Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego, United States of America.
Department of Psychology, University of California San Diego, United States of America.
Cognition. 2022 May;222:104998. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104998. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
The Give-a-Number task has become a gold standard of children's number word comprehension in developmental psychology. Recently, researchers have begun to use the task as a predictor of other developmental milestones. This raises the question of how reliable the task is, since test-retest reliability of any measure places an upper bound on the size of reliable correlations that can be found between it and other measures. In Experiment 1, we presented 81 2- to 5-year-old children with Wynn (1992) titrated version of the Give-a-Number task twice within a single session. We found that the reliability of this version of the task was high overall, but varied importantly across different assigned knower levels, and was very low for some knower levels. In Experiment 2, we assessed the test-retest reliability of the non-titrated version of the Give-a-Number task with another group of 81 children and found a similar pattern of results. Finally, in Experiment 3, we asked whether the two versions of Give-a-Number generated different knower levels within-subjects, by testing 75 children with both tasks. Also, we asked how both tasks relate to another commonly used test of number knowledge, the "What's-On-This-Card" task. We found that overall, the titrated and non-titrated versions of Give-a-Number yielded similar knower levels, though the non-titrated version was slightly more conservative than the titrated version, which produced modestly higher knower levels. Neither was more closely related to "What's-On-This-Card" than the other. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results.
数字赋值任务已经成为发展心理学中儿童数字单词理解的黄金标准。最近，研究人员开始将该任务用作其他发展里程碑的预测指标。这就提出了一个问题，即该任务的可靠性如何，因为任何衡量标准的测试-重测信度都对其与其他衡量标准之间可靠相关的大小施加了上限。在实验 1 中，我们在一次会议中向 81 名 2 至 5 岁的儿童呈现了 Wynn（1992）的数字赋值任务的滴定版本两次。我们发现，该任务的可靠性总体上很高，但在不同的指定知识者水平上差异很大，并且对于某些知识者水平非常低。在实验 2 中，我们使用另一组 81 名儿童评估了数字赋值任务的非滴定版本的测试-重测信度，得到了类似的结果模式。最后，在实验 3 中，我们通过对 75 名儿童进行两项任务的测试，询问数字赋值的两个版本是否在个体内产生了不同的知识者水平。此外，我们还询问了这两个任务与另一个常用的数字知识测试“这张卡片上有什么”之间的关系。我们发现，总体而言，滴定和非滴定版本的数字赋值产生了相似的知识者水平，尽管非滴定版本比滴定版本略为保守，滴定版本产生了略高的知识者水平。与另一个任务相比，这两个任务都没有与“这张卡片上有什么”更密切相关。我们讨论了这些结果的理论和实际意义。
