Effects of training in conceptual versus perceptual analogies among adolescents and adults with intellectual disability

H. Lifshitz-Vahav, D. Tzuriel, Itzhak Weiss

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    The objective of this study was to investigate whether adolescents and adults with mild and moderate intellectual disability (ID) can improve their level of analogical reasoning following a short but intensive teaching stage within a dynamic assessment procedure. The sample was composed of two age groups: adolescents (n = 24, ages 15 to 21) and adults (n = 24, ages 30 to 73). All subjects were administered the Children's Conceptual and Perceptual Analogical Modifiability (CCPAM) test and the Abstract Verbal Thinking Test. A repeated-measures MANCOVA of Type of Test X Age Group X Time X ID Level, with Abstract Verbal Thinking score as a covariate, indicated significant pre- to postteaching improvement across all age groups and ID levels. Significant interactions were found for Age Group X ID Level, and for Type of Test X ID Level X Time. Among the adolescents, the moderate group scored significantly higher than the mild group; the mild group benefited more from teaching in perceptual analogies. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that, for conceptual analogies, the synonyms subtest added 10% to the prediction of CCPAM postteaching score; for the perceptual analogies, the verbal analogies subtest added 9% to the prediction of CCPAM postteaching score. Our findings support the central assertion of the structural cognitive modifiability theory relating to the possibility of change in individuals with ID even at advanced ages.
    Original languageAmerican English
    Pages (from-to)144-170
    JournalJournal of Cognitive Education and Psychology
    Volume5
    Issue number2
    StatePublished - 2005

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Effects of training in conceptual versus perceptual analogies among adolescents and adults with intellectual disability'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this