Verbal Analogical Reasoning In Severely Learning-Disabled And Normally Developing-Children

Despite the presumed relationship between analogical reasoning and intelligence, few studies have addressed this relationship empirically. Notably, no comparative studies have been conducted to compare the performance of severely learning disabled (SLD) and normal children, partly due to an implicit assumption that SLD children are incapable of analogical reasoning. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that SLD children would be capable of analogical reasoning to a level commensurate with normal children matched for developmental age, if tested with familiar concepts and an appropriate task. Eighty children in three groups (SLD, 3-4- and 5-6-year-olds) were presented with 16 verbal analogies in the context of a multiple choice card game called 'Pairs'. Analogies were varied for familiarity of concepts used and inclusion of a high associate response alternative. Results showed that the SLD group could engage in analogical reasoning but their performance was significantly below that of 5-6-year-olds. It was concluded that this difference was due firstly to the use of an inappropriate measure of familiarity and secondly to differences in the way groups approached the task.