Recoding behavioral self-reg data into item-level binary variables that can be scored

1. Recoding behavioral self-reg data into item-level binary variables that can be scored Spencer meeting IHDSC, New York University Mar 24th Part 2

2. The challenge: • The metric is less meaningful when we standardize behavioral data (e.g. latency to touch prohibited toy as Z-score). • Alternate solution: • Rescale the observed indicators into binary items so that can create “total correct” or “above threshold” on set of behavioral measures. • Model children’s scores on aggregates of “total correct” on behavioral measures, • focusing on latent θ • Additional twist– (to lesser or greater extent), binary items are conditionally related. Reardon & Raudenbush (2006).

3. Not new…. • Delay tasks often rely on measurement of latency and duration– waiting longer before touching/receiving prohibited object • Mischel, Rodriguez, Aber, Denton • Age-related change in: • length of time able to wait • “strategy” of self-regulation, e.g. cold vs. hot cognitions • In contrast, measures of attention and executive function (CPT, Peg-Tap) routinely scored as 0/1 across a large number of trials. • Blair, NICHD team • Age-related change in: • Number of trials administered • Number of trials correct • EF work by Carlson (2005) and others recommends scoring P/F for ease of scalability • Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616.

4. Example already completed…no recoding necessary • The Continuous Performance Task (CPT) is a measure of sustained attention. A CPT modeled on the young children’s version described by Mirsky and his colleagues was used (e.g., Mirsky, Anthony, Duncan, Ahearn, & Kellam, 1991; Rosvold, Mirsky,Sarason, Bransome, & Beck, 1956). • In this computer-generated task, dot matrix pictures of familiar objects (e.g., butterfly, fish, flower) were presented on a 2-inch square screen in front of the child. The child was asked to press a button each time a target stimulus appeared. • At 54 months, • the stimuli were presented in 22 blocks. 10 stimuli/block, stimulus duration 500 msec • At 1st grade, • the stimuli were presented in 30 blocks. T10 stimuli/block, duration was 200 msec • At 4th grade, • 45 blocks, 12/block, duration was 200 msec. • 1 Response Correct (RC): Child presses button when target stimulus is present. • 0 Omission (O): Child does not press the button when the target stimulus is present. • 0 Incorrect (I): Child presses the button when a stimulus other than the target stimulus is present. • Additional data that might be capitalized on: • Child needed 1 or more re-directs– approx 5% of sample • Child responded late or very late

5. Options • Simple: Correct/trials completed = proportion correct • Complicated: Alternately, might want to construct matrix if child’s performance based on “gated” aspects of assessment P Treating performance as items A P F 5 A F P In 6 P Inattentive? F In Trial 5 fails F Can exper administer Trial 6? Kid tuning out?

6. Delay task data – not quite as simple, but not excruciating • Can’t figure out scoring for 54m delay– Monica? • Using CSRP data • Giftwrap task– • Experimenter turns child’s seat around, tells child not to peak while wraps gift, noisily. Then turns child back around, and tells child not to touch. • Latency to peek • Latency to touch

7. What would latencies on Giftwrap Tasklook like? Could simply score # ‘items correct’ e.g. total correct score = 5 OR, could consider data in conditional framework 60 sec 10 sec P P 60 P F F 10 P 1a P F P F 1b F F touches unwraps Toy wrap - peek Toy wrap - wait