Do typically and atypically developing children learn and generalize novel names similarly: The role of conceptual distance during learning and at test.
Match language probes to mental age, not birth age, so kids with ID can show you their true word-learning skill.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Witt et al. (2020) asked whether kids with intellectual disability learn and use new words like their typical peers. They tested two groups: children with ID and neurotypical children matched on mental age. Each child learned made-up names for toy objects and for simple relations like 'on top'. Later they saw new toys and had to pick the correct name.
The team ran two comparisons. First they lined up kids by mental age. Then they lined up the same kids by birth age. This let them see which match-up made the two groups look most alike.
What they found
When kids were matched on mental age, the ID group learned and generalized the new names just as well as the typical kids. Scores and error patterns looked the same.
When the same data were sorted by chronological age, the ID group looked weaker. The difference vanished once mental age was controlled, not birth age.
How this fits with other research
Boutros et al. (2011) saw the same mental-age effect in a self-regulation task. Kids with ID used the same planning strategies as mental-age-matched peers, echoing the word-learning result here. Together the papers show mental age matters across very different skills.
Carmichael et al. (1999) tracked IQ growth in ID and found crystallized intelligence keeps rising with age. That supports keeping language lessons going, but Arnaud adds a warning: test new words against mental age, not birthday, or you may underestimate what the child can do.
Vakil et al. (2011) used eye-tracking during analogies and found different thinking paths even when accuracy matched. Arnaud did not record eye moves, so the two studies sit side-by-side: same design, same groups, but one shows equal outcome, the other shows equal outcome via different routes.
Why it matters
Next time you probe vocabulary or run a generalization test, pick targets that fit the learner's mental age, not the age on the file. A child with ID who tests at a 4-year-old level can master 4-year-old word patterns; asking for 8-year-old patterns just because he is eight will make you think the teaching failed. Match the task, see the real learning, then move both mental and chronological skills forward.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before your next tact probe, check the learner's most recent mental-age score and set the item difficulty there, not at chronological age.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
There is a large body of evidence showing that comparison of multiple stimuli leads to better conceptualization and generalization of novel names than no-comparison settings in typically developing (TD) children. By contrast, the evidence regarding this issue remains scarce in children with intellectual disabilities (ID). Children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and TD children matched on mental age with the Raven's coloured progressive matrices were tested in several novel name learning comparison conditions, with familiar objects. We manipulated the conceptual distance between the learning stimuli in the learning phase and between the learning and generalization phase stimuli for object and relational nouns. Results showed that both populations had rather similar performance profile when matched on their cognitive skills (low- vs. high-functioning). Unexpectedly, ID children's performance was equivalent for relations and better for objects compared to their TD peers' performance. However, when controlling for chronological age, the difference between ID and TD children disappeared in the case of object categories and was better understood by TD children in the case of relations. We discuss the role of conceptual distance on participants' conceptual generalization as a function of their intellectual abilities and cognitive functioning.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103720