Longitudinal Design - Prediction and Outcomes

Question 1

Friso-van den Bos - methods

Answer 1

Within-subjects design - comparison of classroom vs. individual.
Repeated measures where children were tested twice over two weeks - randomly assigned to avoid order effects.
Assessed working memory with verbal and visuospatial tasks (two different types of working memory - less limited).
After working memory task, underwent an inhibition task and teachers rated on attention.
Assessed academic achievement through classroom scores in time period of testing
Instructions given through headphones - not ecologically valid? another potential distractor - However both conditions had it so results are still comparable

Question 2

Friso-van den Bos - aims

Answer 2

Predictive value of working memory in individual vs. group setting on academic achievement.
Are any differences between conditions moderated by response inhibition and attention?

Question 3

Friso-van der Bos - limitation

Answer 3

Teachers rated students’ attention - could be biased by knowing some louder students better than others, pupils they had taught for less time
- could have used an attention paradigm to measure
- could have also used parent report - multi informant approach
Cognitive inhibition may be better showing to distractibility than response inhibition
Unnatural headphone design - observational design could code for distractors
Only measured distractor as noise - visual environment also adds distraction that was not measured
– obs could address such

Question 4

Foley et al. - aims

Answer 4

Do parents that have more mind-mindedness show increased parental talk and infant-intitiated conversations?

Question 5

Foley et al. - methods

Answer 5

Measured parental (BOTH mum and dad) in the third trimester of pregnancy and at 4 months age - only first-time parents (not learned importance of MM through other children?)
– at pregnancy through description of their unborn child and at 7 months
– qualitative coding for mind mindedness
Used LENA device to measure within home with both parents over a full day - lots of rich, ecologically valid, naturalistic data
– coded videos for turn-taking and speech initiations
Used multiple regression model to compare between parents - mothers MM only predicted infant conversations at 7 months

Question 6

Foley et al. - limitations

Answer 6

LENA device is audio recorded only - no video capture
– may have missed important nonverbal communication and play - possibly esp. for fathers
Mind-mindedness can be used in various ways - could use multiple of these instead of just one as it may limit findings
Parents may have made more conscious effort knowing they were being recorded - may not necessarily reflect day to day life - BUT same confounds exist across levels of mind-mindedness so can still use to predict the two variables and compare

Question 7

Tamis-LeMonda et al. - aims

Answer 7

Whether higher maternal responsiveness to vocal/ exploratory behaviour predicted language milestones?
(positive and meaningful change in mothers behaviour)

Question 8

Tamis-LeMonda - methods

Answer 8

Assessed at 9 and 13 months of age - two time points
Visited in their homes and recorded free play
– naturalistic, coded for different aspects of maternal responsiveness
Biweekly telephone interviews with mother to assess when language acquisition milestones
– used self-report measures through providing with standardised scores of language
– parents see in all environments - better than snippets of data available from small observations

Question 9

Tamis-LeMonda - limitations

Answer 9

Observation was brief - 10 minutes. Cannot capture full play behaviours and cycles in this; natural opportunities for maternal responsiveness may not have arisen
Researcher in the home could have changed infant behaviour, e.g. if shy become more withdrawn
Used force-choice approach when coding behaviour - could be missing some complex data and using a reductionist approach