China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
An Indian Perspective on Understanding Intelligence
Published in Walter J. Lonner, Dale L. Dinnel, Deborah K. Forgays, Susanna A. Hayes, Merging Past, Present, and Future in Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2020
Ashok K. Srivastava, Girishwar Misra
The conceptualisation of intelligence as a single entity or disposition is currently facing serious challenges. The concept of mental age as proposed by Binet has, for several reasons such as equivocality, non-linearity, and unidimensionality, proved to be a weak link in the psychometric analysis of intelligence. Different metaphors (e.g., geographic, computational, biological, epistemological, anthropological, sociological, and systems) lead to diverse ways of conceptualising the processes of knowledge acquisition and utilisation (Sternberg, 1990a). Intelligence is now viewed as “the mental abilities necessary for adaptation to, as well as shaping and selection of, any environmental context” (Sternberg, 1997, p. 1030). What is included in these processes can not be divorced from the socio-cultural milieu or ecology within which a behavior takes place (Carugati, 1990). The same set of mental processes may give rise to very different behaviors in varying environmental contexts.
Basic Forms of Investigations of the Personality of the Child
Published in L.S. Vygotsky, V.V. Davydov, Silverman Robert, Educational Psychology, 2020
Finally, it is also important to keep in mind the number of age levels between the boundaries. A child’s mental age may correspond to his real age or even be ahead of it, yet it may nevertheless not be possible to think of the child’s development as being normal. It might be that the figure for mental age has been derived from individual problems that are scattered among so many age levels that the child would have to be acknowledged as possessing a clearly uneven development.
Intelligence
Published in Mohamed Ahmed Abd El-Hay, Understanding Psychology for Medicine and Nursing, 2019
Historically, the IQ assessment was based on the “ratio IQ,” which depends on estimating the “mental age” of the test-taker (measured in years and months), divided by the test-taker’s “chronological age” (measured in years and months), e.g., a student who is 10 years and zero months (chronological age) had a mental age score of 13 years and zero months, therefore, the IQ of this student will be 13/10 × 100 = 130.
Roles of the metacognition and emotional systems in a categorization task for adults with moderate and severe learning disabilities
Published in International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 2022
Suzanne Igier, Pennequin Valérie
According to ICD 11 (2018), intellectual disability is « a group of developmental conditions characterized by significant impairment of cognitive functions, which are associated with limitations of learning, adaptive behavior and skills». There are also different diagnostic levels (ligt, moderate, severe…). For example, according to the WHO (World Health Organization 2018), severe intellectual disability corresponds to people who do not exceed a mental age of six to seven years old. Cognitive disorders were associated with varying degrees of motor and psycho-behavioral disorders However, it cannot only be limited to evaluating intellectual potential, which depends on the rate of knowledge acquisition, and more specifically on real potentialities. The potential of a participant can be measured, for example, by comparing his/her performance on a task solved alone with that on the same task after training. If the score increases, the person can be considered to have potentialities (Cèbe and Paour 2012). In fact, intellectual disability, from a cognitive and developmental point of view, can be perceived in two ways: as a difference (less efficient than people having the same chronological age) or as delayed (information processing efficiency of a younger “neurotypical” child). In their daily life, people with intellectual disabilities are very dependents of the others, especially to make choices, to adapt to their environment, to express their desire, need, that’s why we are interested here.
Systematic Review of the Main Motor Scales for Clinical Assessment of Individuals with down Syndrome
Published in Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 2020
Cristina Hamamura Moriyama, Thais Massetti, Tania Brusque Crocetta, Talita Dias Da Silva, Zan Mustacchi, Regiani Guarnieri, Luiz Carlos De Abreu, Amanda Vitória Lacerda De Araújo, Lilian Del Ciello De Menezes, Carlos Bandeira De Mello Monteiro, Claudio Leone
Malak et al. (2013)33 demonstrated the importance of detailed assessment using an appropriate scale that allows therapists to monitor a child’s development and offer a stimulus tailored for each specific case. Thus, therapists should map out goals which are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-oriented, also known as “SMART” goals. The setting of appropriate goals by specialists in various fields enables children to achieve the functions that will be their resource and potential for the future.33 However, assessments and their interpretation should be carefully considered50 since some estimates may not be sensitive to small but meaningful changes that children with developmental disabilities can perform. Moreover, while children with and without DS may achieve either similar or different scores in global measures of cognitive and motor development, how they reach these global scores may be completely different.34 It is essential for practitioners and researchers alike to consider the child’s age at testing, as well as sub-tests (e.g., dynamic balance, eye-hand coordination, strength) that the child passes or fails when planning activities and researching with non-handicapped peers matched for mental age.50
Predictors of receptive and expressive vocabulary development in children with Down syndrome
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2019
Stijn R.J.M Deckers, Yvonne Van Zaalen, Hans Van Balkom, Ludo Verhoeven
The mean age of the 36 children participating at T1 was 4.5 years (SD = 1.5 years; range: 2.1–7.0 years) and 20 were boys. The mean mental age corresponding to the adaptive level of functioning was 1.9 years (SD = 0.8 years; range: 0.1–3.40 years). All parents and children participating at T1 were invited to participate at T2 as well. Of all children, 20 were included at T2. Drop outs were due to (a) medical issues with children occurring around T2 (n = 2), (b) family issues (n = 3), (c) parents not returning filled in questionnaires, although tests were already administered (n = 4) and (d) parents indicated they no longer wanted to participate, but did not provide an explanation (n = 7). The mean age of the participating children at T2 was 5.10 years (SD = 1.5 years; range: 3.2–7.2 years). The mean mental age corresponding to the adaptive level of functioning at T2 was 2.8 years (SD = 0.11; range: 1.4–4.2 years).