two post tests within each age group and linguistic condition revealed the same pattern.
However, the within linguistic condition analysis revealed significant differences only for the
Analogy condition. The children performed significantly better during the delayed than the
immediate post test (Wilcoxon: Z=1.9, p<.05).

To what extent does children ^,s performance on the analogy task differ by their existing
vocabulary ?

Children’s performance did not differ significantly by their existing vocabulary. The same
pattern was found within each age group and linguistic condition (see Table in Appendix
5.9).

To what extent does children ^,s performance on the analogy task differ by their phonological
memory?

Children with high phonological memory performed better on the analogy task than children
with low phonological memory (see Table in Appendix 5.10), however the differences were
not significant. Analysis within each age group revealed the same pattern. Significant
differences were found during the delayed post test, for the 4 year- olds (Mann-Whitney:
Z=1.9, p<.05), and the 5 year-olds (Mann-Whitney: Z=2.4, p<.05). The same pattern was also
evident within each linguistic condition. Significant differences were found for the Definition
condition during the immediate post test (Mann-Whitney: Z=2.3, p<.05).

Error analysis

Different responses were given in the analogy task. An Error analysis was carried out to
identify the different types of responses given. These are presented in Table 5.13 below.

Table 5.13 Children’s responses in the analogy task

Responses__________________

______________Description__________________________________

Don’t know

Irrelevant responses
Shape similar word
Use of a basic level word

Given analogy

If no responses were provided

If they gave irrelevant responses

E.g. “abez is like a tube '' and ffeber is like a triangle

Provision of a basic level word from the same semantic
category “abez is like a recorder”

Provision of the analogy e.g. “abez is like a flute”