Altogether 553 children (195 first graders, mean age 6.8 years, and 358 third graders, mean age 8.7 years) participated in the development of a self-report measure to assess the intensity of children's pain. The first step was the derivation, from children's drawings of facial expressions of pain, of 5 sets of 7 schematic faces depicting changes in severity of expressed pain from no pain to the most pain possible. With the set of faces that achieved the highest agreement in pain ordering, additional studies were conducted to determine whether the set had the properties of a scale. In one study, children rank-ordered the faces on 2 occasions, separated by 1 week. All 7 faces were correctly ranked by 64% (retest 1 week later, 61%) of grade 1 children and by 86% (retest 89%) of grade 3 children. In a second study, the faces were presented in all possible paired combinations. All 7 faces were correctly placed by 62% (retest 86%) of the younger and by 75% (retest 71%) of the older subjects. A third study asked children to place faces along a scale: a procedure allowing a check on the equality of intervals. The fourth study checked on whether pain was acting as an underlying construct for ordering the faces in memory. We asked whether children perceived the set as a scale by asking if memory for an ordered set of faces was more accurate than for a random set. The final study checked, with 6-year-old children, the test-retest reliability of ratings for recalled experiences of pain. Overall, the faces pain scale incorporates conventions used by children, has achieved strong agreement in the rank ordering of pain, has indications that the intervals are close to equal, and is treated by children as a scale. The test-retest data suggest that it may prove to be a reliable index over time of self-reported pain.

The study examined the relationship between children's conceptual understanding and addition problem-solving procedures. Forty-eight 6- to 8-year-olds solved addition problems and, in a 2nd task, were prompted to judge whether a puppet could use the arithmetic properties of one problem to solve the next problem. Relational properties between consecutive problems were manipulated to reflect aspects of additive composition, commutativity, and associativity principles. Conceptual understanding was assessed by the ability to spontaneously use such relational properties in problem solving (Task 1) and to recognize and explain them when prompted (Task 2). Results revealed that conceptual understanding was related to using order-indifferent, decomposition, and retrieval strategies and speed and accuracy in solving unrelated problems. The importance of conceptual understanding for addition development is discussed.

Dot enumeration (DE) and number comparison (NC) abilities are considered markers of core number competence. Differences in DE/NC reaction time (RT) signatures are thought to distinguish between typical and atypical number development. Whether a child's DE and NC signatures change or remain stable over time, relative to other developmental signatures, is unknown. To investigate these issues, the DE and NC RT signatures of 159 children were assessed 7 times over 6 years. Cluster analyses identified within-task and across-age subgroups. DE signatures comprised 4 parameters: (a) the RT slope within the subitizing range, (b) the RT slope for the counting range, (c) the subitizing range (indicated by the point of slope discontinuity), and (d) the overall average DE RT response. NC RT signatures comprised 2 parameters (NC intercept and slope) derived from RTs comparing numbers 1 to 9. Analyses yielded 3 distinct DE and NC profiles at each age. Within-age subgroup profiles reflected differences in 3 of the 4 DE parameters and only 1 NC parameter. Systematic changes in parameters were observed across ages for both tasks, and both tasks broadly identified the same subgroups. Sixty-nine percent of children were assigned to the same subgroup across age, even though parameters themselves changed across age. Subgroups did not differ in processing speed or nonverbal reasoning, suggesting that DE and NC do not tap general cognitive abilities but reflect individual differences specific to the domain of numbers. Indeed, both DE and NC subgroup membership at 6 years predicted computation ability at 6 years, 9.5 years, and 10 years.

Are thoughts impossible without the words to express them? It has been claimed that this is the case for thoughts about numbers: Children cannot have the concept of exact numbers until they know the words for them, and adults in cultures whose languages lack a counting vocabulary similarly cannot possess these concepts. Here, using classical methods of developmental psychology, we show that children who are monolingual speakers of two Australian languages with very restricted number vocabularies possess the same numerical concepts as a comparable group of Englishspeaking indigenous Australian children.cognitive development ͉ linguistic determinism ͉ mathematical cognition ͉ number concepts

No abstract

Patterns of conceptual and procedural knowledge of addition were examined in 5- to 8-year-olds (N = 80). Conceptual knowledge was measured by assessing children's responses to problems in which addends were reordered or decomposed and recombined. Problems were presented using abstract symbols, numbers, and physical objects. Children were more successful in noticing that addends had been reordered rather than decomposed and in noticing the decomposition of addends presented with objects rather than with symbols. Distinct profiles of procedural competence were derived from an analysis of children's problem-solving accuracy and strategies. Profiles were associated with patterns of conceptual knowledge and with age, although age and conceptual knowledge were not related. Findings highlight the usefulness of identifying profiles of procedural and conceptual knowledge for understanding the development of children's knowledge of addition.

To investigate differences and similarities in the dimensional constructs of the Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS; Frost, Marten, Lahart, & Rosenblate, 1990), Child and Adolescent Perfectionism Scale (CAPS; Flett, Hewitt, Boucher, Davidson, & Munro, 2000), and Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (APS-R; Slaney, Rice, Mobley, Trippi, & Ashby, 2001), 938 high school students completed the 3 perfectionism questionnaires, as well as the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Preliminary analyses revealed commonly observed factor structures for each perfectionism questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis of item responses from the questionnaires (combined) yielded a 4-factor solution (factors were labeled High Personal Standards, Concerns, Doubts and Discrepancy, Externally Motivated Perfectionism, and Organization and Order). A latent class analysis of individuals' mean ratings on each of the 4 factors yielded a 6-class solution. Three of the 6 classes represented perfectionist subgroups (labeled adaptive perfectionist, externally motivated maladaptive perfectionist, and mixed maladaptive perfectionist), and 3 represented nonperfectionist subgroups (labeled nonperfectionist A, nonperfectionist B, and order and organization nonperfectionist). Each of the 6 subgroups was meaningfully associated with the DASS. Findings showed that 3 out of 10 students were classified as maladaptive perfectionists, and maladaptive perfectionists were more prevalent than adaptive perfectionists. In sum, it is evident that combined ratings from the FMPS, CAPS, and APS-R offer a meaningful characterization of perfectionism.

No abstract