In the psychotherapy field there are
different theoretical approaches (for instance, different dynamic theories, CBT
theories, family theories). Each of
these approaches leads to a different view of the client and his difficulties,
a view that leads to a different line of intervention. These approaches are both at an external
debate with each other and at an internal dispute (in each of these fields
there are subtheories that are arguing with each other). This debate
enriches the development of each of these approaches, since it forces them to
clarify their positions.
What about the diagnostic field?
Where are the different approaches, the
different views of the child? The debates?
In the field of learning disabilities
there certainly is a debate, as I've written about extensively here.
In the broad field of assessment, and
especially in the intelligence field, there are different schools as well. It's important that we know them because they
enrich our view of the child and open new and diverse ways for
intervention. Of the several existing
approaches I will mention three: The psychometric
approach (CHC is one of the psychometric theories), the cognitive approach
(PASS theory, that is the basis for the KABC test is one of the cognitive
theories) and the social-cultural (my term) approach (the Triarchic theory by
Sternberg and the Dual theory by Kaufman (here) are representative of this
approach).
Here is an example, with processing
speed, of the advantage that we gain by having two different theoretical
viewpoints.
Processing speed as defined in CHC theory
is the speed and fluency with which a person can perform a task in which the
rate of performance is under his control, and that requires attentional
resources. The word
"automatic" is the key word for processing speed, because processing
speed enables us to reach an automatic and fluent performance of newly learned
tasks. When we learn to play a new
musical piece, for example, our performance in the first attempts will be slow
and laborious, but with practice performance will become more and more fluent
and automatic. Then we will have free
attentional resources to devote to musical expression. But if we are unlucky to have a slow
processing speed, we may need much more practice to reach fluency and automaticity,
or we may never reach them, and never have enough free attentional resources to
express the musicality of the piece.
Processing speed affects reading and
writing in the same way. A child whose
processing speed is slow will find it difficult if not impossible to read
fluently and automatically, and will have few free attentional resources for
reading comprehension. A child whose
processing speed is slow will find it difficult
if not impossible to write fluently and
automatically, and will have few free attentional resources for expressing his
ideas in writing the way he wants them expressed. Processing speed may affect social
functioning as well: a child whose
processing speed is slow will have difficulty playing games that require fluent
performance, like jumping rope or handclapping games. A child whose processing speed is slow may
have difficulty participating in conversation, because while he processes what
has been said and prepares his contribution, the conversation flows on…
Research on the relation between
processing speed and attention tells us that the inattention component affects processing
sped. Thus when we assess a child whose
processing speed is slow, it will be a good idea to see if he has attention
problems. Such a child will need to
practice new tasks more for them to become automatic. If the child has difficulties in reading
fluency that are caused by processing speed, we may recommend re-reading the
same text over and over, each time faster, in order to improve automaticity.
All this is from a CHC point of view.
But we can also look at low processing
speed from the point of view of Woodcock's cognitive model (a bit more about this model here).
(Click on the figure to enlarge).
The model consists of a few interacting
systems that are used for information processing and the performance of
different cognitive tasks. A quick
glance at the figure above reveals us that processing speed belongs, along with
short term memory, to the cognitive efficiency
system. This
system forms a "bottleneck" for information processing. We see that it is positioned between input
and output ("cognitive academic performance") and we can't do without
it. This model offers us another way to
deal with slow processing speed: strengthening short term memory.
The best analogy I can
think of in this context is…the Iranian nuclear program. Suppose we need 3 centrifuges that spin at a
certain speed to make an atom bomb. What can we do if we are
unlucky to have especially slow centrifuges, that are spinning at half the
speed of average centrifuges? We can add three more centrifuges! If the number of centrifuges represents
working memory capacity, we can overcome low processing speed by strengthening
short term memory. There is research
that claims this can be done. The n –
back task (of which I've written here) is one such means.
I'm not sure that this analogy is right
concerning centrifuges…but for our business it works.
So, looking at low processing speed from
the point of view of cognitive theory opened intervention opportunities that
were not available to us when we looked at processing speed from the
psychometric point of view. This exemplifies
the advantage of being familiar with different theoretical approaches in the
assessment field at large and in the intelligence field in particular.
No comments:
Post a Comment