4 Diskli Londra Kulesi Testinin Bilgisayarlı Versiyonuna İlişkin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması: Planlama Becerisi

Year 2021, Volume: 29 Issue: 3, 705 - 719, 01.09.2021

Elif Güven Demir , Yücel Öksüz

https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.790903

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Planlama becerisi, problem çözme ve karar verme sürecinde önemli bir rol oynayan temel becerilerden biridir. Özellikle çocukluk döneminde okulla ilgili öğrenme süreçlerinin yönetilmesinde, ilerleyen yaşlarda ise günlük hayat aktivitelerinin yerine getirilmesinde önemli bir yere sahiptir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, planlama becerisini ölçen 4 diskli Londra Kulesi (TOL) testinin bilgisayarlı bir versiyonunu geliştirmektir. Araştırma, çocukları, yetişkinleri ve her ikisini de içeren grupların yer aldığı üç aşamada gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma, 5-53 yaş arası çocuk ve yetişkin bireylerin katılımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma verilerinin normal dağılım göstermemesi sebebiyle verilerin analizinde parametrik olmayan testler kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, yaş ile planlama becerisi, ilk denemede çözülen soru sayısı, üç denemede çözülen soru sayısı arasında anlamlı ilişkiler olduğunu göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, artan planlama becerisinin ve ilk denemede çözülen sorun sayısının artan yaşla ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Üç denemede çözülen soru sayısının yaşın azalmasıyla ilişkili olduğu, yaş ile planlama zamanı arasında anlamlı bir ilişkinin olmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları, yetişkin grupta cinsiyet değişkeninin zamanı planlamada etkili olduğunu göstermektedir. 4 diskli bilgisayara dayalı TOL’un planlama becerisini ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Bu araştırma normal gelişim gösteren bireylerle yürütülmüş olup, ilerleyen çalışmalarda klinik çalışmalarda kullanılmak üzere başka bir grupla geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmalarının yapılması önerilmektedir.

Keywords

Londra kulesi testi, planlama, çocuk, yetişkin, bilgisayar

The Validity and Reliability Study of Computerized 4-Disc Version of The Tower of London Test: Planning Skills

Abstract

Planning ability is one of the core abilities and playing an essential role in problem-solving and decision-making process. Mainly, it is critical in childhood managing school-related demands and carrying out daily activities in older ages. This study aims to develop a computerized version of the 4-disc Tower of London (TOL) test. Method: The research was conducted by three studies, including children, adults, and combined samples. The research consisted of children and adults who were 5-53 years. Nonparametric tests were used, thereby that the research data had a non-normally distributed pattern. Research results show significant relationships between age and planning ability, the number of problems solved on the first trial, and the number of problems solved within three trials. Results show that increasing planning ability and the number of problems solved on the first trial was associated with increasing age. The increasing number of problems solved within three trials was associated with decreasing age. There was no significant relationship between age and planning time. Research results show that gender has an effect on planning time in the adult group. Reliability and validity results showed that the computerized version of 4-disc TOL was a reliable and valid measure as the original version. This study was conducted by healthy participants, so there is a need for psychometric study for clinical use in Turkish literature.

Keywords

Tower of London test, planning, children, adult, computer

References

• Albert, D., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Age differences in strategic planning as indexed by the Tower of London. Child Development, 82(5), 1501–1517.
• Allain, P., Nicoleau, S., Pinon, K., Etcharry-Bouyx, F., Barré, J., Berrut, G., … Le Gall, D. (2005). Executive functioning in normal aging: A study of action planning using the Zoo Map Test. Brain and cognition, 57(1), 4–7.
• Anatasi, A. & Urbina, S. (1997).Psychological testing (7th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Andrews, G., Halford, G. S., Chappell, M., Maujean, A., & Shum, D. H. (2014). Planning following stroke: A relational complexity approach using the Tower of London. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8, 1032.
• Asato, M. R., Sweeney, J. A., & Luna, B. (2006). Cognitive processes in the development of TOL performance. Neuropsychologia, 44(12), 2259–2269.
• Atalay, D., & Cinan, S. (2007). Yetiskinlerde planlama becerisi: Londra Kulesi (LK^ sup DX^) testinin standardizasyon ve güvenilirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 22(60), 25.
• Boccia, M., Marin, D., D’Antuono, G., Ciurli, P., Incoccia, C., Antonucci, G., … Piccardi, L. (2017). The Tower of London (ToL) in Italy: standardization of the ToL test in an Italian population. Neurological Sciences, 38(7), 1263–1270.
• Boghi, A., Rasetti, R., Avidano, F., Manzone, C., Orsi, L., D’agata, F., … Pulvirenti, L. (2006). The effect of gender on planning: An fMRI study using the Tower of London task. Neuroimage, 33(3), 999–1010.
• Cinan, S., & Ünsal, P. (2011). Renk-şekil boyutu değiştirme ve ayırt etme süreçlerinin planlamaya etkisi. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 26(68).
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Culbertson, W. C., & Zillmer, E. A. (1998). The Tower of LondonDX: A standardized approach to assessing executive functioning in children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 13(3), 285–301.
• Das, J. P., & Georgiou, G. K. (2016). Levels of planning predict different reading comprehension outcomes. Learning and Individual Differences, 48, 24–28. Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. Principles of frontal lobe function, 466–503.
• Dockery, C. A., Hueckel-Weng, R., Birbaumer, N., & Plewnia, C. (2009). Enhancement of planning ability by transcranial direct current stimulation. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(22), 7271–7277.
• Fillit, H. M., Simon, E. S., Doniger, G. M., & Cummings, J. L. (2008). Practicality of a computerized system for cognitive assessment in the elderly. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 4(1), 14-21.
• Fossati, P., Ergis, A. M., & Allilaire, J. F. (2002). Executive functioning in unipolar depression: a review. L’Encephale, 28(2), 97–107.
• Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions? Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33(5), 623–642. Güler, N. (2017). Eğitimde Ölçme ve Değerlendirme (10.Baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Harlow, J. M. (1869). Recovery from the passage of an iron bar through the head. D. Clapp.
• Hughes, C. (2002). Executive functions and development: Emerging themes. Infant and Child Development, 11(2), 201–209.
• Kafer, K. L., & Hunter, M. (1997). On testing the face validity of planning/problem-solving tasks in a normal population. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(2), 108–119.
• Kaller, C. P., Unterrainer, J. M., & Stahl, C. (2012). Assessing planning ability with the Tower of London task: Psychometric properties of a structurally balanced problem set. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 46.
• Kopecky, H., Chang, H. T., Klorman, R., Thatcher, J. E., & Borgstedt, A. D. (2005). Performance and private speech of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder while taking the Tower of Hanoi test: Effects of depth of search, diagnostic subtype, and methylphenidate. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(5), 625–638.
• Krikorian, R., Bartok, J., & Gay, N. (1994). Tower of London procedure: a standard method and developmental data. Journal of clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 16(6), 840–850.
• Less, A. (2008). Relations between preschool children’s planning ability, self-regulation and early literacy skills.
• Luciana, M., Collins, P. F., Olson, E. A., & Schissel, A. M. (2009). Tower of London performance in healthy adolescents: The development of planning skills and associations with self-reported inattention and impulsivity. Developmental Neuropsychology, 34(4), 461–475.
• Mahapatra, S. (2016). Development of Planning Behaviour and Decision Making Ability of Children. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(6), 74–77.
• Malloy-Diniz, L. F., Cardoso-Martins, C., Nassif, E. P., Levy, A. M., Leite, W. B., & Fuentes, D. (2008). Planning abilities of children aged 4 years and 9 months to 8 1/2 years: Effects of age, fluid intelligence and school type on performance in the Tower of London test. Dementia & Neuropsychologia, 2(1), 26–30.
• Masson, J. D., Dagnan, D., & Evans, J. (2010). Adaptation and validation of the Tower of London test of planning and problem solving in people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(5), 457–467.
• McCormack, T., & Atance, C. M. (2011). Planning in young children: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 31(1), 1–31.
• Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual review of neuroscience, 24(1), 167–202.
• Narum, S. R. (2006). Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics. Conservation genetics, 7(5), 783–787.
• Oku, M., & Aihara, K. (2008). A mathematical model of planning in the prefrontal cortex. Artificial Life and Robotics, 12(1–2), 227–231.
• Owen, A. M. (1997). Cognitive planning in humans: neuropsychological, neuroanatomical and neuropharmacological perspectives. Progress in neurobiology, 53(4), 431–450.
• Pea, R. D. (1982). What is planning development the development of? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1982(18), 5–27.
• Phillips, L. H., Kliegel, M., & Martin, M. (2006). Age and planning tasks: The influence of ecological validity. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 62(2), 175–184.
• Rönnlund, M., Lövdén, M., & Nilsson, L. G. (2001). Adult age differences in Tower of Hanoi performance: Influence from demographic and cognitive variables. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 8(4), 269-283.
• Quaigrain, K., & Arhin, A. K. (2017). Using reliability and item analysis to evaluate a teacher-developed test in educational measurement and evaluation. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1301013.
• Ringim, K. J., Razalli, M. R., & Hasnan, N. (2012). A framework of business process re-engineering factors and organizational performance of Nigerian banks. Asian Social Science, 8(4), 203.
• Romine, C. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (2005). A model of the development of frontal lobe functioning: Findings from a meta-analysis. Applied neuropsychology, 12(4), 190–201.
• Rönmark, L. (2014). The Never Ending Shower: planning ability, intellectual disability and cognitive artifacts.
• Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 298(1089), 199–209.
• Shum, D., Gill, H., Banks, M., Maujean, A., Griffin, J., & Ward, H. (2009). Planning ability following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: Performance on a 4-disk version of the Tower of London. Brain Impairment, 10(3), 320–324.
• Shum, D., Ungvari, G. S., Tang, W.-K., & Leung, J. P. (2004). Performance of schizophrenia patients on time-, event-, and activity-based prospective memory tasks. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(4), 693.
• Simon, H. A. (1975). The functional equivalence of problem solving skills. Cognitive Psychology, 7(2), 268–288.
• Singleton, C., Horne, J., & Simmons, F. (2009). Computerised screening for dyslexia in adults. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 137-152.
• Tecwyn, E. C., Thorpe, S. K., & Chappell, J. (2013). A novel test of planning ability: Great apes can plan step-by-step but not in advance of action. Behavioural processes, 100, 174–184.
• Tunstall, J. R. (1999). Improving the utility of the Tower of London: A neuropsychological test of planning. Griffith University Brisbane, Australia.
• Tunstall, J. R., O’gorman, J. G., & Shum, D. H. (2016). A four-disc version of the Tower of London for clinical use. Journal of neuropsychology, 10(1), 116–129.
• Unterrainer, J. M., Rahm, B., Halsband, U., & Kaller, C. P. (2005). What is in a name: Comparing the Tower of London with one of its variants. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(2–3), 418–428.
• Ward, G., & Allport, A. (1997). Planning and problem solving using the five disc Tower of London task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(1), 49–78.
• Wild, K., Howieson, D., Webbe, F., Seelye, A., & Kaye, J. (2008). Status of computerized cognitive testing in aging: a systematic review. Alzheimer's & Dementia, 4(6), 428-437.
• Wilson, C. G., Nusbaum, A. T., Whitney, P., & Hinson, J. M. (2017). Age-differences in cognitive flexibility when overcoming a preexisting bias through feedback. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology, 1–9.