10.24 11.64 10.47 10.86 9.83 12.42 12.22

Repetitions 1.12 0.63 1.16 1.29 1.12 0.66 0.75

Commissions 0.31 0.16 0.33 0.09 0.43 0.11 0.20

Pair Freq. Tot. 0.36 0.57 0.33 0.43 0.45 0.54 0.65

Serial Seg. 1 2.18 2.37 2.29 2.14 2.00 2.46 2.48 Serial Seg. 2 2.01 2.11 2.00 2.00 1.90 2.20 2.26 Serial Seg. 3 1.92 2.00 1.97 2.49 1.63 2.00 2.24 Serial Seg. 4 2.67 2.90 2.47 2.54 2.48 3.11 2.90

prod. Freq. 1 2.00 2.06 1.97 2.14 1.80 2.11 2.28 Prod. Freq. 2 1.68 1.79 1.60 1.63 1.45 2.14 1.70 Prod. Freq. 3 1.61 1.94 1.57 1.66 1.52 2.14 1.84 Prod. Freq. 4 1.93 1.91 1.95 2.06 1.65 2.11 2.32 Prod. Freq. 5 1.52 1.69 1.63 1.69 1.57 1.25 1.74 121 122

FIGURE 1

IGNORE WORD ERRORS:

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

3.5

3.0

E

R

R

0

R

S

1.0

H D C

GROUPS 123

FIGURE 2

IGNORE WORD CORRECT RESPONSE TIME:

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

1.8

1.7

S 1.6

E

C

0 1.5

N

D

S 1.4

1 .3

H D C

GROUPS 124

FIGURE 3

IGNORE WORD RESPONSE TIME INTERACTION:

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

1.8B

S 1.5

E

C 1. 4

1.2

1.1

TIME 1 TIME 2 125

FIGURE 4

IGNORE WORD ERRORS:

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG

3.5

3.0

E

R 2.5

R

O 2.0 R

S

1.5

1.0

H H/A A C

GROUPS 126

FIGURE 5

IGNORE WORD RESPONSE TIME:

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG

1.8

1.7

S 1.6 * E

C o 1.5

N

D

S 1.4

1.3

H/A H

GROUPS 127

FIGURE 6

IGNORE WORD RESPONSE TIME INTERACTION:

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG 1.9 H/A

1.8

1.7

H/A 1.6

S 1.5

E

C 1.4 0

N

D 1.3

S

1.2

1.1

TIME 1 TIME 2 128

FIGURE 7

IGNORE COLOR ERRORS:

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

2.0

1.8

E 1.6

R . 1.4

R 1.2

0 1.0

R . 8

S . 6

.4 . 2 129

FIGURE 8

IGNORE COLOR RESPONSE TIMES:

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

1.4

1.2

C

O 0.8

N

D

S 0.6

0.4

H D C

GROUPS 130

FIGURE 9

IGNORE COLOR ERRORS:

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG

2.0

1.8

E 1.6

R 1.4

R 1.2

0 1.0

R . 8

S . 6

.4

. 2

H H/A A C

GROUPS Method 5 131

FIGURE 10

IGNORE COLOR RESPONSE TIME:

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG

1.4

1.2

S

E 1.0

C

0

N 0.8

D

S 0.6

0.4

H/A H A C

GROUPS 132

FIGURE 11

WORDS RECALLED

HYPERACTIVE VS. DELINQUENT

13

12

W 11

0 10 R

D 9

S 8

7

6

1 2 3 4 5

TRIALS 133

FIGURE 12

WORDS RECALLED

HYPERACTIVE VS. AGGRESSIVE VS. HYP/AGG

13

1 2 3 4 5

TRIALS 134

APPENDIX A

COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: PROGRAM

t PEM ********************************* 2 REM COLOR DISTRACTION TEST 3 REM ASHBROOFV06/02/B4 4 REM ********************************* •3 PEM RICHARD M. A3HBR00K 5 REM BBS M. N. BPOAD11AY 7 PEM COLUMBUS. OH 43214 3 PEM fCI O S '02'34 ISO REM ********** r* **** *t *t * ********** 10• PEM DIM APRAYS 4 SET VAR. 102 REM ******************************* 102 0 TMAH f 130's PEM TIMER 104 0TM9I . f 1P0> «REM TIMER 10- ntl-nM'" 1KO* IPEM TIMER I0B C TMSTNf 120 ' i PEM PESP. BUTTON 107 DIMTYMEi’ 120' tREM PESP. TIME 100 DIM BTN*1' 1201 (PEM BUTTON ACCURACY 103 OIMXCf120i:PEM STANDARD DEVIATION 110 O IMV I ( 1 30 '■ : ^EM STANOAPD DEVIATION M l OIMVTC 120T.PEM STANDARD DEVIATION 11c T* t!PEN COUNTER 200 REM ******************************* “01 'KM READ MACH. POKES FOR TIMER 302 PEM ******************* »***«*.**♦.*** 203 PnPtc431?2T043231 ! READA t POKE I ,A»NEi;TI 304 DATA ISO, 103,3,141, 14,220, 141,15 ,220,163 203 DATA ST*: 14 1,4 , 220 , *41.3, 220 , 141,6, 220 FOP OATA 14 1 , “,220, 1(53, 1 , 14 1 , 14 ,220, 163,63 ?C7 DATA 14 1 , !T.*2£0, ITS , 1 ,220 ,4 1 ,3,73,3 703 nr-T.A .740,247’, IS2,0, 142,14,220, 172,3,220 “33 data 172 ,ST1 . 1“2,S .320, 132,232,172,7,220 ,7 10 OATA 132,SOD 132,1,115,14, 220 , 1 £2 ,3 , 142 211 DA-* 17 .?P0, 1.37,2-4 .37,36,0,0,0,0 ""O REM *.****** **»****»»»* | *** *tt*t«* *v •?!jt P2M **-t SUBJECT INFOPUATION 70“ PEM * + » •« - ■»*•*■» ******* ************** 7*3 7-o*!PlaOOO'7FN ADJUST SCREEN CDLCF. 004 PCKETSSeo, 12 1 P0KE532B1 , 12»PRINT”||" :PRINT’iJ* 703 PP IMT A B ' 0 1 “COLOR DISTRACTION TASK' 30P PRIMTTAB? 3> - spR jflT 307 PRtNTTAB’iO) " [VERSION 2 .I-R.a s h ERCOKI":PRINT “03 INPUT'CXAMINER'S NAI-E ”;EN»*PRINT 703 INFUT"TCDAY1S DATE *«TD*!PPINT “ 13 IfJ’UT"SUBJECT'S NAME *,*SN**FRIMT PR I NT"SUBJECT'S ID. NUMBER” 712 TT3PIJT- 'PIVC CHARACTERS OR LESS >□" 1S I f s PR I NT 400 PEM r*t** m *********r>«*•****t***** 401 PEM TPIAL BLOCK ONE 407 PEM ************************ ******* 403 PPINT”^’:PPINT-DIRECTICMS**PRINT 404 op IWT"NAME THE COLORS ON THE SCREEN':PRINT 407 PRIMT-PS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN.”*PRINT j-Kj oPT'rr-FPeSS ANY KEY TO BEGIN PRACTICE TRIALS' 407 7ETR*tIFP*=""THEN407 400 FPINT"'J' 403 PPINT'a”:OOPUBT0C0!GOSUBI 1000 135

410 PPI‘JT'3" !0O“I.-£T0001GC3UB1 1000 41 I PPtMT'U" 13O3U2-220*GOSUB1tC03 4 12 PPIffT-g' : GOS'JETGHOiGOGUei 1300 4 !? PRINT*a* :GO"UB9090!GCSUB1 1090 4 :i PRINT*a*t GOSUB30O0 * QOSUB11000 1 IT OOTMT-a" 1OOSUB3000 t GOSUBI 1000 n Pp ;>rr-g- j (30T! 103030 s GOSUB 10000 4?? PRtNT-3" :GOSUB3000t GOSUB1CO00 474 pp .f r-"u* • ooslibtpoo * gosub i 0000 4?T pptMT"tJ" ! OCSUB3990:OOSUB 1000O 4?P PP TMT'U*«PO7UBT009* GCSUB10000 4?-» P P TNT"!]* : GOGUB3000 tGOSUB19000 4?o FO!‘!T'3"i OOOUB3O00: GOSUB 10000 4"? PP rri-'y* : OO3UB30O0I GOSUB 10000 440 PP tNT" a* j P9SUB90091 GOSUB 10000

9CJ PEi** TRIAL &L0CK TWO

307 GET.J1 IMF*! TF JUNK * * *■" "THEN393 304 p p t m t "-j " ippurf**" :p p t w t *o i p e :t i c m s " tPRtrrr 309 PPTMT'PEPC THE WORDS OM THE SCREEN*:PRINT 30E ppimt’^s gutcklv 47 you cam. *ippimt 907 PP TNT *F0ESS AMY KEY TO BEGIN PRACTICE TRIALS ■ :FORK=170200 308 0ETP*:IFP*»*-THEN303 ■o? PPINT"g*rPEM SET COLOR TO WHITE 919 GnsUB 1000!GOSUB11000 91 1 DOSUB29O0!GCSUB11000 312 GOSUBG000 * GCSUB11000 T 19 GOSUB4000!GOSUB11000 9 14 0071.102090 ! OOSUB 1 1 000 T 13 0"OUBC000 : GOSUB I 10O0 9 i f GCSUB10001GCSUB11000 917 OOSUB40PP1 COSUB 11000 319 GET,'M‘IK*s 1P1UNK*< >**THEM313 319 PPINT* a* !PRIMT'PPESS ANY KEY TO BEGIN* !FORX» 1 TO1O01NEXTX 320 GETP*!IPP*»""THEN320 921 GOSUB10001GOSUB10000 322 GCJSUBS00O t GOSUB 10009 92? GOSUB20901GOSUB10000 324 rinSI.IB3O00! GOSUB 10000 329 onsUBFOCC r OOSUB 19000 329 GOSUB10P0!GOSUB10900 9?7 . .GC-UE“030 GOSUB 1 0090 979 CCSUS-S003 i GCSUB 10009 136

729 GCSIJB l OGCtGOSUfe 1(3000 730 9O3UB300B »GOSUB 100B0 731 GO3UB2000!GOSUB10000 773 GOSIJB4000! GOSUB 10000 73? GO3UB2000!GOSUB10000 7?4 GOSUB4000JGOSUB10000 737 GOSU03000SGOSUB10000 736 GOSUB1000!GOSUB10000 737 6CSUB2000*GOSUB 10000 739 6OSUB4O00SGCSUB10000 "SO GOSUB1000:GOSUB10000 740 GOSUB APt00 : GOSUB 10000 600 PEM + + rut* ** 601 REM TRIAL BLOCK THPEE 602 REM 603 PRIMT"’J" !PRtf rr*«* 604 0ET TIINKYI IFJUMK*<>" •THEMS04 S07 PP tMT"DIRECTTOMS"!PP tNT Rpip p»rnT»»(nr-r the rnunp im ijhich the “ ■ r’R IMT GOT PRINT’WOPO IS HR tTTEM. * tPP. IMT G03 PPJNT'OO MOT READ THE WORD,*:PRIMT 603 PRINT* JUST NAME THE COLOR*! PR IMT SIO PRTMT'AS 0U1CKLY AS YOU CAM."tPRINT 6 lI PPIMT'PRESS AMY KEY TO BEGIM PRACTICE TRIAL3.*!FORX*1TO2Q0!NEXTK GIB 3ETR*tIFR*»**THEM6I2 . SIS PPTMT"‘J* , 014 PP1MT"3"!GOSUB1000:GOSUBI1000 613 PRtMT’U* !GOSUB40001GOSUB11000 BIS PPIMT'B"!GOSUB2000iGOSUB11000 Sir PPIMT’a*!G0SUE3000!GCSUB11000 S13 PPTMT-U" :GCSUB10001GOSUB11000 S 1 3 pp IMT"3* t *fiSUB2COl3 ! GOSUB 1 1000 SBC pp*>n-**J' !GnSUB4000!SOSUBl 1000 r ? • op rfp-*g* :GOSUB9P0<»!GOSUB 1 1000 S?“ OP-.TIJMK *l rFJUMK*r ; " “THEMS22 9S3 PPIMT’J" IPPIMT"!* !PPIMT"PRE53 AN KEY TO BECIM." PSA FCPX- ITCSC01MEVT-' 623 GETP-*: TFPY--"THEN627 GEB PR1MT-J*

627 PPtMT"U" tGCSUB 1000 '• OCSUB 10030 623 PPlNT’a* iGCSUBSCCO!OOSUB13000 629 PPIMT-g*:SO3UB2000!GOSUB10000 P?P( OP irjT’a* ■ GC3U83000!GOSUB 10000 62 1 c-PlMT-n* 1GGSUB20O0! GOSUB 10000 632 FP:rn-"3- :OC3UB1OO0!GOSUB10000 po TMT*'J* •.GOSUB3000tGOSUB 10000 c i s op rMT*U“«GOSUB40001GOSUS!O000 633 P=IMT-a* !GOSUB1000!GOSUB10000 636 p p IMT"3" :GOSUE?000!GOSUB10000 637 PPtNT-a*!rC3UB2000«GOSUB1000O 6?9 F° ! GOSUBAOC0 • GOSUB 10000 639 pp IMT"3" :CCS1JB2000!GOSUBI0000 64P OR7MT*a":GO3UB4O00!GOSUB10000 S 4 1 poIMT’B" 'GOSUB3800!GOSUB10000 64? pp IMT’*!" :303!JB 1000 * GOSUB 10000 64? print* 3* iG03UB2000!GOSUB1000O 644 pplNT"a*!GOSUB4000!GOSUB10000 C4T °P *1 IT*J3* ! COSUB 1000 J GOSUB 10000 646 PPrM’ "!!" • GOSUB4000! GOSUB I 0000 647 PRINT'U*!603UB1300iGOSUB10000 I" m

P 3 o G O H

q: o IL

ro a u n: m t ♦i cc o »4 i- V- cr a a a iii (j u ** a « t b S3 z it H LJ ■-* *-« u o L'J c CL * £ c l tL 0. H U Cl © © © © © © © © © 6 ) © © o GGGG DG U tn ft s ** o g g © G O DGSSnOSSOQOSOSO © © © © o © © © © G © © G O G GGG G Li * ft a O t) Cl C Ci Q tPQOOOQOOOQOQG'GiO © © © © Q o © © © G< © G GG GGGGO N a U z a a O t> C» v n a SIOOOOOSOPOPOOSO © © © © O © Q © © & © G Q OG GG GG ID D: ft* J ) in to to in Vi I Jk E o OO O o o OO o o O o o D o D o C* D F *-4 u > 1“ 0 * 0 O O C* o o o OOODDOOOCOOOOOD ID IP (D O o D ID ID o p U> o o O o IP (D t? O » u Ct to X a n ID O o c o o o D. O 0001300 0 00000000 »• •• •» •• »« •# •a M *«■ *4 •a •a •• •a m •* •a mm s o a o to F u 10 /• -» *• *« «• CL OJ D © © © © © © © O © & G G G GGGG A J •a a © 6> © © © © © o c © © © & © Q © © G S’ © o G GG DGGOG ■ z >■ u COO C G* e © o ■ l“LJ G © © Q © o © & © © © © © © G o « n *i b— f»i fu n 01 ft. cu wm n o cu V (U T j cn •• DJ T •- £ 3 3 2 D * - *T 10 r — fil ^ »•• - w w pi OJ ►« ft! *t o at cj £r. CD CD CD Oj c d a> CD CD CD CD CD © CD a cd ¥ CD CD CD CD © © CD CL CD CD CD ffiCD G CD m m © a. C t u k. 4. C s J S E CD Hi D & CD t S E 3 3 3 D 3 3 -1 “ i 3 3 "1 3 3 3 3 3 *-• 4. i O y V *T t j Hi ” < ^ i . < 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 73 3 3 3 3 D 3 »— ft— |r> 0* U> to «r» r * in to to to in in IA I f . IA to V fr. to t« t r tt P 0 1“ l'« V4 tf. I'. r* I* ^ to tr» to tn t-> tr ift fll lA 11 10 to V c D V o O o O o o C* O r» O C' o O O o G tL p a o 3 to c- u c L C f* C U a* c c o c o c o o c o c o o e t:- o o Vi c e - e ID o (D o e* m C‘ 3 e» ID C* IDC a □ C r; <0 c t> c*» L C C C - f: • • * • ■ - » k* »» » * | * - a F M k« k< N M P ‘ I- p- »d 4^ | . prf P- P. »• a a a a a D (• a n a D a a t a a til y y y a fi 0 0 U tl L,Q. Cl ft Ci b (i Lr L M * i a c o ft t: it o, a a u. c- a tt a ft o o a a a a a a a D a ti f. a D 0 a a a a e a a a Q. CL 0 (1 a f o 0 b M'. L C b (• L r IL u 13 LCLiitiinniLiinaiitiic © (n r» — ir D r tc ^ p» co G *.» (U p* fi r. u* t- G — tu p' rr IP 0 G — pi n « i< u- t- c.c r. — oi to *r * L-i r- r> iT n- *- n. r- ft »•• a- r- o- r- a V u GGG c- G' c & - ft PI PJ III I” I- lU P» PJ P. f ■ P- P’ C’’ < ■ P* O P1 Pi f- a- u> U> (r ID G CD W to L* tL a- t£ra- L V IT' r r- N t- 1 P- f- f- S I - I- M I n t i i i- p r r-1* i- r t- p i- p n i- p r- p- p- 138

-'ao =°INT"U :OOSUB1900:GOSUB10000 ^ * • °PIMT"3 s SOSUB2090 : COSUB 10000 742 PRINT"0 t GOSUB40O01 GOSUB10000 743 PRIMT’a : GCSUB1000 * GOSUB10000 744 PRINT"a S GQSUB4000s GOSUB10000 749 PR TMT*U * GOSUB10O0:GOSUB10000 745 PR!MTun :GOSUB300O:GOSUB10000 747 PRINT"3 :GOSUB20081GOSUB10000 74P PRtNT"a 4GOSUB9000 « GOSUB10000 719 .ppiMT-n (OO3UB2000!GOSUB10000 7 9 2 p p 1mt n a 1GOSUB1000»GOSUB10000 791 pptf rr"a :GOSUB300Ot GOSUB1C000 7 • => pRir-’iT"u t COSUB40GO t GOSUB10000 7 9 9 PRTMT'a *GOSUB1000 4GOSUB10000 734 PR ;t.(T*3 4 GOSIJP 3000 4 GOSUB 10000 7""9 p p IMT “U «GOSUB20001 C-OSUB 10000 "99 PPINT-’O SOOSUB40O0JGOSUB10000 7 7 7 P F I N T - 3 4 GOSUB3O00 4 GOSUB10000 7 9 P ppirrr*a 1 GO9U04ei(j0 1 GOSUB 10000 778 ppriTT-a 4 POSUB3000 4 GOSUB10000 7 F O PR !MT"B 4 GOSUB1000 4 GOSUB10000 7PI pptMT-g 4 C-C2UB20P04 GOSUB 10000 7 8 2 PR IM T "a ■ G02UB4008 4 GOSUB10000 "9 3 P P T NT "a :GOSUB10004GOSUB10000 7 = 4 pp if-rr"u" :OO3UB40O0:GOSUB10000 7=9 r?ETJtJ,'3CS: IP.iOm k -SC >**THEM7S3 795 OR I NT*-J* ?na r e m 801 PEM CO WE R T TIMER ORTA TO SEC. 902 F9M -**«*► + **■♦*■# ft f ft t» f 4 902 v 1-IE , ■> I t82E=4K2»4.273 1300SE3 :h.3» IS . 77721SE6:REM SET CONSTANTS ?(?4 PnP<""*!70 !29 T-* ‘=9290-- •2EB’*8M':7 , m + /■!<• 1- ) qcip rv*iE= rrrr/TH0O0TI .0227 3EG >.'1000 *07 MEXTC 90? PEM it 90! PEM SAVE TO DISK 903 °EM 902 PPIMT-J-tpPINT"*"4PRIMT"PLACE OATH OISK IN OR IVE. ’t FR INT 304 optMT-pP^SP AMY KEY TO SAVE OATA." 909 GETR*! IFRS* " "THEN905 908 °RIMT "PLEASE STANDBY." 307 0PEM2 ,3,2, "01DATA/COT.'"+S IS+" ,3,U" 308 PRINTH2,31* 303 PRINTH2,3M* 310 PP!MTtt2,EM* 3 t '■ PRtNTI*2,TD* . 3! 2 FORT=»tTOia0 319 PRIMTH2,TYMEITl 214 PPIMT42 ,BTM<-r\ ? 13 ME’«TT n ‘F CLOSES 917 PPIMT-’J- iPPIMT’PLACE SYSTEM DISK IN DR IVE"«PR INT 912 PRIMT"PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE" 919 GETP*«|FF**""THEN3IG 220 =RIMT-J" 4 PR I'tT’WOULO YOU LIKE A* SPRINT 33 1 PR INT'HfiFO COPY OF THE STATS3 • ( PR IMT 3S2 PR I NT "ENTER ITi'STS OR ITIHO. " 323 <5ETP*s IFPt-'" “THEN923 32*4 IFR.5^'NHTHE‘JFRINTM-H" >ENO • I -I tk CO U J •J u) . I ) •) 10 U l M ro ro Pi ■j — «* ui 0) ■If•a> S 3 Q333CiO><3Q8-3 33 o a .a .3 <3 3 O g 13 ■) >3 ,3 ,3 ) -J 19 (9 3 •3 O aaaaaaaaci >3 O O ro ro ro n> fo 3 Q — — — 33Q 3 30303 (3 ►* »* »* »3 *3 Q i3 i9 *3 03 '3 *3 • 3 — a •a O 3 ~ — — aaoaaao O 3 O U3 a> *0 0) ur fU — D-OuKO'J^J^'JfU- a m — a to j s i d ^ i * ■ H U II b b b b b 4 bbbbbb 4 4 H * ' .■Hll u M m 4 4 4 • b b II 0 “ ■ V “ " II m II II ■ uu u ■ 1 IIII IIIIII b b b b b 8 ■ ■■ Vi b JL b b ^ b b (ibb b ii r-. is u1 bbbbbb to t| h u b b b 4. ■ ■ ii b i i k ill. b b b b ■ » ■ ■ ■ * n in ' n n ii b b b b b b b b b b ■ CO ■ ■ ■ ■ b i m i i bH bbiibbib ® b ■ ■ a ■ ■ ■ ■ nil a n jiibb b ■ Elb b I 1 11 ■ u mmm ' ~m a s z. a

u> \o 140

300? PRINT"J* FOFV = I T03 : FP IMT: ‘lEHTM 3004 PRINT* a *■ 3005 PRINT" a 9 ” 3006 PPINT" a 1* 3007 PRINT" a 9* 3009 PRINT* a 9" 3009 PRINT- a 9* 5010 PRINT* a 9* 301 1 PRINT" a 9 ’ 3012 RETURN 10000 REM 10001 REM REAQ TIMER i BUTTON 10002 PEM RED 2UTT0M=2 & CORRECT 10003 REM ►»■»♦»■**«»'([***»»****#******■*** 10010 3V " “THEN10036 1004 0 PETUPN 11000 PEM 11001 REM GET PESP. FOR PRACTICE 11002 REM 11003 SYsagtsa I 1004 GET JUNK*: IF JU‘IKiO " "THENl 1004 11003 FORK- ITO30OSNEKTX •IPOE RETIJPM 1 4 000 REM MOlHHMt 14001 PEM ADJUST SCPEEN 14002 REM + n- M M U tt * i m t I l h < t o 14003 PR INT"iJ* 1P0KE32291 , t2 :POKE33290 , 12 1 2004 FRtM-*f>DJU3T SCPEEN COLOPS.“sFRIMT I4C03 PPI NT!PRINT!PRINT *.400? os !*!T* 33 g ai ■ au 9 an 9" I 400? PPINT* 33 ■ ai ■ au 9 aD 9" 1 400? PRINT" 33 ■ a) ■ ai M an 9" 140*0 po ihp-" 33 9 JU au ■ an 9* 140 1 I PRINT* 33 g ai M au ■ au 9" 140'? PRINT" 33 w ai g 32 ■ au 9" I4ei3 PPINT* 33 ■ au g a; 9 au 9* 14014 °r irr* 33 ■ au ■ ai 9 21 91* 140 I? PPINTi=‘PINT 140 1B PRINT'SET TINT, COLOR, 2, BRIC-HT" ! FRINT 14017 PRINT*TQ THE DEFAULT SETT INC. "t FRINT 14013 PP*-— SET CONTRAST ALL THE WAY LEFT."SPRINT 14013 PPINT-PPS35 ANY KEY TO CONTINUE." I 4020 PETR*:IFF**■•THEN14020 14a?t TT.'PM 141

APPENDIX B

COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM

1 REM ft*********1t*t*******»*tit*t1t* ■**** 2 REM COLOR DISTRACTION TEST 3 PEM STAT. PROGRAM 4 R E M A SHBPCIOK/GG-'02.^54 3 REM 3 PEM PtCHARO M. ASHEROOK 7 REM 206 M.N. BROADWAY ? REM COLUMBUS, OHIO 43214 t orM fr'0E ''O2.-'?4 100 PEM •**«■*****■****■*■**■***•*•*«********* 101 PEM DIM ARRAYS & SET VAR. 102 PEM ***•*** + ** * * * * * + »******-**** ***** 106 OTMRTNf1201iREM PESP. BUTTON 107 OTWTYTt/ICO'tPEM PESP. Tlf-C 102 0 IM BTJSC1201tREM BUTTON ACCURACY 103 O tM^C f 120 >t PEM STAfDARD DEVIATION 110 OI MY I!P C M STANDARD DEVIATION 111 DIMVTf1201!PEM STANDARD DEVIATION 200 PEM ************ ****************** * 301 PEM PEAD DISK FILE 202 PEM *********»***<*****«*****.****** 203 PSKE33330, 12: P0K.E332S 1 , 12sPR 1MT"«" : PP. I NT "Li" 204 PR IMTTAB *91 "COLOR DISTRACTION TASK" 203 PP I*(TTAB ‘’S ' " 1,1 """ " i r R 11JT 206 PRIMTTAiars * ■ [VERS I.ON 2 . 1 -R . A3HBROCK I * ! PR INT P07 pp t f rTT.*>3 (51 ■ STATISTICS PP0C-PAM" : PR INT 203 :n p u t "s u e :e c t 's tc. n u m b e r ';s i *;p p i n t 203 PPtrr-C.ACE t m p - a t a d i s k in THE ORIVE.*(PRINT sic- » p ,rr'"prE“~ 4nv key to continue." 211 O E M P ’Si 1PPT* " "THEM 2 t 1 212 PP TNT’-J* IP»TNT»PLEASE STAMD8Y. " 313 OPEN?,? 2, "0JDATA 'CDT'"*3U*’,S,P" 214 r*ipijTHa,s;* 2 1 3 TNPIJTt*2..3N* 216 INPIJTH2.EM* 2 17 INPUTS?.TO* 219 FORT*ITO 120 2 1? IMPUT»2,TYME 2?t IFBTNfTlr'23THEMIPBTN < I3S7HENBTM< T)=0 S REM MODIFY FROM SWITCH TO KBD. INP. 222 IFBTN',Ti*39THENBTNfT)"2tREM SAME MOD 223 IFBTNCT1*23THENBTNION 2 . I-R.A3HBR00K1" 3 t? RRINTB1," " 314 PP T*ITM 1 , " * 3 IS PPINTI*3,"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 3 IS RR [MTN2 • "SUBJECT I DENT, : " ,CHR*C23 ) ,3 I* 317 PPTMTW2,"SUBJECT "K»ME ! ■ ,CHR*<23 ) , 3N* TIP PR1NTM2-"DATE T S T E D :",CHR* t23),TD* 319 PRIMT»»£ "EXAMINER* * .CHR*■‘29? ,EM* 320 PR!MTU 1 , " " 321 PRINT*I , " " aptt* PP IMT* t ft*** *COLl?R NAMING ft * ***t f I* ' ■IP! PR INTI* 1," TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME 402 PR1NTH3,“HI 939 at APAAAAAAAA 31333939.399- 31 “ 403 FOPTa1TO20 404 PRIMTH2 ,TrBTN*(Ti ,CHP*<29) , TiTIE C T ) 405 ME*'TT 406 PR INTI* 1 ," " ■1CT7 PP IMT* 1 , " • ■■00 PRtNTI*! , "♦tt *•*■»«'«*-COLOR READ t NO** »*■»*«**** 301 PRINT!* I," TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME" 502 FORT=2 ITD40 30? PRINTM2,T,BTN*>'T1 ,CHR*C23 5 STYI*E<:T> 304 NEHTT 303 FOPX* 1 TO? * PR INTH 1," 'tMEXTV 900 PP INTI* 1 , '*■* t + + IGNORE HORO <1>**tt****" 601 pR INTI* 1 , * TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME" 602 FOPT-41TOS0 ' 603 PR I MTU 2 .T,BTN* 604 re’-TT 603 PRINTH|,' - fc'06 PRINT*1," ’ 700 RR INTI* l, " M * * H t » * IGNORE HORD <2 }****■**■«* " 701 RPIMTH1." TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME" 792 f o r t -SIT030 703 PRINT*2,T .BTIISCT) ..CHR* C23 > ! TYI-E CT) 704 NEXTT 703 FOPX*ITO 13iPRINTHI,* "INEXTX 600 PRtNTI* 1 , IGNORE COLOR <1 > * »*****" 601 PRir-m*I,* TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TINE’ 602 FORT-31TO100 30? FRINT*2 ,T..BTMSCTi ,CHR*<29 > J TYNE 304 NEXTT 303 ppirrri*t," ■ 605 FR INTI* 1 , ■ " 300 PR IMT* 1 , " - - IGNORE COLOR <2 )*•**-.»«** " 301 PRIMT*1," TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME" 902 FORT-10 I TO 120 90? PRIMT*2,T.BTlWCT?,CHF*<23>t TYME 904 NEVTT 993 P0RV-1T013JFPTMT41," *!NEXTX 906 PRIMT"'J" !PRIMT"PLEA3E STANDBY." tPIP0 PEM I001 REM CAL. MEAN,SO,5.HCOR.'INCOR 143

1302 REM **►*■*♦ inrf******** 10O3 t=l:c= 1 I03«j ecpja(TOS 1007 c o p t s T ^ O fT*13i 1006 IPP^KT' =2THENCQ =C0 CZ > MI A C C Z )=ACCZ J *TYM£ C T) 100? IFBTNCTI*■1THEN IN CZJ » IMCZ > f 1 ! A I CZ >-A I CZ >*-TYMECTJ 1008 TF3TNCT5 »0THENNRCZ5=NRCZ>+I 1008 NEXTT 1010 1FC0CZ ^OTHEMIOta 1C 11 MOMZ^ACCZi/"COCZ) 1012 IFINCZ > =0THEM10 I -4 1313 ■■iMcr; 1014 Fnpr=cTnI” *isr- 1310 1FBTKC 1 *2THENXC (C 1 = t21 BCCZ > = BC tZ > +XC -MICZ>)t2SBICZ)»BICZ)*-XICCJ 1017 NEVJC 1818 IFCO f 2 3 =0THEM1020 1018 ?rf:'=?nR-Br^i/coi'2 M 1020 IF IN'1? i-0THJ?M10aa 1021 SI *Z 1 -30P re 1 J 1022 "IEXTZ 1100 REM 1101 PEM PRINT OF SUMMARY DATA 1102 REM ***.»***<(**»» 1 103 PRINT**1, "SUMMARY DATA" 1104 PR IMT** 1 , "------5--- • 1107 PPTNTH t .If c I N C I SC SI" 1 106 PRIM?** 1 ,n 0 N a O N TO TN* 1 107 PP INTI* 1 , T B RC fR MC AR AC" 1 109 PR INT** 1, " R L R 0 R ER EO NR NO" 1 t09 PPINTH 1, I 0 E R E AE AR □E OR" 1 1 10 PPINTH 1 ," A c CR s ;ie n r DC OR" I I 1 1 PR INTH 1 ,m ♦ |C T E p C E ET EE “ 1 1 12 PR INT** 1 ,• C T C V VC" I 1 13 PP INT** I .■ T TT“ 1 1 14 PR INTH 1, m h 1 I 17 PP INT**3,"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 33 33 38 33.333 33.389 39.933 33. 393* 1116 PFIMTP2, "COLOR NAMING",CHR*<23: ,C0<1>, INC 1 3 ,NRC 1 > ,MCC D MI C1J,SC< 1) ,S I C 1 1 1? PR IMT 1*2 ,"COLOR PEADING",CHRr<28 :■ ,C0 '2 3, INC2 3 ,NRC2i ,MCC2) ,M1C£),3CCE),SI 1113 NN*=" IGNORE WORD i’l l ” 1113 PPIMT«2/NN't'-CHF»<28' ,CCC2> , UK 3 J ,NRC3> ,MC<3; ,MI <3> ,3CC3>,3 I<3> 1120 NTWa’IGNOFE 110RD r25 ’ 1121 PR I NT**2 ,MM*,CHR*<23 ) ,C0 C4 ) , INC4 > ,NR C 4 > ,NC C4 ) ,MI C 4 ) ,3C <4 ) ,3 I <4 3 1122 M'»»" IGNORE COLOR C D * I 123 PPINTt*2,NM*,CHR*<29> ,C0C3) , INC3) ,NRC3> ,NCC3> ,MI C3> ,5CC3> ,S1 <3? 1124 NN*»*IGNORE COLOR <2 5* 1 t23 PPINT»2,NN*,CHR*C2B> ,COC65 , INCS> ,NRC6> ,MC !o) ,MI C6i ,3CC5J ,31CSJ 1126 FOPX = 1T04 * PR TNTM 1 , " "NEXTX 1200 PEM ** ***** *** 1201 PEM SPECIAL MEASURES 1202 PEM 1 * * ** »*t* ** ***.*** t i n t * ** **■* ** 120? PRINT**! , "SPECIAL MEASURES" 1204 PP TMT** 1 . *------• ?nj PP I NT** 1 , " " 1206 PP IMT** 1 r * 1 . MfllMTEMflMCE. ATTENTION DETERIORATION INDEX* 123*» PP I NTH 1 . * IGNORE WORD CTRIALS I - TRIALS £ ) ' 1208 PRINT43. •ARflflpflflflflflpflflpflflpiflflflAPi 9999.399-" t209 Ml «C0 f3' -C0‘:4 •> *M2=MC C3J -KC C4 5 :M3=5CC3> -SC C 4 3 1210 M4=*C0 C? * -TO NT •. INC^MCCS'-NCCE.' IME^SCCS? -3CCo> 1ST 1 PP M.fTrtr , "ACCURACY" ,CHP.iC23) ,M1 144

131? P° I NTH 2 . 'PESP . TIME" .CHP*'23 > ,ME I 2 ! 3 °FTNTH?, "VARIABILITY* ,CHR*(23) ,M3 1214 PPITHl," IGNORE COLOR J TRIALS 1 - TRIALS 2)* 1213 PPJMTH2,"ACCURACY*,CHRS(29),M4 1216 PPIMTH2,"RESP. TIME",CHR*(23),M5 1217 PPIMTH2,"VARIABILITY*,CHRS<23),MG 1213 PP INTH 1 , " * 1219 PPINTH1,"2. COMB IhEQ TRIAL DATA" 1220 PRINTHI,* IGNORE WORD (ALL TRIALS)* 1221 C 1=C0<3)+C0<4):C2=(MC(3)+MC(4))/2:C3*(SC(3)+SC(4> 5/2 1222 C4«C0<3) +00(6) tC3-(MC(3)+MC(G))/'2iC6-(SC(5)+SC,C2 1223 PRINTH2,"VARIABILITY",CHR*(23),C3 1326 PRINTS 1," IGNORE COLOR ’ (ALL TRIALS)" 1227 PR INTH2 , "ACCURACY*,CHR»(295 ,C4 1223 PRINTH2,"PESP. TIME",CHR*<23),C3 1229 PFIMTH2,"VARIABILITY",CHR*(29),CS 1230 PRINTH1,* * 1231 PPIMTS 1,"3. INTERFERENCE IMDEX" 1232 PRINTH1,* IJORO INTERFERENCE (IGNORE WORD - COLOR NAMING)" 1233 O I * (C 1 y 2 ' -CO < I > s Q2»C2-MC < I ) S Q3* (C4/’E ) -CO (2 ) *Q4=C3-MC(2> 1234 PPINTH2,'ACCURACY*,CHRS(29),01 1233 PR IMTH2,"PESP t TI1-E " ,CHR*(29 ) ,02 1236 PRINTHI," COLOR INTERFERENCE (IGNORE COLOR - COLOR READING)” 1237 PPIMTH2,"ACCURACY",CHR#(29),03 1233 FPINTH2,*RE3P. TlfE ",CHR*(29),04 123? CLOSE 1:CLOSE2 « CL0SE3 > CL0SE4!CLOSES 1240 PRINT-J":PRtNT"W0UL0 YOU LIKE TO ADMINISTER TEST?"IPRINT 124 1 PR1NT-ENTER HTSiS OR J»1H0 " i PR INT 1242 GETP*:IFP*=""THEN1242 124? IFP*="N’THENPR IMT-J^ lEl'D 124J iFP-f >"V"THENI£42 1 ?43 pPIN— *LaBBLCA0"-CHR$<,34)i-"C0TZPR0G*<-CHRS(34. >",3" *.24? ppiNT’jaaiaRUNa" \~47 PCVES3 1 , 1 3 I P0KE632 , 13 1 POKE 133 , 2 1240 TUO APPENDIX C

COLOR DISTRACTION TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT

COLOR DTSTRACTTOM TEST CVERSION S.1-R.A5HBR00K1

SUBJECT IOENT.I 10361 SUBJECT NAMES ■ M . /CARON DATE TESTEDs 07 '35.-34 EXAMINERS ASHBROOK

**»«n«****COLOR NAM T NO **■♦** •»**** IGNORE IOORO f 1 ' + TRIAL. ACCURACY RES RONSE TIME TRIAL ACCURACY PESPONSE TIME 1 1 t CORRECT 1 . 974 1 1 4 11 CORRECT 1 1.649 I 1 2 1 COPPECT 1 .763 1 1 42 | CORRECT 1 1 .337 1 I 3 1 CORRECT 1 .391 1 1 43 f CORRECT I 1 .040 1 1 4 1 CORRECT 1 .667 1 1 44 t CORRECT 1 .661 t I 3 1 CCPRECT 1 . 933 1 1 43 1 CORRECT 1 .619 t 1 6 1 CORRECT 1 .669 1 1 46 | CORRECT I 1.620 1 1 7 1 CORRECT I .904 | I' 47 1 COPPECT 1 1 .384 1 1 3 I. CORRECT | 1.402 f 1 4.9 I CORRECT 1 1.179 I 1 9 t CORRECT I . 772 1 1 49 I INCORRECT 1 1.162 1 1 10 1 CORRECT 1 .666 1 1 30 1 CORRECT 1 1.939 i 1. U 1 CORRECT < .683 1 1 3 1 1 CORRECT t 1.323 I i 12 ) CORRECT '( .698 I t 32 1 CORRECT 1 1.487 1 1 13 1 CORRECT 1 1. I 27 1 1 33 t COPPECT 1 1.362 1 t 14 1 CORPECT | .644 1 1 34 I CORRECT 1 t.623 I 1 13 1 CORPECT 1 1.028 1 [ 33 1 CORRECT 1 1.414 1 1 16 1 CORRECT 1 .791 1 1 36 1 CORRECT 1 1.222 1 1 17 1 CORRECT 1 .921 ' 1 37 I COPPECT 1 1.447 I 1 16 1 CORRECT 1 .617 f 1 38 1 CORPECT 1 1.490 1 1 19 1 CORPECT 1 , . 7 14 1 1 39 1 CORRECT 1 .740 1 1 20 1 CORRECT 1 • .377 I 1 60 1 CORRECT 1 1.304 I

*******n»«CCLOR READ tMO f itisxstt IGNORE WORD TPIAL ACCUPAC*' RESPONSE TIME t r i a l ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME 1.432 1 1 21 1 COPPECT 1 . ?an j 1 61 I CORRECT 1 1 22 1 CORRECT I .630 1 1 R2 I CORPECT r 1.003 1 1 23 I CORRECT I .614 I 1 63 1 COPPECT 1 1.328 r f 24 1 COPPECT 1 1 . 137 f 1 64 1 COPPECT 1 1.640 1 1 23 1 CORRECT t .927 1 1 63 1 CORRECT 1 . 873 1 1 26 1 CORRECT I .877 1 I 66 1 CORRECT t .933 1 ( 27 I CORRECT 1 .804 I t 67 f CORRECT 1 . 900 1 1 23 1 CORRECT | .943 I 1 68 I INCORRECT 1 1.412 1 1 29 1 COPPECT 1 .792 1 1 69 1 CORRECT 1 1.287 1 1 30 1 CORRECT t .834 t 1 70 t CORPECT 1 1.317 1 1 31 I CORRECT 1 .478 1 1 71 1 CORRECT I 1.438 1 1 32 1 CORRECT 1 .233 1 1 72 1 CORRECT 1 2.072 1 1 33 I COPRECT 1 1.710 | 1 73 1 CORRECT I 1.239 1 1 34 1 CORRECT 1 .727 I 1 74 1 CORRECT t 1.297 t 1 33 1 COPRECT 1 . 938 1 1 73 1 INCORRECT 1 1.483 1 1 36 1 CORRECT l 1.333 1 1 76 t CORRECT 1 2.886 1 t 37 1 CORRECT 1.030 1 1 77 1 CORRECT t 1.633 I 1 38 1 CORPECT | . 726 I 1 78 1 CORPECT 1 1.386 1 1 39 1 CORRECT 1 .910 1 1 79 1 CORRECT 1 1.109 1 1 40 1 COPRECT 1 1.012 1 1 80 1 CORRECT 1 1.243 1 ********* IGNORE? COLOR Ct '******* TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME 1 81 INCORRECT 1 2.333 1 i ea CORRECT 1 1.293 1 1 S3 CORRECT 1 .887 1 1 84 CORRECT 1 .929 1 t 83 CORRECT 1 .340 1 t as COPRECT 1 .825 1 1 87 CORRECT 1 .878 1 I 80 CORRECT 1 .946 t 1 89 CORRECT 1 .877 1 1 98 CORRECT t .913 1 1 9! COPRECT 1 .926 1 1 32 CORRECT 1 1.974 I 1 93 CORRECT 1 1.783 I 1 94 CORRECT 1 1.446 1 1 93 CORRECT 1 1.162 1 1 96 CORRECT 1 1.104 1 1 97 CORRECT 1 1.032 1 1 39 CORRECT 1 .899 1 1 39 CORRECT 1 .831 1 1 .190 CORRECT 1 .336 1

********* IGNORE COLOR < Z >******* TRIAL ACCURACY RESPONSE TIME ( 101 1 CORRECT 1 1.091 ! 1 102 1 CORRECT 1 1.136 1 t 103 1 CORRECT 1 .773 1 1 104 !• CORRECT 1 1.030 1 1 103 1 ’CORRECT 1 .631 1 1 186 1 CORPECT 1 .809 1 f 107 1 CORRECT 1 .7

SUMMARY DATA

CIN c I SC 3 I 0 N 0 0 N TO TN T B R C MR MC PR AC R L R 0 R ER EO M? NO I 0 ER E AE AP DE DP A C c R S NE NR OC DP L K T E P C EET EE CT C V VC T T T

COLOR NAMING 20 0 0 .344 .000 . 133 .030 COLOR READING 20 0 0 .991 . 000 .319 .000 IGNORE WORD (1) 13 1 0 1 .330 1 . 122 . 324 . 000 IGNORE WORD <2) 18 2 0 t . 404 1 .447 .484 .033 IGNORE COLOR (1> 19 1 0 I .071 2. ??3 . 302 . 000 IGNORE COLOR f2' 20 O 0 .973 .000 . 139 . 000

SPECIAL MEASURES

I. MAINTENANCE ATTENTION DETERIORATION I NOE!'' IGNORE WORD (TRIALS I - TPIALS 3) ACCURACY 1.000 RESP. TIME .074- VARIABILITY t . t39- IGNORE COLOR (TRIALS 1 - TRIALS 2) ACCURACY 1.000- RESP. TIME .1ST VARIABILITY .IBS

B. COMBINE1? TRIAL DATA IGNORE WORD (ALL TRIALS > ACCURACY 27.000 RESP. TIME 1.3S7 VARIABILITY .3S4 IGNORE COLOR CALL TRIALS) ACCURACY 39.000 RESP. TtME .972 variability .ago

3. INTERFERENCE INDEX WORD INTERFERENCE (IGNORE WORD - COLOR NAMING1 ACCURACY 1.300- RESP. TIME .323 COLOR INTERFERENCE ( IGNORE COLOR - COLOR READ I^IG) ACCURACY .300- RESP. TIME .0S1 148

APPENDIX D

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: PROGRAM

1 PEN ********* 2 REM SEMANTIC CATEGORISATION TEST 3 REM A3HBROOK/0S/1 1/S4 4 PEM + + It*-*:********* 3 REM RICHAPD M. ASHBROOK. 5 REM 206 l-J.N. BROADWAY 3 P E M 06/". 1/34 100 REM ■**» + + * f * t *t* * ******** 101 REM DIM ARRAYS £ 3ET VAR. 102 REM **************** *************** 103 0 IMAW <83)!PEM TIMER 104 0 IMBL 133 ■> IPEM Tlf'ER 10* OM»BM'201 SPEM TIMER 106 CIMS-n'KSO) IPEM PESP. BUTTON tn- O IMTYMEf 90 >!REM RESP. TIME !<*■=■ DIM 0TM*'30HPEM BUTTON ACCURACY 103 dim wos'ao) I 1 3 DIM CA* 300 REM 201 PEM REAO MACH. POKES FOR TIMER 232 REM ******************* ft********** 203 FOP I=43132TQ4S231 IREADAI POKE I,A I NEXTI 204 DATA 120,169,3,14 1.14.220,14 1,13,220,183 20T OflTA 233, 14 I,4,230 , 141,3,220, 141,6,220 206 DATA 141,7,220, IG9, I,141 ,14,280,163,63 207 DATA 141 , 13 ,220, 173,1 ,220,4 1 ,3,73,3 206 DATA 240,247,162,0,142,14,220,172,3,220 206 DATA 132,831,172,S,220,132,232,172,7,220 210 DATA 132,233, 1S2,1,142, 14,220,162 ,3,142 21t DATA 13.220,133,234,S3,36,0,0,0,0 ?P0 PEM 701 PEM GET SUBJECT INFORMATION ?02 REM HtttTt* ******** * * IK 70? GOSUB14000;REM ADJUST SCREEN COLOR. 704 POKE3?2?0, 12 l P0KE3323 1 , 121PRINT"*’ IFF. INT“L!' 303 PRINTTABC6>"SEMANTIC CATEGOR12AT10N TASK" 306 PP TMTTAB f€' " “IPRINT 207 PRINTTAB v 3 > "IVERS ION 2. I-R.ASHBROOKJ’:PRINT 703 INPUT'EXAMINER '3 NAME “JEN* I PR I NT 703 INFUT-TOCAY'S DATE ’I TD*IPRINT ?1<3 INPUT "SUBJECT’S NAME "*SN* IPRINT ^!I PP TUT"SUBJECT13 ID. NUMBER" 312 ■NFUT’fPIVE CHARACTERS OR LESS ?□" J 31*1 PRINT 400 REM ******************************* 40 1 PEM READ TN WORDS 402 REN ******************************* 403 POR^*1TO?:READCA*Erl u_p' rosTQ irtCORPECT 406 PEM n-'_3 FREQ tNCORREC” 40? PPM 7_^-r-flMTir PELATED INCORRECT ■MO PEN --SEMANTIC UNRELATED INCORRECT 4 13 DATA " tMWCLOTH 1 ►BI » W I W W » I M 1 W I W I W » M H E G>ETH 1NG YOU WEAR" 149

4 13 □ATA w t y .MirwLsv ■i m m i c c l c r ;' ."p a r t s o f t h e b o d y " 4 16 DATA ' t i m i F P U I"*; " , *F IEC93 OF FURNITURE- . "1— — B PORTS" “1BITHINGS TO OR INK' 4 13 DATA "SCAP" , "HI-CCK.S" , "PSK IN" , "LB00T3 “ , "UREO* 4?2 DATA "UBASEBALL" , "HSHIPT" , •□JUICE* , "LGLOVES", "DBACK * 426 OATA "HDOC*,"LPONY*,"UORANGE","SEOCK",'DMIRROR 459 DATA •RTPEE* , "ULEG* , "HCAT" r "LLAMB * , ’DGL0VE3 * 431 □ATA "SSTREET*,"UCHAIR","HRED","LGRAY","HBLUE" 434 DATA "R30UARE",•□FOP","L3ILVER",’DFISHING“,"UDOG" 437 DATA "VBLUE*,"LNECK■,"DLEMON*,'HLEG","SCLOCK■ 440 DATA •DPOMV","HHEAO","RLEAF","LBACK",“UTABLE" 443 DATA "L3TRAWBERRY","DGRAY","3H0ME","HORANGE","USHIRT" 446 DATA ■□BOX IMG * , -PEGG * , "UUJATER * , "LLEMON" , "HAFPLE ■ 449 DATA "HCHAIP", "OLAI-B" , "LMIRROR* , "RWIM30W" , "HTABLE" 463 □ATA "USOCK.S* , *LRUG " , "DSTRAWBERRY" , "SB 1RD ■ , "UMILK " 436 OATA *LBOXIMG *,"OSILVER","STRUCK *,"UHEAO“,"UAPPLE" 439 DATA "OPIJG" , 'PCAPDS" , "HBASEBALL" , “LF ISH IMG " , "HFOOTBALL" 461 □ATA "LPOF","3RI1G","PSOUP *,"HMILK","UFOOTBALL" 464 DATA "Hl-tATEP “ , "DNECK" , "OBOOTS" , “L JUICE" , "UCAT" 467 OOTOPOn 699 REM « r M t 601 REM BUILD BOX 693 PEM i t n t 003 porrrr-y 604 PPINT" r»; 305 PRINT* *; 1 306 PRINT" " I 307 PRINT" “) ' 508 PRINT* ■; M « I 309 PRINT" 33 * 310 P®INT" aa a ■ J "■t 3 1 : PRINT" s a 3 13 PP INT" a a •I /■ 5 13 RRINT" 33 5 14 PRtMT* IB •; 6 13 FRINT* IB •; 6 16 FOPQ’* IT03 !PRINTt NEXTQ 617 PRINT" 5 13 PPINT" I" 313 PRINT" l l" 520 RETURN 600 REM t 601 REM DIRECTIONS S. PRACTICE 602 PEM 603 PRINT"J" 804 PRINT'DIRECTIONS" 603 PRINT" "IPRINT 606 PPTMT"YOU U1ILL SEE A. RED AND BLUE BOX.":PRINT 907 PRINT"WR ITTEN ON THE BOX IS A WORD DESCR IB ING " J PR INT 698 PRINT"l>HAT THINGS GO IN THE BOX. "SPRINT. 699 PRINT’BELOU THE BOM YOU WILL SEE A WORD"SPRINT 810 PR I NT * 1'B 1TTEII INSIDE ANOTHER SMALL BOM. "SPRINT 611 PR IN’” IF THIS LITTLE BOM BELONGS INS IDE*>PRINT 6 I ? PP-MT--HE BIG BOM, PRESS YES.*iFRINT 6 13 PPINT"IF ~HE WORD DOES MOT BELONG INS IDE"IPRINT 614 PPINT’THE BIG BOM, PPESS NO. "I PRINT 613 PF.INT-FPE3S flW KEY TO BEGIN PRACTICE." 6t6 “ETRTt IFFJsa " "THEN6 16 617 793UB500 619 FPillT-g- ipr INT3PCO? "HfflBMHfflffTHICGS YOU RIOE"»FORX> 1T010001NEXTX 619 PR INT" j9" IPR INTSPC * 14 i ■ Mam m iM ""™""™""" CAR" 1 50

520 SOSOS I 100OSFOP,y= 1T01 200 !f JEXTX ?21 °p im— =a*: pp imt-sfc ; 14 :• -jim iiPW ) m «nniiim n m hgrse’ ■=22 oosubt :0 0 0 s-dry= ito 1 2 0 0 sme: :tx 52? PPT*rT"ar iPPIMTPFC.' 1 4 ? ■ llUmMll«lJ«pr"»"PWn™«f Pfli I ?“4 0r’?UD*. • ;FOPX =1X01000SNEXTX 923 pp T».rr«a» ; cp tm tqpp1 1 a -> - w iflua.i.i.aTnaB mlnHTBMMM BUS 5?S OOSUB 1 1000JFORX* I TO 1000: NEXTX 227 °R IMT"a* ! PR INTSFC < 14 ? ‘ WIIM M a BM M M g U M m M MOUSE " ?2? oosub t 1000 jfopx«i to 1000 ujextx 823 PPTMT»a-;pptMT^Pf-i- Id-) »mwmiiiiw*fiT^tim«ww[inmgma TRAIN ' ??0 GOSUBI 1000 s FC1PX= 1T0 1000 i MEXTX S?t PR i n t .-a * :F P t m t s f o MU') "TnmnTBJtngnpn**«^T'T«TWTTI 'Tn>jr ■ SS2 G0SVB1 IOOOs p OPXMTOIOOONVEXTX c-E~.”.'rir-*i lF.t u rir r< > ” THE:rtt333 e?4 :PP IMT*°PESS AMY KEY TO GEG IN. * 5?3 GETPttIFRI*""THEMB33 7 7 0 PFM n -ni iffTM TOTAL? 702 °EM 703 vstiTsI 7^,1 =?PY=IT08 -00 PP'IMT'U" s POKE332B0 , 12SP0KE3323I , 12 * FCRCi- 1 TO 1000 i NEXTQ 705 9OSUB300 707 pp fmt*t ‘pbiMTBBr•• p^ *irrrmwrwia »■ 703 PR IMT-3“ T PR IMTSPC'9'* "MBM a n m M * t CA J< X > SFORQ■ITG3000JNEXTQ 703 ROPY=YTO fVi?? 710 ppttt-m" iPPUiT^Pn* ui >mmwmfHTrmiaaMflagigmj m" -1 I p p i n t "3" s PR 1MT3PC *! * * * TOMcmurogMmmFrngn ^ ^ :Mintfint 7J2 OOSUB 10000 7 1? MEXTY 7 14 MEXTV 7 13 007 tijMK ?: :P TV* IK »•" * " "THEN7 13 71? RPTt-r-J- ■p PI*-I7-PLEA‘5E STANDBY. * gopt* pr;*’ »(iit»*i**n*iir*rTrt»|t*r**KTr 9001 PEN CONVERT TITER DATA TO SEC. ?i’T? F— 1 i - i » * n »tt r I ** t l ‘ t H t *M t t l 3003 ” 1 - 1~ . — * 153 EE J K,2p4 . 273 1BOOSE3 IK3=*1S.7772 1EEC .REM SET CONSTANTS 5034 ““tJC a ITC30

3003 T->-: = 3??0- ^235 *AH r 'VC 1-CS552& *BL ) ) ♦ ■: :K2 J - CKO^BH CC > > > B005 TYMEIC' = If-nVT* 1C0O.T .022?3ES>.'1000 3007 fiEXTC 9000 PEM 3001 REM SAVE TO DISK 3002 REM ■*■*** «*** + * 3003 PRtNT’U* SPRINT'*'tPRINT'PLACE DATA DISK IN DRIVEIPRINT 9004 PR TNT"RRE33 ANY KEY TO SAVE DATA." 5003 0ETR*t IFP*=»'*THEN3003 5035 PRINT'PLEASE STANDBY.■ 9007 0PEN2 ,3..2,"0iDATA/'SCT/,,*SI*«-',S,W' 3008 PRlMTt»2,SI« 3033 PRIMTK2.SN* 3010 PPIMT»2.EN» 3011 PPIffTHa ,TO* 30 12 FORTn1TO50 3013 PPINTH2,TYME 9014 PRINT»2,BTM 151

3019 NEXTT 9020 CLOSES 9021 PPINI’U 11PRIMT"PLACE SYSTEM DISK IN DRIVE■iPRINT 9022 PRINT'PRESS AMY KEY TO CONTINUE * 9023 GETR*s IFR** " “THEN3023 9024 PR1NT*'J" tPR INT’UJOULD YOU LIKE A" SPRINT 9023 PRINT-HARD COPY OF THE STATS?"sPRINT 9022 PRINT*ENTER a r ^ S OR 2JBO. • 9027 GETR*sIFR*=--THEN9027 9028 IRP*«"N’THENPRINT-y* s END 3029 IFR#< > "V-THEN3027 9090 PP 1 NT *I'JBHW-OAD " +CHR»t34 ) *• "SCT/STAT* +CHR*<34; *■ * ,6" 3031 PBINT’XBWBUHW 3032 P0KEB31,13SP0KE632,13IPGKE!38,2 9033 ENO 10000 FEM ***+«**•* t **■*♦ + *» **.* »********* 10001 PEM PEAO TIMER S. BUTTON I00W2 PEM RED e'JTTON-2 3, CORRECT 1000? REM 13004 9YS49192 1OC0T AHaFEEK <,25 I !> *8L«PEEK <232 5 s BH=FEEK I.2S3 5 S BTN^PEEK C5S4 ) 19008 AH IT1=AH s BL CTI =BL’9H < TJ *BH:BTN * "^HENl 1004 1190S FOR‘<= 1TO300! NEXTX , 11008 RETURN 14000 PEM 14001 REM ADJUST SCREEN 14902 REM *+ ► ■*■*** «*##«**** f *«« 14003 POKE332S0, 12SP0KE3323I , 12SPRINT-LW0JU3T SCREEN COLOR, ’I PR INTI PRINT 14004 PRINT- an n 23 H" 14009 PRINT- 23 ■ 23 ■■ 14006 PRINT- 23 ■ 23 a* 14007 PRINT" 23 5 23 a- 14008 PRINT- 23 ■ 23 a- 14009 PR If IT- . 23 a 23 SB 14019 FPTNTtPRINT*PRINT 14011 PRIMT-SET TINT, COLOR, BRIGHT, J. CONTRAST*tPRINT 14012 FPINT-t q DEFAULT SETTINGPRINT 14013 PP tMT"PFE2S ANY KEY TO CONTINUE.- 14014 GETR*tIFPS--"THEN140I4 14019 PETUPN APPENDIX E

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM

3 REM SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST 3 REM STAT. PROGRAM 7 PEM ASHBROOK. /06/1 1/84 3 PEM VERSION 2.1 (12/01/34) 9 REM It 'JEM OICHARD M. ASHBROOK I? PEM EGG Ul.N. BRCAOUAY 17 PEM COLUMBUS, OHIO 43214 17 REM (C'OS-'l 1/84 100 PEM »#*♦ tn*************** 101 REM DIM ARRAYS & SET VAR. 102 PEM »***»■»»« m i t t m * . * ttt.i *»♦** **** I0F 0 TMBTT-K 301 * REM RESP. SUTTON 107 0 IHTYME'30)i REM RESP. TIME I PR DIM CTNJv'JO :■ 1 PEM BUTTON ACCURACY 103 DIMVC'30'iREM STANOAPD DEVIATION 110 OIMYItPOViPEM STANDARD DEVIATION t1 t. OIMYT(?0'tPEM STAMOARO DEVIATION 112 0 IMANSC 90) 113 0 IMMOS'AO) 114 cimktscao> I IT DIMCA*'9'> * 1 IS DINH <30 > 117 OIME/*30) "00 PEM ************ ««rr**r*t 201 PEM READ DISK FILE 202 PEM tl«tUAtAIIAmAtl»t**U»»l 203 P0*E332SC. IE IF0KE3329I,12:FRINT"B"tPRINT“i2" 204 PPINTTABS 1 " STATISTICS PROGRAM" : PR It IT .333 INPUT” SUE JEST’S ID. NUMBER " t S IS: PR INT 232 FRII.T'PLFCE THE CATA DISK IN THE DR IVE. " :PR INT 213 rT:>fT-pPE3s Am* k e y t o c o n t i n u e ." 311 7ETPS:IFPf=""THEM211 .312 PPTMT"'J":PFTNT*PLEA3E STANDBY. " 2 1 ? OPENS..3,2.- "0tOATA/SCT/"+SIS*" ,3 ,R" 2 14 IJ1PIJT»S,2 IS 3'7 IMPUTK2,SMS 21S INOiJTH2,EMS 3 1" TMPU7#2,Ta* 213 FCP— =ITO80 217 tnpijt#2,t y m e (T> 270 IMPUTES,9TN(T1 221 :FSTMCT1=2THEr'eTMPCT> = 'YE5" 222 IFBTTKT' ■ lTHENBTflPIT!1 a "ID " 223 IFBTM *0‘”HENBTMSCT> ■*'10 RESP." 224 INPPJTH2 ..IDS'T) 227 IFLEFTSf t’D* rT> , 1 ) * *H "THENAMSCT> * " YES " :KIS(T)**H IGH FREQ. T" 22B IFLEFTS-'t.WSCT) , I)»*L"THENAMSCT)= "YES" :KIS(T5«*L0U FREO . T* 227 IFLEFTSCWOSCT),1>*"U"THENANSCT)*"NO":KIS , I )="D"THENANSCT)»"NO":KISCT)*"LOW FREQ. F" 229 IFLEFTSCUOS(T) , 1 >*"R“THENAMSCT>»"NO" :KISCT)*"RELATED F" 1 53

230 IFLEFTS< WQ.S CT5,I 5 a " 3"THENANS,SNS 690 PPINTH2,"DATE TESTED I ",CHP*(235,TD» S90 PPIMTUE, "EHAMUER) " ,CHP*r23) ,EM* . 700 PR INT** 1," " 710 PRINTH1,* • , 720 T =I 730 Oa* 't'*"CLOTH IMG - SOMETHING YOU WEAR" 740 FCPC*|T03 730 IFC»40RC=3THENSF0RH*IT03:PRINTHI,’ "JNEXTX 790 PPINTHl,CA*rC1 770 PP INTH I , " TRIAL T'f-PE OF WORD WOPC ANSWER RESP. RESP. TIME" 7S0 PRIMTH3,"HI 39 HI AAAAAAAAAAAAA HI AAAAAAAHAA 3! AAA dl AAA HI339.999- dl “ 730 F0RT»T70 ?T‘3> 300 WO#rT5=l-lTO*niO*fT5 ,25 910 PP I NT *2 ,T ,K I *CHR* (23 5 6TNFIT5CHR*<£9 > , TYME 320 N E X T T 320 PRINTHI,* * 940 PPINTH1,"t***************** *************t** * * * * « * * » * » * * * * * * * » * * « * * “ 830 PRINTH1," " 8S0 NEXTC 370 CLOSE 1 1 CL0SE21CL0SE3 1 CL0SE4 * GOTO4000 3000 REM *4***4444**44*******44*4***4* 3001 REM RETURN TO SYSTEM 2002 PEM i**********************-****** 3009 CLOSE 1‘CL0SE2‘CL0SE3‘CL0SE4ICLOSES 3004 PRINT*ii"» PRINT"WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADMINISTER TEST?"‘PRINT 3003 PPINT'ENTER OR jTWO . " I PR INT 3005 GETP*:IFR**""THEM3006 3007 IFP*»"N"THEN,PRINT"a"»EI'D 3009 IFR*< i"'.'"7HEN30OB 3CC3 FR IM'-iaffiBB-OAD ■ +CHR*<34 5 + "3CT/FR0G" +CHR*<34 J +",3 " 3010 PR IMT’XHDMRUNIJ" 154

?Q11 POKZESl,13 IPOKEE 32,13:POKE 133 ,3 3012 END •>000 REM ***************************** 4010 REM CALC. DATA 4020 REM ***************************** 4023 I*0tC=0 403O FOR T*ITQ80 4040 IF KI* :YB=ZB/7C: I» I*H E« I>« T,fMECT) 4 120 RETURN 4f?0 IF BTM*'T>-"YET-THEN ZE*ZE+lIZF*ZF♦TYMEvTJ s VC-ZF/'ZEiC-C* 1 iH ■ TYt-£ 4 140 IF BTN#'T>*'MO* THEM 7G»ZG+1 1ZH =ZH + T Y M E < T 5 • YO ■ZH/'ZG I I "I + lSEC I> -TYf£.X>*TY('ei'T) 4 170 IF STM*CT>«"YES"THEM ZK = ZK + 1 S ZL *ZL +TYME CTJ ! TF*ZL,'ZKS I-I + HE ( I ) ■ TYl'E < T > 4 180 PE'S’VRN 4*00 |F eTN*CT) -"MO” THEM ZM-ZM+1i2N»ZN+TYME tiG“ZN/ZM*C=C*IIHCO-TYMECT) 4200 jc BTM*"'1ES " THEN ZO *70 *■ 1 sZP=ZF+TYriE IYH-ZP/ZOII " I + HECI>»TiME 42 10 PET1.1RN 4220 IF ETT-*;t h 'MP" THEM ZC-ZQ + l ! ZR’ZR t Ti'ME (Tl ! rl=ZR/',ZQSC=C + l ! H < C) =TYME 4280 IF STMT'T'*»YE3"THEM Z3=ZZ+1 :ZT-ZT+TYME=TYMECT) 4240 ppti.iom 4230 BTMSi’Tia'MC* "HEN Z'J’ZU+l sZV=ZV+TYMECT1 S YKaZV.'-ZUs C=C + 1 SHCC1 =*TVMECT) 4260 IF p-n i*«’T>»* YES 'THEM 2N=ZM+ 1 iZH*ZX+TYME?30 ‘'A=ZA +ZE ’ 7 I +7MiZG ‘CU , 4283 IFVA*0THEM4ZCO 4290 VP^CZB + Z^+Z.T+ZN+ZR+ZV:' VA 4300 Ve=-2C*r0*ZK + ZC+ZE*-21J 4803 lFVC-iOTHE>‘|4318 4?10 VD® fZn*ZH*?L *ZP+ZT+Z.X 1 ■VC 4318 I'AaQ 4?2C F0PT=1TJVA 4?2? at (’H'lTl-VB) t2' SMP^XA+MTCT.' 482S t'EHTT 4327 !FVA=f?THEM433 1 4729 VE*3np(VA/VA) 4331 VA=0 4732 FOOTalTCVC 4773 VTfT' = <',E-VDJt2) tXA=XA+XT:T:> 4338 NEXTT 4340 IFVC=0THEM3000 434 1 VF aSQP'XP.A/C ) 33O0 PPEM4,4 30*0 PRTMT«4,CHP't('1471 IPEM PAGING QM 7020 CLOSER 3030 OPENI,4 3040 GPEN2/4,I 7330 0PEM3.4,2 7060 0PEM4,4,4 3O70 PPINT#4IPEM EPP 01AG OH 3030 PPIMTMt," 8EMAMTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST’ 155

3070 PPIMTHt," C7EF7I0M 2.2-P.A3HDPD0K 1 “ pruithi " ’ 3 1 10 ppiriTHi.." " 51?r| oqiNTttS , "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" 3130 PR It'fTHS , "SUBJECT IDENT. : " ,CHR*C23 ) ,3 I* 3 I <10 PP I NT#2, "SUBJECT NAM E!",CHR*<2 9 ) ,SN* 3130 PRINTH2,"DATE TESTED:* ,CHR*<29),TD* 3 1 S 0 PR I ir r * 2 , "EXAMINER! " ,CHR*(23) ,EN* 3 170 FPTMTMl, " * 3 ISO P0R«=tT03 3130 PPINTH1 ■ 3=00 NEVTY 3210 PPINTN1,* SUMMARY DATA' 3220 PPINJM1," * ??30 PPIMTH3 , "AAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 393.939-" 3210 aA-*»“MEAN REACTION TIME" 3230 riBS="HIGH FRED TRUE RESP CORRECT* 3260 ?C*="MIGH FREQ TPfJE RESP INCORRECT’ 3270 ODr="LDW FPEO TRUE RESP COPRECT" 3290 nE»'"LPU FFEC TRUE PESP INCORRECT" 3290 OF**"HIGH FPEC! FALSE RESP CORRECT" 3700 Cr*=*HIGH FREQ FALSE RESP INCORRECT" 3710 7H*«’LOM FREQ FALSE RESP CORRECT" 33E0 0 IS*"LOW FREQ FALSE RESP INCORRECT" 3390 CM**"RELATED WORD CORRECT" 3390 QK S* "RELATED NOFD INCORRECT" 3730 OLt-'UMPCLOTEp -'IORO COPRECT’ 32E0 RMS*"UNRELATED WORD INCORRECT' 3 3 7 0 CMS-- "OVEFALL CORRECT* 3380 00*="OVEFALL INCORRECT" 3331 0'5i="2TA'-CAFD DEVIATION CORRECT" 3352 OOS="7TAM0APC DEVIATION INCORRECT" ~0P0 PLIN TH S ,?B rC H P S ',29'> ,2A s o lo F 9 i r m i £ ,q a i c h r ® : 2 9 ; , ya S 3 2 0 P=:'rr»3 aciCHP.3YE9>,2C 9030 9P IMTMZ ,C!ASCMR*'29>',YB ^040 nCICHP'SC29s ZE OR •NTa2..0A'*CHP*(29' .VC rT~=D pr*MT**2..0ESCHP*:29'» ,2G 7 0 7 0 PRINTW2,CA*CHRS<29 >, M3 EOPO PPINTM2.0FSCHRSC2S),21 6090 CR INTH2 , 0A*CHRS(29 J , YE 6t3© PRIMTH2.0G*CHR*C29J,ZK SI 10 PPINTM2,0A*CHR*<29),YF 6120 PPtNTR2,0H*CHR*<23>,2M S 130 PRIMTH2,0ASCHR*<29),YG 6140 PPINTIt2,0I*CHR*<29) ,20 E130 PPINTH2,Qfl*CHRS<29),YH SI60 o»IMT»*2,QJ*CHR*<23) ,20 0170 PRINTH2,7A**:HP*<29) ,Yt SI90 F P IM T *£ ,.ck fCHR*C29) ,2 5 6190 PRT'm«C,nA*CHR*<29) ,YJ 3300 PP*NTttC,aLrCHR:S<29> ,2U 7010 FRINT»2,aA*CHR*<23J,YK 6220 PPtNT»£,QM*CHR*<29?,2U 6230 CR IT rTHE , GASCHRS<29 ) , YL 6240 FPINTHI , ■ ■ 6.730 =RIT.fTM2,0N*CHR*<23> ,VA S“F0 PPIffTRS ,0A*CHR*<29> , VB 3270 PPINTH2 .OPSCHRS'Sg) ,VE 6280 PR IMT42 ,00*CHP.SC29 > , VC 6290 PP INTt|2 ,QA*CHRS<29? ,VD 6300 PR 1NTM3 ,00SCHPS(2?:> ,VF 6210 CLOSE 1 : CLOSES ••CLOSE3*CLOSE4 6.320 O0TO3QBO 156

APPENDIX F

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST [VERSION 2.1-R.ASHBROOKJ

.SUBJECT IDENT.J IO001 SUBJECT NAME! •■■■/'CHARLES DATE TESTED 1 06y'16/S4 EXAMINER! ASHBROOK

CLOTHING - SOMETHING YOU NEAR TRIAL t y p e o f u o r o UORO ANSUER RESF. RESP. T I I UNRELATED F 1 CAR 1 NO NO 1 .330 2 I HIGH FREQ. T f SOCKS 1 YES YES 2.233 3 I PELATED F 1 SKIM I NO YES 1 .526 4 I LOU FREO. T 1 BOOTS 1 YES YES 2.003 3 1 HIOH FREO. F 1 RED 1 NO NO 1 . 123 6 I HIGH FREO. F 1 BASEBALL 1 NO NO 1 .371 7 I HIGH CRE0. T 1 SHIRT 1 YES YES 1 .633 8 I LOU FREO. F 1 JUICE 1 I'D NO 2. 133 3 I LOU FREO. T 1 GLOVES 1 YES YES 1 .231 10 1 LOU FREO. F 1 BACK 1 ID YES 2. 137 ■Hilt m* X ********* ******* I**#-********* ****** ************

ANIMALS TRIAL TYPE OF UORD UORD ANSUER RESF. RESP. T 1 1 1 HIGH FREO T 1 DOG 1 YES YES .331 IB ! LOU FREO. T 1 PONY 1 YES YES .624 13 1 HIGH PPEO F 1 ORANGE t ID ”ES .323 14 1 UNRELATED F 1 ROCK 1 ID NO .000 13 1 LOU FREO. F 1 MIRROR 1 ID NO * • 633 IS 1 RELATED F 1 TREE 1 NO NO 1.434 17 I HIGH FREO F 1 LEG 1 ID NO 1 . o33 IS 1 HIGH FREO T 1 CAT 1 YES YES .301 19 1 LOU FREO. T 1 LAMB 1 YES YES .73 1 £0 1 LOU FREQ. F 1 GLOVES t NO NO .357 ■***«**•»*«*»*******♦«***:******•».****■♦***** *.»*** ***********

COLORS TRIAL TYPE OF WORD UORO ANSUER RESP. RESP. T 1 21 1 UNRELATED F I STREET 1 NO ID 1 .031 1 22 1 HIGH FREQ. F 1 CHAIR t ID ID 1 .223 t 23 1 HIGH FREO. T 1 RED 1 YES YES .ass 1 24 t LOU FREQ. T 1 GRAY 1 YES YES . S2S 1 23 1 HIGH FREQ. T 1 BLUE 1 YES YES .6 13 1 26 1 RELATED F 1 SQUARE 1 NO ID 1 a 2SS 1 27 t LOU FREQ. F 1 POP I ID MO 1.337 1 23 1 LOU FREQ. T- 1 SILVER I YES YES 1 .033 1 23 1 LOU FREO. F 1 FI3HIID | ID NO • SQ4 1 30 1 HIGH FREQ. F 1 DOG 1 ID NO 1 .031 -i* ****** * ********* 157

PARTS OF THE BODY TRIAL TYPE OF WORD WORDANSWER RE3P. RESP. TINE f 31 1 HIGH FREQ. F 1 SLUE 1 NO I r-n 1 .320 1 1 32 1 LOW FRED. T 1 NECK 1 YES 1 YES I .342 i 1 33 I LOW FREQ. F I LEMON 1 NO 1 NO 1 .33 1 | 1 34 1 HIGH FREQ. T 1 LEG 1 YES 1 YES I 1.060 1 1 33 1 UNRELATEO F 1 CLOCK 1 NO t NO I 1.010 I 1 38 1 LOW FREQ. F 1 PONY 1 NO 1 NO 1 1.213 I 1 37 1 H.IGH FREQ. T 1 HEAD 1 YES 1 YES 1 .3C3 I 1 33 1 RELATED F 1 LEAF 1 140 1 NO 1 2.330 1 1 39 t LOW FREQ. T 1 EACK I YES 1 YES 1 .731 1 1 40 I HIGH FREQ. F 1 TABLE 1 NO 1 NO 1 .329 t

********»******** + *******. ****************************************

CRU ITS TRIAL TYPE OF WORD WORD ANSWER RE3P. RESP. TIME 1 4 1 | LOW FPEQ. T 1 STRAWBERRY 1 YES 1 YES 1 .313 1 1 42 | LOW FREQ. F 1 GRAY 1 NO 1 NO 1 .381 1 1 43 1 UNRELATED F 1 HOME 1 NO 1 NO 1 .874 I 1 44 | HIGH FREQ. T 1 OFANGE 1 YES 1 NO 1 .307 1 1 43 I HIGH FPEQ. F I SHIRT t NO 1 NO I 1.638 1 1 48 I LOW FREQ. F I BOH IMG 1 NO 1 NO I .380 I 1 47 I RELATED F 1 EGG 1 NO I>N0 I 1.013 I 1 43 | HIGH FREQ. F 1 WATER I NO t NO 1 2.342 | ( 49 | LOW FREQ. T 1 LEMON 1 YES 1 YES 1 .1.436 I ( 30 1 HIGH FREQ. T [ APPLE 1 YES t YES 1 1.043 (

*************** .********:*.*******♦.*****.*:*****.*.***.*********.******** *

PIECES OF FURNITURE TRIAL TYPE OF WORD WORDANSWER RESP. KEEP. TIME 1311 HIGH FREO. T 1 CHAIP 1 YES I -.-ES 1 1 .410 I l 3a i LOW FREO. F 1 LAMB 1 NO I NO I .315 1 I 33 1 LOW FPEQ. T 1 MtFROP 1 YES | YES I •823 I 1 34 1 RELATED F 1 WINDOW 1 NO 1 YES 1 1.510 1 1 33 1 HIGH FREQ. T 1 TABLE 1 YES 1 YES 1 .372 | 1 36 1 HIGH freq. F 1 SOCKS 1 NO | NO 1 .373 1 1 37 I LOW FREO. T 1 RUG 1 YES 1 YES 1 1.126 I 1 38 1 LOW FREQ. F I STRAWBERRY 1 NO | NO 1 1.131 1 1 39 I UNRELATED F 1 BIRO 1 NO 1 NO I 1.316 I I 60 1 HIGH FREQ. F 1 MILK I NO 1 NO 1 1.443 1

**********.*****************.************.****.**.*.** *****************

SPORTS TRIAL TYPE OF WORD WORD ANSWER RESP. RESP, TINE 1 61 I LOW FREQ. T t BOXING 1 YES YES 1 .62S I 1 ea r LOW FREO. F 1 SILVER 1 NO ND 1 •323 1 1 S3 1 UNRELATED F 1 TRUCK 1 NO NO 1 1.261 1 1 64 ! HIGH FREQ. F 1 HEAD 1 NO MO 1 1.331 I 1 63 1 HIGH FREQ. • F I APPLE 1 NO ND I .36 1 1 t 66 1 LOW F°EQ. F' 1 RIJG 1 NO NO 1 I .426 I 1 67 1 RELATED F I CAROS 1 NO YES 1 1.337 I 1 68 t HIGH FREQ. T 1 BASEBALL. t YES YES t 1.727 | 1 63 1 LOU FREQ. T 1 FISHING 1 YES YES 1 .424 | 1 70 1 HIGH FREQ. T 1 FOOTBALL 1 YES YES 1 .633 | t***********************************.********** ******** *********** 158

THINGS TO ORtMK TRIAL TYPE OF WORD WORDANSWER RESP. RESP. TINE 71 1 LOW FREQ. T t POP 1 YES YES 1.107 | 72 1 UNRELATED F 1 RING 1 NO NO .333 | 73 1 RELATED F I SOUP 1 NO YES .343 | 74 | HIGH FREQ. T 1 MILK. 1 YES YES 1.333 | 73 | HIGH FPEQ• F 1 FOOTBALL 1 NO YES .503 | 73 I HIGH FREQ. T 1 WATER 1 YES YES .462 I 77 I LOW FREO. F 1 NECK 1 NO YES .030 I 73 1 LOW FPEQ. F 1 BOOTS 1 NO NO .213 | 79 1 LOW FREQ. T 1 JUICE 1 YES YES 1 . 172 1 80 1 HIGH FREQ. F 1 CAT 1 NO NO 3.047 I

SUMMARY DATA

HIGH FREO TRUE RESP CORRECT 13.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.132 HIGH FREQ TRUE RESR INCORRECT 1.000 MEAN REACTION TIME .307 LOW FREQ TRUE RESP CORRECT 16.000 MEAN PEACTIOM TIME .997 LOW FREO "'RUE PESP INCORRECT .000 MEAN REACTION TINE .000 HIGH FREQ FALSE PESP CORRECT 14.000 MEAN PEACTIOM TIME 1,3E2 HIGH FREQ FALSE RESP INCORRECT 2.000 I'EIAN REACTION TIME .363 LOW FREO FALSE RESP CORRECT 14.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.104 LOU FREQ FALSE RESP INCORRECT 2.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.073 FELATEO WORD CORRECT 4.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.333 PELATED WORD INCORRECT 4.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.430 UNRELATEO WORD CORRECT 3.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.122 UNRELATED WORD INCORRECT .000 MEAN REACTION TIME .000

OVERALL CORRECT 71.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.139 STANOARO OEVIATION CORRECT .739 OVERALL INCORRECT 9.000 MEAN REACTION TIME 1.080 STANDARD DEVIATION INCORRECT .S92 159

APPENDIX G

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: PROGRAM

1 REM a****-**************************** 2 REM CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST 3 REM ASHBROOK,'06/13/94 4 REM 1 PEM RICHARD M. ASHBROOK 6 REM SOS W . N. BROADWAY 3 PEM ICJ 06/t5,'94 IOO REM **frf**f*t**-****'*t**li****f»t*** t ICE O!MWO*(20’ 200 PEM ♦ *»•»*♦** ■*■»■**** r **************** 301 OEM W0PD3 FOR RECALL 303 REM 303 FOP!'* tTO5»FORY»lTO20tREAOWRS<" , "4CCCLD*, " J SLAKE * , "32RULER", " 14CAVE", "33PENCIL* 3 10 DA-R "SCFAPMER " , *-'SCOLD* , "3 I DOCTOR" , "44F0G" , " 13HILL* , " 13LAKE" , "33PENCIL" .’I ! 0=»TA " 1 V.'E" , ■■ littrriD" ,"35GLUE* , -32RULER" , "34NURSE" , "45UIARM* , "22LAWYER" 313 OATA "33TEACHER" , “3 1 HAf'flER " , * 1 1MOUMTA IN* , " 130 ITCH" , "34KNIFE* , "41RAIN* 213 OATA "-14FCG* , " t SLAKE" .. " 4 IRA IN" , " 12H ILL * , "32RULER " , *3 1HAW4ER " , "24NURSE " 314 DATA *33FAPMER " , ■ 13D ITCH" , *43WARM* , -42C0LD*, "33TEACHER " , "42UIt'0" , "3 lDOCTOR" 313 DATA -35GLUE* , "34K.MIFE" , "33PENCIL" , " I IMOUMTAIN" , "22LAUYER" , " I4CAVE" 2 IS DATA "I EH ILL* , “14CAVE","330LUE","34KNIFE",“3SFENCIL“,"42WIND“,"43C0L0 * 317 OATA "23TEACHER*,“44F0G*,"150ITCH*,"S3FARMER’,"22LAUYER*>"S4NURSE*,"32RULER* 219 OATA "43WARM* , " 1 IMOUNTA IN* , “2 lDOCTOR * , "3 1HAM4ER * , "4 IRA IN" , " 13LAKE " 300 PEM *-c*:**«******t t* ***-»*:«*** ******* 301 REM GET SUBJECT INFORMATION 302 REM 30- 9C3UB 14-300: FEM SCREEN ADJUSTMENT 304 PnKEG3200,121P0KE53231,12»PRINT">"!PRINT"J* 305 PR IMTTAE''S'"CATEGORIZED RECALL TASK" 309 °R INTTAB *13 1" '*■ ' *»PRINT 307 PPIMTTAB13)"CVER3ION 2.1-R.ASHBROOK]"* PRINT 303 INFUT"E!?AMINER'3 NAME *fEN*JPRINT 303 INPUT"TODAY’S DATE *;T0*1PRINT 310 INFUT-SUBJECT‘3 NAME "*SN*tPRINT 311 PRINT"SUBJECT’3 ID. NUhBER* 312 INPUT-.'FIVE CHARACTERS OR LESS 3 I *s PR INT 930 REM *»*t**t*********************** SOI PEM DIRECTIONS 902 REM .► :►*♦*»***■* ■»«:*■* **************** 603 PPIMT-J* 604 PP:N‘r"C:FECT!0IT3" 305 PPIHT- 1 "I PR INT 606 PRINT-SOME WORDS WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN* i PR INT 607 PRINT"INSIDE A RED BOM. LOOK AT EACH WORD"•PRINT 603 PRINT-CAREFULLY, AND TRY TO REMEMBER IT. "IFRINT 160

803 PRINT’AFTER YOU SEE TWENTY WORDS YOU WILL "IRRINT 810 PRINT'BE ASKED TO SAY PS MANY WORDS AS YOU"SPRINT 8*1 PR I NT"CAN REMEMBER. AFTER REMEMBERING "sPRINT 612 PRINT-YOU WILL SEE THEM AGAIN AND YOU WILL "SPRINT 613 PRINT"BE ASKED TO REMEMBER THEM AGAIN."SPRINT SIS PRINT'PRESS ANY KEY TO BEGIN." 616 OETR#rIFR*=""THEN616 700 REM ****************************** 701 REM TRIALS T02 REM ****************************** 710 PR INT’U" 720 FORX=1T03 725 IFX* 1THEN* GOSUB 130001 PR INT"*!" 726 GOSUB10000 730 FORY-ITO20 740 PPINT-a*«PRINTSPC< 13? " T- f m n m m t f n " i Minttlip4cw . y j ,3 > s GOSUB 11000 730 PR INT"B“ S PRINTSPC < 13 > "BDSBmBBCSHOi 760 f-EXTY 770 NEXTM 780 GOSUB13000 9000 REM ****************************** 300 1 REM SAVE TO DISK 9002 REM ***r*******t**r*************** 3003 PR If rT”'CI" s PR INT"B" 1 PR I NT "PLACE OATA DISK IN ORIVE.*sPRINT 3304 FR If rT"PRE33 ANY KEY TO SAVE OATA." 3003 0ETR*sIFRi=""THEN3003 9006 PRINT”J"t PRINT’PLEASE STANDBY." 9007 0PEN2,9,2, "0 1 DATA.'CRT-'" *S IS+" ,3,W“ 3008 PP1NT»2,SI* 3009 PR I NTH2,SMi 3010 PPirrr»2 ,Ens 30it pprrrt*2,TD* 90 12 PC.P'-'s 1T03 70 17 “OPY*1TO20 port rRiNT»2,WR*(:<,Y) 3013 MEXTY 90 16 NEXTX 9020 CL03E2 9021 PRIMT’fcJ"t poINT"PLACE SYSTEM DISK IN ORIVE"SPRINT 3022 PR 1NT"PPE53 ANY KEY TO CONTINUE" 3023 GETR**IFR*=*“THEN9023 9024 PRINT’J" *PRINT'WOULD YOU LIKE TO"SPRINT 9023 PRlNT'irPUT STATS? "SPRINT 302S PRINT-ENTER 3YHE3 OR a 1® . " 9027 GETR**IFR**•"THEMB0H7 3029 IFR*»"N"THENPRINT"J"SEND 9029 IFPSs > "V"THENS027 3090 p p IMT’UBHn-OAD"+CHR*<34)«■ "CRT^STAT"*CHR*<34>♦",3" 3031 PRIMT"SiaBfftUha* 3032 P0KE631,13SP0KE632,13*P0KE13S,2 9033 END 10009 PEM ***************************** 10001 PEM CONSTRUCT RED BOH 10002 REM ft ******************* ******** I 000? PRINT*a* » FQRQ= IT03 s PRINT t NEXTO 13094 p r i n t s p c ': i2'"aa B" 10003 p r i n t s p c (i2>"a a a a" I09C6 PF I NT S ’1 C >: 12 ) "d B 3 S" 13007 P.= INTSPC<12>*a B B B" 10003 P R I N T S P C 1 5 1 ■ J* B i “ 161

10009 PETURN 11000 PEM ***** *** *** ****** ************ I 1003 REM 2 SECOND TIMER 11003 PEM ************************** *** 11004 Tt*= *000030" 11003 IFVAL=<000039THENtPRINTSPCC10)"aUfi*BT;MI0* IPRINT’B" »GOTO12003 12007 RETURN 13000 PEM ***************************** 13001 PEM RECALL MESSAGE 13002 PEM ***************************** 13003 PR INT"’J" 13003 FORD’ |T0B I PR IMTl r-EMTO ! PR INT"RECALL AS MANY WORDS AS TOU CAN. "IPRINT 13006 PRINT'YOU HAVE S0 SECONDS." 13007 GOSUBI2000 13909 PR INT*‘J" t pp JNT'BEG IN NEXT TRIAL. * tFORQ* 1T0 10B0*t'CXTQ 13903 RETURN 14000 REM ***************************** 14001 REM- SCREEN TEST 14002 REM ***************************** 14003 PFINT-3"SP0KE33231,12!POKE33280,12»PRINT "■ADJUST SCREEN COLORS." 14004 PRINT’a* SFOPO*lT09JPRINTtNEXTC 14003 PPINTSPC' 12 ) *aa 9* 14006 P P T N T 3 P C •12>*a 9 a 9" 14007 printspc< 12 > *a ■ a 9"' 14003 PRINTSPC C t £)"3 9 a 9" 14009 PPU-fTSPC': 12) " I O B T i40t» ppirrr-g*fppiNTSPC'’i3>"aoBaaBgaaasiai m i e * 14011 PHRGI* 1T06»PR INT* NEXTQ < PR 11‘IT "DEFAULT ADJUSTMENTS FOR TINT, COLOR tPR INT 14012 PR INT’ER IGHT, 4. CONTPAST SHOULD WORK. " »PR II ITt 14012 PRINT"FRE3S ANY KEY TO CONTINE." 14914 G E T F I F R * “""THENl4014 14“ 13 RETURN READY. APPENDIX H

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: STATISTICS PROGRAM

10 REM ******************************** ao REM CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST 30 REM STAT, PROGRAM 40 REM A3HBR00K/12/03/84 30 REM It******-************************* 50 REM RICHARD M. ASHBROOK ^0 REM 208 IJ.N. BROADWAY 30 PEM.'C) 12/03/84 30 REM 44*4»44*4*«*t*****4***4 4 4**4**4 100 PEM DIM ARRAYS a SET VAR. 1 10 PEM 4't444********.*****«**4:««t*1i««*4 ISC OIMA*(3,40> 130 OIMBS'3,40) I 40 PIMC:TC3,40) 130 0 I M A < 3 .40? 150 O IMS 'G ,40 ) 170 P TMU<2t > 130 OTW-'Sl ) !R0 OIMSF*<3,30) 200 niM3BS<3,30> 210 D 1MPL tS 0 ,20) 220 REM ******* 230 REM GET SUBJECT INFORMATION 240 PEM *■**■»* 230 POKE33230, 12*P0KE3328 1 , 12»PRINT"B" 1PR I NT "LI" 2S0 PR IMTTAB(S) "CATEGORIZED RECALL TASK." 270 PRINTTABC3 3" STATISTICS PROGRAM* 290 PPIMTTPGC9>"" " 11 SPRINT 390 °RIMTTAB(3) * tVERS ION 2.1-R.ASHBROOK3 PRINT ~P0 H F U T ’EVAMINER ‘3 NAME ' t EM** PR INT 310 INPUT"TESTING DATE ";TO*:PRINT 320 INPUT"SUBJECT'3 Moi-E *»SN*:PRINT 330 PRINT*91‘8 JECT'3 10. NUMBER" 340 IKPU-""rTVE CHARACTERS OP LESS )D" '■ 3 1 *: PR INT 230 REM M' 300 REM COLLECT SUBJECT RESPONSES 370 PEM * t *:f «***««** '**««**** 390 PRINT-J* 330 rORVO 1 TO18tPR INT«NEHTX 400 PRTNT-LEGEID FOR IMPUTING DATA" 4 10 pR INT...... 420 PRTNT'MOUM <1? OOCT (6) H A W (11) RAIN ( 16) " 430 PR INT"HILL -12) LAWY C7) RULE r 12) WHO C 17) " 440 PRINT"LAKE (3) TEAC (8) PENC C 13) COLO < la) " 430 PRIMT"CAVE <4) NURS <3> KNIF C 14 ) FOG ( 13) " 460 PPINT'OITC (3? FARM <10> GLUE ( 13) WARM (2 0 ) " 470 PP1NT-C0MMISSION ERRORS (0)" 4.30 PRINT"AFTER LAST ITEM TYPE '£' FOR EIO. " 430 PPINT"a" 300 FORJ/o 1T03 310 Y»0 329 v«Y+ 1 320 PRINT" “ IPRINT"! 340 PPINT"INPUT TRIAL "X", WORD."Y 330 INPUTR* 163

360 IF R*=»"E" AND X»3 THEN L3 = Y-1 IL tX 5=L3lGOTO930 370 IF P*-"E" AND X»4 THEN L4-Y-I*L20 OR P<0THENPPINT*a" *GOTO340 630 ACX,Y)=»R 640 BCX.YJ-R 630 GOSUBSeO 663 PR IMTsPR IMT 8SCX,Y > I PR I NT "3* »PR INT 1 PR INT ■ IPRINT"*" 670 GOTO 350 683 REM t************-***■»***** ******* 6S0 REM ASSIGN WORD 700 PEM ***************************** 710 IF A 750 IF A»B* 730 IF A =B* = "DITCH "!C*CX,Y>»B*«"DOCTOR * lC*-B* 760 IF ACX,Y5*7 THEN B**“LAWYER "«C*»B* 790 IF ACX,Y)=8 THEN BS=> "NURSE " JC*=»B*a"FARMER *tC*»B*«I2 THEN BS»"RULER "IC*-"PENCIL *!C*iX,Y)=B**14 THEM B*«"KNIFE " lC* »is THEN B*«"GLUE * !C*-;x ,y >»b * c x ,y 3 370 IF A'X.Y)-IS THEN B*fX,Y>**RAIN * sc* * 17 THEN B* 900 IF .V'LYt =19 THEN B*CX,Y>3“FOG -1CSCX,Y-,*B*(X,YJ 916 IF pi"', Y1 »20 THEM BSiX.Y:'*”UARM "!CS 939 RETURN 930 P E M **-*.*1 tt t t t t u i i t i m t un i t * ** 340 PEN COMMISSION ERRORS 330 REM REP ITITIOM ERPORS 360 REM l ( ST® PRirtT'-J" tPRINT" PLEASE STANDBY." 390 PP T*|TrPR INT'COMPUTATION MAY REQUIRE' 339 PRINTtpRINT"AS MUCH AS FIVE MINUTES." 1000 X*1 to 13 IFL I “0THEMC 1»0«PI*01GOTO 1520 1050 FORY“ 1TOL1 1070 IF ACX,Y>=0 THEN C1*C1+1tC-0 THEN1210 I07O FOPCa ITOL1 1080 IF BlANOA»0iB#CX,C>"*REP. ERR." 1110 REM 0PEN4,4:CM04» PRINT"C"I PRINTC * PRINT'A CX,Y >"iPRINTA «FRINTXIPRINTY 1150 REM PRINT*B(X,C ? * > PRINTB * PRINTXiPRINTC 1130 REM PR INT"P1*8 PRINTRI I PRINT"RR"!PRINTRRI PR INTH4 * CL0SE4 1 140 I'EXT C 1 139 RR«0 164

t 160 IFRI >1THENP1«P1+CR1~1 ) !P“PI 1170 REM 0PEN4,4:CM041PRINT"P1■iPRINTPl:PRINT"R1"sPRINTRl 1190 REM PRINTM4 1190 REM CL0SE4 1200 R1"0 1210 MEXT Y 1220 PEM ♦ *****************-****<* **** 1230 M=*2 1240 IFL2=0THENC2»0*P2=0!GOTO 1390 1230 FORY3 1T0L2 12G0 IF ACX,Y>=i0 THEM C2=C2+1:CCX>*C2 1270 hEXT Y 1290 FORY* 1TOL2 1290 IF fl''X,YJ-0 THEN 1380 1300 FOPC*1T0L2 1310 IF BCX,C>»0 THEN 1340 1320 IF fVX,Yl»B THEM R2*R2+I IRR“RR+1 1330 IFRR >1ANOA CX,YJ =B CX,C JTHENB CX ,C >=0 S8SCX.C)= "REP• ERR." 1340 NEXT C 1330 RP«0 1360 IFR2>1THE1'F2=P2*-CR2- 1) S P CX ? =P2 1370 R2»0 1380 I EXT Y 1330 REM ************** 1400 X =3 14 10 TFL3=PnHEMC3 a0!P3 aQfGOTO 1360 1420 FORYaIT0L3 14?o if «=0 THEMI330 . 1470 F0RC-1T0L2 1490 IF 8fX,C’=0 THEN 1310 1430 IF A i-v ,y >*B lflNOA 1 THEMP3 = Pi CR3- 1 > tPCXJ-P3 1340 R3«0 1330 NEVT Y 1360 PEM 1370 X=4 1380 IFL4=0THENC4-0JP4»0*GOTO1730 1330 FORYw1T0L4 1600 IF A«0 THEN C4-C4+1«CCX5*C4 1610 NEXT Y 1620 FORY” IT0L4 1630 IF A CX,Y)"0 THEN1720 1640 FORC*1T0L4 1630 IF 8CX,C>=*0 THEN 1680 1660 IF ft»B CX,C1 THEM P4*R4♦1:RR=RR+1 1570 IFRR > 1 ftNDfl CX, Y> *B CX , C JTHEf-JB CX ,C ) *01S£ CX,C > * "REP * ERR." 1680 NEXT C 1690 RR=0 1700 IFR4>lTHEr'P4*P4YCR4-l > JPCX.' “P4 1710 R4»0 1720 t'EXT Y 1730 R E M rt**» 1740 X=3 1730 IFL3 = 0TH6MC330iP3=0 * GOTO 1900 pm — p m pm pm p m T il [J ru iu ru ru ru r u ru r o r u r u ru r u r u ru ru ru ru ru ru ru ru •u ru ru ru ru r u ru 10 r u «o ro r u ru u l I ) u l Ci) 0 ) u ) ru M (U ru r u r u r j r u ru r j «• Pm **•-• •— (9 3 Q 3 o 3 3 3 o 3 lQ u ) U) o W 01 to t o 3 m CD 00 CD a) CD 00 9 01 d d -j -J JA v ) ru <9 to 00 •4 01 a a (U r u pm 3 • i) u ) u *1 L i b cu ru Q (0 3 -u U) t i b • j m M 3 CD m - u 0 ) U ru o U) t o -4 01 (J b Cl) ru •>*o Ci) 03 -i 0) QQ Q a a o o o o a o o o 3 3 3 3 O 3 3 3 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 Q ◦ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 a a 3 Q 3 o 3 Q o o o o O Q <3 (3 “T • * T a } 3 ) -r r. T1 X 33 -* ** a »4 T] T “HX X Z w p-« n X a j m-t •« T» 7) 73 73 z X M 10 M (— *T| T1 31 3 ) O n n p i n n n *n n o u m m n 31 T1 T1 Q a p i m *n ■n T 1 • n a ■ P I P t H *n TT n a a P I P i "0 T1 T | T | J l PI PI PIPJ a ■n 73 m H *n u O 31 O a ■n m m 33 X 3) 3 3 3 X on 0 ) CO 0 ) 3 ) i l 3 X a j (0 H 0 )X 1* 3 X 03 03 CO 03 T) w 3 X 0 ) CD 03 <0 TJ r o Z X 03 03 CO 03 3 3 2 X u 2) a X 33 1 \ a a A .% A .s A A .*v .XA A A A A .% AA 71 GOO ■< -< H ■< d H s# < H < H z H S U 3 d d 4 X XX u 4 X u 4 AXXXII 4 :< X X X a 4 X X XX H 4 4 V V AA a A a A a 4 3 X 3 X X * < 3 -< pm *-* <4 V X V V 4 a V% pk * > > VV p * 4 VV V • pm 4 V V V V «4 4 o P* X X ppp X d X -c % » 4 *' d •< d d # d -< -{ - t H 4 < X < •< -1 4 - { •< - { H 4 -< -c < -< H Ii 4 4 d 3 V d V d V d * vy w y O 4 vy •-r »y W O 4 V vy wt Q w >y 'V vy *y O •4 vy vy >y a B 4 4 X o Q -< O -c d 4 <4 Z -( vy * n 4 V \t \y r 4 V ✓ V V r 4 vy •y V r 4 VV V vy r 4 VVV r 4 O 4 PI a vyvy r r V r m * 4 i M a II m 4 H 4 ■ a b » a II M ■ • u 4 a u u S r u 4 a a II a T) 4 4 z X a a u U Li u u 4 r 4 0 ) 4 «■ 0 ) k-* 4 M 01 p-. 4 •-a •— 01 4 •• 01 k— X * r 4 /\ 00 a O C9 4 n 4 01 3 * 4 0 ) ►* ID 4 01 31 4 0> 3> 4 0 ) 2> 4 o 4 Ul X A "4 *T -y V 4 4 X z -* 4 3 X z z 4 3 ) T T * 4 z 4 » 4 a X d d d 4 •7 a 0 4 2 z a a 4 T 0 CJ 4 7 -* a 3 4 z ■7 a a d 4 4 TJ - 4 X X * s 4 X X VV 4 XX V V 4 X X ■« V p i 4 • 4 70 A d ►* CO n 3 4 4 %V 4 s <• -< -c 4 V V -< -< 4 V V -< d 3> 4 4 a X X CD to U 4 X X -C -< ,/ 4 o 4 d 3 V V 4 •< d V V 4 K vy vy 4 - c -< vy -«y 4 < u vy vy U) 4 4 i V m U Q a 4 d 4 V V A 4 vy V A A 4 ■J V A A 4 V •*y A A 4 ■u 4 4 A p i n *• 4 a 4 o 01 H X 4 Q (J l HX H X H d T d 4 m 4 H d i m 4 -I H I n 4 H X PI 4 H X m 4 H d XPI 4 n 4 X z 33 o 4 z 4 X I n z 4 X 2 m V 4 X X PI z 4 XX n z 4 X X n a 4 Cl 4 vy ft Ul A 4 n m m 4 m T 4 m *T 4 4 PI PI c 3 4 o 4 tt A + X 4 z c pj C PI u PIrn - f Z pm 4 2 t 4 c 4 *Tc A 4 ~9 T» C A 4 A -< 4 X 4 “0 X vy d 4 z z z z Z V •* 4 4 £ C y* X 4 u t A X 4 c C A X 4 c u A X 4 L, C A X' 4 X 4 CJI U 4 4 A A X V 4 /A A A V 4 A y * X V 4 AA X S 4 AA X V B 4 4 o 33 o -4 4 X X *— 4 X X % pm. • X X V t-k 4 X X V *-» 4 X X V ►— 4 4 sy 3) L i 4 4 % ru V 4 > V ru S/ 4 *% P) vy 4 V V ru vy 4 V V ru V 4 4 a a A u A to V a b CO vy H b to w a A tu vy II 3 3) to M mm w V# It u V V i « vy Vy II t * vy vy u u vy vy a L. X i u U y . M It c . A a It u A a II u A a a u A m + V* • p U A «A U u A X u (-. A J f t . <-l A A <-, U A X m *- A A X V A A X > AA 2v VA A X VAA X V XX XX > M X X V p— XX % M XX V *-• x % V ru V > * ru \* V V ru %_ V V ru vy V V ru vy A V + b to w t* A cu vy ■♦ b CU V 4 b tu vy 4 o V> w ♦ ►» Vy VJ + w vy 4 Vy vy 4 P m vy V 4 + •*. pm + + 1-^ ♦ ♦ ►- 4 4 *— 4 4 b-fc »» p m *■* ►* p m ►— I— ►» ►-

aim 30

H* CTl (Jl 166

2 ?ee x-i 2370 FORY= ) TOL 1 2330 !FBfX,Yi=4 THEhFfX,1i-F(X,11 + I 2390 IFB (X,Y1»1 THEMFfX,11-FCX,1l+l 2400 IFB=F■ IBTHEhF -20THENF fX,2>-FfX,2>+l 2430 IFBfX,Y>- 16THENF(X,2 >-FCX,2? + 1 24B0 IFB fX,Y? ”3 THEM= fX,2 > -F =8 THENFfX,2)-F+l 2490 IF8fX,Yl-l1THENF t X,3 J-F tX ,3 >+1 2300 IFB *2 THENFfX,3i-F -F f X , 3 ) + 1 2320 IF9fX,Y>*3 THENFfX,3J-F-FfH,t) + 1 2630 IFB fX,Y?“14THENF(X,l>-FfX,l>+l 2640 IFBfX,YlM0THEMFfX, t HF'T, 1 1 + t 2630 IFB fX,Y>“7 THENFfX,15-FfX,1>+1 2660 IFBfX, Y>-t 1 THENF fX , 1 > -F fX , I 1♦ 1 2970 IF0fX,Yl= I3THENFfX,2>=FfX,2>+l 2630 IFB^X,Yl=a THEMFfX,21*F(X,21+1 26 90 IFB =F Cf , 3 > + 1 2740 IFB fX,Y'=19THEMF fX,3 > -FCX , 3 1+1 2730 TFBfV,Yi=17THENFfX,3)=FfX,35+l 2760 IeBfX,Y+a3 THEMFfX 3i»F'M,3>+t 2770 lFBfX^i-nTHEMffX^i-FfX^i + l 27S0 tFB fX,Yl*4 THENFCX,4)*F * 16THENF(X,4 > «F fX,41 + 1 2920 NEXTY 2930 REM * I rtf 2340 *<*3 2930 FOP''-IT0L3 2360 IFPfX.Yi-l0THEMFfX,1 1 =F fX,l ' + I 3970 IFB'X.Y'=tBTHENFfX,I1-FfX,11+I 2990 IFB fX,Yl-6 THENFCX,1?-FfX,1? + I 2390 IF6fV,Yl - IBTHEMFfX, 1 J-FCX, I 1*1 2900 IFBfX,Yl-2 THENFCX,ll-F *Ff !<,2 > + I 2930 IFBfX,Yl » 13THENFfX,£.l-F

2360 IFBfX,YI 3 12THENF C X, 3)«F f X , 3 )+ 2370 IFBfX,YI =9 THENF CX ,3 )=F CX ,3 1+ 2380 IFB CX,YI -20THENF fX ,3 >3F CX,3) + 2390 IFBfX,Y5 37 THENF CX ,3J=>F 316THENF CX ,4 )3F + 3B30 IFB CX,Y) -3 THENF CX, 4 >=>FCX, 4 J+ 3040 IFB fX,YI «1 THENF f X ,4 )»F f X ,4 1+ 3030 IFB fX,YI 3 11THENF f X ,4 5=F CX,4 1+ 30B0 f-EXTY 307? REM *************************** 3000 X=4 3030 F0RV=1TQU4 3100 IFB f X , YI = 13THENF CX , I 1 3F=P'X, 1 > * 1 3120 IF0fV,Yl= ISTWENFfX, 1 ' *F tv . 1 > +1 3130 IFB + 1 3 100 IFB'V.YJs] 1THENF ' V , 2 ) -F f X , 2 5 * 1 ' IFBfX,Y'=9 •nJEMFCV',2'i«FcH,21 + t 3170 TFRfv,*'i3 f0THENFfX,2) 3FfX .21+1 3130 IFBfX Y'r^ THEMFfX ,2>3F 3£0THENF fX,2>«FCX,2? + 1 7200 IFBfX. Y' 319THENF f X ,3 >*FCX ,3 > + 1 3210 IFBfX,Y1sg THEfF CX,31«F-»F(X,3) + 1 3230 IF9CX,Y>36 THENF f X , 3 ) 3F CX , 3 ) + 1 .3240 IFBfX, Yu I3THEI'FCX,3?3FCX,3> + 1 3200 IFBfX,Y1=4 THENFCX ,4 > «F CX ,4 > +1 3230 IFBfX,YW7 THENFCX,4)*FCX,4)+1 3270 IFBCX,Y>3 1 THENF CX ,4 ? 3F CX ,4) + 1 3230 IFB =F-FfX,11+l 3380 IFB fX,Y'3 I3THENF CX,1l’F CX,1)+1 3330 IFB CX, YI 3 17THENF CX ,2 ) *F 3FfX,2)+1 3430 IFBfX,Y5=3 THENFCX,2>3FCX,2J+t 3440 IFBfX,Y'*10THENF CX,3)3FCX,3>+1 3430 IFBfX,Yl-7 THENFCX,3)*FCX,3> + 1 7460 IFBfX,Y?=3 THENFCX,313FfX,3)+I 3470 IFBfX,Yi3 12THENFCX ,3 J =F CX ,3 J +1 3400 IFBfX,Vi =20'*HEMFfX, 3 ' 3F CX , 3 ) +1 3450 ;fB ,Yi =3 THEf-E CX ,4 > 3F f X ,4 ? + t 3700 IF3CX,Y'-I6THENFCX,41-FCX,4>+1 3710 IFBf’1,” 5 = I lTHEIFfX,4>«FCX,4J + l 3920 TFB fX.Y)-9 THENFfX,4?-FfX,41+1 3^30 IFPfX,Y>*l THENF fX,4 J *F

t 3050 REM CALC . PAIR FPEQ. 3?70 PEM t + 3790 PP TMT’m * i PP I* T"KEEP STANDING BY. THANKS." 3330 X = t 3600 3=0 3610 FORYalTO'Ll-t > 3R20 IFB*»"REP. ERR ."THEN3S70 3640 3=3 *1 3630 SF*=B**BS.:X,Y*t ) 3660 SB*fX,3)=B**'X,Y»n+B*tX,YJ 3670 MEXTY 3630 SI =3 .3630 3700 «*2 37! 9 3 = 0 3720 FCPY«lT0fL2-I> 3730 IPP* 3730 f-EVTY 3730 32 = 6 3300 33 tO v=3 33P0 S=0 3330 FOPv«tT0fL3-l5 33 40 IFBS'X, Yi = "COM. ERR."ORB*»B*<:x,Yi +b * 3970 IFBJf f X , YI ■ "COM. ERR. "0RB*.:X,Y5 ="REP. ERR." 7HEN40O0 3360 IFBSKX..Y*! > ="CCM. ERR. "OREi:X,Yi = "F.EF. ERR ."THEN4000 3970 S=?*l 3960 SF*i!V,3'>ae*fX,Y:> *BS 3990 3B*'X,S:=BS 4060 TFS*«« .Y1--C0M, ERR . *ORB*CX,Y>»,*REP. ERR." THEN4110 4070 IFB*'V,y + 1>»"CQM. ERR. *0RB*O-i, V) ■ *REP• ERR . "THEN4 110 4020 e *c * | 4090 SFKK/S^Sl'H.V.W Stf.XA+l j 4 t00 s b * c x ,.s > =b *.;x ,y + i ? *b . c x ,yj 41 10 NEVTY 4120 37=3 4 t?0 PEM »«■**»» 4 *40 FEM COfFAFE FOR PAIR FREQ. 4 *70 PEM t*« 169

4160 F0PX*1T04 4 170 FQRY® 1TO20 4 i"o fqrc»:tce0 4130 IFBfVM ,C?=0THEM4210 4200 IFpfH.Y^O'X+l,C JTHEMMfX)*MCX)+1 4210 4220 NE^TT 4230 HEXTX 4210 PEM ft* 4230 F0RY1=1TOS1 4260 F0RY2®1T0S2 4270 IFSF*C 1 ,Yt >»SF*C2,Y2)THEMGI=G1 + 1 4230 IFSF*C1,YI)a6B*<2,Y2 ATHENS I“Q 1♦I 4290 MEXTY2 4300 MEXTY1 43 to if< cli- >®QTHEr 14330 4320 HI ®0 t -< t <2-»M( 1 ** >t CMC 1 ’-1 ) )/*C ) * CL2-CC2 +P2 ) ) ) > 4330 PEM »*#* « ** t ♦ *.* * *-t t » *1?** *■» f t *** 4340 F0PYI»1T0S2 4360 F0RY2=1TO«3 4?F0 IF6FFC2 ,Y P *5FFC3 ,Y3>THENG2=G2+1 4370 IF3F*C2,Yt 4 acp*(3 , y2 ) TWEMG2=G2 + 1 4720 NE:»CL3-'C3+P3> ) l=*0THEf 14420 44 10 H2=G2- C C <’gtM<'2> ? fCMC2) - I i CL2- CC2+P2 ? ) * CL3- CC3+P3 ) i > > 4420 PEM ►»»**»♦.*»«* * 4430 FORYIMTOS? 4440 FOPY2®ITC34 4430 IF2F«f3,YI '®FFfC4,Y2 >THEMG3*G3+1 44F0 IFSFS'G, "'1 4®SB*'4,Y2^T1-IEM03®G3 U 4470 ME v TY2 4430 ME>‘T,'l 4430 IF<* 1*1,3- *C0*P4 > •> * ."L'l - CC4 +P4 ’ > :*®0THEN43 10 4 300 H3=03-f t <2tM|,3? 1 * ■*MC3)-I ) )/*C CL3 -\C3 t-P3 J ) HCL-. vC4+P4> ) ) 4310 PEM tt ft***-** 4320 FORYln1T0S4 4370 F0Rw2a 1 TO®3 4340 IF3FFC4.Y1 ' = 3F t '3 ..'*2 )THENG4 =G4 + 1 40?0 IFSF*C4,Y1 1 *SE?FC3 , Y2 ? THEMG4 =G4 *- 1 4360 MEXTV3 4370 fE! 1 * *L3-CC3+P3 ) > J ®3THEM3003 4390 H4=G4 *C t <2*MC4 ) ) * ) ) 3000 PEM ********************** ******* 3001 REM CflLC. PPOOUCTTON FREQ. RECrtLL 3902 REM t***t*********** ************* 30 5 0 FORK®1TOT 3320 Fopvntrnao T933 tc9CM,Y>- ITHENFI *1 ITHEMFtCX.'-FlCXJc-l 3032 '^6 CX,Y^ *12TMEMF1CX'*F1CH)*1 3034 ■"'3<*X,Y)=i 2THENF2 CX > ’F2 CX ' + 1 3033 :f B'X,Y)® 7THEIF2-:X>=F2C;0 + I 9036 rFB.‘X.Yl®:7-’JEIF2':X'®F2CX> M 9 0 3 7 tFE ' X , V) a 17THENF2 CX )=F2 CX > + 1 3 0 3 6 irgfv.Y'! 3THEhF3<*’ ♦ 1 3033 TFB*V,Y‘n 3THEIF3'’X-'=F2C:<) + 1 3040 IFB CX , V * a J 3 T !) E f F 3 CX®F3 CX -l 1 170

5(341 If b *F3(X> h . 7042 IFBfX,Y^a 4THENF4 =F4 CX ) *■ 1 7044 IFBCX,Y>al4THENF4*F4 + t 7047 IFBCX,YI ■ 1 OT H E R S *13THENF3=F3M 3049 IFB(X, Yl*30THEf>F5*1 3030 'IEXTY 3660 NEXTX I 0000 • REM ********* tt*****-I** 10010 REM CALC. CLUSTER IMG PLOT 10030 REM *«******»■»(*** t************** 10030 X=3!C=0 10040 PRIMT’NOT MUCH LONGER, MOW.* 10030 FORYa1T0CL5-1) 19060 IFBfX,Y?*0THEN10100 10070 IFBfX,YM ?*0THEN10100 100B0 C=C*1 19060 UfC'^B'H,YJ1V = I 10300 MEMTVX 19310 GOTO 10150 10330 REM 1* 10330 REM PRIMT OF RAW DATA 10340 PEM 19P70 PRI,*JT*J*:p p i m t *FRIMTIMG. " 10360 OREM4,4 103~0 P RVmtrt ,CHFE'147'(PEM PAGING Of/ IC370 CLC3E4 17790 CPEM1,4 10700 0PEN2,4,1 19710 OPENS,4,2 103=0 0PEN4,4,4 10770 PRINT041PEM ERR OIAG. ON 10340 PRINTH1,■ CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST" 10330 PRINTW1;* CVERSION 3.2-R.ASHBROOKJ" 10360 °RINTH1,■ * 10370 PRINTM1," " 10330 PRIMTH3,"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" 1O390 PRINTH3,"SUBJECT IDENT. ! " ,CHR*(33 > ,31 ■* 10400 PPINTTH2, "SUBJECT NAME* * ,CHR*C£3 > ,SN* 10410 PRINTH3,"DATE TESTEDl",CHR*C39>,TO* 10420 PRIMTH2,"EXAMINER:",CHR*<23),EN* 10470 PRINT*I," " 10440 PPTMT*1," " ’ 10470 GOTO 10610 inaffl FOP*fa tT071FP TNT# 1 , “ "tNEXTH 10470 PRINT# 1 , “**********RECALL DATA * * » t r » t ► * * * " 10490 PRINTttl,“TRIAL I TRIAL 3 TRIAL 3 TRIAL 4 TRIAL 3" 171

10430 PR IMT43, "488888888 888888888 888888888 888888888 888888888' 10300 C=L t t I6L2'CTHEf9T = L2 1C310 .'FL?.'CTHEfC=L3 19339 IFL4 >CTHEMCaLa •0320 IFL3>CTHENC=L3 1034? F0PY-1T0C 19330 Yl**CHRS<29> 19360 PPINT#2,C#<1, Y),Y1*,C*<2,Y),YI*,C*<3,Y>,YI*,C*<4,Y?,Y1*,C*<3,Y> 10370 NEXTY 10330 PRINT#!,* * 10390 PRINT#!/* * 10600 60T011030 10610 PRINT#! , *********** *SUMMARY 08T8* ********* * 10620 PRINT#I,* * 10630 PRINT#!,‘TP I REC REP COM 3ER1 SER2 SER3 SER4 * 10640 PRINT#3," 3- 33- 93- 33- 33- 33- 33- 33-* 10630 PRINT#!," * 10660 F0RX-IT03 10670 -'P) 10630 PR!MT#2,H,L,FCX,4>,F ,J*‘X,2> ,J ,F1 CO ,F2CX5 ,F3CX) ,F4 10730 rEXTX 10760 FOPX- 1T03 I PP INT# I , * * I I'EXTX 1077G Pp INT# 1 , ******* ****LEGEND*******+H 10760 PRINT#1," t 0790 PPINT#I "TRI REC8LL TRIAL" 10800 PR INT#1,"PEC•PEC - NUMBER CORRECTLY RECALLED" 10610 PPINT#1 "REF REPITION ERRORS" 10329 P®TNT#1 "COM COMMISSION ERRORS* 10830 f = irr-#: " SEP. 1 SERI8L POSITION 1-3 1094? P= TNT#1 "SER2 =ERI8L POSITION 3-10" 10333 PRINT#1 "3EF? SERIAL POSITION I 1-13" 1C360 P=»1NT# 1 "SER4 SERIAL POSITION 13-20" 10870 PRINT#1 ."PFP1 NUMBER REC8LLEO FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 1" 10830 FRINT#1 "PFP2 NUMBER RECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 2* 10630 PRINT# 1 "FFR2 l-Lif'TBER RECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 3 * 10900 PRINTH1 *ppp2 IPJMBER RECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 4 “ 10310 PPINT#1 "PFR2 NUMBER RECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 3" 10920 FORV- 1T021PR I NT#I,’ "!NEXTX 19930 PR INT# 1 , "********PAIR FREQUENCY*-I!***** " 10340 PR INT# 1 , • • IP930 Y2*-*TRIflL 1+2 *IY3*»"TRIAL 2+3 "1Y4S“"TRIAL 3+4 " *Y5S»''TRIAL 4+5 1O3F0 P ° I N T # 3 , "888888888888 393.333-" 1C379 PPINT#2,Y2*,CHR*<23),HI 10380 PRINTH2,'r3S,CHR*<-23> ,H2 10909 PPTNT#2,''4.t,CHP*<23 5 ,H2 1 1000 P R I N T # . ”. ,-.-Tff,CHR#<23 5 ,H4 *1019 FC7*''" 1 TO 3 j pr if IT# 1 , " '' iNCXTX 1 1 ocn P 0 TO 10463 I TO70 F O P X - 1 TO E 1 PR IN T # 1," "fNEXTX 1 1040 PP INT# 1 ,"+•** ♦ * * * * * ICLUSTER P L O T * * * * * * * * " ; i 9 3 ? PFINTHl," " 1 I960 PRINT#1," 01 02 03 04 03 06 37 08 03 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 13 20' 1 1070 FOPX = 1TO20 t 1080 IFl,< I0THEN* PR INT# 1 , * "I 172

1 1090 PRINTHt ,:<> 1 1 100 FORY*1TO20 11110 PRlNTttl,PL CL03E4!CLOSES 11170 PR INT*‘J*s PR INT'WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADMINISTER TEST?* i PR INT 11190 PRINT'ENTER aTff:S OR ^1*3. * : PR INT tlt90 (3ETR*t IFR*n” THENl 1 130 11300 IFRS« *N"THEMPR INT"iJn i END 1 t3 10 T F R * 0 * Y ‘THEMt I 190 I 1330 PPIMT*;2flHni-OAD* *CHR*<34' «■ "CRT/PROG * ♦CHRSv34 ) * * ,3" 11230 PR INT'SBHSFUNg* 11240 POKES?1,13«P0KE632,13:P0KE198,2 11250 END I12F0 REM t 1270 PEM PP 1NTFPE ^ 0 - ^FRE

APPENDIX I

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST: SAMPLE PRINTOUT

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST CVERSION 2.2-R.ASHBROOK3

SUBJECT IOENT.» 12343 SUBJECT NAMEl SAMPLE □ATE TESTEDt 12/-IIXB4 EXAMINER* ASHBROOK

********** »SUMMAR V DATA ***** * * * * *

TRI REC PEP COM SERI SER2 SER3 SER4

1 3 a 0 2 0 3 0 2 3 2 1 0 2 I 2 3 7 a e 1 3 2 1 4 B a a 2 2 1 3 3 14 3 o 3 4 4 3

TRI CAT1 CAT2 CAT3 CAT4 PFRl PPR2 PFR3 PFR4 PPR' 1 3 0 0 0 I ' 1 1 1 I 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 t 3 4 1 t 1 0 4 I 1 1 4 3 1 1 3 3 I 1 2 j 3 4 4 3 “5 2 2 4 3 o

**********LEOENO******* *

TRI - PECALL TOTAL PEC - NUMBER c o r r e c t l y r e c a l l e d REP - REP ITION ERRORS COM - COMMISSION ERRORS SERI - SERIAL POSITION 1-3 SER2 - SERIAL POSITION 3-10 SER3 - SERIAL POSITION 11-13 SER4 - SERIALPOSITION IS-20 PPR 1 - NUMBERRECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FRECUENCY LEVEL 1 PFR2 - NUMBERRECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 2 PPR2 - NUMBER RECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL 3 PFRS - NUMBERRECALLED FROM PRODUCTION FREQUENCY LEVEL a PFR2 - NUf>«CR RECALLED FROM PRODUCT ION FREQUENCY LEVEL z

****** **PA IR FREQUENCY*

TRIAL 1+2 2.4®0 TRIAL 2+3 .233 TRTAL 3+4 .7S3 TRIAL 4+3 .333- 174

*******n**RECALL DATA********«*-* TRIAL 1 TRIAL 2 TRIAL 3 TRIAL 4 TRIAL 5 MOUNTAINMOUNTAIN HILL MOUNTAIN flCU'Tfl IN HILL HILL LAWYER CAVE L4KP LAKE LAKE RULER OITCH DITCH CAVE CAVE NINO LAUIYER LAKE DITCHOITCH LAKEHAMMEP CAVE COM. EPR. CAVE RAtN LAWYER CAVE DITCH COLD TEACHER DITCH POO NURSE RCG l-JAPM °ULER PENCIL SLUE COLD POG DOCTOR LAWYER

•CLUSTER PLOT********

01 02 03 04 03 06 07 08 99 10 1 I (2 13 14 '.3 16 * ~ '3 13 1 0 CJ 1 (j 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 9 9 re 0 9 9 2 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ p 0 o p r\ p 0 O 3 1 0 0 o I o 0 8 0 0 C 0 **» n p 0 r* 0 9 e 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 t .0 rj 9 9 9 9 0 p 3 9 9 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 ci 0 p 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P p 0 0 CJ c 0 C 0 O 3 0 7 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 1 9 n 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 a rt t» c* 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 c 3 V» 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 n 0 9 0 9 9 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 c* 9 9 9 9 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 a 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 i 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 0 1 9 0 0 0 o 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 9 3 3 IS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 9 9 g 9 1 9 3 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 sv•» 0 c* 9 9 CJ 9 0 17 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 n 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 9 19 0 0 0 CT 0 0 CT 0 I 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 9 n t 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 1 P 0 9 p 9 9 l 3 APPENDIX J

DEVELOPMENT OF COMPUTER-ADMINISTERED COGNITIVE BATTERY

OVERVIEW

The advantages and particular suitability of microcomputers to cognitive testing in psychopathological populations has been documented (Magaro & Ashbrook, 1984;

Spaulding & Space, 1979). Advantages of this approach include the ability to present stimuli in an efficient and user-friendly manner, particularly suitable for the testing of children, the versatility to easily manipulate variables of test administration, and the capability to collect, store, and manipulate response data. A portion of this project was the development of a computer-administered cognitive battery for children. The cognitive battery was designed for use on the Commadore 64 computer, the commadore VIC-1541 single disk drive, the

Commadore 1526 printer, and the Commadore 1701 video monitor. Joyport 1 was fitted with a two lead double pickle switch and serves as the interface, along with the keyboard, between the computer system and the subject or examiner, software was developed using CBM BASIC, except for response collection routines which utilized CBM

175 176

machine code routines. Each of the three cognitive tests

and the rationale for their use are described below.

THE COLOR DISTRACTION TEST

The Color Distraction Test (CDT) is a refinement of

the stroop color and Word Test (stroop, 1935). The stroop

procedure has been employed extensively for four decades

in research on personality, psychopathology, and

neuropsychology, pathological groups have generally been

found to perform deficiently on this task {Golden, 1978), although use of appropriate controls is mostly lacking. A

review of this literature is beyond the scope of this paper, although the reader is referred to a test manual published by Golden (1978) for a thorough treatment of this topic. Research on the Stroop test suggests that the difficulty in naming the color of a discrepant color-word

is the result of interference in verbal processing prior to response organization (wheeler, 1977). The written color-word stimuli appear to activate an automatic verbal processing response which interferes with the consciously instructed color naming task. The subject seems to complete the task either by completing both responses sequentially (reading the word followed by naming the color) or by suppressing the automatic, word reading response through volitional control (Golden, 1976). Thus, central to performance is the ability to separate the word

176 177

and color stimuli. If this can be done, the reading

response can be suppressed and the color can be named.

Some individuals appear equiped to accomplish this task quite readily. Others process the word and color

sequentially before responding, and some individuals have

great difficulty in distinguishing the word and color

responses. At a basic level, the task measures the ability to sort information from the environment and selectively react to this information.

procedure: Subjects were seated in a chair so that their forehead was approximately 24 inches from the video monitor. Color and hue of the computer were adjusted

using a test pattern to normalize stimulus intensity and color differences across testing sessions. The examiner sat to the right of the subject and in each hand held a

response switch. Depression of the right switch indicated

a correct response and depression of the left switch

indicated an incorrect response. Depression of the switch

also deactivated a timing mechanism that was begun upon

stimulus presentation. The experimenter held on his lap a cardboard answer key on which the correct responses to the task were typed in large block letters. The experimenter evaluated the subjects verbal answers against this criterion and responded correct/incorrect via the response

switch. The same experimenter administered this task to 178

all subjects, consequently experimenter reaction time was

assumed to be systematically distriubted across subjects.

Left/right response times were not different for the

experimenter and consequently spatial orientation of correct and incorrect switches remained fixed.

In trial block 1 (color Naming), subjects received

the following directions: "Name the colors on the screen as quickly as you can." Six practice trials and 20 experimental trials were administered. Each trial consisted of the visual presentation of a 1.5" by 4" color patch appearing in the center of the video screen against a white background. Color patches were red, green, blue, or yellow. Stimulus presentation activated a timer and

depression of the response switch deactivated the timer.

Duration of stimulus presentation was contingent on the

subject's response. A 0.5 second inter-trial interval was

employed.

In trial block 2 (Color Reading), subjects received

the following directions: "Read the words on the screen as quickly as you can." Six practice trials and 20 experimental trials were administered. Each trial consisted of the visual presentation of an approximatly

1.5" by 4" color-word painted in a dark grey color against

a white background appearing in the center of the video

screen, color-words were "red", "green", "blue", or 179

"yellow.” Stimulus presentation activated a timer and depression of the response switch deactivated the timer.

Duration of stimulus presentation was contingent on the subject's response. A 0.5 second inter-trial interval was employed.

In trial block 3 (ignore Word), subjects received the following directions: "Name the color on the screen as quickly as you can. Do not read the word, only name the color." six practice trials and 40 experimental trials were administered. Each trial consisted of the visual presentation of an approximatly 1.5" by 4" color-word painted in a discrepant color against a white background appearing in the center of the video screen. Thus, the letters "R" "e " "D" might appear in green colored display, and the subject's task was to respond verbally to the color, in this case the subject would say "green." No two of the same words or colors appeared together sequentially in the trials. Duration of stimulus presentation was contingent on the subjects response. A 0.5 second inter-trial interval was employed.

In trial block 4 (ignore Color), subjects received the following directions: "Read the word on the screen as quickly as you can. Do not name the color, only read the word." six practice trials and 40 experimental trials were administered. Each trial consisted of the visual 180 presentation of an approximatly 1.5" by 4" color-word painted in a discrepant color against a white background appearing in the center of the video screen. Thus, the letters "H" "E" "D" might appear in green colored display, and the subject's task was to respond verbally to the word, in this case the subject would say "red." No two of the same words or colors appeared together sequentially in the trials. Duration of stimulus presentation was contingent on the subjects response. A 0.5 second inter-trial interval was employed.

Th e listing of the software program that controlled stimulus construction, stimulus presentation, response collection, and response storage is reproduced in Appendix

A. Following collection and storage of response data on magnetic disk, a program was used to calculate individual response data and summary statistics. The listing of this program is reproduced in Appendix B. Appendix C contains an example of the printout from the Color Distraction

Test. Since the dependent measures of this task are described in some detail on the printout, discussion here will be brief. Basically, the printout contained the raw data on reaction time and accuracy by trial and a page of summary statistics. Number correct, Number incorrect, mean reaction time correct, mean reaction time incorrect, standard deviation of reaction time correct, and standard 181 deviation of reaction time incorrect were provided for each tr.ial block. In addition, trial blocks 3 and 4 were divided into halves, i.e., first twenty trials and last twenty trials, and these were analyzed separately. some special measures were also supplied which utilized the measures just described. A maintenance attention deterioration index was calculated on trial blocks 3 and 4 by subtracting the later 20 trial's performance variables from the first 20 trial's performance variables. An interference index is also calculated for each subject by subtracting performance variables on trial 1 from trial 3, and trial 2 from trail 4.

SEMANTIC CATEGORIZATION TEST

A discussion of the feature comparison model of semantic memory (Smith, Shoben & Rips, 1974) will clarify the assumptions on which this test is based. The basic idea is that a semantic categorization may require two distinct comparison stages depending on the nature of the categorization task. The representation of meaning is viewed as a collection of attributes, called semantic features. These vary continuously in the degree to which they confirm or define category membership; that is, they are weighted by their degree of "definingness". Thus, features at one extreme are essential for defining the concept, whereas features at the other extreme are only 182 characteristic of the concept. For example, the term bird would include as defining features the facts that it is avian and feathered and as characteristic features the notions that it is undomesticated and perches in trees.

The processing assumptions of the two-stage decision model will now be discussed. The first comparison stage includes three processes. First, lists of features for the instance and catgory are retrieved, including features drawn from characteristic as well as defining dimensions.

Next, these two lists are compared, with respect to all features, yielding a measure of overall similarity. This measure takes into account the proportion of the category's dimensions that are shared by the instance.

This comparison treats defining and characteristic features equivalently, thereby it does not differentiate the relative importance of certain features in contrast to others. The similarity measure is then compared to two criterial levels of overall similarity, a high level and a low level, that essentially serves as a response set determining the level of confidence necessary to make a decision. if similarity exceeds the high level, then the instance is judged as subsumed under the category, while if it is less than the low level it is interpreted as unrelated to the category. If similarity is in the intermediate range, a second comparison stage is necessary 183 before a decision can be determined. For both the category and the instance this second stage separates the more defining features from the characteristic ones and then compares the set of defining features of the category to those of the instance.

The variation in definingness is not simply a theoretical device as its effects can be demonstrated empirically. Research on this matter is reviewed in

Smith, Shoben, and Rips (1974). Basically, support for the featural view of semantic memory is found in studies that investigated the linguistic analysis of hedges, modifers whose major function is the qualification of predicates (Lakoff, 1972); typicality ratings for instance-category pairs (Rips, Shoben, & smith, 1973); and multidemensional scaling solutions for instance-category relations (Rips, shoben, & Smith, 1973),

It is now possible to derive some general comments about the feature comparision stages. The first stage of this model may be characterized as holistic, in that it considers all features, and as intuitive, in the sense that it considers only overall similarity of features rather than the types of features that are similiar.

Also, the first stage is error prone, in that for instances that are members of the category, similarity may occasionally be less than the low level criterion, resulting in an erroneous false response, or in the case of instances that are not category members, overall similarity may be high, resulting in an erroneous true response even when defining features are not equivalent.

In contrast, the second stage is selective as it considers defining features, logical and analytic in that it bases its decision on a procedure that evaluates’only defining features, and relatively error free since defining features are more critical in determining category membership. From a perspective that construes memory as a set of hierarchically interconnected concepts and elements

{e.g., Collins & Quillian, 1969; Quillian, 1969), Stage 1 comparisons reflect the vertical retrieval of elements to superordinate concepts. Stage 2 comparisons can be viewed as horizontal retrieval of elements within the same concepts, stage 2 comparisons therefore provide maximum specificity with respect to the identification of related concepts since superordinate elements that do not differentiate concepts are not employed in the comparison.

An intuitive example may demonstrate the actions of the two stage model. Given the category name birds, a subject is required to respond true or false to whether the word robin is an instance of the category. The first stage compares the features of the instance-category pair.

No consideration is given here as to whether the similar 185 features are defining or only characteristic. If the featural similarity is very high or very low, one can decide immediately whether or not the instance is subsumed in the category. More precisely, if the overall featural similarity between the two nouns is greater than a high criterion (as might be the case for robin and bird), one decides the statement is true. If the featural similiarity between the two nouns is less than a low criterion (as in the case poodle and bird), one decides the statement is false. If the featural similiarity falls between the two criteria (as in the case chicken and bird or bat and bird), one goes to the second stage. Measures of the typicality of instances within a category and their associative relatedness provide and index of featural similarity (smith et al., 1974). Therefore, highly typical or highly associated noun pairs can be confirmed by just a single processing stage. When the second stage is executed, it isolates the more defining features of the two terms and compares those of the instance with those of the category. If all the defining features match (chiken and bird), the subject responds true, whereas if they do not match (bat and bird), the subject responds false.

Some specific predictions that have been upheld in the experimental literature can now be mentioned. The first strong prediction is that for any target category, true reaction times should decrease as the typicality of the test instance increases. The rationale is as follows.

All instances of the category share roughly the same number of defining features with that category, but the number of shared characteristic features between instance and category increases with the typicality of the instance. Thus, as typicality increases, featural similarity increases. This in turn increases the probability of the similarity index rising above the high criterion set for a positive response to an instance category pair. This typicality prediction has been upheld in several studies (Rips et al., 1973; Rosch, 1973; Smith,

1967; Wilkens, 1971; Loftus, 1973). The difference between typical and atypical instances is roughly on the order of 60 milliseconds, although effects range from about 50 milliseconds to 150 milliseconds. A similar prediction can be made about false reaction times following the same rationale, although for present purposes our discussion will focus only on true responses under varying conditions of typicality.

A prediction can also be made about the probability of errors at each stage of comparison. All errors are assumed to reflect first stage processing; that is, a subject will erroneously respond false to a target instance only if the similarity value associated with that 187 instance is below the low response criterion and will erroneously respond true to a nontarget only if the associated value is greater than the high response criterion. Decisions about instances with high typicality ratings will nearly always be performed correctly.

Decisions about instances with low typicality ratings will usually result in second stage analysis, and as a result, they will be made correctly. However, if under certain circumstances decisions about low typicality instances are the result of stage 1 processes, an increase in errors would be expected. While this condition of decision making is not predicted from the theoretical model which holds that progression through the two stages is systematic, and inferentially, common to all individuals, the situation may be predicted if one allows for individual variation of stage analysis that is dependent on some characteristic procesing style, or in other terms, an information processing deficit for some individuals.

If this was the case, an interaction would be expected between reaction time and errors, such that under short reaction times that indicate Stage 1 analysis of low typicality instances, an increase in errors would be predicted.

Procedure: Subjects were seated in a chair so that their forehead was approximately 24 inches from the video 188 monitor. A response switch was placed in each hand, and the subject was told that a thumb press on the preferred hand indicated 'yes' while a thumb press on the unprefered hand indicated 'no', placards with the words "YES" and

"NO" were placed above the monitor on their respective sides to remind the subject of the spatial requirement of the response. Color and hue of the computer were adjusted using a test pattern to normalize stimulus intensity and color differences across testing sessions.

Subjects were presented with an intial 5 trial practice task, in which a category appeared atop the screen and a word appeared inside of a box on the screen.

Instructions read, "If the word inside the box belongs to the category, press yes. If the word inside the box does not belong to the category, press no. After administration of the practice trials, subjects were questioned about their understanding of the task.

Eighty instance-category trials were administered in this manner. A category name was presented in black characters on a white screen in the upper third of the viewing area. After the subject viewed the category name for 1 second, an instance trial appeared inside of a red box in the center area of the viewing screen. The category name remained in place for the ten instance trials, then was replaced by another category name, and 189 another ten trials. This procedure continued until all eight category names, and 80 instance trials were administered. The computer recorded whether a yes or no response was emitted and the amount of time between instance exposure and subject response.

The category names were selected from production frequency norms (Battig & Montague, 1969). These categories were then presented to an independent sample of

30 school children, ages 7 to 11 years, who were asked to write down as many instances of the category as they could. Frequencies for each instance were tabulated and compared to frequencies of the normative sample. If an ordinal relationship existed for a specific instance word that was the same for a instance word in the normative sample, then it was retained for use. put another way, if a high production frequency word from the Battig and

Montigue (1969) sample was also a word frequently given as an instance in the school children sample, it was used as a high frequency true word in the present study. Low frequency true words were chosen in a similar manner.

There were two high frequency true and two low frequency true instances for each category. Two high frequency words from another category were employed as high frequency false trials, and two low frequency words from another category were used as low frequency false trials. 190

A semantically related and a semantically unrelated word was chosen as other instance-words. semantic relatedness and unrelatedness was judged by the author, for instance, for the category animal, tree was chosen as semantically related and rock as semantically unrelated. The rationale, in this case, was that the word tree shared a superordinate category with animal, namely living things.

Hock, on the other hand, does not share a superordinate, and consequently, was judged unrelated.

The listing of the software program that controlled stimulus construction, stimulus presentation, response collection, and response storage is reproduced in Appendix

D. Following collection and storage of response data on magnetic disk, a control program was used to calculate individual response data and summary statistics. The listing of this program is reproduced in Appendix E.

Appendix F contains an example of the printout from the

Semantic categorization Test and also provides the list of categories used and instances by level of frequency and semantic relatedness. Dependent measures of this test included the number of correct and incorrect responses for each type of instance, and the response times for each type of instance, subdivided by correct and incorrect.

CATEGORIZED RECALL TEST

Organization in memory is an important determinant of 191 recall ability (Crowder, 1976). While different theoretical models have been advanced to account for this effect (e.g., Cohen, 1963; Sternberg & Bower, 1974), the experimental data clearly documents that subjects employ some form of organization. Multitrial free recall is a widely used method to examine this effect. In a typical multitrial free-recall task the subject is shown a list of words, and is asked to recall them. The subject is permitted to recall the words in any order; hence the designation free recall. This same set of words is shown on a series of successive trials, in a different order; hence the term multitrial free recall.

Two things happen in the course of multitrial free recall (Sternberg & Tulving, 1977). The number of words recalled increases over trials, that is; the learner learns the list, and the order of words recalled becomes increasingly stereotyped. put another way, the learner organizes the list. Since the order of words presented for study varies unsystematically from trial to trial, the increasing sequential organization of words over trials must be imposed by the learner.

Procedure: Subjects were seated in a chair so that their forehead was approximately 24 inches from the video monitor. Five trials of a 20 word list were presented to the subject, and immediately after each trial, subjects 192 were given 90 seconds to recall aloud as many words as could be remembered. The words appeared for a duration of

2 seconds in the center of the viewing screen with an inter-trial interval of 1 second. The examiner recorded on paper the words recalled. The word list was comprised of 4 categories each containing five words sampled across five levels of production frequency (Table 2). The words and categories were taken from a large normative sample

(Battigue & Montague, 1969). The orders were constructed for each presentation, such that no word appeared in any one serial position more than once, and no two words were adjacent more than once.

The listing of the software program that controlled stimulus construction, stimulus presentation, response collection, and response storage is reproduced in Appendix

G. Following collection and storage of response data on magnetic disk, a control program was used to calculate individual response data and summary statistics. The listing of this program is reproduced in Appendix H.

Appendix I contains an example of the printout from the

Categorized Recall Test. Dependent measures of this test included the number of words correctly recalled by trial, the number of repetitions (words repeated two or more times in a single recall), the number of commission errors

(words recalled that were never presented), the number of words recalled from the first, second, third, and fourth segment of the presentation list (serial order in recall), the number of words recalled within a specific category, and the number of words recalled at each of the differing production frequency levels. In addition, a measure of inter-trial repetition was provided for each of the four pairs of trials (1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc.). This measure,

Bousfield's (1966) bidirectional intertrial repetition measure (also referred to as pair frequency) is a measure of organization in memory. Of all the subjective organization measures available, the pair frequency measure has been empirically demonstrated to be the most appropriate based upon the psychometric criteria of quantification, reliability, construct validity and empirical validity (Sternberg & Tulving, 1977). This measure consists of counting the number of pairs of items in adjacent positions on two adjacent trials, and subtracting from this sum the product obtained by subtracting 1 from the number of items common to the two trials, and then dividing this value by the product obtained by multiplying the total number of words from one trial by the total number of words from the adjacent trial. The higher the value of this number, the greater the subjective organization, or the more clustering used in recall. Finally, the printout also produced a cluster 194 plot for each individual so that the amount of clustering could be easily observed graphically. LIST OF REFERENCES

Abikoff, H., Gittelman-Klein, R., & Klein, D.F. (1977). Validation of a classroom observation code for hyperactive children. Journal of Consulting and clinical Psychology, 45, 772-783.

Achenbach, T.M. (1978). The child behavior profile: I. Boys aged 6-11. Journal of Consulting and Clinical psychology, 46, 478-488.

Achenbach, T.M. (1980). DSM-III in light of empirical research on the classification of child psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of child psychiatry, 19, 395-412.

Achenbach, T.M., & Edelbrock, C. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85(6), 1275-1301.

Alabiso, F.P., & Hansen, J.C. (1977). The hyperactive child in the classroom. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Amado, M., & Lustman, P.J. (1982). Attention deficit disorders persisting in adulthood: A review. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 2j3( 4), 300-314.

Aman, M.G. (1978). Drugs, leearning, and the psychotherapies. In J.S. Werry (Ed.), pediatric psychopharmacology: The use of behavior"modifying drugs in children. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder, Washington, D.C.

American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, Washington, D.C.

Arnold, L.E., Barneby, N.S., & Smeltzer, D.J. (1981).

195 196

First grade norms, factor analysis and cross correlation for Conners, Davids, and Quay-Peterson behavior rating scales. Journal of Learning Disabilities, _14(5), 269-275.

Ashbrook, R.M., & Magaro, P.A. (1984). Cognition in psychopathy and hyperactivity. In M. Languis, p.j. Maour, D.J. Martin, & J.J. Buffer (Eds.), Cognitive science: Contributions to educational practice. Columbus, OH: Educational Research Information Center.

Atkinson, R.C., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K.W. Spence, & J.T. Spence (Eds.), Advances in the psychology of learning and motivation research and theory. Vo1. 2. New York: Academic press.

Barkley, R.A. (1981). Hyperactive children: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York: Guilford prss.

Battle, E.S., & Lacey, B. (1972). A context for hyperactivity in children, over time. Child Development, 43, 757-773.

Bax, M., & MacKeith, R. (Eds.). (1963). Minimal cerebral dysfunction - Little club Clinics in developmental medicine. London: Heineman.

Baxley, G.B., & LeBlanc, J.M. (1976). The hyperactive child: Characteristics, treatment, and evaluation of research design. In H.W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior, Volume 2. New York: Academic press.

Benezra, E. (1978). Learning and memory in hyperactive, reading disabled, and normal children. Unpublished manuscriptt. Montreal: McGill University.

Borland, B.L., & Heckman, H.K. (1976). Hyperactive boys and their brothers. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 669-675.

Bosco, J.J., & Robiin, S.S. (1976). Rittalin usage: A challenge to teacher education. Peabody Journal of Education, 53, 187-193.

Bosco, J.J., & Robin, S.S. (1980). Hyperkinesis: Prevalence and treatment. In C.K. Whalen, & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The social ecology and identification and treatment. New York: Academic Press. 197

Bradley, C. (1937). The behavior of children receiving benzedrine. American Journal of Psychiatry, 94, 577-585.

Bremer, D.A., & Stern, J.A. (1976). Attention and distractibility during reading in hyperactive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, _4, 381-387.

Camp, J.A., Bailer, I., Sverd, J., & Winsberg, B.G. (1978). Clinical usefulness of the NIMH physical and neurological examination of soft signs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 362-364.

Campbell, S.B. (1973). Cognitve styles in reflective, impulsive, and hyperactive boys and their mothers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 36, 747-752.

Campbell, S.B., Douglas, V.I., & Morgenstern, G. (1971). Cognitive styles in hyperactive children and the effect of methylphenidate. Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 55-67.

Campbell, S.B., Schleifer, M., Weiss, G., & Perlman, T. (1977). A two-year follow-up of hyperactive preschoolers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 149-162.

Cantwell, D.P. (1972). psychiatric illness in the families of hyperactive children. Archiaves of General Psychiatry, 27, 414-417.

Cantwell, D.P., & Satterfield, J.H. (1978). The prevalence of academic underachievement in hyperactive children. Journal of pediatric Psychology, _3, 163-171.

Chapman, L.J., & Chapman, J.P. (1973). Problems in the measurement of cognitive deficit. Psychological Bulletin, 79(6), 380-385.

Childers, A.T. (1935). Hyperactivity in children haviing behavior disorders. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5, 227-243.

Cloninger, C.R., Christian, K.O., Reich, T., & Gottesman, I.I. (1978). Implication of sex differences in the prevalence of antisocial personality, alcoholism, and criminality for familial transmission. Archives of Gereral Psychiatry, 35, 941-951.

Cohen, N.J., & Douglas, V.I. (1972). Characteristics of 198 the orienting response in hyperactive and normal children. Psychophysiology, 238-245.

Cohen, N. J., Weiss, G . , & Minde, K. (1972). Cognitve styles in adolescents previously diagnosed as hyperactive. Journal of child Psychology and psychiatry, 13, 203-209.

Cohen, C.E., & Ebbesen, E .B. (1979). Observational goals and schema activation: A theoretical framework for behavior perception. Journal of Experimental social Psychology, 15, 305-329.

Collins, A.M., & Quillian, M.R. (1969). Retrieval time from seemantic memory. Journal of verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, j3, 240-247.

Conners, c.K. (1976). Learning disabilities and stimulant drugs in children: Theoretical implications. In R.M. Knights, & D.J. Bakker (Eds.), The neuropsychology of learning disorders: Theoretical approaches. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Conners, C.K. (1970). symptom patterns in hyperactive, neurotic, and normal children. Child Development, 41, 667-682.

Conners, C.K. (1969). A teacher rating scale for use in drug studies with children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 26, 884-888.

Conway, A. (1976). An evaluation of drugs in the elementary schools: Some geograpthic considerations. Journal of psychology in the Schools, 13, 442-444.

Craik, F.I.M., & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Craik, F.I.M., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the reetention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.

Crombach, L.J. (1970). Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper & Row.

Crowder. R.G. (1969). Behavioral strategies in immediate memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 524-528. 199

Crowder, R.G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum.

Delamater, A.M., Lahey, B.B., & Drake, L. (1981). Toward an empirical subclassification of ’’learning disabilities”: A pssychophysiological comparision of "hyperactive" and "nonhyperactive" subgroups. Journal of Abnormal child Psychology, j), 65-77.

Denoff, E. (1973). The natural history of children with minimal brain dysfunction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 205, 188-205.

Denton, C.L., & McIntyre, C.W. (1978). Span of apprehenssion in hyperactive boys. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, j5(l), 19-24.

Douglas, v.I. (1976). Effects of medication on learning efficiency: Research fiindings review and synthesis. In R.P. Anderson, & C.G. Halcomb (Eds.), Learning disability/minimal brain dysfunction syndrome. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Douglas, V.I., & Peters, K.G. (1979). Toward a clearer definition of the attention deficit of hyperactive children. In G.A. Hale, & M. Lewis (Eds.), Attention and cognitive development. New York: plenum Press.

Ebaugh, P. (1923). Neuropsychiatric sequellae of acute epidemic encephalitis in children. American Journal of Disabled Children, 25, 89-97.

Edelbrock, C., & Achenbach, T.M. (1980). A typology of child behavior profile patterns: Distribution and correlates in disturbed children aged 6 to 16. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, j), 441-470.

Erlenmeyer-Kimling, L., & Cornblatt, B. (1978). Attentional measures in a study of children at high-risk for schizophrenia. Journal of psychiatric Research, 14, 93-98.

Firestone, P., & Douglas, V. (1975). The effects of reward and punishment on reaction times and autonomic activity in hyperactive and normal children. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, 3, 201-215.

Firestone, P., & Martin, J.E. (1979). An analysis of the hyperactive syndrome: A comparison of hyperactive, 200 behavior problems, asthmatic, and normal children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, ]_, 261-273.

Fisher, M .A. (1978). Dextroamphetamine and placebo practice effects on selective attention in hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal child Psychology, _6, 25-32.

Frankmann, J.P., & Adams, J.A. (1962). Theories of vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 59, 257-272.

French, G.M., & Harlow, H.F. (1955). Locomotor reaction decrement in normal and braiin damaged Rhesus monkeys. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 48, 496-501.

Goldberg, J.O., & Konstantareas, M.M. (1981). Vigilance in hyperactive and normal children on a self-paced operant task. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 22, 55-63.

Goyette, C.H., Conners, C.K., & Ulrich, R.F. (1978). Normative data on revised Conners Parent and Teacher Ratiing Scales. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, 6(2), 221-236.

Greenberg, L.M., & Lipman, R.S. (1971). pharmacotherapy of hyperactive children: Current practices. Clinical Proceedings children's Hospital, 27, 101-105.

Guze, S., Wolfgram, E., McKinney, J., & Cantwell, D. (1967). Psychiatric illness iin the families of convicted criminals. Diseases of the Nervous system, 28, 651.

Hohman, L.B. (1922). Post-encephalitic behavior disorders in children. Johns Hopins Hospital Bulletin, 33, 372-375.

Homatidis, S., & Konstantareas, M.M. (1981). Assessment of hyperactivity: Isolating measures of high discriminant ability. Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(4), 533-541.

Hopkins, J., Perlman, T., Hechtman, L., & Weiss, G. (1979). cognitive style in adults originally diagnosed as hyperactive. Journal of child Psychology and psychiatry, 20, 209-216.

Hoy, E., Weiss, G., Minde, K., & Cohen, N. (1978). The hyperactive child at adolescence: cognitive, emotional, 201 ana social functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, _6, 311-324.

Huessy, H.R. (1974). The adult hyperkinetic (letter). American Journal of psychiatry, 131, 724-725.

Huessy, H.R. (1967). Stydy of the prevalence and therapy of the choreatiform syndrome or hyperkinesis in rural Vermont. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 34, 130-135.

Huessy, H.R., & Gendron, R. (1970). Prevalence of the so-called hyperkinetic syndrome iin public school children of Vermont. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 37, 243-248.

Huessy, H.R., Marshall, c., & Gendron, R. (1973). Five hundred children followed from 2nd - 5th grade from the prevalence of behavior disorder. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 39, 301-309.

Huessy, K., & Metoyer, M. (1973). Eight-ten year follow-up of children treated in rural Vermont for behavior disorder. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry/ 43, 236-238.

Hutt, S.J., & Hutt, c. (1964). Hyperactivity in a group of epileptic (and some nonepileptic) brain damaged children. Epilepsia, J5, 334-351.

Jackson, D.N. (1971). The dynamics of a structured personality test: 1971. psychological Review, 229-248.

Jacob, R.G., O'Leary, K.D., & Rosenblad, C. (1978). Formal and informal classroom settings: Effects on hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal child psychology, 6, 47-59.

Jones, N.M., Loney, J., Weissenburger, F.E., & Fleischman, D.J. (1975). The hyperkinetic child: What do teachers know? Psychology in the Schools, 12, 388-392.

Kagan, J. (1966). Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 71, 17-24.

Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964).' information processing of the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs, 7.8(1, Whole No. 578). 202

Kail, R.V. (1984). The development of memory in children. New York: Plenum.

Karp, S.A., & Konstandt, N. (1963). Manual for children s embedded figures teat. New York: Cognitive Tests.

Kassimore, H., & Summer, M. (1968). The development attention test: A preliminary report on an objective test of attention. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 76-78.

Kenny, T.J., Clemmens, R.L., Hudson, B., Lentz, G.A., Jr., Cicci, R., & Nair, P. (1971). Characteristics of children referred because of hyperactivity. Journal of Pediatrics, 79, 618-622.

Keogh, B.K. (1971). Hyperactivity and learning disorders: Review and speculation. Exceptional Children, 38, 101-107.

Kinsbourne, M., & Swanson, J.M. (1979). Models of hyperactivity: implications for diagnosis and treatment. In R.L. Trites (Ed.), Hyperactivity in children: Etiology, measurement, and treatment implications. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Klein, D.F., & Gittelman-KKlein, R. (1975). Problems in the diagnosis of minimal brain dysfunction and the hyperkinetic syndrome. International Journal of mental Health, _4, 45-60.

Kramer, J., & Loney, J. (1982). childhood hyperactivity and substance abuse: a review of the literature. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 1 , 225-259.

Kupietz, S., Bialer, I., & Winsberg, B. (1972). A behavior rating scale for assessing improvement in behaviorally deviant children: A preliminary investigatio. American journal of psychiatry, 28, 1432-1436.

Lachman, R., Lachman, J., & Butterfield, E.C. (1979). Cognitive psychology and information processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lahey, B.B., Green, K.D., & Forehand, R. (1980). On the independence of ratings of hyperactivity, conduct problems, and attention deficits in children: A multiple 203

regression analysis. Journal of Consulting and clinical Psychology, 48, 566-574.

Lambert, N.M., Sandoval, J., & Sassone, D. (1978). Prevalence of hyperactivity in elementary school children as a function os social system definers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 446-463.

Langhorne, J.E., Jr., & Loney, J. (1979). A four-fold model for subgrouping the hyperkinetic/MBD syndrome. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, _9, 153-159.

Levy, F. (1980). The development of sustained attention (vigilance) and inhibition in children: Some normative data. Jornal of child Psychology and psychiatry, 21, 77-84.

Loney, J., Langhorne Dr., J.E., & Paternite, c.E. (1978). An empirical basis for subgrouping the hyperkineticf/minimal brain dysfunction syndrome. Journal of Abnormal psychology, 87, 431-441.

Magaro, P.A., & Ashbrook, R.M. (1984), The application of an information processing model to the diagnosis and treatment of functional disorders through the use of microcomputers. Presentation at Models and Techniques of Cognitive Rehavilitation - IV: Fourth international Symposium. Indianapolis, Indiana.

McIntyre, C.W., Blackwell, S.L., & Denton, c.L. (1978). Effect of none distractibility on the spans of apprehension of hyperactive boys. Jornal of Abnormal Child psychology, 6, 483-492.

McMahon, S.A., & Greenberg, L.M. (1977). Serial neurological examination of hyperactive children. Pediatrics, 59, 584-587.

Meehl, P.E. (1970). Nuisance variables and the ex post factor design. In M. Radner, & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science. IV. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota press.

Menkes, M.M., Rowe, J.S., & Menkes, J.H. (1967). A twenty-five year follow-up study on the hyperkinetic child with minimal brain dysfunction, pediatrics, 39, 393-399.

Messick, s. (1981). Constructs and their vicissitudes in educational and psychological measurement. Psychological 204

Bulletin, 89, 575-58 8.

Miller, R.G., Palkes, H.S., & Stewart, M.A. (1973). Hyperactive children in suburban elementary schools. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, A, 121-127.

Minde, K., Lewin, D., Weiss, G., Lavigueur, H., Douglas, V. , & Sykes, E. (1971). The hhyperactive child in elementary school: A 5-year, controlled follow-up. Exceptional Children, 38, 215-221.

Minde, K. , Weiss, G., St Mendelson, N. (1972). A five-year follow-up study of 91 hyperactive school children. Journal of American Academy of child Psychiatry', 11, 5995-610.

Montagu, J.D. (1975). The hyperkinetic child: A behavioral, electrodermal, and EEG investigation. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 17, 299-305.

Morris, H.H., Escoll, P.J., St Wexler, R. (1956). Aggressive behavior disorders of childhood: A follow-up study. American Journal of psychiatry, 112, 991-997.

Morrison, J.R. (1980). Childhood hyperactivity in an adult psychiatric population: Social factors. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 41, 40-43.

Morrison, J.R., St Stewart, M.A. (1971). A family study of the hyperactive child syndrome. Biological Psychiatry, 3, 189-195.

Mostofsky, D.I. (1970). The semantics of attention. In D.I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Neale, J. (1982). Information processing and vulnerability: Hihg risk research. In M.J. Goldstein (Ed.), Preventive intervention in schizophrenia: Are we ready? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.

Neale, J., & Oltmanns, T. (1980). Schizophrenia. New York: Wiley.

Nichols, P.L., & Chen, T.C. (1981). Minimal brain dysfunction: A prospecitve study. Hillsdale, NJ: 205

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Nuechterlein, K.H., Soli, S.D., Garmezy, N., Devine, V.T., Schaefer, S.M. (1981). A classification system for research in childhood psychopathology: Part II. Validation research examining converging descriptions from the parent and from the child, in B.A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research (Volume 10). New York: Academic Press.

Nuechterlein, K.H. (1983). Signal detection in vigilance tasks and behavioral attributes among offspring of schizophrenic mothers and among hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, 4-28. peters, K.G. (1977). Selective attention and distractibility in hyperactive and normal children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. McGill University.

Pope, L. (1970). Motor activity in brain-injured children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40, 783-794.

Prinz, R.J., Connor, P.A., & Wilson, C. (1981). Hyperactive and aggressive behaviors in childhood: Intertwined dimensions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 191-202.

Prinz, R., & Loney, J. (1974). Teacher-rated hyyperactive elementary school girls: An exploratory developmental study. Child psychiatry and Human Development, _4, 246-257.

Quay, H.C. (1979). Classification. in H.c. Quay, & J.S. Werry (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (Second Edition). New York: Wiley.

Quillan, M.R. (1969). The teachable language comprehender: A stimulation program and theory of language, communication of the ACM, 12, 459-476.

Radosh, A., & Gittelman, R. (1981). The effect of appealing distractors on the performance of hyperactive children. Journal of Abnormal child Psychology, 179-189.

Rie, E.D., 5 Rie, H.E. (1979). Recall, retention, and Ritalin. Journal of Consulting and clinical psychology, 45, 967-972. 206

Rosenthal, R.H., & Allen, T.W. (1978). An examination of attention, arousal, and learning dysfunctions of hyperkinetic children. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 689-715. r o s s , D.M., & Ross, S.A. (1976). Hyperactivity: Research, theory, and action. New York: Wiley.

Routh, D.K., & Schroeder, C.S. (1976). Standardized playroom measures as indices of hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, 4^, 199-207.

Rutter, M. (1984). Behavioral studies: Questions and findings on the concept of a distinctive syndrome. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Developmental Neuropsychiatry. New York: Guilford Press.

Rutter, M., Lebovici, s., Eisenberg, L., Sneznevskij, A.V. , Sadoun, R. , Brooke, E., St Lin, T.Y. (1969). A tri-axial classification of mental disorders in childhood. Journal of Child psychology and psychiatry, 10, 41-61.

Safer, D.J., St Allen, R.P. (1976). Hyperactive children: Diagnosis and management. Baltimore, MD: University Park press.

Sandoval, J., Lambert, N.M., & sassone, D. (1980). The identification and labelling of hyperactivity in children: An interactive model. In C.K. Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The social ecology of identification and treatment. New York: Academic press.

Santostefano, s., & Paley, E. (1964). Development of cognitive controls in children. Child Development, 35, 939-949.

Satterfield, J.H. (1978). . The hyperactive child syndrome: A precursor of adult psychopathy. In R.D. Hare St D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research. New York: Wiley.

Schain, R.J., St Reynard, C.L. (1975). Effects of a central stimulant drug (methylphenidate) in children with hyperactive behavior. Pediatrics, 55, 709-716.

Schleifer, M., Weiss, G., Cohen, N., Elman, M . , Cvejic, H., Si Kruger, E. ( 1975). Hyperactivity in preschoolers and the effect of methylphenidate. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 45, 38-50. 207

Scott, T.J. (1970). The use of music to reduce hyperactivity in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 40, 677-680.

Sergeant, J.A., & Scholten, C.A. (1983). A stage of information approach to hyperactivity. Journal of child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 49-60.

Sergeant, J.A., VanVelthoven, R., & Virginia, A. (1979). Hyperactivity, impulsivity, and reflectivity: An examination of their relationship and implications for child psychology. Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 20, 47-60.

Shaffer, D., Greenhill, L. (1979). A critical note on the predictive validity of the "hyperkinetic syndrome." Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 20, 61-72.

Sleator, E.K. (1982). Office diagnosis of hyperactivity by the physician. Advances in Learning and behavior disabilities, 1_, 341-364.

Sleator, E.K., & Ullmann, R.K. (1981). Can the physician diagnose hyperactivity in the office? Pediatrics, 67, 13-17.

Smith, E.E., Shoben, E.J., & Rips, L.J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decision. Psychological Review, 81, 214-241.

Soli, S.D., Nuechterlein, K.H., Garmezy, N., Devine, V.T., & Schaefer, S.M. (1981). A classification system for research in childhood psychopathology: part I. An empirical approach using factor and cluster analyses and conjunctive decision rules. In B.A. Maher (Ed.), progress in Experimental Personality Research (Volume 10). New York: Academic press.

Christenson, D., & Werry, J. (1974). In K. Conners (Ed.), Clinical use of stimulant drugs. Boston, MA: Excerpta Medica.

Sprague, R.L., Cohen, M.H., & Eichiseder, W. (1977). Are . there hyperactive children in Europe and the Souuth Pacific? Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Fransico, CA. 208

Sprague, R.L., & Sleator, E.K. (1973). Effects of psychopharmacologic agents on learning disorders. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 20, 719-735.

Sternberg, S. (1969a). Memory scanning: Mental process revealed by reaction-time experiments. Amemerican Science, 57, 421-457.

Sternberg, S. (1969b). Discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. In W. G. Koster (Ed.), Attention and performance. Vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Stevenson, H.W. (1972). Children's learning. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Stewart, M.A., deBlois, C.S., & Cummings, C. (1980). Psychiatric disorder in the parents of hyperactive boys and those with conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 283-292.

Stewart, M.A'. , Pitts, F.N., Craig, A.G., & Dieruf, W. (1966). The hyperactive child syndrome. American Journal of Orthopssychiatry, 36, 861-867.

Still, G.F. (1902). The Coullstonian lectures on some abnormal physical conditions in children. Lancet, _1, 1008-1012, 1077-1082.

Strauss, A.A., & Lehtinen, L.E. (1947). Psychopathology and education of the brain injured child. New York: Grune & Stratton.

Strecker, E.A., & Ebaugh, F. (1924). Neuropsychiatric sequelae of cerebral trauma in children. Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 12, 443-453.

Stroop, J.R. (1935). studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-661.

Stroufe, L .A. (1975). Drug treatment of children with behavior problems. In F.D. Horowitz (Ed.), Review of child development research. Vol. 17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sykes, D.H., Douglas, V.I., & Morgenstern, G. (1973). Sustained attention in hyperactive children. Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry, 14, 213-220. 209

Sykes, D.H., Douglas, V.I., Weiss, G . , & Minde, K.K. (1971). Attention in hyperactive children and the effect of methylphenidate (Ritalin). Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry, 12, 129-139.

Swanson, J.M., Kinsbourne, M., Roberts, W., & zucker, K. (1978). Time-response analysis of the effect of stimulant medication on the learning ability of children referred for hyperactivity. Pediatrics, 61, 21-29.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row.

Tant, J.L., & Douglas, V.I. (1982). Problem solving on hyperactive, normal, and reading disabled boys. Journal of Abnormal Child psychology, 10, 285-306.

Thomson, D.M., & Tulving, E. (1970). Associative encoding and retrieval: Weak and strong cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 255-262.

Tulving, E. (1968). Theoretical issues in free recall. In T.R. Dixon & D.L. Horton (Eds.), verbal behavior and general behavior theory, (p. 2—36). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Tulving, E., & Madigan, S.A. (1970). Memory and verbal learning. Annual Review of psychology, 21, 437-484.

Ullman, D.G., Egan, D., Fiedler, N., Jurenec, G., Pliske, R., Thompson, P., Doherty, M.E. (1981). The many faces of hyperactivity: Similarities and differences in diagnostic policies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 694-704.

Weingartner, H., Rapoport, J.L., Buchsbaum, M.S., Bunney, W.E., Ebert, M.H., Mikkelsen, E.J., & Caine, E.D. (1980). Cognitive processes in normal and hyperactive children and their response to amphetamine treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89, 25-37.

Weiss, G., Hechtman, L., Perlman, T., Hopkins, J., Wenar, A. (1979). Hyperactives as young adults: A controlled prospective ten-year follow-up of 75 children. Archives of General psychiatry, 36, 675-681.

Weiss, G., Minde, K., Werry, J.S., Douglas, V., & Nemeth, E. (1971). Studies on the hyperactive child: VIII. 210

VIII. Five-year follow-up. Archives of General Psychiatry, 24, 409-414.

Wender, P. (1971). Minimal brain dysfunction in children. New York: Wiley.

Werry, J.S. (1979). Organic factors in psychopathological disorders of childhood. In H.C. Quay, & J.S. Werry (Eds.), psychopathological disorders of childhood. New York: Wiley.

Werry, J.S. (1968). Studies on the hyperactive child: IV. An empirical analysis of minimal brain dysfunction syndrome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 19, 9-16.

Werry, J.S., Weiss, G., & Douglas, V. (1964). Studies on the hyperactive child: I. Some preliminary findings. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, j), 120-130.

Whalen, C.K., & Henker, B. (1980). The social ecology of psychostimulant treatment: A model for conceptual and empirical analysis. In C.K. Whalen & B. Henker (Eds.), Hyperactive children: The social ecology of identification and treatment. New York: Academic Press.

Witkin, H .A., Syk, R., Fatterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., & karp, S.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation. New York: Wiley.

Worland, J., North-Jones, M ., & Stern, J.A. (1973). Performance and activity of hyperactive and normal boys as a function of distraction and reward. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 363-377.

Zahn, T.P., Abate, F.f Little, B.C., & Weender, P.H. (1975). Minimal brain dysfucntion, stimulant drugs, and autonomic nervous system activity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 381-387.

Zental, s., & Zentall, T.R. (1976). Activity and task performance of hyperactive children as a function of environmental stimulation. Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 693-697.

Zubin, J. (1975). Problem of attention in schizophrenia. In M.L. Kiietzman, S. Sutton, & J. Zubin (Eds.), Experimental approaches to psychopathology. New York: Academic Press.