The Name of the Test The Children’s Apperception Test (CAT), according to Albert I. Rabin (1995) “was first published in 1949, and the manual reviewed was the eighth revised edition.” The test was revised in 1991. The Children’s Apperception Test is an extension from the TAT, which is for adults, using pictures of humans rather than animals. There is a CAT-H that uses human pictures, which was created after a controversy about whether animal or human pictures were best. There is also a CAT-S supplement. Purpose of the Test The Children’s Apperception Test (CAT) is a projective personality test used on children ages 3-10 years old. Children will decipher a series of 10 pictures consisting of animals, each in different situations. The purpose of this test is to reveal the child’s thoughts and feelings towards conflicts and relationships at conscious and unconscious levels based on the story they made up with each picture (Hatt, 1980). This test was originally designed to understand psychosexual conflicts at different stages of child development. Today, the CAT is used mainly in clinical evaluation. Knoff (1992), states the following: The 10 cards presumably address the following issues: feeding problems, oral problems, sibling rivalry, attitudes toward parents, relationships to parents as (sexual) couples, jealousy toward same-gender parent figures, fantasies about aggression, acceptance by the adult world, fear or loneliness at night, and toileting behavior and parents' response to it. (p. 1) The Manual The manual for CAT was revised in 1980. According to Shaffer, the manual “contains a brief history of the test; an account of its 'nature and purpose'; directions for administration; description and interpretation of anticipated ... ... middle of paper ... ... when trying to evaluate a child, but rather it may be useful in a classroom. Since there aren’t any restrictions on who can administer the test, I would think it would be useful for a teacher at the beginning of the year to understand the personalities of each of her children. Works Cited Rabin, I. A. (1995). Children’s Apperception Test. Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print, Vol 5. Hatt, V. C. (1980). Children’s Apperception Test. Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print. Vol 9. Shaffer, B. M. (1980) Children’s Apperception Test. Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print. Vol 9. Reinehr, C. R. (1992). Children’s Apperception Test [1991 Revision]. . Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print. Vol. 13. Knoff, M. H. (1992). Children’s Apperception Test [1991 Revision]. . Mental Measurements Yearbook with Tests in Print. Vol. 13.
The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition (KTEA-3) is a revised and updated comprehensive test of academic achievement (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2014). Authored by Drs. Alan and Nadeen Kaufman and published by Pearson, the KTEA-3 remains an individually administered test of achievement intended for use with examinees ages 4 through 25 years, or those in grades Pre-Kindergarten (PK) through 12 and above. The KTEA-3 is based on a clinical model of academic skills assessment in the broad areas of reading, mathematics, and written and oral language. It was designed to support clinicians utilizing a Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) or Information Processing theoretical approach to assessment and detailed information regarding the structure
Kieran was at the age of eight months when I first used the object permanence test developed by Jean Piaget, in the aspect of sensorimotor development in both stage 3 and 4 of the Six Substages of Sensorimotor Development (Table 6-2 pg 154). At stage 3 infants begin to show greater interest in their world
The observations were done in Alisha’s home in her living room, on the floor. For task one there were five tests in total. Test number one was to find a toy that caught the attention of the child and then hide it behind a large object. I used her blue teddy bear as the toy, and a large piece of cardboard to hide it behind. For test two, while the toy was in Alisha’s view, I dropped it behind a lazy boy so it would no longer be visible. During test three, I hid most of the teddy bear under a blanket but
Neisser, U. (1979). The control of information pickup in selective looking. In A. D. Pick (Ed.), Perception and its Development: A Tribute to Eleanor J. Gibson (pp. 201-219). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Some of Piaget’s earlier psychological work included running intelligence tests on children. By preforming these tests, the results led him to the conclusion that children think differently from adults because at the time it was assumed that children were just smaller adults. Because of this, Piaget began to study cognitive development errors in children (Piaget, 1976). One example of a test he performed was giving a three year old one large mound of clay and one small mound of clay. Next, he would tell the child to make them into two equal mounds. After this, Piaget would break one of the mounds into two smaller mounds and then proceed to question the child on which had more clay. Usually they would say that the one with the two smaller mounds was bigger even though they were equal. But when he repeated the tests on children that were six and seven years of age, they no longer made the error in saying one mound was bigger than the other. These types of errors helped to provide insights that were essential for understanding the mental world of a child (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). He proposed that there...
Baillargeon, R., & Graber, M. (1987). Where’s the rabbit? 5.5 month-old infants’ representation of the height of a hidden object. Cognitive Development, 2, 375-392.
Björklund, D. F. (2012). Children‘s thinking: Cognitive development and individual differences (5th Ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Coon, D. & Mitterer, J. (2013) Introduction to Psychology Belmont CA. : Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Retrieved May 07, 2014
Sandoval, J. (2003). [Review of the Woodcock-Johnson III.] In B. S. Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1024-1028). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Zajac, R. & Hayne H. (2003). I don’t think that’s what really happened: The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of children’s repots. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 187-195.
Piaget and Simon created tests that were meant to measure child intelligence. These test were meant to draw connections between a child’s age and the nature of his or her errors. Piaget and Simon’s test were ultimately too rigid for the children. The test was designed to spell or count as a way of judging I.Q. Piaget revised the test so that the children would explain the logic of the “incorrect” answers. The children incorrect answers revealed their qualitative thinking at the various stages of their development. Piaget would then wonder one question that led to his major contribution in the field of psychology: How do children
N.G., 4 years, 11 months, embodied all I could ask for in a child to conduct such an interview on. Nearing her fifth birthday in the upcoming week, her age is central between ages three and seven, providing me with information that is certainly conducive to our study. Within moments upon entry into our interview it was apparent that my child fell into the preoperational stage of Piaget’s cognitive development. More specifically, N.G. fell into the second half of the preoperational stage. What initially tipped me off was her first response to my conduction of the conservation of length demonstration. Upon laying out two identical straws, her rational for why one straw was longer than the other was, “it’s not to the one’s bottom”. This is a perfect example of an intuitive guess, though showing a lack of logic in the statement. A crucial factor of the preoperational stage of development is that children cannot yet manipulate and transform information into logical ways which was plainly seen through the conservation of number demonstration. Though N.G. was able to correctly identify that each row still contained an equal number of pennies upon being spread out, it required her to count the number of pennies in each row. In the preoperational stage of development children do not yet understand logical mental operations such as mental math as presented in the demonstration. Another essential element that leads me to firmly support N.G.’s involvement in the preoperational ...
When the Santa Claus mask was showed to Albert he stilled showed signs of fear but Albert wasn 't the only tested at the moment, there were other babies tested as well More than one test was completed several times? The child learning level seemed to be higher than any other test that had been done enhancing a provocation with crying. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013) .The dog was another test presented to Albert The dog had approached the child but he had a very different reaction from when the first time he was dealing with the rabbit. It 's like Albert didn 't even visualize the dog until it started walking away and that 's when the child started to cry. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013). As the rabbit was placed in front of Albert he tried move away from it and started crying so they placed the rabbit in front of once again and he still wasn 't giving a positive feedback Albert cried again. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R., 2013) Watson & Rayner tested the fur coat as well. When the coat was placed in front of Albert he instantly step away from it. They introduced a second time and Albert stood there & wrinkled his nose still no positive feedback. Albert withdrawal immediately. (Watson J. B., & Rayner, R.,
It is important that teachers give children a fair chance to show their knowledge when assessing. “The purpose of assessment is to provide feedback that can be used to improve student performance” ( Orange 2000). Teachers assess children to ensure that they are understanding the material, and to make sure they are learning. For young children especially tests should never be the only criteria of assessment. Instructors should always make sure that their assessment is fair. When testing a child, make sure that the testing method used is appropriate for that child. For example, if giving a test that relies on visual aids to administer the test it is important that the teacher is certain that all the children have good enough vision to clearly see the aids.
Sattler, Jerome, and Robert Hoge. Assessment of Children: Behaviorial, Social, and Clinical Foundation. La Mesa:Sattler, 2006. Print.