H'llW

lHllli

l |1111

1 l

113

127

THS

THE APPLECABIUW OF THE

SEMANTiC DiFFERENTiAL TO

PRESCHOOL AGE CHiLDREN

Thesis for the Degree of M. A.

MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSETY

PHYLLBS J. JONES

1958

mesqs

»1.1853512 Yr 4'

Michigan dram

W

I.n.-I—a- 7“ n" a o' I

‘

V BINDING BY

HOAE & SflNS’Manny mc.

BIIn:Dc

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

PLACE IN RETURN BOX3 1293 1039

to remove this checkout from your record.

To AVOID FINE return on or before date due.

MTE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

,- i Wm,

FEB IVAN}"ii“ 0

we «cramps-p.14

ABSTRACT

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

TO PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN

by Phyllis J. Jones

Recent investigations in the area of language develOp-

ment have evidenced a mutual concern by psychologists and

linguists to understand the systematic nature of language

to discover the underlying structures or rules behind changes

during this deve10pment. One aSpect of this study, semantics,

has focused on the investigation into meanings individuals

attach to objects and concepts. The Semantic Differential

has become the most extensively used method in studying

meaning structures, but has had a very limited use with

children. Several researchers have suggested this technique

be adapted for use with very young children by administering

it orally, but no attempt has been made to use the Semantic

Differential to measure connotative meanings of concepts

across the three factoral dimensions (Evaluative, Potency,

Activity) with this group.

The main purpose of this investigation, therefore, was

to eXplore the feasibility of administering an oral form of

this technique to preschool age children. Also an analysis

Phyllis J. Jones

of obtained results was made in order to discover what

meanings very young children attach to concepts as well

as to explore the bases of these meanings.

The sample included sixty-five children ranging in age

from 42 to 66 months. There were thirty-two boys and

thirty-three girls, selected from the Michigan State Univer—

sity Laboratory Pre-School.

The Semantic Differential technique was modified for

use with these very young children. Two equivalent forms

of an oral individually administered questionnaire including

nine concepts rated on six three-point bipolar adjective

scales were designed as the instruments for the investigation.

The selected concepts and bipolar adjectives were carefully

chosen to insure that the children were familiar with them

and had meanings attached to these words.

Statistical measures used to analyze the data indicated

that the number of these familiar task items completed in-

creased with age increment. Based on the children's per-

formance on this orally administered questionnaire the tech—

nique was found to be generally inapprOpriate with subjects

under 48 months of age. Children 48 months of age and older

were able to reSpond to the questionnaire, however, as was

evidenced by the ceiling effect found in the mean number of

items completed by the older preschoolers.

Analysis done to discover what connotative meanings

very young children attached to the selected concepts showed

2

Phyllis J. Jones

the following trends: a) Meaning systems similar to those

an adult in our society might be expected to use in describ—

ing the concepts with the bipolar adjectives provided seemed

to be develOping. b) Familial concepts included received

similar ratings by boy and girl subjects. c) Sex differ-

entiated ratings seemed to appear in relation to the concepts

BOY and GIRL. An eXploration of the meanings attached to

the selected concepts indicated that the majority of the

children used sensory eXperiences as their bases.

The findings of this exploratory study, that the Seman-

tic Differential is feasible with very young children, in

addition to the resulting trends in the connotative meanings

shown using this technique, would support the recommendation

that investigators make further application of this method

in research with preschool age children.

THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

TO PRESCHOOL AGE CHILDREN

BY

.1 fl

Phyllis J? Jones

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Home Management and

Child DevelOpment

1968

AL7

->

1

I.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Special appreciation is expressed to Miss Phyllis

E. Lueck for her guidance, encouragement and patience

in directing this study. Because of her supportive atti-

tude, this has been a valuable learning eXperience.

Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Vera Borosage,

Dr. Louise Sause, and Dr. Beatrice Paolucci for their

guidance and helpful suggestions.

For their assistance with data collection, sincere

thanks is extended to Miss HOpe Schweitzer and Mrs. Sharon

Stolz. Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Sarah Hervey and

Mr. William Logan for their assistance with the statistical

analysis.

An eXpression of appreciation is also extended to

Miss Barbara Neumann, Miss Colleen McNally, Miss Karen

McNally, Mr. Gerald Schwab and. Mr. Fred Hahn for their

helpfulness and encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . . . 2

Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . 5

Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Semantic Differential . . . . . . . 10

III. METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Pretesting the Instrument . . . . . . . 20

Administration of the Instrument. . . . 21

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

IV. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

V 0 DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 50

VI. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . 58

Implications for Research . . . . . . . 40

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE

I. Chi-Square Values Obtained in Analysis of Test-

Retest Reliabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Percentage of Consistent Test-Retest ReSponses.

FIGURE

1. Excerpts from Questionnaire Forms' Score Sheets

showing positional rotations of adjective pairs

2. Concepts and bipolar adjectives employed in the

stUdy O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O

5. Mean number of items completed by groups. . . .

iv

Page

29

29

19

25

27

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Language develoPment has been the object of extensive

research by both linguists and child psychologists, because

it is the prime communication vehicle among men and is so

closely related to thought. Reference to recent reviews

of research in this area (Carroll, 1966; Ervin-Tripp,

McCarthy, 1954) give evidence of the magnitude of these

studies.

A current area of research, psycholinguistics, has

evolved as a result of a mutual concern about language and

verbal behavior by linguists and psychologists. As defined

by Osgood, "psycholinguistics is concerned in the broadest

sense with relations between messages and the characteris-

tics of human individuals who select and interpret them"

(Osgood & Sebeok, 1965). One aSpect of this research, focus-

ing on the investigation into meanings individuals attach

to objects and concepts, is called semantics. The best

known method for measuring the meaning of objects and con-

cepts is the Semantic Differential devised by Osgood and his

associates (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957). Extensive

research has been done with this technique and it has been

found to be very useful in studying meaning structures,

since a quantitative measure is obtainable (Kerlinger, 1966;

Remmers, 1965). This technique has been chiefly used with

adults,‘however, and has had a very limited usage with

children (Church, 1961; Ervin-Tripp, 1966). Several research-

ers have suggested that the Semantic Differential could

easily be adapted for preschool age children by administering

it orally (Ervin-Tripp, 1966; Lilly, 1965: Small, 1958), but

only one researcher (Williams, 1967) investigating racial

attitudes has attempted to use this technique with these

children. Using only the evaluative factor, this latter study

seemed to indicate that the technique was usable with very

young children since the results were consistent with adult

ratings on a similar investigation.

Purpose of the Study

Since no systematic attempt has been made to use the

Semantic Differential with very young children to measure

connotative meanings of concepts across the three factoral

dimensions (Evaluative, Potency, Activity) as described by

Osgood, this study will explore the administrability of an

oral form of this technique with children ranging in age

from 42 to 66 months. This study will endeavor to determine

if a modified Semantic Differential is feasible with pre-

school age children. An analysis of obtained results will

also be made in order to discover what meanings young

children attach to concepts as well as to explore the bases

of these meanings.

1.

Operational Definitions

Dimensional factors--Refers to aSpects of concept meaning

measured by bipolar adjectives as categorized by Osgood

and his associates. Factors included in this study are:

Evaluative (E) good-bad, clean-dirty, happy—sad; Potency

(P) large-small, hard—soft; Activity (A) fast-slow.

Neutrality—-Refers to the type of reSponse which indicates

that the bipolar adjectives are not relevant to the

particular concept.

Assumptions

The children are familiar with the concepts (nouns) and

bipolar adjectives used in the study and have meanings

attached to these signs (words) (Church, 1961; Osgood &

Sebeok, 1965). The following criteria were used in the

selection of words used: (a) The concepts and bipolar

adjectives are within the children's experiential back-

ground. (b) These words are used in nursery rhymes and

storybooks that have been read to the children in nursery

school. (c) The words elicited responses and definitive

comments in the pilot study.

2.

II.

Preschool age children can understand oral directions

and select from the bipolar adjectives presented in re-

lation to the concepts included in this study (Anastasi,

1960). Results of the pilot study seem to indicate

this.

Objectives

To determine if the Semantic Differential as modified

for this study is feasible with preschool age children.

To discover trends in meanings attached to selected con-

cepts by young children.

To explore the bases of these meanings.

Hypotheses

The number of items completed by the children will in-

crease as age increases.

The incidence of neutral responses to those items irrel-

evant to concepts rated will increase as children's age

increases.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Through the years the focus of research on language

deveIOpment of the preschool age child has shown much

variety. Starting in the 1890's the investigations were

chiefly longitudinal diary studies of brief content reports.

These studies were of a descriptive nature, and generally

neglected any investigation of the relation of thought to

language (Berko and Brown, 1960). Examples of this type of

research are found in The Twenty-eighth Eggrbook of the

National Societyyfor the Study of Education (1929), which

includes abstracts of 125 published studies on language de-

velOpment of children from three through five years. These

studies primarily involved the investigation of vocabulary

and sentence structure through verbatim recordings of

children's conversations in play as the main source of data.

Only Piaget (1926), using the diary method, attempted to

study thought processes via a study of language develOpment.

A transition in the focus of research from the diary

method to quantitatively measurable aSpects of language

(e.g., articulation errors, picture-naming) occurred in the

latter part of the 1920's and predominated the work of the

1950's. Wellman, Case, Mengert and Bradbury (1951), for

example, attempted to study the deveIOpment of articulation

in young children. In this investigation children's verbal

reSponses were obtained by showing them toys and pictures.

Their interest was in the child's phonetic develOpment be—

tween two and six years of age. Data collected was tran-

scribed into the International Phonetic Alphabet and included

155 sounds (66 consonants, 48 consonant blends, 15 vowels,

and 4 dipthongs).

About this time seeking improved measures of vocabulary

growth a number of vocabulary tests for preschool children

were developed including Smith (1926), Van Alstyne (1929).

and Williams and McFarland (1957). Smith's test included

205 items from the Thorndike (1921) Word Book. Presenting

an object or a picture the examiner questioned the child

about the word. Subjects included 244 children ranging in

age from eight months to six years. The sample used for

standardizing the test has been criticized (Irwin, 1960),

because the number of subjects from the upper and lower

ends of the mental scale was greater than would be found in

a normal distribution. Reliability of the test was obtained

by administering two halves of the test to 55 children rang-

ing in age from four to six years. Though the number of

correct scores increased with age progression, there was no

explanation about the discriminating power or the uniqueness

of the items.

In 1957 Williams and McFarland revised the Smith Vocab—

ulary Test. This test had two forms, each comprised of 42

items. It was administered to children between the ages of

27 and 74 months. Standardization was based on 559 sub-

jects and there has been criticism of the sample used.

Because the children used were either of superior and above

intelligence or of low socioeconomic status and below aver-

age intelligence, it was felt these subjects were not typical

of the pOpulation. Test reliability was determined by the

(correlation between scores on Form I and Form II for the

sample (.96i.OO5). For this test the order of difficulty

of items was determined.

Van Alstyne's (1929) vocabulary test was designed for

use with three year olds. In this test the child was asked

to select the correct item from a card with four pictures.

Forty-five cards comprised the test which included 51 nouns

and 14 verbs. Eighty children from 55 to 59 months of age

were used to standardize the test. The reliability corre-

lation of the test was 0.87. Van Alstyne's test also was

usable with children between the ages of two and five years.

Shirley (1958) did a content analysis study of the

Speech of preschool children in an attempt to see which part

of language content was an outgrowth from within the child's

own body and which was superimposed from without. ,Studies

like this contributed to research information, but were quite

Specific and limited in content by the means or source of

data collection. Shirley, for example, collected data from

children's conversation at an all day health clinic. .Such

a setting indeed affected the content of the language

samples.

Not until the 1940's, however, did researchers investi-

gate the relationship between language develOpment and intel-

lectual development in a theoretical context, thereby provid-

ing a framework for the comparison of children's verbal

growth across cultures. Velten (1945) investigated phonemic

structures by recording all of the meaningful Speech forms

Spoken by his daughter, Joan, from age 11 to 56 months. Those

phonemes used with consistency in relation to referents were

considered meaningful. This research, though limited to one

subject, offered a technique for comparison of phoneme usage

between English Speaking children and adults and also gave a

base for studies of foreign languages to investigate similar

occurrences between child and adult language.

Since Velten's work, research has manifested an even

greater linking of psychology and linguistics, and has sought

to understand the systematic nature of language to discover

the underlying structures or rules behind changes during lan-

guage develOpment. Investigators have more actively involved

young children in research through conversation and question-

ing in an attempt to gain an understanding of the child's

thought processes in language. Patrina (1959), for example,

found preschool children could use words concretely before

they could use them abstractly. Through talking with the

children he discovered 79% of his sample understood "deep

water" but only 15% understood "deep secret."

Studying the young child's morphological system, Berko

(1958) devised an interesting technique to explore whether

children understood and had developed a systematic base for

supplying English inflexions, derivations, and compounds of

words, or were merely doing this in their language by chance.

Her sample included preschool and first-grade children, whom

she asked to supply, for example, a compound word, in relation

to a picture She showed them labeled with a nonsense word.

Berko believed that the child's ability to do this task would

indicate that he had develOped a grammatical base. Giving

a correct word form in relation to some other known object

might occur due to the experience of hearing the plural word

form and not necessarily Show that a child had an internalized

system.

.Ervin and Foster (1960) conducted an interesting study

to investigate the develoPment of meanings in children's

descriptive terms. Using physical dimensions of size, weight

and strength (i.e., big, heavy, strong) varied in a Specially

prepared set of materials, the subjects were asked to dis-

criminate between two objects which were identical except for

one dimension. The sample included first and sixth graders

and it was found that the younger group often used the three

dimensions interchangeably as synonyms.

10

Research into the meanings of words, semantics, has

become extensive recently via a technique called the Semantic

Differential, but little has been done with children. Susan

Ervin-Tripp (1966) emphasized this in saying, "It is sur-

prising that the best known system for assessing connotative

structures, the Semantic Differential, has seldom been used

with children."

The Semantic Differential

The Semantic Differential was a technique devised by

Charles E. Osgood and his associates to measure the connota-

tive meanings of words. Prerequisite to the development of

such a method the assumption must be made that words general-

ly have shared meanings. Kerlinger (1966, p. 564) in dis-

cussing this idea stated, "Any concept, then has a common

cultural meaning. It also has other meanings, some of them

Shared by different groups of peOple, some of them more or

less idiosyncratic."

The technique involves an individual rating a number of

concepts (e.g., MOTHER) on a series of 7 point bipolar ad-

jective scales (e.g., good-bad). The scales represent a

number of dimensions of which the evaluative, potency and

activity factors (E,P,A) have been chiefly investigated.

The notion of using polar adjectives to define dimensions of

a concept deve10ped as a result of research by Theodore

Karwaski and Henry Odbert at Dartmouth College in the late

11

1950's (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957).

The idea of bipolar adjectives falling into dimensional

factors (E,P,A) occurred early in the develOpment of this

technique. When investigators found that many of the ad—

jective pairs (e.g., good-bad, clean-dirty) were clearly

evaluative in nature, but some of the pairs (e.g., strong-

weak, realistic-unrealistic) were independent of the evalu-

ative group, this seemed to indicate the existence of other

dimensions of the semantic framework (Osgood, Suci, and

Tannenbaum, 1957).

The bipolar adjectives that were not in the evaluative

category were examined for clustering, that is, were certain

adjective pairs interrelated (e.g., strong-weak and large-

small are generally associated with each other)? Two clus-

ters of adjective pairs were found and designated the potency

and activity factors. Though the adjective pairs in these

categories have been found to be contaminated with the evalu-

ative factor, the dimensions have been retained in order to

balance the scales for measurement purposes. An example of

contamination was found in the adjective pair 'rough-smooth.‘

These adjectives mainly reflected the potency category, but

also had evaluative meaning as well.

In using the Semantic Differential technique Special

considerations were emphasized as important in the creation

of an instrument for research. Osgood discussed the need

for a careful selection of the concepts to be rated with the

12

bipolar adjective scales. The concepts should be selected

on the basis of their relevancy to the research problem.

Also an attempt should be made to choose concepts with

ratings that will be distributed across the dimensional

factors. That is, the investigator Should choose concepts

(e.g., PLAYING and CRYING) that are likely to have different

ratings on the adjective scales (e.g., good-bad; fast-slow)

(Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum, 1957).

A second important consideration emphasized by Osgood

is the selection of apprOpriate scales or adjective pairs.

Two criteria are used in the selection: (1) the representa-

tiveness of the bipolar adjectives to the dimensional factors,

(2) the relevance of the adjectives to the concepts used.

Analysis of data was discussed extensively by Osgood.

Factor analysis was suggested as the most appropriate method,

but this was in relation to a large number of concepts (10

or more) rated on approximately 20 scales by a sample of at

least 100 subjects.

Most studies cited in the literature that have used the

Semantic Differential technique have been with adults,

eSpecially college students. These studies have involved

attitude assessment, studies in psycholinguistics, in adver-

tising and in aesthetics to name a few of the areas of appli-

cation.

Researchers' application of the Semantic Differential to

young children has been very limited. Small (1958) investi-

gated the similarities and differences in the semantic

15

structure of children in relation to age and sex. Her sample

was comprised of 275 third, sixth and ninth grade boys and

girls. The subjects rated 24 concepts on 16 bipolar adjective

scales. Nine of the scales represented the three factors

defined by Osgood (E,P,A) and seven other scales of theoreti-

cal interest to the investigator were included. Results

seemed to indicate that a similar factor structure existed

over the age and sex groups selected for the study. Small

suggested as a result that the Semantic Differential needed

to be used with even younger children to study deve10pmental

trends.

In 1961 Donahue had four grOUpS of 50 subjects each,

with mean ages of 7, 9, 12 and 22 years, rate concepts in

order to test for differences in meanings as a function of

abstraction level of the Sign. ,Half the subjects at each

age level rated pictures and half rated words. Ten concepts

including words as SQUIRREL, FLOWER, and LION were rated on

nine Semantic Differential scales, three for each major

factor (E,P,A).

Individual testing was employed with the seven year olds,

because of their limited reading ability. Factor analysis

and analysis of variance were used and showed Significant

effects due to age level. The results suggested that the

semantic Space for children was more restricted than it was

for adults. Due to the limited number of scales and concepts

used, however, it was difficult to draw any firm conclusions

14

with regard to the dimensionality of the semantic Space for

children. The abstraction level of the Sign (picture versus

word) was found to have no effect on the ratings. Reliability

measures were not obtained.

Another study utilizing the Semantic Differential to

investigate the development of connotative meanings as a

function of age was done by Maltz (1965). Seven concepts in-

cluding CANDY, SUN, and FRIEND, were rated on 9 five point

bipolar scales. Four school grades comprised the sample: 17

second, 25 fourth, 26 sixth and 25 college reSpectively. The

grade school children were individually tested. Chi-square

was used to test the difference between age levels on each

factor for each concept. ,Results showed significant differ-

ences between groups and suggested that the Semantic Differ—

ential was usable in studying changes in connotative meaning.

The study also served to Show that the Semantic Differential

could be used with younger children. No reliability indiceS

were given.

Lilly (1965) attempted to systematically study the de-

ve10pmental changes in the dimensionality of the affective

meaning system. He examined the dimensions of affective

meaning as a function of age and compared the obtained

"semantic factors" for cross-age similarity. Twenty concepts

were rated on 28 eleven point bipolar adjective scales. Two

concepts (MY MOTHER and ELEPHANT) were repeated and Showed

that the Semantic Differential ratings were reliable (.96)

with children as young as the third grade. A three-mode

15

factor analysis of data was used. The sample included 96

third, 110 fourth, and 107 Sixth graders and 100 high school

students. Results seemed to indicate a high consistency

with Osgood's three dimensions--evaluation, potency, and

activity. There was a representation of factors at each age

level. .An_examination of the scaling showed that the older

children tended to use more scale factors (seven versus five).

Because the children as young as the third grade possessed

the major factors of affective meaning, Lilly suggested

that still younger age groups should be used in further

investigations.

Also investigating the developmental emergence of chil-

drens affective meaning system, DiVesta (1966) applied the

Semantic Differential to children from the second through

sixth grades. One hundred subjects from each grade level

rated 20 concepts (e.g., TEACHER, LAMB, ENEMY) on the three

major meaning factors (E,P,A) plus those of novelty, reality,

tautness, and warmth. Results indicated that these factors

could be considered as reliable dimensions of the children's

use of language. This study seemed to Show that the deve10p-

ment of connotative meaning was quite stable by the time the

child was in the second grade.

The only attempt to apply the Semantic Differential to

children below the grade school level was done by Williams

(1967). In an investigation of racial attitudes he used the

evaluative aSpect of the technique to study children's

16

connotative meanings with regard to the Negro and CaucasifiK/

races. His sample was comprised of 111 Caucasion preschool

children ranging in age from 55 to 81 months. Results indi-

cated that the Semantic Differential seemed to have potential

as a means of investigating evaluative meanings of very young

children, that could be compared to adult measures. Williams

suggested that this technique might be used in further racial

studies with the very young child and that the method might

also be employed in the assessment of other attitudes in

young children.

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Utilizing the Semantic Differential with very young

children necessitated careful planning and a number of

modifications in the technique. An individual, oral admin-

istration of selected concepts and bipolar adjectives was

employed due to the inappropriateness of the usual written

format to these nonreaders. In addition, the bipolar

adjective scales were modified considerably from the seven

point rating scale as designed by Osgood to a possible three

point scale. This degree of simplification was done because

a prime focus of this research was to discover if the very

young child could choose between alternative bipolar ad-

jectives. It was felt that the inclusion of a more elabor-

ate scale would only serve to increase the difficulty of

the task and possibly limit the child's ability to reSpond.

The third rating position available, neutrality, was for

children's reSponses which indicated that neither of the

adjectives presented was relevant to the particular concept

being rated (i.e., FLOWER: fast—slow).

Special care was taken in selecting the concepts and

the bipolar adjectives for this study. Words chosen were

within the children's experimential background and were

17

18‘

contained in books for very young children found in the

nursery school., In the selection of concepts one additional

criterion was used: they could have been experienced through

a number of the child's five senses (i.e., MOTHER--touch,

sight, hearing).

The bipolar adjectives that were selected were divided

among the evaluative, potency, and activity dimensions. -An

attempt was made to include concepts and ratings that would

be distributed across the dimensional factors and rating

scales.

In order to prevent chance meaning patterns from occur-

ring due to the repetitious presentation of words to the

children, two equivalent forms of a questionnaire were made.

These forms included the same concepts with a reversal of

the bipolar adjectives presentation order (Note Figure 1).1

In addition, rotations of adjective pairs were made within

one questionnaire form in order to offer variety to the

instrument. For example, 'happy-sad' moved vertically from

being the second pair presented in relation to BABY to the

first pair presented in relation to CANDY. Horizontally,

the order of presentation was rotated from 'happy-sad' in

relation to BABY to 'sad-happy' in relation to CANDY.

1Figure 1--Entire Questionnaire Form I Score Sheet

found in Appendix.

Figure 1.

19

Excerpts from Questionnaire Forms' Score Sheets

showing positional rotations of adjective pairs.

bad

happy

small

clean

slow

hard

sad

large

clean

slow

hard

good

Form I Score Sheet

BABY

N

CANDY

good

sad

large

dirty

fast

soft

happy

small

dirty

fast

soft

bad

NR

NR

good

sad

large

dirty

fast

soft

happy

small

dirty

fast

soft

bad

Form II Score Sheet

BABY

N

CANDY

NR

bad

happy

small

clean

Slow

hard

NR

sad

large

clean

slow

hard

good

Specific criteria for test termination were also established.

These were:

(1) If the subject gave four "no reSponse' or 'I don't

know' replies, or a combination of these in succes-

sion, the examiner proceeded to the next concept.

If he again elicited two similar reSponses in suc-

cession,

(2)

testing was terminated.

Perseverance--If the child selected the final ad-

jective Spoken five times in succession for one

concept, the examiner proceeded to the next concept.

With two additional successive reSponses of the

final adjective Spoken, test termination occurred.

20

Pretesting the Instrument

A study was conducted to determine whether the direc-

tions were easily understood by a preschool age child and

whether the selected concepts and bipolar adjectives seemed

appropriate for him. Since the attention Span of young chil-

dren tendstx>be of short duration, the length of time for

testing was noted.

Results of pretesting the instrument indicated the need

for the following changes:

(1)

(2)

The concept, SPANKING, was eliminated beCause the

children evaded rating this word. Reactions to be-

ing asked this concept included refusal to talk

about it, shifts in the conversation to another

subject, and requests to terminate the game. This

examiner believed that the intensity of the chil—

drenfiemotional identification with this concept

was too great for many of them to rate it.

The number of bipolar adjective pairs was reduced

from nine to six in order to decrease the length

of the questionnaire. One pair of adjectives from

each of the dimensional factors was eliminated.

The average time needed to administer the question-

naire was fifteen minutes per child. It was ob-

served that most of the children attended to the

task for approximately ten minutes without

21

difficulty and then appeared restless and less

reSponsive to the questions.

Administration of the Instrument

Four examiners, experienced in working with very young

children, administered the questionnaire. This number of

examiners was needed, because the eXperimenter, as teacher

of one of the four groups included in the study would possibly

bias the data by testing them. Each examiner tested an equal

portion of the sample. To insure conformity in testing the

following Special measures were taken: (1) Written copies

of testing procedures were given to the examiners and

(2) practice sessions for administering the questionnaire were

conducted.

Prior to data collection each examiner Spent time in the

nursery school groups in order to establish rapport with the

children. When she felt that the children had accepted her

she approached the child and said:

(Child's Name), I brought a game to school today and

I'd like to play it with you. You can have your turn

now.

Most of the children reSponded to the request and willingly

went with an examiner to a testing room. If a child refused

an examiner's invitation, a second examiner approached him

on another day. If a second refusal was made, the child was

deleted from the study. Of a possible sample of sixty-eight

children, only three were not included in the study.

22

Sixty-five children from the four groups of the Michigan

State University Laboratory Pre-School served as subjects

for the study. Ranging in age from 42 to 66 months, the

sample consisted of thirty-two boys and thirty-three girls.

A pretest was included to assure the children's ability

to select between alternatives and to offer them a practice

sample. One concept, APPLE, was presented for rating on

three bipolar adjective scales not included in the question-

naire (little-big, black-red, sweet-sour). To introduce the

practice sample and continue with the questionnaire, the

examiner said:

I have a game I'd like to play with you. This is the

way we play. First I say a word, like APPLE. Then

I'll ask you a question. Now listen, is an APPLE big

or little?

Assured that the child understood the task, by his reSponses

to the sample item,.the examiner then asked the child to

rate nine selected concepts on Six adjective scales (see

Figure 22). In order to determine the reliability of the

children's ratings, one concept, CANDY, was repeated in the

questionnaire administration.

Alternative ways used to introduce concepts included:

1. Ready 5. Let's try

2. Next 4. Now

In order to maintain interest and encourage the child to

continue, supportive reSponses such as hmm, okay, oh, ufifi,

uh-huh, and ahh were used.

25

Figure 2. Concepts and Bipolar Adjectives employed in the

study.

CONCEPTS

BABY I CRYING GIRL

BOY FATHER MOTHER

CANDY FLOWERS PLAYING

BIPOLAR ADJECTIVES

Sgale Qimensional_§actors

good - bad Evaluative (E)

clean - dirty Evaluative (E)

(happy - sad >Evaluative (E)

hard - soft Potency (P)

large - small Potency (P)

fast - slow Activity (A)

24

Because both bipolar adjectives, were sometimes applic-

able to a concept being rated, children selected both ad-

jectives (i.e., BOY: large-small). When this occurred the

examiner noted this and then asked:

Which one is (concept) most of the time?

This procedure attempted to have the child select that adjec-

tive which seemed most applicable to the concept, as the

predominant meaning was sought.

In the case of run reSponse the examiner indicated this

on the score sheet and then repeated the alternatives once

again before proceeding to the next set of bipolar adjec-

tives. If a response of “I don't know" was elicited in rela-

tion to a set of alternatives, this was noted on the score

sheet and the next set of alternatives was presented.

A place was included on the score sheet for noting

'neutral reSponses' (i.e., a child replied that neither

alternative presented in relation to a concept being rated

was applicable).

Additional data on the meanings the children attached

to the concepts was also recorded. Upon the completion of

the rating of a concept, the child was asked in relation to

the final selection from bipolar adjectives presented:

How do you know (concept, e.g., BABY) is (adjective,

e.g., soft)? or why is (concept) (adjective)?

25

Data Collection

The data was collected within a four day period, during

the morning and afternoon sessions of the nursery school.

Three hours each day were used for testing. Approximately

Sixteen children were tested each day within two rooms of

the nursery school. Each was furnished with a child sized

table and two child sized chairs.

Retesting was done after a two week time lapse so that

the stability of ratings over a short period of time could

be examined. Twenty-five of the original sample, who had

completed the questionnaire, were retested on five randomly

selected concepts. The children were administered the alter-

nate forms on the retest.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The hypotheses to be tested were:

I The number of items completed by the children will

increase as age increaSes.

II The incidence of neutral reSponses to those items

irrelevant to concepts rated will increase as age

increases.

The first hypothesis predicting the effect of age in-

crement on the child's ability to complete task items was

tested by means of the Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of

Variance by Ranks. For this analysis the children were

grouped by Six month age intervals as follows:

Age in Months N

Group I 60—66 20

Group II 54-60 15

Group III 48-54 12

Group IV 42-48 18

This statistic was used to test the independence of the four

age groups on task performance. The significance level was

set at .05, therefore, a chi-square value of at least 7.82

with three degrees of freedom was needed. Because the ob-

tained value of 252.425 was Significant, the conclusion that

26

27

the number of items completed varies significantly with age

can be drawn.

In order to determine the directionality of the rela-

tion between age and task performance, the mean number of

items completed by each of the four age groups was calcu-

lated. These results show that although there is no linear

relation, the number of items completed increases with age

increment (Figure 5). Note the difference between the mean

Figure 5. .Mean number of items completed by groups.

1 52.50 52.1550__ 50.40

40-.

34-5650.1;

20 4..

101-

Age in M08. 42-48 48-54 54-60 60-66

GrouP IV III II I

N 18 12 15 20

5 19.117 5.09 5.94 9.01

number of items completed by GrouP IV and the remaining

groups. In examining Figure 5 one sees that the mean number

of items completed by the oldest subjects, GrOUp I, is

slightly less than that of Groups II and III. This discrep-

ancy may be accounted for by the small number of subjects in

28

each age category. Generally what is shown is a ceiling

effect, considering that the total number of items in the

instrument is 54.

The second hypothesis was tested using a Pearson

product-moment correlation between age in months and number

of neutral reSponses elicited. The obtained coefficient

of .05 did not meet the .05 level of significance. As a

result the second hypothesis was not supported.

The reliabilities of internal and test-retest ratings

were tested by the chi-square test of independence. A sig-

nificance level was set at .05. The number of subjects in

the retest sample was 27.

In testing the internal reliabilities of the six bi-

polar ratings on the concept, CANDY, which was repeated once

in the original test administration, only one rating on the

adjective pair 'good-bad' was significant at the .05 level.

The reliabilities of test-retest ratings on the five

concepts readministered to the subjects after a two week

time lapse were determines. Table I indicates those ratings

significant at the .05 level.

Although chi-square was the apprOpriate statistic to

use with the ordinal dichotomized measures obtained in this

study, it posed a serious limitation. This statistic favors

a true dichotomy (i.e., an equivalent chance that one item

will occur as another; .5 probability). The dichotomies

presented in the Semantic Differential are not of this nature.

29

Table I. Chi-square Values Obtained in Analysis of Test-

Retest Reliabilities*

h

“— _:_

BABY CANDY PLAYING FATHER GIRL

good - bad 24.141

clean - dirty

happy - sad 4.508

large - small

hard - soft 5.821 4.197 10.751

fast - slow 6.750

*= .05, x2 5.84

For example, the probabilities of a child selecting either

word from the adjective pair 'large - small' in relation to

the concept, FATHER, is not .5. Because of this limitation,

a number of highly consistent ratings did not achieve sig—

nificance. In order to Show this, the percentage of con-

sistent reSponses was calculated (Table II).

Table II. Percentage of Consistent Test-Retest Responses

Internal Ratings Test-Retest Ratings

CANDY BABY CANDY PLAYING FATHER GIRL

good - bad 81 68 72 64 85 62

clean - dirty 81 68 96 64 85 74

happy - sad 78 56 67 46 95 70

large - small 65 89 58 64 89 61

hard - soft 72 75 71 68 81 57

fast - slow 59 81 57 70 78 67

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

A purpose of this research was to determine if a modi-

fied Semantic Differential is feasible with preschool age

children. Of the subjects included in this investigation,

ranging in age from 42 to 66 months, this investigator feels

this technique as modified for this study is generally not

apprOpriate to use with children under 48 months of age.

Although the number of children falling into this age cate-

gory was limited, 18, the fact that only seven completed

the task raises question about the value of administering

the instrument to such young children. The attention Span

of the three year olds to this orally administered task was

quite short. These children became satiated with this game

that only offered them a supportive verbal encouragement for

their Spoken reSponses to questions. AS a result the chil-

dren asked to terminate playing or began to persevere in

their responses to questionnaire items. The 48 to 66 month

old children were almost all able to complete the task

(only 4 out of 47 did not finish the questionnaire). The

significant results in support of Hypothesis I concerning

the increase in the number of task items completed with age

50

51

increment also seems to indicate the greater ability of the

four year old child to attend to this task. The marked dif-

ference in the performance of Group IV (42—48 mos.) as com-

pared to Group III (48-54 mos.) raises a question of whether

there is a significant developmental advance during this

time which effects the child's ability to be tested or is

this only a chance occurrence.

The fact that Hypothesis II was not supported in this

investigation may be the result of the sample and/or instru-

ment design. Since only 15 of the 65 subjects elicited

neutral reSponses, this suggests the possibility of a weak-

ness. The instrument as designed for this study did not give

the child a choice between bipolar adjective pairs and a

neutral reSponse. Rather it offered the child a choice be-

tween bipolar adjectives and only provided a place on the

score sheet for the examiner to note a neutral reSponse, if

the child stated that the alternative adjectives presented

were not applicable to the concept being rated. AS a result

the investigation does not determine if (1) most of the

children were incapable of making neutral reSponses, or

(2) the children recognized the inapprOpriateness of some

of the adjective pairs to concepts being rated, but felt com-

pelled to reSpond within the bounds of the alternatives

presented. Future investigations might include the neutral

alternative as a possible choice in an attempt to study the

very young child's ability to make such a discrimination.

52

Further examination of the neutral reSponse data was

made in order to see if the children giving these responses

were distinguishable from the total sample. It was found

that subjects eliciting neutral reSponses ranged in age from

50 to 66 months. An unusual discovery, however, was the

fact that although the sample had an equivalent number of

boys and girls distributed over the representative ages, 11

of the 15 subjects giving neutral responses were boys.l

This phenomenon offers possibilities for further exten-

sive investigation. Could this occurrence possibly indicate

a difference in the cognitive develOpment of boys and girls?

Is this difference possibly due to the types of behavior

fostered by our society in relation to the sexes (e.g.,

girls may be encouraged to stay within the bounds of Speci-

fied directions and rules, but boys may be encouraged to

assert themselves and voice Opposition when they do not agree

with specified ruleS)?

Although analysis showed few Significant test-retest

reliabilities on the concept repeated in the original test

administration and five concepts included in the retest, the

calculated percentages of consistent test-retest reSponses

lA Mann-Whitney U-Test was done to determine if this was

a chance happening or of Significance. This tested, on the

basis of the number of neutral reSponses elicited, if these

groups (boys vs. girls) were drawn from the same pOpulation.

Analysis of data resulted in the rejection of the null hy-

pothesis of no difference at the .025 level of significance.

55

generally showed a notable degree of stability in ratings

(see Table II, page 29).

For example, the reSponses on the three evaluative ad-

jective pairs (good-bad, clean-dirty, happy-sad) in relation

to the concept CANDY, which tested the internal reliability

of the original test administration ratings, showed approxi-

mately an 80% retest consistency. Also, noteworthy, were all

Six of the test-retest reSponses on bipolar adjective pairs

in relation to the concept FATHER. These reSponses ranged

from 78-95% consistent from the first to the second adminis-

tration. Considering the subjects highly consistent retest

reSponses on the concept FATHER after a two week time lapse,

it is likely that the reliabilities of ratings on concepts

in the original test are higher than might be eXpected on

the basis of measures obtained on the concept selected to

determine internal test rating reliabilities.

Content analysis of the reSponses to the Semantic Differ-

ential scales was made in an endeavor to discover what con-

notative meanings these very young children attach to the

selected concepts in this investigation. All subjects com-

pleting the questionnaire between 48 and 66 months of age

were included.1

Analysis was made with reSpect to sex, age differences

and the total group. Only those findings which help to

lThis investigator felt the small number of subjects

between 42 and 48 months of age completing the questionnaire

was too few to include in this analysis.

54

eXplain meaning trends found through this analysis are re-

ported. One trend was that the children seemed to be estab-

lishing meaning systems that are similar to those an adult

in our society might be expected to use in describing the

selected concepts with the bipolar adjectives provided.

For example, the concept PLAYING was rated as 'happy' by

.718 of the subjects but only .199 rated the concept CRYING

in this way. The prOportion of subjects rating BABY as being

'Slow' (.977), 'small' (.905), and 'soft' (.725) was very

high. .Similarly a high prOportion of the children viewed

MOTHER as being 'clean' (.929), 'large' (.955), and 'soft'

(.714). This is not surprising, as Carroll (1960) points

out that a language contains a system of socially shared

meanings which must of course be learned by the child. Also

these results might be expected since Vygotsky (1959) has

stated, "Many words therefore, have in part the same meaning

to the child and the adult, eSpecially words referring to

concrete objects in the child's habitual surroundings."

Another trend that seemed to appear was that all the

subjects generally made similar reSponses in relation to the

familial concepts MOTHER and FATHER. ~For example, data on

the proportion of 'good' ratings on these concepts showed:

(1) In relation to MOTHER, .955 of the boys and .905 of the

girls gave 'good' ratings. 7(2) Similarly .952 of the boys

and .900 of the girls rated FATHER as 'good.' Also these

concepts rated on the bipolar pair 'large-small' Showed

55

similar results. MOTHER was rated as 'large' by .905 of the

boys and girls. FATHER received a 'large' rating from .905

of the boys and .952 of the girls.

The data seemed to Show sex differentiated ratings in

relation to the concepts GIRL and BOY. Only .474 of the

boys compared to .810 of the girls rated GIRL as 'good.'

However, .800 of the boys compared to .524 of the girls rated

BOY as 'good.' Only one of the bipolar pairs 'large-small'

Showed a variation from this apparent trend. The concept

GIRL was rated as 'large' by .455 of the boys and .571 of

the girls. In contrast BOY was rated as 'large' by .810 of

the boys and .710 of the girls. Could this difference indi-

cate that the children have internalized a possible cultural-

ly differentiated value in male bigness that does not apply

to females?

Also worth noting is the fact that some of the children

when asked how they knew CANDY was 'good' reSponded,

"Because." Such a reSponse could indicate a number of things.

Inhelder and Matalon (1960, p. 454) in discussing this say,

"Children do not generally eXpress their beliefs because they

think that everyone believes as they do, because they are

afraid of making a mistake or, finally, because their ideas

are not sufficiently systematized to be formulated." In

looking at this data, although some of the bases for mean-

ings attached to the selected concepts were in information

probably acquired from adults or inexplicable due to the very

56

limited nature of the reSponses, the majority of the chil-

dren's meanings seemed to be based on personal sensory

experiences.

Concerning limitations of this investigation, the sample,

selected concepts and bipolar adjectives, and instrument de—

sign will be discussed. A high percentage of subjects used

in this exploratory study, had parents with more than four

years of college training. Because of this, results may not

be representative of what the majority of preschool age chil-

dren would attain on the task. The number of concepts and

bipolar adjectives included in this investigation was small.

Future investigators might want to extend this instrument by

including additional concepts and adjective pairs to be

rated in a number of questionnaire administrations so it might

be used to learn about the deve10pment of connotative mean-

ings in these very young children. wAlso it would be valu-

able to extend the rating scale by adding one or more pos-

sible alternatives. AS discussed earlier, one possible

extension of the scale might be the inclusion of the neutral

alternative.

As a result of this study, further research application

of the Semantic Differential to preschool age children is

recommended. This experimenter feels the application of this

technique could yield pertinent information regarding a

child's feelings about his family relationships. Considering

the high proportion of similar ratings on the familial

57

concepts MOTHER and FATHER included in the present study,

an extension of the number of family members and the addi-

tion of other concepts associated with family life (e.g.,

HOME) rated on apprOpriate bipolar adjectives, might be of

great value in learning how the very young child views his

family milieu. .Further studies with this technique in the

area of attitude assessment in regard to race, sex, and/or

prejudices could also be designed.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this research was to determine if an

orally administered Semantic Differential was feasible with

children ranging in age from 42 to 66 months. Also an en—

deavor was made to discover what meanings young children

attach to the selected concepts as well as explore the bases

of these meanings.

Results of this study seemed to indicate that this tech-

nique is usable with most children 48 months of age and older.

The majority of children younger than this were not testable.

The potential applicability of this technique to a high per—

centage of preschool age children is of importance, however,

considering that first grade children have been the youngest

known group to whom the Semantic Differential including the

major dimensional factors has been administered.

Two hypotheses were tested in this study.

I. The number of items completed by the children will

increase as age increases.

Results of the study supported this hypothesis. Although

no linear relation existed, a significant difference in the

mean number of items completed by the youngest subjects

58

59

(42-48 mos.) and the next oldest group of subjects (48-54

mos.) was found.

II. The incidence of neutral reSponses to those items

irrelevant to concepts rated will increase as

children's age increases.

This hypothesis was not supported by investigation find-

ings when tested using a Pearson product-moment correlation.

.Test-Retest reliability was examined and showed a sig-

nificant stability in regard to a few of the ratings. The

percentage of consistent reSponses on test-retest items was

also calculated and seemed to indicate that a greater reli—

ability probably existed, than might be eXpected by looking

at the results of the statistical analysis on test items.

Apparent trends in the connotative meanings attached to

the selected concepts, that were found in the content anal-

ysis of the data included: (1) Children seemed to be estab—

lishing meaning systems that are similar to those an adult

in our society might be exPected to use in describing the

selected concepts with the bipolar adjectives provided.

(2) Boys and girls seemed to give similar reSponses in rela—

tion to the familial concepts included in the study.

(5) Sex differentiated ratings seemed to appear in relation

to the concepts BOY and GIRL.

Exploration of the bases of the meanings attached to

the selected concepts by young children indicated that the

majority of the subjects in this study used sensory experi-

ences .

40

Implications for Research

The results of the present study indicating that the

Semantic Differential is feasible with very young children,

would SUpport the recommendation for further research with

these children. By extending the number of concepts and

bipolar adjectives in a series of questionnaire administra-

tions, investigators might use this technique to learn about

the deve10pment of connotative meanings in these young

children. An extension of the rating scale could also be

made for an investigation of the children's ability to cope

with this more complex task.

Further study into the significant difference found

between the number of boys (11) and girls (4) giving neutral

reSponses might be undertaken. Investigators could possibly

discover if this was only a chance occurrence or possibly

indicated a difference in the cognitive development or

societal role eXpectations of the sexes.

This technique Shows potential value in providing im-

portant information about a child's attitudes toward his

family and environment. Considering the high proportion of

similar ratings obtained on the concepts MOTHER and FATHER

included in the present investigation, an extension of the

number of familial concepts and inclusion of other concepts

associated with family life (e.g., HOME) rated on apprOpriate

adjective scales, might prove to be of value in learning

41

how the very young child views his environment and its

members. An assessment of the young child's attitudes

toward other concepts as his peers or races might also be

of value.

REFERENCES

Anastasi, Anne. Standardized ability testing. In Paul H.

Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Child

Development. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Pp.

456-458.

Berko, Jean and Brown, Roger. Psycholinquistic Research

Methods. In Paul H. Mussen (Ed.). »Handbook of

Research Methods in Child Development. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,-1960. Pp. 517-557.

Carroll, J. B. Language development in children. In

EncyclOpedia of Educational Research, 1960. Pp. 744-

752.

Church, Joseph. .Language and the Discovery of Reality,

New York: Random House, 1961. Pp. 185-187.

.DiVesta, Francis J. A deve10pmental study of the semantic

structures of children. Journal of Verbal Learning

and Verbal Behavior, 1966,5L Pp. 249-259.

Donahue, John W. Changes in meaning as a function of age.

The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1961, 99, Pp. 25-28.

Ervin, Susan.M. and Foster, Garret. The development of

meaning in children's descriptive terms. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, Pp. 271-275.

Ervin-Tripp, Susan. Language deve10pment. In L. W. Hoffman

and M. L. Hoffman (Eds.). Review of Child DevelOpment

Research. .New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966.

Pp. 55-105.

Inhelder, Barbel and Matalon, Benjamin. The study of prob-

lem solving and thinking. In Paul H. Mussen (Ed.).

Handbook of Research Methods in Child Development.

.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960. Pp. 421-455.

Irwin, Orvis, C. Language and communication. In Paul H.

Mussen (Ed.). Handbook of Research Methods in Child

Development. ,New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960.

Pp. 487-516.

42

45

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.

New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966.

Lilly, Roy S. A deve10pmental study of the Semantic

Differential. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Princeton University, 1965.

McCarthy, Dorthea. Language development in children.

In L. Carmichael (Ed.). .Manual of Child Psychology.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1954. Pp. 492—650.

Maltz, Howard E. Ontogenetic change in the meaning of

concepts as measured by the Semantic Differential.

Child DevelOpment, 1965, 54, Pp. 667-674.

Osgood, Charles E. and Sebock, Thomas A. (Eds.). Psycho-

linguistics: A survey of theory and research problems,

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1965.

Osgood, Charles Egerton, Suci, George J. and Tannenbaum,

Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Illinois:

University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Patrina, K. T. On the formation of linguistic deve10pments

in the course of Speech development. Voprosy Psikhogie,

1959, No. 5, Pp. 112-125.

Piaget, J. The Language and Thought Of the Child (Trans.

by M. Warden), New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1926.

Remmers, H. H. Rating methods in research teaching. In

N. L. Gage. Handbook of Research on Teaching, Chicago:

Rand McNally & Company, 1965. Pp. 529-578.

.Shirley, M. M. Common content in the Speech of preschool

children. Child Development, 1958, 9, Pp. 555-546.

Small, Edna R. Age and sex differences in the semantic

structure of children. Unpublished doctoral disserta—

tion, University of Michigan, 1958.

Smith, Madora Elizabeth. An investigation of the deve10p-

ment of the sentence and extent of vocabulary in young

children. University of Iowa Studies Child Welfare,

1926, No. 5, Vol. III, p. 92.

Van Alstyne, D. The environment of three year old children:

Factors related to intelligence and vocabulary tests.

Teachers college Contr. Education, No. 56, 1929.

44

Velten, H. V. The Growth of Phonemic and lexical patterns

in infant language. Language, 1945, 19, Pp. 281-292.

Vygotsky, L. S. Thought and Language. Cambridge, Massa-

chusetts: The M.I.T. Press, 1962.

Wellman, Beth L., Case, Ida M., Mengert, Ida G., and

Bradburg, Dorothy E. Speech sounds of young children.

Iowa City: University of Iowa Studies Child Welfare,

No. 2, 1951.

Whipple, Guy Montrose (Ed.). Studies in language deve10p-

ment. The Twenty—eighth Yearbook of the National

Society for the Study of Education, 1929, 28, Pp. 495-

568.

Williams, H. M. and McFarland, Mary L. A revision of the

Smith Vocabulary test for preschool children in deve10p-

ment of language and vocabulary in young children.

Iowa City: University of Iowa Studies Child Welfare,

1957, 15.

Williams, John E. and Roberson, J. Karen. A method for

assessing racial attitudes in preschool children.

Education and Psychological Measurement, 1967, 27,

-Pp. 671-689.

APPENDIX

45

Name:

Age:

Sex:

Pretest:

APPLE

NNR

little——

big

black

red

sweet

sour

Teacher:

Examiner:

Test:

Retest:

Time:

bad

happy

small

clean

slow

*hard

sad

large

clean

slow

hard

*good

small

clean

slow

hard

bad

*happy

BABY

CANDY

M l

01112 11111

good

sad

large

dirty

fast

soft

happy

small

dirty

fast

soft

bad

large

dirty

fast

soft

good

sad

N

m

N

m

N

m

dirty

fast

soft

good

sad

*large

slow

hard

bad

happy

small

*clean

soft

good

sad

large

dirty

*fast

FLOWERS

N

PLAYING

N

MOTHER

clean

slow

hard

bad

happy

small

fast

soft

good

sad

large

dirty

hard

bad

happy

small

clean

slow

NR

NR

NR

46

Name:

bad

happy

small

clean

slow

*hard

sad

large

dirty

fast

soft

*good

small

clean

slow

hard

bad

*happy

.CRYING

2 11111 FATHER

Z

GIRL

2 111111

good

sad

large

dirty

fast

soft

happy

small

clean

Slow

hard

bad

large

dirty

fast

soft

good

sad

N

m

N

m

N

m

111111

47

I111111111111111111111r