A Qualitative Analysis of Imitation Performances of Preschoolers With Down Syndrome.

Vanvuchelen (2016) watched preschoolers with Down syndrome copy play actions.

Each child was matched to a preschooler with another intellectual disability.

The team scored every imitation slip by type: motor, conceptual, or order.

Kids with Down syndrome made fewer motor-production slips.

They did make more conceptual substitutions, like brushing a doll’s hair with a cup.

Their overall imitation score was mixed, not clearly better or worse.

Springer et al. (1981) also saw preschoolers with Down syndrome imitate, but they used mental-age-matched neurotypical and autistic peers. That paper found autistic kids imitated less, while Down syndrome kids looked fairly strong. The new study keeps the mental-age match but swaps in other ID peers and zooms in on error types, giving a finer picture.

Laugeson et al. (2014) showed the same age group has weak working memory and planning. Fewer motor slips in the new study may reflect good visuospatial strength, matching Bhaumik et al. (2009) who found stronger sequential spatial memory in Down syndrome.

Wright (1972) proved that consequences, not instructions, control imitation in ID learners. Marleen’s qualitative codes fit neatly with that lens: watch what the child actually does, then adjust contingencies.

When you teach imitation to a preschooler with Down syndrome, expect clean movements but check for odd object swaps. If the child “brushes” with a cup, don’t drill motor form—teach the right object function instead. Pair each correct action with immediate reinforcement so the new form sticks.