These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The balance-scale dilemma: either the subject or the experimenter muddles through.
    Author: Normandeau S, Larivée S, Roulin JL, Longeot F.
    Journal: J Genet Psychol; 1989 Sep; 150(3):237-50. PubMed ID: 2809572.
    Abstract:
    We examined two critiques of rule-assessment methodology: (a) the method does not take into consideration other rules that subjects use to solve problems, and (b) its multiple-choice format misrepresents subjects' cognitive level. In Study 1, high school students completed a paper-and-pencil, multiple-choice balance scale questionnaire. Their performance was assessed with Siegler's original rules and a revised set of rules that included an addition and a qualitative proportionality rule. Results showed that Siegler's Rule 3 was not homogeneous and that distinguishing specific patterns of answers among Rule 3 subjects increased the diagnostic value of the rule-assessment methodology. In Study 2, we compared rule-assessment methodology to the Piagetian clinical model. High school students solved balance-scale problems within each method. Results indicated an overall match between Piagetian levels of Siegler's rules, with the exception of Rule 3, suggesting again the pertinence of specifying alternative rules.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]