Comparing the latent structure of the Children’s Category ... › livemedia › documents ›...
28
Comparing the latent structure of the Children’s Category Test among young children and older adults: A preliminary study E. Foutsitzi 1 , M. Dinou 1 , E. Katsadima 1 , E. Savvidou 2 , G. Papantoniou 1 , D. Moraitou 3 , & E.Masoura 3 1 Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Ioannina, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina, [email protected] 3 School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, [email protected] 9th Panhellenic Interdisciplinary Conference on Alzheimer's Disease and 1st Mediterranean on Neurodegenerative Diseases
Transcript of Comparing the latent structure of the Children’s Category ... › livemedia › documents ›...
Comparing the latent structure of theChildren’s Category Test among young
children and older adults: A preliminary study
E. Foutsitzi1, M. Dinou1, E. Katsadima1, E. Savvidou2, G.Papantoniou1, D. Moraitou3, & E.Masoura3
1 Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Ioannina,[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
2 Department of Primary Education, University of Ioannina,[email protected]
3 School of Psychology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,[email protected]
9th Panhellenic Interdisciplinary Conference on Alzheimer's Diseaseand 1st Mediterranean on Neurodegenerative Diseases
The CCT is an instrument originally created fromshort forms of the child versions of the HalsteadCategory Test (HCT; Halstead, 1947) in an effort toreduce lengthy administration times of the originalversions, providing a more efficient version of theHCT, which has established sensitivity to acquiredcerebral impairment (Allen, Caron, & Goldstein, 2006;Choca, Laatsch, Wetzel, & Agresti, 1997).
Children’s Category Test (CCΤ)
The CCT is consisted of two levels:• Level one (CCT-1) was developed for children of 5-8
years of age and,• Level two (CCT-2) was intended for ages 9-16.
Both levels require the child to create and modifystrategies of responding to visual stimuli based oncorrective feedback. Studies of standardizationsample indicate that CCT has adequate internalconsistency and criterion validity (Boll, 1993).
Children’s Category Test (CCΤ)
Allen, Knatz, and Mayfield (2006) support viewingCCT-1 as a multidimensional procedure thatassesses two distinct but related constructs:
• The first construct, Conceptual Discrimination, isconsistent with the view that the CCT-1 is a measureof problem solving and reasoning.
• The second, Conceptual Memory, appears to assesslearning and memory, and as such departs fromwhat might be traditionally thought of as a test ofreasoning ability.
Children’s Category Test (CCΤ)
CCT-1 is commonly used to assess abstraction andproblem solving abilities in children between the agesof 5 and 8 years, who have sustained brain damage.
The CCT-1 is presented in a booklet form and isconsisted of 80 items distributed across 5 subtests.
It is individually administered and requires the child tounderstand the single conceptual rule underlying theitems.
Method: Instrument
Subtest I requires simple color recognition,
subtest II requires the relevant quantity of the specificcolor,subtest III requires identifying oddity,
subtest IV requires identification of the missing colorand
subtest V reviews the principles presented in subtests Ithrough IV.
Method: Instrument
• Feedback is given following each response, as towhether the answer is right or wrong.
• The primary index of impairment in CCT -1 is thetotal number of errors made across its five subtests(Moore, Danders, & Thompson, 2002; Allen, Knatz, &Mayfield, 2006).
Method: Instrument
Because of the relatively small sample size of eachgroup, analyses were not run at the item level.
Instead, based on findings of previous study (Allen,Knatz, & Mayfield 2006), the covariance matrix wasbased on four scores, namely, total raw score forsubtest II, total raw score for subtest III, total rawscore for subtest IV, and total raw score for subtest V.
Results: Statistical Analysis
Confirmatory Factor Analysis was conducted toexamine the factor structure of the CCT-1 test forevery group of the sample, using sum scores of eachof the four observed variables (subtests of the CCT-1test),
and testing if individual variability across the totalraw scores of each of the four subtests can bemodeled by two underlying factors (Allen, Knatz, &Mayfield 2006).
Results: Statistical Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in EQSVersion 6.1 (Bentler, 2005) and performed on thefive covariance matrices, which stemmed from thetotal sample and each of the four groups ofparticipants, using the Maximum Likelihood (ML orML ROBUST) estimation method.
The Wald test was used to test the need for theestimated parameters and to suggest a morerestricted model.
Results: Statistical Analysis
• Initially, we tested the two-factor CFA model in thetotal sample (Model A) .
• Confirmatory factor analysis fully verified the two-factor model in which two measured variables(Subtest II and Subtest III) loaded on one underlyingfactor and the other two variables (Subtest IV andSubtest V), loaded on a second underlying factor].
• [χ2 (1, Ν = 243) = .044, p = .83, χ2/df = .044, CFI = 1.00,SRMR = .00, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90% .00 - .10)].
• According to the suggestions of the Wald test all theparameters’ loadings of the Model A were statisticallysignificant.
• For the total sample, Cronbach’s α coefficient was .75.
Testing latent structure of CCT in the total sample
Results
The comparison of the structure in CCT-1 betweenelementary school students and new-old adults wasconducted by testing the aforementioned two-factormodel, initially in the group of elementary schoolstudents (Model B) and, subsequently, in the group ofthe new old adults (Model C).
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofelementary school students and new-old adults
• Confirmatory factor analysis verified the two-factorstructure of CCT-1 for both, elementary schoolstudents and new-old adults, groups:
• For the group of first- to second- grade elementaryschool students,
• [Satorra-Bentler scaled χ2 (1, Ν = 56) = .49, p = .48,χ2/df = .49, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90% .00 - .31)].
• Cronbach’s α coefficient was .51.
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofelementary school students and new-old adults
• For the group of new-old adults,
• [χ2 (1, Ν = 118) = .009, p = .92, χ2/df = .009, CFI =1.00, SRMR = .00, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90% .00 - .08)].
• Cronbach’s α coefficient was .83.
Testing latent structure CCT in the subsamples ofelementary school students and new-old adults
• According to the suggestions of the Wald test, all theparameters of the Models B and C were statisticallysignificant, except for the residual of one of themeasured variables, namely the residual of the totalraw score for Subset V (p = .93 & p = .06,respectively).
• Therefore, the comparison of the CFA Model B withthe Model C indicates a similar latent structure inCCT-1 for the elementary school students and new-old adults.
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofelementary school students and new-old adults
Results
In order to compare the structure in CCT-1 betweenkindergarten students and old-old adults,
the two-factor CFA model was tested, at first, in thegroup of the old-old adults (Model D) and then in thegroup of the kindergarten students (Model E).
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofKindergarten students and old-old adults
Confirmatory factor analysis did not verify the two-factor structure of CCT-1 for old-old adults ( Model D1): [χ2 (1, Ν = 27) = 1.42, p = .23, χ2/df = 1.42, CFI = .99,
SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .13 ( CI90% .00 - .55)].
Instead, a single factor model (in which all fourmeasured variables loaded on a single factor), wasverified (Model D2) [χ2 (2, Ν = 27) = 1.62, p = .45, χ2/df =0.81, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90% .00 -.36)].
Cronbach’s α coefficient was .75.
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofKindergarten students and old-old adults
On the contrary, confirmatory factor analysis verifiedtwo models for kindergarten students:
1 / the two factor structure of CCT-1 (Model E1) [χ2 (1,Ν = 42) = 0.37, p = .85, χ2/df = 0.37, CFI = 1.00, SRMR =.01, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90% .00 - .23)].
According to the suggestions of the Wald test, all theparameters of the Model E1 were statisticallysignificant, except for the residual of one of themeasured variables, namely the residual of the total rawscore for Subset V (p = .80).
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofKindergarten students and old-old adults
2/ as well as a single factor model, in which all fourmeasured variables loaded on a single underlyingfactor (Model E2) [χ2 (3, Ν = 42) = 2.58, p = .46, χ2/df= 0.86, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .08, RMSEA = .00 ( CI90%.00 - .25)].
Δx2 between the two models (E1 & E2) was notfound to be statistically significant.
For the group of kindergarten students, Cronbach’sα coefficient was .65.
Testing latent structure of CCT in the subsamples ofKindergarten students and old-old adults
Results
The comparison of the CFA Model D2 with Model B andmodel C indicates a clearly different structure in CCT-1between old-old adults and elementary students andnew –old adults.
On the contrary, the comparison of the CFA Model E1with Model B and Model C, indicates a similar pattern ofstructure in CCT-1 for kindergarten students andelementary school students as well as for kindergartenstudents and new-old adults.
In addition ,the comparison of the CFA Model E2 withModel D2 indicates a similar pattern of structure in CCT-1 for kindergarten students and old-old adults.
Discussion
In general terms, the different pattern in the latentfactor structure of the CCT-1, that was found in thepresent study,
between the groups of kindergarten students and,mainly, old-old adults, on the one hand,
and the groups of elementary school student and new-old adults, on the other,
is a supporting finding with regard to the hypothesis of“retrogenesis”.
Discussion
The unidimensional structure of the CCT-1 test, thatwas observed in the present study in the groups ofkindergarten students and old-old adults, is possible toindicate a qualitative change,
perhaps, a lack or a delay of differentiation in generalabstraction (in kindergarten students)
and a start of uniformity (in old-old adults) ofConceptual Discrimination (problem solving andreasoning) and Conceptual Memory (learning andmemory).This observed uniformity might, also, reflect a start of
disorganization in these cognitive processes of the old-old adults comparing to that of the new-old-adults.
Discussion
The results of our findings, with the size of thesample used, support the usefulness of CCT as asensitive neuropsychological test for the detection,in the old-old adults, of the differentiation and/orthe decline of the Conceptual Discrimination andConceptual Memory acquired during childhood.
In order for the applicability of CCT to be assessedin Greek older adults, normative data have to beprovided for this population.
Discussion
• Allen, D.N., Knatz,D.T., &Mayfield,J(2006).Validity of the childrens’ Category Test-Level I in a clinical sample with heterogeneous forms of brain dysfunction. Archivesof Clinical Neuropsychology,21,711-720.
• Boll,T.(1993).Childrens’ Category Test .San Antonio,TX: Psychological Corporation.• Donders,J.(1999).Clinical utility of the Category test at the two age levels in the
standardization sample. Journal of clinical and experimental Neuropsychology,21,279-282.
• Moraitou, D., Efklides, A.(2012) The wise thinking and acting questionnaire; Thecognitive facet of wisdom and its relation with memory, affect, and hope. Journal ofHappiness Studies , 13,849-73.
• Reitan, R.M.& Wolfson,D.(1992a).Neuropsychological evaluation of older children.South Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.
• Reitan,R.M.& Wolfson,D.(1992b).Neuropsychological evaluation of younger children.South Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.
• Salthouse ,T.A., Pink, J.E., &Tucher-Drob E.M.(2008). Contextual analysis of fluidintelligence. Intelligence , 36, 464-486. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2007.10.003
• Shoji, M., Fukushima, K., Wakayana, M.(2002).Intellectual faculties in patients withAlzheimer's disease regress to the level of a 4–5-year-old child. Geriatrics &Gerontology International , 2, 143-7.
References
Thank you for the attention!
