DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST OF INFERENCING KELSEY DEPEW; TINA K. VEALE, PH.D. EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Background  Inferencing is the ability to make judgments based upon limited information. It is necessary for basic problem solving, negotiating social interactions, and comprehension of oral and written language (Botting & Adams, 2005; Richards & Anderson, 2003).  Inferencing provides a foundation for Theory of Mind (ToM; citation).  Few studies have examined inferencing skills. oLack of consensus regarding the development of inferencing abilities of neurotypical children (Sodian & Wimmer, 1987; Keenan, Tuffman, & Olson; 1994). oChildren with language impairment and those with high functioning autism have more limited inferencing abilities than typically developing peers (Letts & Leinonen, 2001; Norbury & Bishop, 2002; Botting & Adams, 2005). Background  Inferencing is the ability to make judgments based upon limited information. It is necessary for basic problem solving, negotiating social interactions, and comprehension of oral and written language (Botting & Adams, 2005; Richards & Anderson, 2003).  Inferencing provides a foundation for Theory of Mind (ToM; citation).  Few studies have examined inferencing skills. oLack of consensus regarding the development of inferencing abilities of neurotypical children (Sodian & Wimmer, 1987; Keenan, Tuffman, & Olson; 1994). oChildren with language impairment and those with high functioning autism have more limited inferencing abilities than typically developing peers (Letts & Leinonen, 2001; Norbury & Bishop, 2002; Botting & Adams, 2005). References Botting, N., & Adams, C. (2005). Semantic and inferencing abilities in children with communication disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40, 49–66. Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications. Johnson, D. D., & von Hoff Johnson, B. (1986). Highlighting vocabulary in inferential comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, Keenan, T., Ruffman, T., & Olson, D. R., (1994). When do children begin to understand logical inference as a source of knowledge? Cognitive Development, 9, Letts, C. & Leinonen, E. (2001). Comprehension of inferential meaning in language-impaired and language normal children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, Norbury, C. F. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2002). Inferential processing and story recall in children with communication problems: A comparison of specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and high-functioning autism. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(3), Richards, J. C. & Anderson, N. A. (2003). How do you know? A strategy to help emergent readers make inferences. The Reading Teacher, 57, Sodian, B. & Wimmer, H. (1987). Children’s understanding of inference as a source of knowledge. Child Development, 58, Spector, C. C. (2006). Between the lines: Enhancing inferencing skills. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications. References Botting, N., & Adams, C. (2005). Semantic and inferencing abilities in children with communication disorders. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 40, 49–66. Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications. Johnson, D. D., & von Hoff Johnson, B. (1986). Highlighting vocabulary in inferential comprehension. Journal of Reading, 29, Keenan, T., Ruffman, T., & Olson, D. R., (1994). When do children begin to understand logical inference as a source of knowledge? Cognitive Development, 9, Letts, C. & Leinonen, E. (2001). Comprehension of inferential meaning in language-impaired and language normal children. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 36, Norbury, C. F. & Bishop, D. V. M. (2002). Inferential processing and story recall in children with communication problems: A comparison of specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and high-functioning autism. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(3), Richards, J. C. & Anderson, N. A. (2003). How do you know? A strategy to help emergent readers make inferences. The Reading Teacher, 57, Sodian, B. & Wimmer, H. (1987). Children’s understanding of inference as a source of knowledge. Child Development, 58, Spector, C. C. (2006). Between the lines: Enhancing inferencing skills. Greenville, SC: Super Duper Publications. Sample Items TypeAcceptableUnacceptable 1. LocationAshley had to be quiet as she looked for a book to check out. Where is Ashley? library 2. AgentTomorrow Charlie has to g et his teeth checked. W ho is Charlie going to se e? dentist, dental hygienist doctor 3. TimeDad woke me up to look a t the bright stars. When did this happen? night, middle of the night 4. ActionSam pedaled quickly down the sidewalk. What is Sam doing? riding a bikepedaling 5. InstrumentHolly needed help with a hard multiplication problem. She typed in the numbers and pushed equal to find the answer. What did she use? calculator, computer math 6. CategorySarah first put on her pearl necklace and bracelets. She then added earrings and a ring. What is Sarah putting on? jewelry 7. ObjectGrandpa climbed up high to clean the gutters. How did he get so high? ladder 8. Cause- Effect Lisa got all of the words right on her spelling test. Why? She studied, practiced, cheated She’s smart 9. Problem- Solution Julie needs to get something out of a cupboard that she can’t reach. What should she do? get something to stand on, ask someone taller get help, ask parent 10. Feelings- Attitude Ben’s mom raised her voice when he didn’t share the crayons with his sister. How does Ben’s mom feel? mad, angry, frustrated Research Questions  Do the inferencing abilities of neurotypical children vary based on age?  Do the inferencing abilities of neurotypical children vary based on type of inference? Research Questions  Do the inferencing abilities of neurotypical children vary based on age?  Do the inferencing abilities of neurotypical children vary based on type of inference? Methodology  Group comparative design  The researchers developed the Test of Inferencing based upon Johnson and von Hoff Johnson’s (1986) ten inference types.  5 items were created for each inference type yielding 50 total test items.  For each item, the examiner verbally presented a one to four sentence scenario followed by a question. Answers required subjects to infer information.  Subjects were selected based upon the following criteria: average language and cognitive development based on average grade level performance; normal hearing acuity; English as primary language.  Subjects were divided into three groups (N=20) oGroup 1: 6 to 7 year olds (n=7) oGroup 2: 8 to 9 year olds (n=5) oGroup 3: 10 to 12 year olds (n=8)  The Test of Inferencing was modified based upon initial pilot data:  Responses that occurred 25% or more of the time during pilot administration were added to the list of acceptable responses for that test item.  Questions missed 50% or more of the time were eliminated from raw score totals for each subject. These questions will be modified in the final version of the test. Methodology  Group comparative design  The researchers developed the Test of Inferencing based upon Johnson and von Hoff Johnson’s (1986) ten inference types.  5 items were created for each inference type yielding 50 total test items.  For each item, the examiner verbally presented a one to four sentence scenario followed by a question. Answers required subjects to infer information.  Subjects were selected based upon the following criteria: average language and cognitive development based on average grade level performance; normal hearing acuity; English as primary language.  Subjects were divided into three groups (N=20) oGroup 1: 6 to 7 year olds (n=7) oGroup 2: 8 to 9 year olds (n=5) oGroup 3: 10 to 12 year olds (n=8)  The Test of Inferencing was modified based upon initial pilot data:  Responses that occurred 25% or more of the time during pilot administration were added to the list of acceptable responses for that test item.  Questions missed 50% or more of the time were eliminated from raw score totals for each subject. These questions will be modified in the final version of the test. Conclusions  Performance of neurotypical children on The Test of Inferencing varied based on age: oThe three groups performed significantly different from one another [F( 1;10)=5.06; p=.05]. oGroup 1 (6-7 yr. olds) performed significantly worse than Group 2 (8-9 yr. olds) [t(10)=2.25; p=.05] and Group 3 (10-12 yr. olds) [t(13)=2.37; p=.03]. oGroup 2 (8-9 yr. olds) did not perform significantly worse than Group 3 (10-12 yr. olds) [t(11)=0.54; p>.05].  Performance of neurotypical children on The Test of Inferencing varied based on type of inference as follows: oGroup 1 (6-7 yr. olds) performed significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;60)=2.79; p=.008]. oGroup 2 (8-9 yr. olds) did not perform significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;40)=0.87; p>.05]. oGroup 3 (10-12 yr. olds) performed significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;70)=2.01; p=.05].  For all age groups: oLocation inferences were significantly easier than agent inferences [t(19)=2.12; p=.05]; category inferences [t(19)=2.48; p=.02]; and cause-effect inferences [t(19)=3.84; p=.001]. oLocation inferences were similar in difficulty to time inferences [t(19)=1.71; p>.05]; action inferences [t(19)=1.68; p>.05]; instrument inferences [t(19)=1.0; p>.05]; object inferences [t(19)=.65; p>.05]; problem solving inferences [t(19)=.78; p>.05]; and feelings/attitudes inferences [t(19)=.22; p>.05]. Conclusions  Performance of neurotypical children on The Test of Inferencing varied based on age: oThe three groups performed significantly different from one another [F( 1;10)=5.06; p=.05]. oGroup 1 (6-7 yr. olds) performed significantly worse than Group 2 (8-9 yr. olds) [t(10)=2.25; p=.05] and Group 3 (10-12 yr. olds) [t(13)=2.37; p=.03]. oGroup 2 (8-9 yr. olds) did not perform significantly worse than Group 3 (10-12 yr. olds) [t(11)=0.54; p>.05].  Performance of neurotypical children on The Test of Inferencing varied based on type of inference as follows: oGroup 1 (6-7 yr. olds) performed significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;60)=2.79; p=.008]. oGroup 2 (8-9 yr. olds) did not perform significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;40)=0.87; p>.05]. oGroup 3 (10-12 yr. olds) performed significantly different on the various inference types [F(9;70)=2.01; p=.05].  For all age groups: oLocation inferences were significantly easier than agent inferences [t(19)=2.12; p=.05]; category inferences [t(19)=2.48; p=.02]; and cause-effect inferences [t(19)=3.84; p=.001]. oLocation inferences were similar in difficulty to time inferences [t(19)=1.71; p>.05]; action inferences [t(19)=1.68; p>.05]; instrument inferences [t(19)=1.0; p>.05]; object inferences [t(19)=.65; p>.05]; problem solving inferences [t(19)=.78; p>.05]; and feelings/attitudes inferences [t(19)=.22; p>.05]. Future Research  Do neurotypical 4-5 year olds perform significantly different than other age groups previously piloted?  Do children with language impairment or autism spectrum disorders have significantly different inferencing abilities than age- matched neurotypical peers? Future Research  Do neurotypical 4-5 year olds perform significantly different than other age groups previously piloted?  Do children with language impairment or autism spectrum disorders have significantly different inferencing abilities than age- matched neurotypical peers? Results Group 1Group 2Group 3 CA % accuracy on Test of Inferencing CASL Inferencing Subtest Standard Score CA % accuracy on Test of Inferencing CASL Inferencing Subtest Standard Score CA % accuracy on Test of Inferencing CASL Inferencing Subtest Standard Score 6;250 below norms 8; ; ;895.6 below norms 8; ; ; below norms 8; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;