David A. Wicklund

Rhyme as a determinant of clustering

This study dealt with rhyme as a determinant of clustering in free recall. The stimuli comprised 12 rhyming pairs of words. The results from 30 Ss showed significan clustering as well as high variance attribu table to both Ss and word pairs.

SIMPLE REACTION TIME FOR GOOD AND POOR READERS IN GRADES TWO AND SIX

Recently, the present authors (1971) ran an experiment that suggested no difference in word-scanning rate (words/sec.) between good and poor readers in the fifth grade. Ss were required to scan 2 or 3 word targets for the presence or absence of a predetermined word. Although scanning rates did not differ, the good readers were 250 msec. faster over-all than the poor readers. Such results suggested that the faster response time for good readers was due to superiority in perceiving the change in stimulation with target onset and/or superiority in performing the motor response itself. To assess these possibilities, a simple reaction time experiment was run which was closely analogous to the original task without the requirement to scan. Each trial consisted of a 20-msec. warning signal (buzzer) followed by the onset of a neon bulb 940 msec. later. The bulb remained lit until S responded by pressing a telegraph key. Ss were 12 good and 12 poor readers in the sixth grade and 15 good and 15 poor readers in the second grade. Ss were classified on the basis of Wide Range Achievement Test reading scores. After 4 practice trials, S was run for 30 trials. For each S , the reciprocal of the median latency ( in sec.) was computed for the five successive trials in each of six blocks. An analysis of variance performed on these data suggested only an effect due to grade (P = 4.3, df = 1/23, p < .05). The mean reciprocal latencies over 30 trials were: Good Second Grade Readers, 2.75; Poor Second Grade Readers, 2.67; Good Sixth Grade Readers, 3.61, Poor Sixth Grade Readers, 4.06. Clearly, processes involved in simple reaction time cannot account for the superiority of good readers in the scanning task (Katz & Wicklund, 1971). Since good and poor readers did not differ in scanning rate either, the superioriry of good readers may be due to a greater facility in retrieving the key word just prior to scanning. That is, difference between good and poor readers may be found in memory processes; our data have not suggested differences due to perceptual or motor processes.