DOCUMENT RESUME

'BD 137 404 TM 006 2_

AUTHOR Aaronson, May; Phillips, JulieTITLE Preschool Preposition Test: A Preli inaryPUB- DATE [Apr-77]NOTE 32p.; -Paper presented at the manual Meeting of the

AmericanEducational.Researth Association (61st, NewYork, New- York-April 4-8, 1977)

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.83, HC-$2.06 Plus Postage..DESCRIPTORS Behavior Problems; Blacks;, Caucasians; Child

Development; Elementary-Education; item Analysis;*Lan§ua-ge Tests; Lower Class; *Preschbol Children; -_*Preschool Educationi-PresChool-E-valuation; RetardedChildren; *Screening Tests; Sex Differences;. Social,

.

ClasSvSOCial Development; Statistical Analysis; Test-Reliability;- Test Results; Test .Validity;.UpPerClass

IDENTIFIERS *Preschool Preposition Test

ABSTRACTThe-Preschool Preposition -Test (PPIT),- a receptiVe

.language --test for children ages=3. to- 5, is a brief simple gross_developmental screening instrument. still .in research status. For 985normal subjects the test shows a significant correlation- ofiscores.with age. Significant.correlations have been,-obtained between PpT.scores and-raw-scores OD the Peabody-.picture-- Vocabulary Test for-normal.children-and for mentally retardedolder-.children functioning_at.a preschool level. Findings of tio small samples suggest a linkbetween .PPT scores and.mothers, nurturant-and verbal behavior. 'Testmaterials froi the authors are available on loan to -re-searchers.-.(Author)

********* _*****_******* **********************************I_ .

Document's ac4uired -by ERIC .inclUde manTinformal-unpublished.* materials- not:available from-other sourCes.1-ERIC,makes every .effort

to-ohtait the bestcOpy- available. Nevertheless,- items of-,marginal *--

* reproducibilityare. often encountered'and this-,affeCts-_the guality-* ole-.mi-crofiche- and hardcopY -reproductions ERIC,-makes aVailable* via:the:-ERICiDocuMent-ReprOduction-Servicer(EDR8).--EMES--is-not

.

-*tesponsible for:--the-gUality of-the, ,original ,document...Reproduttions*'_SuppIied..-byAMRS are the ti-elt.-thitean be,.made.from-the*****************************************************4*****************.-

t-i

rimt

TITLE: PRESCHOOL PREPOSITION TEST: A PRJLIMINARY REPORT

ATYIORS. May Aaronson and Julie Phillips

ADD SS: Center for Studies of Child and Fatily Mental Health,National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

PRESENTATION: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association in New York City,April 7, 1977.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT 1.45 BEEN REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN.A-TING IT POINTS OF VIEW DR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE.SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

PRESCHOOL PREPOSITION TEST: A PRELIMINARY REPORT

May Aaronson and Julie Phillips

The Preschool Preposition Test (1968) is a receptive language test for

children ages 3 to 5. It is useful as a gross screening instrument for

young children, including those with delayed language development or

behavior problems, and for older mentally retarded children. The test is

a brief, easy, and inexpensive test to administer. Paraprofessionals and

volunteers can h die a testing program with minimal training and

supervision. Because children fi d the testing materials appealing,

high level of cooperation is typical.

The PPT was first used in 1968 to evaluate the effects of ho u

on the intellectual functioning of three-year-olds. The test was developed

because knowledge of prepositions was found to correlate with verbal and

spatial abilities in the early years (Bayley, 1967). Preschoolers are not

ypically evaluated for comprehen ion of a range of these terms. George

Miller (1976) reviews the research invol-ing prepositions associated with

spatial relations and remarks on their cognitive complexity. They are

sometimes called locatives or spatial locatives, he says, "because their

grammar is too 1compllcated to justify calling them simply prepositions."

This is the catego y of words and phrases which the Preschool Preposition

Test examines.

Since our initial use of the PPT, the test materials have been loaned

to other researchers who have contributed much of the da a reported in this

We wish to express our sincere appreciation to Darryl Bertolucci for assistancewith statistical and computer analysis of the data and to Doris Aaronson forconsultation in psycholinguistics and for critical comments on a previousdraft of this report. We wish, to thank John Bartko for statisti,cal consultationand-Earl Sohaefer.for his supportive role in the development af the PreschoolPreposition Test.

paper. We are continuing to do research with this ins rument.

M_E TH0DS

Testing Materials and Procedure

The PPT resting materials consist of four items: a yellow metal

board, 12 by 20 inches, with slightly raised figures of a red boy facing a

green car; (2) a small, halved red rubber ball, with a magnetized flat

surface; (3) an Individual Test Record form; and (4) a black and white

Picture Score Sheet which is a replica of the testing board. For greater

accuracy in recording, both the yellow testing board and the Picture Score

Sheet have superimposed on them a grid with two inch squares.

Each child is tested individually. The testing can take as little as

5 minutes with an experienced Examiner and a sooparatve child. The

Examiner demonstrates that the halved ball sticks firmly anywhere on the

upright test board and invites the child to place the ball in various

places. The Examiner then administers the test by reading the 23 items in

the proper sequence f om the Individual Test Record. A raw score is obtained,

with one point earned for each correct response. The Examiner has two

options for scoring the te t. (S)he can record pass/fail judgments directly

onto the Individual Test Record while testing. Alternatively, (s)he can

position an X and the item number on the picture score sheet corresponding

to the child placement and later score pass/fail judgments. The former

method is more rapid for

is generally recommended for a

ienced tester. But the latter procedure

re s ns: It eliminates the

well-known "halo' ffect. the possibi1i!7 that the Examiner

impression of the child's ability will influence his scoring; (2 ) It

eliminates errors in judg--nt or rec rding which occur in the heat

ting; (3) It provides a permanent record of the child's placements,

other person.to double-check thenuiking _ possible for the s

scoring; (4) It kes it possible to run a large testing program with briefly

trained nonprofessionals, leaving the subsequent scoring to professional

testers and (5) It makes it possible to analyze the specific nature of the

errors for prescriptive purposes.

The PPT Individual Test Record is divided into two parts. Part I tests

a systematic way the child's compr hension of the key nouns u-ed with the

prep sitions in Part II. Examples of Part / items are: (1) Show ice the

boy's hands and (2) Show me the boy's head. The Examiner is directed to

teach the meaning of any nouns the Child doesn't understand.

then proceeds to Part II, the actual t

The Examiner

Examples of Part II items are:

(1) Put the ball into the boy'_ I nds, into the boy's hands, and (2) Put the

ball m as hieh on the board as you can, up as hieh on the board as u can.

Only scores of Part II are reported in this paper. (See Appendi.-)

. 'Sub:ects and Measures

Our data on .uhe PPT, gathered during the past 10 years, are based on

1,250 protocols collected on 1,170 children ages 2 to 7 years and older

mentally retarded. Our sample represents Black and Caucasian lme

middle° and upper-middie class and populations from rural, suburban-and

urban areas. The samples vary geographically inelnding.tho East (Maine,

Maryland, New York State, Washington, D. C.) the Midwes_ (Kansas, Michigan

the South (North Carolina), and the West (Utah),. -The data from 14 of the

samples are reported here in some detail. Included are all of the children

(N-985) evR3uated in normal settings, and we refer to them as "Normal"

children. Detailed descriptive information of these subjects is contained

in Table 1. Data from four additional samples obtained from special settings

will he reviewed briefly later in the paper and are referred to as "Other

than Normal." They consist of homeless children in a residential insti-

tution, those with serious behavior problems, aad over-age mentally retarded.

Of the "Normal" samples eight (1132B) were obtai ed from urban settings,

two (11145) from suburban set ings, three (N-218) from suburban to rural

settings, and one (N.294) from an extremely rural setting. Three of the

samples (N.452) are Caucasian, two (N..55) are Black, and nine (N478) are

racially mixed. Five samples (11392) are lo er class, two groups (N=.158) ar

upper-middle-clas d seven (N435) are mixed socio-economic status.

Determinations of SES have been made from global descriptions of the samples

and not from specific data collected on individual children. The children a e

listed in three age groupings, the youngest (N...101, ages 23-35 months), the

ages for which the PPT is recommended (1461.2, 36-60 months) and the oldest

(N272, 61-90 nths).

For six of the samples no other forms of evalua e used with the PPT.were used

For eight of the samples, various combinations of instruments/(Table 1). However

not every child in a sample was administered each instrument listed. Other

measures used were:.: Stanford7Binet (S-B) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

(PPVT) Johns Hopkins Perceptual Test (JHPT), Classroom Behavior Description

(CBD) Mother's Behavior with Tutor and Child, and Parent and Child Together:

(PACT). Additional measures were _ypically obtained either at the PPT

6

stinc session

--Subiect Variables..

For the 985 "Normal" children rafting in age from 23 to 90 months in

different samples, a correlation coefficient of -63 (p .001) was

obtained betWeen Tcital PPT Scores and Ages in Months. Table 2 presents the

mean scores by six month age intervals for the-"No 11"-children. The youngest

children,'age 23 months, earned a mean score of 7 out of a posSible 23 while

the. oldest_at. 90 months reached a mean seore of 21.5. The progre-- on of

sc o that tima.

RESULTS FOR "NORMAL" SANPLES

mean scores with age be noted up to about "60-65" months at which

there is a leveling off. This is a "ceiling. effect" as ther a:re only

-23 items on the PPT.a

A g apil (Fig. 1) shows the breakdown of he "Nor 01 " by sex, ulth

c o arison of the mean scores for boys and for girls ages 24-83 months.

the PPT board/picture depicts a male figure, the question arises whethe

scores Show a sex bias in favor of the boys. As can be seen by inspection

f the graph, th.. sex differences are negligible and, if anything, tend to

favor the females at the earlier .Other cognitive tests generally

ale superiority during the earlier years (MaccobY,-E.M. and Jacklin,-

1974). When one examines the PPT scores by social class, dlflerances emerge.

The graph in Figure 2 shows a comparison of mean scores from two-upper-middle

class urban samples (1=158) with that -f an FPSDT* Cgedica d, 1973) lower-

sample N-294) Only white samples have been choq n in order to

ecEPSDT - Early and ]eriodc Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program, aMcdicaid program-f6r child en-eligible for welfare.

control for race. It can be seen that the higher SES samples have better

scores at each age level and attain near perfect scores at earlier ages.

Item Analysis andjest Reliabiliy

Item analysis Of the 23 items is reported for a total of 779 "Normal"

subjects, ages 23 to 90 months.. This includes all item scores made available

to us by users of the test. As a measure of internal consistency, scores on

every PPT item correlated significantly With _coreso the-test_as a whole

(p <-005 for each individual test item, children with higher total

scores more frequently passed the item than children with lower scores.

Additionally, most PPT items correlated significantly with one another and

with Age in Months. The exceptions were Items 12, 15 and 22; and it is

Planned to eliminate these three items from the PIT. Of the remaining

20 items, the average correlation coefficient with Total Test Score is

with 10 of these exceeding .60. As an additional measure of internal test

consistency,- the K-R 20 reliability _coefficient alpha was computed and has

a value:of '.86 (Kuder-Richardson; 1937).

The Rank Order _f Difficulty Of the its. s Is repor ed in.Table 3. The

table ranks the order of difficulty according to he percentage of,the total:-

sample passing each item. The easiest prepositiOn is part of the phrase

"in a car window" (item 21, Rank 1) and "between the car wheels contains

the most difficult one (Item 10, Rank 23 ). Almost 20% more children were

able to locate "betweon the boy and the car" (Item 13, Rank20) th "between

the car wheels." .Between may b_ easier to locate when it is intermediate to

two differ nt objects than two of the same Also, prepositipns that occur

more frequently in adult :_vocabulary; such as in, at, and'on tend to be

easier for the children than those that occur less frequently, such as

beneath, below, near, behind, above under and between (Kucera, H. and

Francis W. N. 1970).

For the aggregate of 985 "Normal" children, rangtag in age frcl 23

to 90 months in 14 different samples, a correlation coefficient of .63

(p 4.001) was obtained between the PPT Total Score and Age in Months.

valid test of language development should show increasing scot s with age.

The PPT's validity is also supported by higher test scoras for upper middle-

class Children who tend to receive greater and more varied opportunities

for language development in the homea. Many of the results reported under

"Behavioral Data" add additional support to the validity of the PPT.

A major emphasis has been placed on comparison of the PPT scores with

those of the'PPVLbecause Ofcertain similarities between the two instruments.

They are both multiple-choice receptive language tests in which the child

makes a non-verbal "placing" or "pOinting" response to-a simple directive.

The PPT items, however, a e based on prepositions, abstractions associated

with space relations, whereas the early PPVT items a based on concrete

nOuns or action verbs. Here are examples of the difference:

PPT

Put the ball underneath the car.:Put the ball between the car wheels.

PPVT

Show me teacher.Show me picking.

Other differences are that the PPT is very brief, is suitable only for

preschool ages, and presents the itsms in scrambled ord r of difficulty;

whereas the PPVT is a much longer test-, from preschool to adulthood, with

items presented in order of increasing difficulty. The PPVT is a widely

accepted developmental test with much validity and reliability data. Net-

withst_anding the differences between the PPT and the PPVT, the similarities

remain impressive, and strong correlat

establish the validity it:if the PPT.

For 122 subjects who were administered both the PPT and the Peabody

Picture VocabularY Test, the following c elation coefficients were obtained:

.72 with the PPVT RAW Score, .30 with the I.Q., and ,69 with the Mental Age,

all signifi ant (p-4.005 level) The comparison between the raw scores

of the two tests, the most logical one to :eke, produced the highest

correlation coefficient, .72.

In two home-based intervention projects in which the PPT, the PPVT, and

the Stanford-Binet were administered (lable 4) the PPT correlated about as

well (or better) with the other two tests as they correlated with each other

(p 4 .001 or 4.005).

between them should help to

Behavioral Data

Teachers' ratings of the child's behavior were obtained for 122 subjects

in three of the samples on the Aaronson-Schaefer Classroom Behavior Descrip-

tion (CBD). The CBD contains 10 brief items related to classroom-adjustment

and ability plus a global rating of classroom adjustment. Examples of the

items are: Is Considerate and Kind, Is Distractible and H eractive7 i Is

Able in Co rehension and Problem-Solvin (Table 5). The PPT attained

significant correlations (p 4.005) with 7 out of 10 items plus the global

rating -f classroom adjustment. The highest correlation coefficien- .57,

was attained with the only cogni ive item, Is Able in Com rehension and

9

Problem-Solving. The Ad'us-_ment rating was .41 (p (.005).

Ratings of Maternal Behavior were obtained from the experimental groups

in two home-based intervention projects (Tables 6 and 7). In bo,h projects

correlations at significant or near significant levels were obtained

between the PPT scores and ratings related to Mother's Nurturance and

Verbal Interaction with the child. In contrast, the S-B and PPVT scores

showed less or no relationship to maternal behavior on the same rating scales.

Home Tuto and the PPT Scores

Tables 4a and 4b compare the data acqu red from the two home-based

intervention projects designed to raise the i_Ld's intellectual functioning

d social-emotional behavior thr ugh promoting increased verbal intera t on

d improving the nurturant climate in the home. The Washington, D. C.

project wai child-focused. The mother was invited, but not required to take

part. The Freeport Y. project, however, was focused on the mother and

she was required to participate. Note in Table 4a that the PPT correlated

significantly with the PPVT and the S-B in both projects as well or better

than the other 2 tests corre ated with one another. Now-examine Table 4b.

We have a curious pheno enon. Although for the Washington, D. C. project

there is a significant increase in scores on the S-B and the PINT for the

Experimental group over the Control, this is not true for the PPT. In the

Freeport Project the difference in scores for the S-B and the PPVT bet eenstatistical

the Experimental and Control groups do no- reach significance, but at least

the increases are in the expected direction'. For th_ PPT, the-_Control.

group actually does a bit_better than the Experimental- group -Obviously

the intervention made no-difference' in PPT scores for either project.

10

RESULTS FOR "OTHER THAN NO

As explained earlier there are four samples of children tested in special

settings which we term "Other than Normal." There is no basis

analyzing these samples together; and a full reporting will have

to await larger sample sizes in the various categories.

The samples consist of ) 84 low SES

urban black child en ages 24 to 71 months, housed in a city institution for

homele s children, (2) 16 mixed SES urban white children, ages 30 to 71

mo ths, in a day treatment center for moderately emotionally disturbed,

(3) 11 low SES urban white children, ages-36 to 77 months, in a State

hospital nursery school for severely emotionally dist _bed and (4) 74

children of mixed SES and race, ages 5 to 17 years, in a school for

mentally retarded students.

The PPT mean scores for the institutionalized children in Sample 1,

arranged in six month age groupings, show a similar progression of scores

with age as the "Normals;" however, the mean scores lag from six months to a

year behind those of the "Normals-. In contrast, for the emotionally

disturbed children in Samples 2 and 3 many of the individual scores compare

favorably with those of the "Normals " Their behavior problems did not

prevent them from completing PPTs and demonstrating a mastery of the

preDositions although the testing time per subject was generally greater.

Findings foi Sample 4,:.the older mentally retarded'students, are based on-,

their Mental Age Scores on the PPVT, grouped in sixrponth intervals:from

24 to 95 months. There is-a progression of mean scores with Mental Age but

with about six month lag when compared with the "Norma For the MR

12

total sample.-

Seorei.59 (P

the CBD d_ not

.005

-7the PPT correlate signi icantly wit

however, theIr Classroom Behavior lta

corre3tte very

istical significance, .40

Abl- in C:

ell with PPT scores,

11

PIWT -Raw

ings obta: ned- on

th one exception;_

the only cognitiveached with

ension and rilil.1T17:11-1_,K.

nk Order of Difficulty of

shows severl dissimilarities

CoMpa ison 0U-the

_e-iteMs for'ithe.lIER with-.those o e:"Normals"

which -Till need.fU _mvestigation.

It _List be eMphasized fhat:Jindings --th-the FPT for the "Other tha

Normal" samples are presently of = tenuouS nature. However, they ire

sufficiently promising to ncour e:further research in: he trees described.

yrelimi

DISCUSSION

a y investigations with the PPT indicate that th .est s

greatest discrimi

,.poorer score

atory pot- -.are4 relatien._tothe identifiettiOn.- --the-

at prese ool-ages

at the point that a child achieves

in the.test.

age for "No

somewhat

Its' usefulness as an-instrument .ceases. . . .

. .

a h. h level mastery of the prepositio

Thi p _nt is typicallYrreached at about five,t- six years ol

41":,populations although from among'the it may be reached

later for low7sOeio-econo status-groups and-earlier for:upper:-

middleelass groups. Within fhese liMitations7

-role in the-early identifiettion developmental delay,

the PPT can play an important

development, and possibly in other areas a

The PFT's validity and reliability thus

tent significant progression of ac

ell.

ntably language

7ith a e

-sannlcs and_for_the 935 subjec

12

ages 23 to 90 months, who constitute the

aggr ate population of the sa ples,

tions

) consistent signif cant correla-.,

ith well-established developmental test such as the Stanford-Binet

and the Peabody Pictu Vocabulary Test and-(3 t e in ernal consiste

of the test onst- tion Ath all 23 ite_s correlating ith:Total Tes

Score and.most the terns correlating.significantlyj h one another.

Additionally, several samples thee a high orrelatio

PPT and teacher's ratings

between the

f."Able-in 'Com rehension-and oblem-Ssi and_

Adjustment_ along-with- other traits generally regardedas related to school.:.

adjustment.

class difference

No .significantsOc difference's have been-found--, social

samples and

are apparent speciallY .for.Pwo white Uppermiddle lass

a white poverty group being serviced by a Medi d'EPSDT program.

While no claims are made that the PPT is an intelligence test, the

items are tapping some aspects of cognitive

comprehension, abstract reasoning, and

e consistent

-

ability, perhaps

spatial relations.'_

te

elated to verbal

supported-by-This i

-ignificant _orrelations with recognized developmental tests.

The tutoring in two small home based projects did not increase the scores

:on'the PpT even tholigh there were high correlations between the PPT and the

other deVelopmental tests used; but note _ at the-PPT scores achieved the

highest correlations amono the three-tests with Maternal:Nurturance andlierbal

Interaction iith the child. What we have here is children'

related to Mother:a nurturance and-verbal behaVior, but not influe

intervention. This phenomenon requires aome attempt at in

have posited that certain rules of graurna connected

PPT scores

ced by the

erpretation. We

th prepositions nay be

internalized much earlier than at 15724 months of age when these two inter---

_ventions were begun andrthet the Meiher'- behavior at earlier:ages la_

*EPSDT -_Early and. Periodic Screening,'Diagnosis and Treat entj'rpgramfor-children eligible-for-Welfare

WE'

ut,:o.c5 the

ci was only..16

me _-.membort in

of age a.yr -.' --Ible

iP. T -c- g

7. a tn ca. George N,iller,

book Tganauacrse,andr.PetlapSion (1970-lends soma uppor1-:

,premise.:

len_ lie points out that'the logic.of spaceLS complex-and-that 'children-acquire

Lb initial familiarity with relativistic space in_il they_learn to

edictors P.f-the Cht

_MOV about and -ens truct 'a

This would lend suppo

rile than 15-2

able, three-dim nsional perceptual world

-0 having arent -focussed interventions which wou

months

"Other than Normal samp

reLativelS-small sample size

clisL

es, not reported hare in detail bec-

est t e usefulness of the PPT for

g

otionally

ed nd ins itutionalized children and for older mentally retarded

dents func- ning at the preschool lcNel. Yor 74 mentally retarded students,.

-17, . tistically signifiei t correlations were obtai ed.between

elhelv-Nn% -ad PPT_seores ho a go d-progressioa of scores With

Ae as deteimlnd on the PITI% Also some pf the children notwlthsta, moderate to severe behaVior problems were able to de,_oastrate.average or

above average mastery of the PPT- Researchers report that complete PPTs can

usually be obtained for children with behavior problems but that the testingsess oar- take longer. Research is continuing 3Ith,further sa eatally

-ced-children; and th usefulness of the T f or physically h3ndicapDEind autistic children is being explored

The di: a reported in this -clam lary report provide much evidence

attest to the potential usefulness the PPT. The PPT valuable

role in the early identification of develcpmen al delay in language comp

ibly in some areas related to so alrepotional developmeat.

ebension

lends

-1 sclf__to-use in preschool_grosS:screea ng programs in which a rapid, easy to_

ister, low co

enr-7

evaluat eded for early prove tive pr prescriptive

15

REFERENCES

!Aaronson, M. and Rosenfeld, J. Baby andOther Teachers. Washin onDay Care and:Child-Development Council of

Aaronson,-:May and:Hchaefer, Earl S. The preschool preposition_test.-(Unpublished), National:Institute of Mental Health,- Dgm, :1968.

Bayley,=-Nancy. information about use nf:prepoGrowth Study. Personal communication, 1967

Day, Mary Carol and Parker, Ronald K. atiyescEarly_Childhood ProgEe_RE, Second Edition. Boston, Massachusetts:Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977.

It Works: Infant Education Research Fr_ act Washin ton 13 C U. S.'Department:of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,_7--Government Printing Office, 1969 3448421(2036)

Johnson, O. G. and Bommarito, J. W. Eds.) 'Tests and Measurements inChild Develppment: A Handbook. San Fr cisco: Jossey -Bass, Inc.,1971.

Kucera, H. and Francis, W. N. Com.uta ional Analysis of Present Day AmericanEnglish. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1970.

Ruder, G. F. and Richardeon, M. W. The:theory of estimatonof teatreliability -Psychothetrika, 1937, 2, 151-160.

levenatein, Phyllis. Parent and=child together (PACT) Unpublished,developed 1970, revised 1973.:

Maccoby,-E.14.-and Jacklin, C. N. The Psychology of Sex Differences.:Stanford, California: _Stanford University Fress 1974_

Medicaid: Parlyand Periodic Screening,- Diagnosis, Treattent:for IndividualsUnder 21.: Guidelines. r. Social an&Rehabilitation Service, Medical::Services Administration, Department,ofliealth,:EducatiOn, and Welfarei(SES)7424321), U. S.-.Government:Printing Office: 515-295/7087.

Miller, George:A. and JohnsonLaird,-Thilip N..-Language and Perception.Cambridge, Massachusetts: The-BelknapTresa-ofiHarvard-University-Press, 1976.

PsYchometric Theory New:York:- McGraw7Hill,- 1967.

O'Connell., Dorothy, Terrill, Marilyn and BrashSorensen, Charlene.::ResearchRelating to ChildrenEric Clearinghouse on-Early Childhood Education- -Vernment,;Printing:Office-, Stock #1780-01373 March 1974Augutt_1974

16

Table.).

DESCRIPTION OF PRESCHOOL PREP' SITION TEST "NORMAL" S LE

15

Sub-Sampletico. of

Subjects

Arca:UrbanSuburban:Rural_

TRace: SES:

Age InMonths

Auxiliary__Black,"Lower-:White

Upper MiddleC

Mixed :

29 U B L 36-38 S-B, PINT, -an, MB

2*** 26 36-38 S-B, PPVT, .1HPT

65 S W 1Th' . 30-65 None

80 S B + W Nix 54-90 None

5 81 5 + R B + W Mix 42-65 CB

S + R ES +I? Mix 42-59 PPVT, CB

7 93 U W UM 36-71 None

28 Nix 30-65 None

9 66 U B + Nix 36-71 None

10 43 U B + W Mix 48-65 None

11 294 R W L 24-89 PPVT

12 100 S R B+ W Nix 23-41 PINT, CB

13** 26 U B + W L 40-54 PPVT, IM

14*** 17 U B + W L 43-52 S-B, rrvT

Total 985= U 328 B -55 -4 158 23-3 101-

R 294 -1,1 452 L 392 36-60 6125 145 B+W 478_ 435 61-90 272

S+R 218

*Stanford-Binet, Peabody PiatUre Vocabulary TesTams Hopkins Perceptuall-Text,MaternaliBehavior:RetingsChild Behavior (Olassroom,Behavior Deseription)

Note: Not all-subjects in,a given_sample received each measure .

**Home-Based Program, Experimental Group

Home-Based Program, Cant

_

Oup

17

Table

PPT Scores by Age for 1" Subje ts

Highest Possible PPT Score is 23 (Raw Score)

985

Agen Months N Mean Score S

23 4 7 002 944

24-29 30 7.83 3.630

30-35 67 12.09 .368

36-41 139 13.93 3.732

42-47 113 15 48 4 104

48-53 168 16.7 4.113

54-59 192 18.99 3.162

60-65 147 20.17 2.652

66-71 66 19.54 2.808

72-77 21 21.05 1.687

78-83 33 20.42 2.016

64-89 3 21.67 1.528

90 2 21.50 .707

1,11

SCORE

19

l'ICUPI 1

EX'DIFFE1ENCES

Meau Preschcal fteposition'Test Scores- by Six %nth ,Age Croupthgs

For.Vale arid Ftftzle "Norral" Subjects

- Yale, Nt.545

F rale, N.431

....... . ;.....;

,!A .*

0

1 .

107--

:47414174,43,1417

...... . :

! ! - Nl '.114Ex..i...

"-

.......... . £

44 4

_ -

. . . . .

1 .. . 4114; . . ... ,=443

1

..... - Elf =££££,

. . ........

4-T=ea

tro--ir I

, .

.....4..

.........

;

.........." ..............

24-29----313-35-7-36-41166;11

r

2115

Figure 2

SOCIAL CLASS DIFFERENCES

Mean Prechaol Peposition Test_Seores by, Six-Month Age Groupings

For White Upper-Middle Class Urban Subjects (SW:a-samples 3 and 7, Table 1

And For White Lower-Class Rural Subjects (Subsample 11,- Table 1)

--- Upper-Middle-, N=1:57

Lower, No231

PPT

SCORE

21

0'

...

.

' 718-53 -77'7 '54-59

AGE IN MONTHS

. : .. ... .7

.. .

...

PRESCHOOL PREPOSITION TEST

Item Difficulty fo "Nor_ 1" Subjects: r Rank Order o D

Percentage of Sample:Passing Each It m 779

19

fflculty of. Items., 4nd

.Age 23 -90.Month

Order oficulty

_

It s in-Order of Difficulty: _Paseine_

the ball in a car window, in a ear window 96.9

the hall at the to of the boy's head, _ the top ofboy's head

_ the ball inside the windew of the car, inside thewindow of the car 92-4:

93.6

the ball 22 as high on the board aon the-board as you can

you can, :22 as high

22. Pub tho ball on the boy's on the boy's shoe

Put the ball underneath the ear, _

-Tut,the ball-anywhere-on the car, on the car

Put the ball under the ear,under the car..... . . . . ........

Pitt the ball ntar the hoy's shoe, nea- the boy's shoe...

Tut the ball down as law on the board as you can, down "as low_ . _ . _ _

on the board as you can 0

-Put the hall against the, box's head, against the:boy't head

Put-the bal on_the bop of the car, on-the top of the car

Put_the ball:behind the boy, behind the boy.. . . 13

Put the ball- into the boy's hands, into the boy's hands 14

18;--- Put the ball-abova the boy's heed, above the boy'.8 head====. . ... 15

derneath he car.........

4

5

-

net the ball--in back_of the boy's..shee--in back-of the boy--s.show:".-- 16

Put the ball next to a wheel'of the car net_to a wheel of the

the ball in front of the boy, in front of'the boy ...

Put the bell beneath the car, beneath the car."... ... ....... 9

90.6

84.0

80.5

80.1

79.1:

75.0

73.8

71=5

71.2

71.1

68.5

68.4

67.9

3. Tut the ball between the boy and the car, betw enand the car

he boy

61.7

the ball-in-back of_ the cer, in back of

Put th&baitbelow-- the car, below the car

20

iar 21

22

59.3

-.44.4

10. Put the ball between the car wheels, between the car wheels 41.2

...Table 40

Intercorrelations of Three Tests for Experimental and-Control Groeps

in Two Home-Based Intervention Programs

17Ainst2n.LEZI2LMilst

20

Experimental : oup N=29 Control Group N=30PVT PPVT SB_ -PPT PPVT S-B

Preschool Preposition Test 1

Peabody Picture,Vocabulary.Te .61** -1 .52* 1

_Stanford-Binet IQ .60** .56* .52* 55*

Elfs or tiE._1...Pra.ect

Experi entalCroup N=26 Control Group N=17PPT PPVT PPT 'JETT S-8

Preschool Preposition Test 1

Peabody Picture Vocabulary-Test_ .46* 53* 1

Stanford7Binet IQ .74** .71** 72**

** p * p .005,(TwoTailed Te

Table libEffects of 1 -me-Based Intervention on Test Scores

netan, D.C. Pro'cct:N=29 N=30

Eperiment1.1 Group Control TestMean S.D. Mean: S

Preschool Preposition Test 13.2 3./ 12.3 3.0 1.0 :N.2-Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test 86-.6 10.8 76.2 9.2 4.0 -;:.001Stariford-Binet IQ 105.3 10.5 90.1 10.6 5.5 <.001

eeport,-N.Y.yreCectN=26 N=17

Eu,:-Tvaqtal _Group Control GMean S.D. Mean S.D. t

Test

Preschool Frepoition Test 14.3 .._ 3.8 15.8 2.9 1.4 .>.1Peabody.Pictere Vooabulary Test -'90.3 129 84.7 16.2 1-.4- ---->2--Stanford-Binet IQ 105.5 12.8 99.3 14.6 1.5 .1

Table 5

CLASSROOM BEHAVI TINOS1

correlations Of Preschool Preposition Test and PPVT: IQ

with-,Select d Items of AarOnson-bchaef er Classco Behavior Descriprion

21

Class Om Behavior Item

16 Ages 24 - 6[ ronchs

preschool ?PVT_Preposition IQ

Test_

Able in Comprehensionand Problem Solving .57

Attentive and Pe saverin- 5c.* .21

Self-reliant and Self-Sufficien - .49* .20

4; Distractible and Hyperactive /47* /15-

Well Adjusted: .41* .37*

Considerate arid Kind 36 30 %

Gregaiious and Ve-ally Expressive .33* .24

. Dependent Wants Help Constantly /32* /l1

1

Peabody PIcture Vocabulary Test*p.4 .005 o-tailed-Te

2 4

Table 6

MATERNAL BEHAVIOR RATINGSWashington, D.C. Pro ect

Correlations between Total Test Scores for 3 Tests and Behav oral Ra ingsFor Sample of Black Low SES Males N = 28

Maternal Behavior at 16 mos.1 Withdrawal of

Relationship2 Punishment

Use-of Fear to Control4. Irritability

Punitiveness

4

5

Maternal Behavior at 36 moa.1 :HostileInvolvement2 jlostile_Detachment3 Low Interest in Child's

iFducation4 Low Verbal:Expressiveness5 Low Involvement'-

PreschoolPreposition Test36:months

-.55***-.47*-.50**-.46*-.60***

-.38*-.46*

-.46*-.60***-.49**

-.41*-.40*

-.30-.53***-.36

PPVTStanford-Binet

6 month IO 36 months

.13:

.08

,02

.04

-.12:

-.24

-.11-.36-.11

-.03'

-.01

.09

-.21.16

-.40*-.40*-.38*-.26.-.27

-.34-.31

-.27 '

-.42*-.41*

-.3545**

-.40*

-.27

----Maternal-Behavior at-30 mos.1 Hostile Involvement2 Hostile Detachment

Low Interest in Child'sEducation

Low Verbal ExpressivenessLow Involvement

1Peabody Picture*** p <1.005

p 010p .050(Two-tailed

-

Vo-abulary Test

est)

1._ 1ATERNAL BEHAVIOR RATIN,S

"Freepert.-N. Y. Project

Correlations between Total Test Scores for-3 Tests and Selected Subscalcs andItems of Levenstein's PACT (Parent and Child Together)

Parent Behavior Variablefrom PACT

Parental-NurturanceSubscale-Score:_(SUm:of Items 1-5)

N 23

Preschool 1 .

Preposition PPVT Stanford-BinetTest IQ IQ

Nurturance Subscale_-Item 4-"Seems-Comfortin

3. Parent's Verbal InteractionwithChild Subscale Score .46*

Nurturande Subscale,Item 3"SatiSfies Child's Needs" .43*

.13

.36

.28

5. Nurturanqe Subscale-item 5"_

"Uses Positive Beinforcement".42*- .30 - .41*

Nurturan._-_.Subscalc Item 1-T"Shewsl-Warmth to Child" .40 . 2i

Nurturance Subscale Item 2"VerhalizeS Aection teCrud' 27 : .719 .10

5 (l\jo-TaIled Test

cture Vocabulary Test

YliZSUHOOL PREPOSITION TEST-MayiAeronson and-Earl S. Schaefer

Individual Test Record

(APPENDIX)

Name .

Case No.

Total Score--Part I

Total S_ore--Part II

Birth Dat

Examiner

Examiner's

Sex'

Date.of Test'Yrs., Nos., ys

Testing time

Readupoin

Part I

comments (continu on reve:a0T7TEasy to test

se side) Child was b. CD Average to testc. clHard to test

tems t child. Score one point for each pass. "Put your finger on,"" or "touch" can be used instead of "show me."

en Part I is -6_ leted ea h item that re 'ailed a

Show me the car.

Show me the b-

Show me the boa17d that the car and the boy are on.(Teach that board is all the " e low" art

Show me the wheels of the car.(Child should "show" or If&L23citires

Show me the windows of the car.- Which one is open?

Show me the boy,'s face.(Child should "- " or "fin a face hut not the head

Show me the boy's'hands.

(Child should."shOw" or" nger" bo h hand

Show me the',boyYS-:feet.

(Child should "show", or'"finc,er both feet

Show me the boy's head.(Child should "show" o in.e the head but not the face

1 . Show me the boy's shoes.Child shoulci"sh -"-or " both shoes

re-standardjzatjon copy. Notor quotation without consent of _ha'-authors 2

Total Score

Part II

.For scoring Part II, consult es and Diagrams for Scori

Tut the ball into_ the boy's hands, into the boy's

__e ball ER as hjgla on the board as you_can, mp_the board as cu eau.

_ _le ball undet a car, under the car.

Put the ball down as low on the board as you can, cLon the Loard as you can.Put the ball in back of the c

Put the ball underneath the car, underneath the car

e ball on the_top_of t

10 Put the ball betwn the cai- wheels, been:the cal

11. Put the hell in back of the boy'S shoe, in back of t

P t.the ball anywhere. en -the :car,.on.the- car.

-.13. Put the ball _between the b67= and the car, between

14. Put the ball below the car, below the car.

Put the ball against the boy's head against the boy

16. Put the ball beneath the car, beneath the car.

-Put the ball 3ehind the-boy, behind the boy.

Put.the ball above-the boy' 7head aboye_.the boy's

Put the,bell..near_ the boy s shoe,-near the-hoy's sho

20. Put the ball next to a wheel of the car, next to_ a

Put the ball at the top of the boy s head,

*22. Put the ball on the b y shoe, on the boy's shoe.

10-68 R

*Items_ to be eliminated

2

Sc

TOTAL SCORE

PITTUP7 rriP_ &MT

r ///, I/ /

Point of placement

Item. Not next to point of p1acer4

Sem point _of placement for 2 items ,

Dividing"line to separate adjacent 9

placements,

Foot of I to contact pictt4T of ob 5

if place:1Ft touchos object

to.ovorlap line)encircled. by 0

if placement overlaps. object