Post hoc analyses of children’s responses from the Inference condition revealed that the 6
year-olds performed significantly better than the 4 year-olds [immediate: Mann-Whitney:
Z=2.8, p<.005); delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z= 4.2, p<.05)] and the 5 year-olds
[immediate: Mann-Whitney: Z=2.02, p<.05); delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z= 2.7,
p<.005)]. Furthermore, the 5 year-olds performed significantly better than the 4 year-olds
during the delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z= 2.6, p<.05).
Post hoc analyses of children’s responses from the Definition condition indicated that the 6-
year olds performed significantly better than the 4 year-olds [immediate: Mann-Whitney:
Z=4.5, p<.0000); delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z= 3.2, p<.005)] and the 5 year-olds
during the immediate post test: (Mann-Whitney: Z=3.2, p<.005). Furthermore, the 5 year-olds
performed significantly better than the 4 year-olds [immediate: Mann-Whitney: Z=2.4,
p<.05); delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z= 2.6, p<.05)].
Post hoc analyses of children’s responses from the Analogy condition demonstrated that the
6 year-olds performed significantly better than the 4 year-olds (immediate: Mann-Whitney:
Z=2.8, p<.005; delayed: Mann-Whitney: Z=2.8, p<.005).The 5 year-olds performed
significantly better than the 4 year-olds during the delayed post test (Mann-Whitney: Z=
2.01, p<.05). No significant differences were found between the 6- and the 5 year-olds.
Post hoc analyses of children’s responses from the Lexical contrast condition indicated that
the 6 year-olds performed significantly better than the 4 year olds (Mann-Whitney: Z= 3.1,
p<.005) and the 5 year-olds (Mann-Whitney: Z= 2.3, p<.05) during the immediate post test.
No significant differences were found between the 4- and the 5 year-olds.
To what extent does children’s performance on the definition task differ by linguistic
condition?
If all children from each linguistic condition were correct on the two target words, the
maximum total score would be 96 for each linguistic condition in each post test. Figure 5.12
below shows children’s performance on the definition task by linguistic condition for both
post tests. The statistical analysis of the immediate post test revealed that there was a trend
for the children in the Inference and Definition conditions to perform better on the definition
task than the children in the Lexical contrast condition. Furthermore, the children in the
138
More intriguing information
1. Can genetic algorithms explain experimental anomalies? An application to common property resources2. Testing Gribat´s Law Across Regions. Evidence from Spain.
3. Design and investigation of scalable multicast recursive protocols for wired and wireless ad hoc networks
4. Pursuit of Competitive Advantages for Entrepreneurship: Development of Enterprise as a Learning Organization. International and Russian Experience
5. Target Acquisition in Multiscale Electronic Worlds
6. NVESTIGATING LEXICAL ACQUISITION PATTERNS: CONTEXT AND COGNITION
7. Estimation of marginal abatement costs for undesirable outputs in India's power generation sector: An output distance function approach.
8. Delayed Manifestation of T ransurethral Syndrome as a Complication of T ransurethral Prostatic Resection
9. Voluntary Teaming and Effort
10. A Location Game On Disjoint Circles