دانلود مقاله ISI انگلیسی شماره 30018
عنوان فارسی مقاله

مقیاس حل مساله FEATS در کودکان PPAT با سن 5-6.5 به عنوان مرتبط برای عملکردهای اجرایی و انگیزشی

کد مقاله سال انتشار مقاله انگلیسی ترجمه فارسی تعداد کلمات
30018 2014 9 صفحه PDF سفارش دهید محاسبه نشده
خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.
عنوان انگلیسی
FEATS Problem-Solving Scale in PPAT of children aged 5–6.5 as related to their executive functions and motivation
منبع

Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)

Journal : The Arts in Psychotherapy, Volume 41, Issue 1, February 2014, Pages 27–35

کلمات کلیدی
- حل مسأله - کودکان - توابع اجرایی - انگیزش
پیش نمایش مقاله
پیش نمایش مقاله مقیاس حل مساله FEATS در کودکان PPAT با سن  5-6.5 به عنوان مرتبط برای عملکردهای اجرایی و انگیزشی

چکیده انگلیسی

The present study analyzed whether scores on the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale (Gantt & Tabone, 1998) in PPAT drawings of 126 children ages 5–6.5 years old were related to executive functions (EFs) and motivation. In addition, the drawings were rated with an innovative scale, the Children's Picking Process Scale (CPPS), which focuses on how, in their drawings, children represent the person in the action of picking. The CPPS was found to be a reliable scale highly correlated with the FEATS problem solving scale. Validity was tested in regard to executive functions that were scored by the children's kindergarten teachers using the BRIEF (Gioia, Isquith, Guy, & Kenworthy, 2000); their motivation was rated by their parents using the Children's Motivation Scale – CMS (Gerring et al., 1996). Results indicate low significant correlations between the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale and the CPPS regarding two EFs: initiating, and planning and organizing. Interestingly, motivation was found to be correlated with the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale but not with the CPPS. Results are discussed in terms of the developmental perspective, expressions of EFs in PPAT, and clinical implications. Study limitations and future research are also discussed.

مقدمه انگلیسی

.

نتیجه گیری انگلیسی

FEATS Problem-Solving Scale scores Each drawing was rated by two independent raters on the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale. Inter-rater reliability of the problem-solving scores was statistically significant, Cronbach's alpha was .85 (p < .01). The mean score was 2.53 and standard deviation was 1.78. These results indicate that the average for the Problem-Solving Scale showed the person has the apple in hand, but it is not apparent how he/she got it. In terms of frequencies ( Table 2), 36.5% of the drawings depicted a person with no apple in his/her hand (score 1), 8% depicted a non-realistic picking process, and 34% depicted a realistic picking process (scores 4–5). Table 2. Preschoolers FEATS Problem-Solving Score frequencies. FEATS Problem-Solving Scale scores Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent Valid 0 – The tree, apple, and/or person is missing or these items cannot be identified 11 8.7 8.8 8.8 1 – The person does not have the apple in hand, or there are no apples in a container or on the ground. 46 36.5 36.8 45.6 1.50 2 1.6 1.6 47.2 2 – The person has the apple in hand, but it is not apparent how he/she got it; or, the apples appear to be falling into a container or falling on the person or on the ground. 5 4.0 4.0 51.2 3 – The person appears to have picked the apple, but the solution is not reasonable (e.g., giving the person an excessively elongated arm) 10 7.9 8.0 59.2 3.50 8 6.3 6.4 65.6 4 – The person is on the ground or on some other reasonable type of support, and is reaching for the apple. 14 11.1 11.2 76.8 4.50 2 1.6 1.6 78.4 5 – The person is on the ground or on some other reasonable type of support or is standing on the ground with arm extended and the apple is actually in hand. 27 21.4 21.6 100.0 Total 125 99.2 100.0 Missing System 1 .8 Total 126 100.0 Table options CPPS scores: children's ways of representing the picking process Since classification according the CPPS was new, three independent raters were trained to score the scale, with a very high reliability value (Cronbach's alpha .985, p < .001). Table 3 reveals that in terms of frequencies of scores on the CPPS, the largest category (44%) is juxtaposition, which includes drawings with no picking process (with or without an apple in hand). This is congruent with Goodnow's observation of children's drawings of the same age group, which juxtaposition was used to represent a person during the action of picking a ball up from the floor. Table 3. Preschoolers’ CPPS category frequencies. Frequency Valid percent Cumulative percent Task not completed 3 2.4 2.4 Juxtaposition 56 44.4 46.8 Juxtaposition with a picking tool 5 4.0 50.8 Magical picking process 23 18.3 69.0 Realistic picking process 39 31.0 100 Table options A magical picking process was represented in 18% of the drawings, slightly higher than score 3 of the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale. This is probably due to the fact that score 2 also consists of drawings in which it is not apparent how the person got the apple, and presumably includes drawings we scored as representing a magical picking process. A realistic picking process was represented in 31% of the drawings. There are two main differences between the two scales. The first lays in the definition of score 1, which in the CPPS includes drawings showing an apple in hand and depictions of a person and an apple with no tree, whether or not a process is depicted (see Fig. 1); the second lays in the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale differentiating between two realistic picking process (scores 4 and 5), while the CPPS does not classify realistic processes in terms of success in picking the apple. Full-size image (24 K) Fig. 1. Score 2 according the FEATS problem solving scale; Score 1 according the CPPS. Figure options According to Table 4, the scales strongly correlate to each other, reflecting their similarities, with a small difference. This demonstrates their shared assessment criteria and their distinctiveness in assessing problem-solving phenomenon in PPAT drawings. The first research hypothesis was confirmed. Table 4. Spearman correlations between the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale and the CPPS Children's Picking Process Scale. FEATS Problem-Solving Scale scores CPPS – Children's Picking Process Scale Spearman's rho FEATS Problem-Solving Scale scores Correlation coefficient 1.000 .742** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 125 125 CPPS Children's Picking Process Scale Correlation coefficient .742** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 125 126 ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table options BRIEF scales EFs scores were obtained from the children's teachers, who were asked to score the executive functions of each child. As expected, high internal consistency was found between items in each scale. Cronbach's alphas values are presented in Table 5 ranging between .899 and .936. Table 5. Reliability of the BRIEF scales. BRIEF scales No. of items Cronbach alpha Planning and organizing 11 .928 Working memory 9 .936 Initiation 7 .910 Monitoring 10 .899 Table options The results in Table 6 show internal consistency between the scales, as expected (Gioia et al., 2000), and a strong and powerful statistically significant positive correlation (p < .01) between the initiation, working memory, planning, and organization and monitoring scales. Also as expected, the correlation's magnitudes were moderate, demonstrating their distinctiveness in assessing the different executive functions. Table 6. Pearson analysis of inter-correlations among BRIEF scales. Initiation Scale Working-Memory Scale Planning and Organizing Scale Monitoring Scale Initiation Scale Pearson correlation 1 .748** .838** .697** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 109 109 109 109 Working Memory Scale Pearson correlation .748** 1 .893** .792** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 109 109 109 109 Planning and Organizing Scale Pearson correlation .838** .893** 1 .772** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 109 109 109 109 Monitoring Scale Pearson correlation .697** .792** .772** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 109 109 109 109 ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table options Children's motivation scores (CMS) Inter-reliability of the CMS items was high, with Cronbach's alpha .784 (p < .01), after dropping one item that was not well defined. The mean score for the motivation scale was found within the range scores of normative children's values (M = 47.5, SD = 6.94), according to the study by Gerring et al. (1996). Table 7 presents the correlations between each BRIEF scale, with the Problem-Solving Scale of the FEATS, and the CPPS. Table 7. Correlations between the FEATS’ Problem-Solving Scale, CPPS Children's Picking-Process Scale, CMS motivation, and BRIEF scales. Sum of Initiating Scale Sum of Working Memory Scale Sum of Planning and Organizing Scale Sum of Monitoring Scale CMS FEATS – Problem-Solving Scale scores CPPS – Children's Picking-Process Scale Spearman's rho Sum of Initiating Scale Correlation coefficient 1.000 .737** .842** .730** −.066 −.189* −.226* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .556 .049 .018 N 109 109 109 109 83 109 109 Sum of Working Memory Scale Correlation coefficient .737** 1.000 .876** .811** −.103 −.181 −.147 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .353 .059 .127 N 109 109 109 109 83 109 109 Sum of Planning and Organizing Scale Correlation coefficient .842** .876** 1.000 .813** −.106 −.191* −.219* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .338 .047 .022 N 109 109 109 109 83 109 109 Sum of Monitoring Scale Correlation coefficient .730** .811** .813** 1.000 −.204 −.170 −.152 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .064 .077 .114 N 109 109 109 109 83 109 109 CMS Correlation coefficient −.066 −.103 −.106 −.204 1.000 .225* .098 Sig. (2-tailed) .556 .353 .338 .064 .030 .352 N 83 83 83 83 93 93 93 FEATS Problem-Solving Scale scores Correlation coefficient −.189* −.181 −.191* −.170 .225* 1.000 .742** Sig. (2-tailed) .049 .059 .047 .077 .030 .000 N 109 109 109 109 93 125 125 CPPS Child's Picking-Process Scale Correlation coefficient −.226* −.147 −.219* −.152 .098 .742** 1.000 Sig. (2-tailed) .018 .127 .022 .114 .352 .000 N 109 109 109 109 93 125 126 * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table options As demonstrated in Table 7, significant negative correlations were found between two EFs (planning and organizing, and initiating) and the FEATS Problem-Solving Scale (r = −.191, p < .05; r = .189, p < .05, respectively) and with the CPPS (r = −.219, p < .05; r = −.226, p < .05, respectively). This indicates that the more a child has difficulties in planning and organizing and/or in initiating, the lower her/his FEATS problem-solving scores and CPPS will be, with the process of picking the apple less realistic. To analyze these results, pairwise comparisons were conducted, omitting the two CPPS's categories that were too small – non-response and juxtaposition with a picking tool. The results presented in Table 8 show a significant difference between juxtaposition and realistic picking process in regard to the planning and organizing scale (p < .004) and the initiating scale (p < .032). This means that the higher the scores for planning and organizing and initiation, the more the picking would be presented as realistic, as opposed to juxtaposition. The lower the scores for these EFs, the more juxtaposition will be present. Table 8. Pairwise comparisons between CPPS and EFs. Dependent variable (I) CPPS – Child's Picking-Process Scale (J) CPPS – Child's Picking-Process Scale Mean difference (I − J) SE Sig.a 95% confidence interval for differencea Lower bound Upper bound Sum of Planning & Organizing Scale Juxtaposition Magical Picking 0.939 1.508 1.000 −2.734 4.611 Realistic Picking 4.098* 1.247 .004 1.061 7.136 Magical Picking Juxtaposition −0.939 1.508 1.000 −4.611 2.734 Realistic Picking 3.159 1.593 .151 −.722 7.041 Realistic Picking Juxtaposition −4.098* 1.247 .004 −7.136 −1.061 Magical Picking −3.159 1.593 .151 −7.041 0.722 Sum of Initiating Scale Juxtaposition Magical Picking 0.360 1.097 1.000 −2.313 3.032 Realistic Picking 2.363* 0.907 .032 0.153 4.573 Magical Picking Juxtaposition −.360 1.097 1.000 −3.032 2.313 Realistic Picking 2.003 1.159 .262 −0.821 4.827 Realistic Picking Juxtaposition −2.363* 0.907 .032 −4.573 −0.153 Magical Picking −2.003 1.159 .262 −4.827 0.821 Based on estimated marginal means. a Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni. * The mean difference is significant accordingly. Table options In regard to motivation, an interesting result was found, a significant positive correlation was found between the degree of a child's motivation as reported by his/her parent and FEATS problem-solving scores (r = .225, p < .05), however not with the CPPS. This implies that the higher the motivation of the child, the more effective solution he/she will provide to the problem of picking the apple from the tree which ends actually with getting the apple (a success in the picking process). The CPPS which measures merely the picking process was not related to motivation.

خرید مقاله
پس از پرداخت، فوراً می توانید مقاله را دانلود فرمایید.