The Development of Problem-Solving Abilities in Typical and Atypical Development
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Development of Problem-Solving Abilities in Typical and Atypical Development Joanne Sara Camp Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Institute of Education, University of London 1 Abstract Throughout our lives we engage in problem solving, which is thought to depend on executive functions (EFs) e.g., inhibition, shifting and working memory. Previous work has identified the need to consider these abilities in an everyday context. EF skills are known to be impaired in Williams syndrome (WS) and Down syndrome (DS). This thesis aims to investigate experimental and real-life problem solving in WS and DS, and how these groups use EF skills to solve problems, through experimental and questionnaire-based cross-syndrome comparisons. Participants with WS and DS aged 12-24 years (Ns=20) and typically developing (TD) controls (N=56; nonverbal matched subset = 20) completed the Tower of London (TOL) problem-solving task and a battery of EF tests. In a separate study, parents (WS, DS, TD; total N=112) completed the BRIEF (Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning) and a novel Problem-Solving Questionnaire. The WS group, but not the DS group, scored more poorly on the TOL than the nonverbal-matched controls. In WS, developmental trajectory analysis indicated over- reliance on planning for TOL performance for low planning scores. For the DS group only speed of picture matching was associated with TOL performance, while more rule violations were exhibited than for the WS group. Questionnaire scores were poor for the WS group in relation to DS and TD groups. Asking for help for the DS group, and becoming emotional for the WS group, was related to reaching the solution. In general, associations between experimental and everyday measures were scarce. It was concluded that: while EFs (planning, visuospatial working memory) were constraining factors for WS problem solving, alternative strategies were used by the DS group to reach the solution; real-life problem solving should be considered in its own right; and poor WS problem solving may be related to emotional difficulties. 2 I hereby declare that, except where explicit attribution is made, the work presented in this thesis is entirely my own. Word count (exclusive of list of references and appendices): 87622 words 3 Publications In the course of undertaking the study of Williams syndrome for work towards this thesis, the following publications were produced. Camp, J. S., Farran, E. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2012) 'Numeracy'. In E. Farran and A. Karmiloff-Smith (eds.) Neurodevelopmental disorders across the lifespan: the neuroconstructivist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Camp, J. S. & Karmiloff-Smith, A. (in press) Williams Syndrome. International Encyclopaedia of Social and Behavioural Sciences. 4 Acknowledgements I am very grateful to everyone who helped me along the road to completing my thesis, as well as being indebted to you all for useful discussions and suggestions. Thank you first to my supervisor and mentor Emily Farran, for your enthusiasm and encouragement; patience, understanding and cheerfulness; and knowing when I needed ‘reining in’. Your guidance and support has been invaluable. Thank you to my co-supervisors Annette Karmiloff-Smith and Michael Thomas, for their wisdom, insights and advice. A huge thank you is due to the participants, parents and schools involved in the studies, to the Williams Syndrome Foundation and to the Down Syndrome Association, without whom the research could not have been conducted. I am grateful to the Bloomsbury Colleges Symposium for funding the studentship, and to the Institute of Education and Birkbeck College for additional funding. Many thanks to Liz Pellicano for taking me under her wing, and to Sarah Beck for help with questionnaires. Hannah Broadbent, thank you for being my sounding board. Thanks also to other members of and visitors to the CogDev lab, particularly Harry Purser and Suzy Cooper. Kyra, for listening, and making cakes from felt and sponge: what would I have done without you! Matt, my best friend, protector and ally: thank you for believing in me, for spurring me on, and for making me dinner – for once, I don’t have enough words… The teachers who pushed me onward and upward should be recognised here: Mr Swan, for calling me ‘Jo’, and Mr Hamblin, for my introduction to Psychology. Finally, thank you to my parents and grandparents for giving me ‘roots and wings’, and for unfailingly knowing I could do it. 5 Table of Contents TABLE OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9 TABLE OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. 11 LIST OF FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 14 1.1 RATIONALE AND APPROACH .............................................................................................................. 14 1.1.1 What is problem solving? ................................................................................................ 14 1.1.2 Why study problem solving in neurodevelopmental disorders? ...................................... 15 1.1.3 Neuroconstructivism and neurodevelopmental disorders ............................................... 16 1.1.4 Using developmental trajectories .................................................................................... 16 1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 17 1.2.1 Williams syndrome (WS) and Down syndrome (DS) ........................................................ 17 1.2.2 Problem solving ............................................................................................................... 24 1.2.3 Executive functioning (EF) ............................................................................................... 36 1.2.4 Problem solving outside the laboratory .......................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 2: EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES OF EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND PROBLEM SOLVING .......... 63 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 63 2.1.1 Links between executive functioning and TOL performance ........................................... 63 2.1.2 The current study ............................................................................................................. 64 2.2 METHOD ...................................................................................................................................... 68 2.2.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 68 2.2.2 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................... 69 2.2.3 Overall design and procedure .......................................................................................... 70 2.2.4 Task-specific outlines ....................................................................................................... 71 2.3 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 90 2.3.1 TOL coding ....................................................................................................................... 90 2.3.2 TOL scoring ...................................................................................................................... 92 2.3.3 Analyses and parametric assumptions ............................................................................ 94 2.3.4 Matched group comparisons ........................................................................................... 95 2.3.5 Relationships between EF and TOL tasks ....................................................................... 106 2.4 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................ 118 2.4.1 TOL................................................................................................................................. 119 2.4.2 Chronological age (CA) .................................................................................................. 121 2.4.3 RCPM and TOL score...................................................................................................... 121 2.4.4 BPVS .............................................................................................................................. 123 6 2.4.5 Planning ......................................................................................................................... 124 2.4.6 Working memory ........................................................................................................... 127 2.4.7 Inhibition ....................................................................................................................... 131 2.4.8 Shifting .......................................................................................................................... 138 2.4.9 Chapter summary