The Experts below are selected from a list of 10737 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Marcel Zentner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is Temperament now assessing progress in Temperament Research on the twenty fifth anniversary of goldsmith et al
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
What Is Temperament Now? Assessing Progress in Temperament Research on the Twenty‐Fifth Anniversary of Goldsmith et al. ()
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
Child Temperament: An Integrative Review of Concepts, Research Programs, and Measures
International Journal of Developmental Science, 2008Co-Authors: Marcel Zentner, John E. BatesAbstract:This article provides a review and synthesis of concepts, Research programs, and measures in the infant and child Temperament area. First, the authors present an overview of five classical approaches to the study of child Temperament that continue to stimulate Research today. Subsequently, the authors carve out key definitional criteria for Temperament (i.e., inclusion criteria) and the traits that qualify as Temperamental according to the overview and defined criteria. The article then reviews leading programs of Research that are concerned with the ways in which early childhood Temperament affects psychosocial development, both normal and abnormal. After touching on measurement issues and tools, the authors conclude with an outlook on child Temperament Research.
Jan R. Wiersema - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Assessing effortful control in typical and atypical development: Are questionnaires and neuropsychological measures interchangeable? A latent-variable analysis
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 2015Co-Authors: Vicky Samyn, Herbert Roeyers, Patricia Bijttebier, Yves Rosseel, Jan R. WiersemaAbstract:Abstract Objective Effortful control (EC), the self-regulation component of Temperament, is traditionally measured using questionnaires. Through the years, several neuropsychological measures originating from the cognitive psychology and the executive function (EF) literature have been introduced in the domain of Temperament Research to tap EC. Although this is not particularly surprising, given the conceptual overlap between EC and EF, it remains unclear whether EC questionnaires and neuropsychological EF tasks can really be used interchangeably when measuring EC. The current study addressed two important aspects in evaluating the interchangeability of both types of measures, that is: (a) do they measure the same construct? and (b) do they give the same results when comparing clinical populations? Method Three EC questionnaires, two inhibitory control tasks, and two attentional control tasks were administered in 148 typically developing children, 30 children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and 31 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). All children were between 10 and 15 years of age and had a full scale IQ of 80 or higher. Results Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the questionnaires and EF tasks do not capture the same underlying latent variable(s). Groups could not be differentiated from each other based on their performance on EF tasks, whereas significant group differences were found for all EC-reports. Conclusions Overall, our findings show more differences than commonalities between the EC questionnaires and EF tasks and, consequently, suggest that both types of measures should not be used interchangeably.
-
Assessing effortful control in typical and atypical development: Are questionnaires and neuropsychological measures interchangeable? A latent-variable analysis.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2014Co-Authors: Vicky Samyn, Herbert Roeyers, Patricia Bijttebier, Yves Rosseel, Jan R. WiersemaAbstract:Effortful control (EC), the self-regulation component of Temperament, is traditionally measured using questionnaires. Through the years, several neuropsychological measures originating from the cognitive psychology and the executive function (EF) literature have been introduced in the domain of Temperament Research to tap EC. Although this is not particularly surprising, given the conceptual overlap between EC and EF, it remains unclear whether EC questionnaires and neuropsychological EF tasks can really be used interchangeably when measuring EC. The current study addressed two important aspects in evaluating the interchangeability of both types of measures, that is: (a) do they measure the same construct? and (b) do they give the same results when comparing clinical populations? Three EC questionnaires, two inhibitory control tasks, and two attentional control tasks were administered in 148 typically developing children, 30 children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and 31 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). All children were between 10 and 15 years of age and had a full scale IQ of 80 or higher. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the questionnaires and EF tasks do not capture the same underlying latent variable(s). Groups could not be differentiated from each other based on their performance on EF tasks, whereas significant group differences were found for all EC-reports. Overall, our findings show more differences than commonalities between the EC questionnaires and EF tasks and, consequently, suggest that both types of measures should not be used interchangeably. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Alexandra Main - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Commonalities and Differences in the Research on Children’s Effortful Control and Executive Function: A Call for an Integrated Model of Self‐Regulation
Child Development Perspectives, 2011Co-Authors: Qing Zhou, Stephen H. Chen, Alexandra MainAbstract:Abstract— Effortful control (EC) and executive function (EF) are 2 constructs related to children’s self-regulation that have historically been the subject of Research in separate fields, with EC primarily the focus of Temperament Research and EF the focus of cognitive neuroscience and clinical psychology. This article selectively reviews and compares the EC and EF literature. The review indicates considerable similarities and overlaps in the definitions, core components, and measurement of EC and EF. Differences between the 2 literatures seem to primarily reflect differences in Research focus as influenced by each field’s “tradition” rather than “real” differences in EC and EF as developmental constructs. Thus, developing an integrated theory of self-regulation encompassing the EC and EF perspectives is critical for reducing overlap and confusion in future Research. The article provides a number of recommendations on how to integrate the theory and methodology of EC and EF in future Research for (a) the components and organization of self-regulation, (b) the relation of self-regulation to children’s adaptive functions, (c) the neurological basis of self-regulation and its development, and (d) the development and evaluation of interventions targeting children’s self-regulation.
Rebecca L. Shiner - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is Temperament now assessing progress in Temperament Research on the twenty fifth anniversary of goldsmith et al
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
What Is Temperament Now? Assessing Progress in Temperament Research on the Twenty‐Fifth Anniversary of Goldsmith et al. ()
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
The Structure of Temperament and Personality Traits: A Developmental Perspective
2011Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Colin G. DeyoungAbstract:In this chapter, we articulate a developmental perspective on personality traits from early childhood through adulthood. In the first section, we address two topics that are fundamental in defining the most important traits at each point in the life span: the relationship between Temperament and personality and the methods used to ascertain the structure of traits in the Temperament and personality Research traditions. We argue in this section that Temperament and personality are different ways of describing the same basic traits, with Temperament Research primarily focused on early-emerging individual differences and personality Research focused on individual differences that appear later in childhood and continue into adulthood. In the second section, we describe the current status of the most prominent models of Temperament, as well as the most widely-accepted personality trait model, the Big Five. In the third section, we articulate a structural model that integrates contemporary findings on Temperament and personality traits from early childhood through adulthood. We use the Big Five trait structure, along with the trait of activity level, to organize this taxonomy. In the fourth section, we discuss the current Research on the psychological and biological processes that underlie individual differences in the Big Five traits in childhood and adulthood. In the final sections, we offer concluding thoughts on the nature of personality trait development and suggestions for future Research. This is an exciting time in the study of personality in part because of the marked progress in uncovering the basic structure of traits across the lifespan.
Kimberly J. Saudino - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is Temperament now assessing progress in Temperament Research on the twenty fifth anniversary of goldsmith et al
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
What Is Temperament Now? Assessing Progress in Temperament Research on the Twenty‐Fifth Anniversary of Goldsmith et al. ()
Child Development Perspectives, 2012Co-Authors: Rebecca L. Shiner, Kristin A. Buss, Sandee Mcclowry, Samuel P. Putnam, Kimberly J. Saudino, Marcel ZentnerAbstract:The now-classic article “What Is Temperament? Four Approaches” by H. H. Goldsmith et al. (1987) brought together originators of four prominent Temperament theories—Rothbart, Thomas and Chess, Buss and Plomin, and Goldsmith—to address foundational questions about the nature of Temperament. This article reviews what has been learned about the nature of Temperament in the intervening 25 years, It begins with an updating of the 1987 consensus definition of Temperament that integrates more complex current findings. Next, 4 “progeny” trained in the original Temperament traditions assess contributions of their respective approaches. The article then poses essential questions for the next generation of Research on the fundamentals of Temperament, including its structure, links with personality traits, interaction with context, and change and continuity over time.
-
The need to consider contrast effects in parent-rated Temperament
Infant Behavior and Development, 2003Co-Authors: Kimberly J. SaudinoAbstract:In their responses to “Parent ratings of Temperament. Lessons from twin studies,” Goldsmith and Hewitt (2003), Hwang and Rothbart (2003), and Seifer (2003) all acknowledge that parents have the potential to be a valuable source of information regarding children’s Temperaments. Despite my concerns about contrasts effects, I agree fully. Parents know their children well and see them behave across a wide variety of situations, and thus, are able to provide information about their children’s typical behaviors—information that may not be easily gleaned from more objective measures. My own area of interest, activity level, is a case in point. Although motion recorders are more objective than parent ratings, they only inform about the frequency, intensity, and duration of movement. The flavor of the behavior is lost. Parents can help us here. They can tell us about the situations in which children are high or low active (i.e., what children are doing during periods of activity). Given this potential, it is all the more frustrating to find that activity level is the Temperament dimension most prone to contrast effects. The issue is not whether or not parents can inform about their children’s Temperaments (I think they can), but what can be done to reduce or eliminate systematic biases that may affect parent ratings. That is, how can we make parent ratings better? In the target article, I suggest that a first step is to learn from the findings of twin studies, which find that parents tend to exaggerate behavioral differences between fraternal (dizygotic, DZ) twins. Do such effects influence parent ratings of nontwin siblings? We do not know because Temperament Research has not considered this threat to validity. We will not uncover such biases unless we look for them and this means studying more than one child per family. Goldsmith and Hewitt (2003) and Hwang and Rothbart (2003) both indicate that some measures may be more prone to contrast effects than others. Indeed, measures that require parents
