JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.52 289-305 April 2009. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0174)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Materials
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Storkel, H. L.
Right arrow Articles by Adlof, S. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Storkel, H. L.
Right arrow Articles by Adlof, S. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Adult and Child Semantic Neighbors of the Kroll and Potter (1984) Nonobjects

Holly L. Storkel
Suzanne M. Adlof
University of Kansas, Lawrence

Contact author: Holly Storkel, Department of Speech-Language-Hearing: Sciences and Disorders, University of Kansas, 3001 Dole Human Development Center, 1000 Sunnyside Avenue, Lawrence, KS 66045-7555. E-mail: hstorkel{at}ku.edu.

Purpose: The purpose was to determine the number of semantic neighbors, namely, semantic set size, for 88 nonobjects (J. F. Kroll & M. C. Potter, 1984) and determine how semantic set size related to other measures and age.

Method: Data were collected from 82 adults and 92 preschool children in a discrete association task. The nonobjects were presented via computer, and participants reported the first word that came to mind that was meaningfully related to the nonobject. Words reported by 2 or more participants were considered semantic neighbors. The strength of each neighbor was computed as the proportion of participants who reported the neighbor. All data are provided online in a Microsoft Excel file accompanying this article (the data file can be found accompanying this article online at http://jslhr.asha.org).

Results: Results showed that semantic set size was not significantly correlated with objectlikeness ratings or object decision reaction times from J. F. Kroll and M. C. Potter (1984). However, semantic set size was significantly negatively correlated with the strength of the strongest neighbor(s). In terms of age effects, adult and child semantic set sizes were significantly positively correlated and the majority of numeric differences were on the order of 0–3 neighbors. Comparison of actual neighbors showed greater discrepancies; however, this varied by neighbor strength.

Conclusions: Semantic set size can be determined for nonobjects. Specific guidelines are suggested for using these nonobjects in future research.

KEY WORDS: semantic set size, adult, child


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2009 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.