Stimulus material for the method of classifying objects. Sobchik L.N.

Theoretical information

Psychology is an amazing science. At the same time, it is both young and one of the most ancient sciences. Already the philosophers of antiquity reflected on problems that are also relevant for modern psychology. Questions of the relationship between soul and body, perception, memory and thinking; questions of training and education, emotions and motivation of human behavior and many others have been raised by scientists since the emergence of the first philosophical schools of Ancient Greece in the 6-7 centuries BC. But the ancient thinkers were not psychologists in the modern sense. The symbolic date of birth of the science of psychology is considered to be 1879, the year of the opening of the first experimental psychological laboratory by Wilhelm Wundt in Germany, in the city of Leipzig. Until this time, psychology remained a speculative science. And only W. Wundt took upon himself the courage to combine psychology and experiment. For W. Wundt, psychology was the science of consciousness. In 1881, on the basis of the laboratory, the Institute of Experimental Psychology was opened (which still exists today), which became not only a scientific center, but also an international center for the training of psychologists. In Russia, the first psychophysiological laboratory of experimental psychology was opened by V.M. Bekhterev in 1885 at the Kazan University clinic.

The subject is offered a set of 70 cards depicting various objects, plants and living creatures, which he must sort into groups containing homogeneous objects. At the beginning of the experiment, there can be many classification groups of cards, and they are designated by a generalizing word. The subject is then asked to enlarge the groups. The end result is the division of cards into three groups: living beings, plants, inanimate objects.

The implementation of the methodology is carefully monitored: the number of stages spent on the final classification is noted; comments from the subject during the task; erroneous combinations of items, etc.

In the process of classification, one can discover the following features of thinking: reliance in thinking on latent signs, when objects are combined on the basis of external similarity (“an elephant and a bear” are large; “a blacksmith and a doctor” are working); concrete thinking (“sailor and ship” - sail on water); a penchant for detail (in the “houseware” group there are subgroups: “glassware” (glass, bottle), “iron” (pan), “porcelain” (cup).

· Concept exclusion technique

The “Elimination of Concepts” technique allows you to assess the maturity of the subject’s conceptual sphere, the ability to classify and analyze. In addition, the technique can be used to diagnose the pathology of thinking that occurs in various mental illnesses (schizophrenia, organic disorder), but in this case, interpreting the results requires high qualifications and extensive experience in psychodiagnostics.

The technique can be carried out both verbally and non-verbally. The complexity of the stimulus material - cards and a set of words - is gradually increased.

Nonverbal version of the “concept exclusion” technique

In the non-verbal option, the subject is offered a series of drawings of four objects, three of which can be generalized and the fourth excluded.

Instructions for testing:

“Look at these drawings, there are 4 objects drawn here, three of them are similar to each other, and they can be called by the same name, but the fourth object does not fit them. Tell me which one is superfluous and what the other three can be called if they are combined into one group.”

Stimulus material for the nonverbal version of the “concept exclusion” technique.

Verbal version of the “concept exclusion” technique

In the verbal version, the subject is offered a series of five words, in which one must be excluded.

Stimulus material for the verbal version of the “concept exclusion” technique.

Instructions: “You are offered 17 rows of words. In each row, four words are united by a common generic concept, the fifth does not belong to it. In each case, you need to indicate the extra word in the list, and also name the generic concept for the remaining four.”

Decrepit, old, worn out, small, dilapidated

Brave, courageous, courageous, angry, determined

Vasily, Fedor, Semyon, Ivanov, Porfiry

Milk, cream, cheese, lard, sour cream

Soon, quickly, hastily, gradually, hastily

Deep, high, light, low, shallow

Leaf, bud, bark, tree, bough

House, barn, hut, hut, building

Birch, pine, oak, tree, spruce

Hate, despise, resent, resent, punish

Dark, light, blue, clear, dim

Nest, hole, anthill, chicken coop, den

Failure, collapse, failure, defeat, excitement

Hammer, nail, pliers, axe, chisel

Minute, second, hour, evening, day

Robbery, theft, earthquake, arson, assault

Success, victory, luck, peace of mind, winning

The key to the verbal version of the “exclusion of concepts” technique.

Correct answer options from top to bottom:

1- "small". The rest refer to the state of things.

2- "evil". The rest are positive qualities of a person.

3- “Ivanov” is a surname. The rest are names.

4- "fat". The rest are dairy products.

5- "gradually". The rest relate to high speed of execution of actions.

6- "light". The rest relate to size and volume characteristics.

7- "tree". The rest are parts of the tree.

8- "barn". The rest are residential premises.

9- "tree". The rest are tree species.

10- "punish". The rest are negative emotions.

11 - "blue". The rest relate to the degree of illumination.

12- "chicken coop". The rest of the animals build their homes on their own.

13- "excitement". The rest refer to losing situations.

14- "nail". The rest are construction tools.

15 - "evening". The rest are a measure of time.

16- "earthquake". The rest of the troubles come from the person himself.

17- "calmness". The rest refer to situations of success.

Evaluation of the results of verbal and non-verbal versions of the “concept exclusion” technique.

When assessing the results, it is necessary to take into account not only the number of correct answers, the number of which, with well-developed conceptual thinking, should be at least 15, but also how accurately the generic concept for four words is selected, on what basis the fifth is excluded, since with a formally correct The answer may choose the wrong basis for generalization.

In addition, it must be remembered that for some series the key ones are not the correct ones, but rather the frequency, most probable answers. Thus, in the series “house, barn, hut, hut, building,” the most often excluded concept is “barn.” However, the answer "building" is also correct on the basis that "building" is a general concept in relation to the others, while the other four are types of buildings. Frequently occurring non-standard answers are an indication for a deeper and more complete study of the subject’s thinking.

Combining a stopwatch, an alarm clock and a coin in a non-verbal version of the technique based on the attribute “round”; clover, bell, cat - “begin with the letter “k” - speaks of reliance on the selection of weak, latent characteristics.

The results of using psychological tests “classification of objects” and “exclusion of concepts” can confirm the presence of specific thinking disorders characteristic of certain groups of mental illnesses. Reliance on hidden, latent signs indicates disorders of thinking of the schizophrenic type; specification and detail are characteristic of organic diseases of the brain.

· Methodology for identifying essential features

The technique allows us to identify the test subject’s ability to differentiate essential and non-essential features of objects and phenomena, as well as the logic of judgments and the ability to maintain direction and stability of the method of reasoning when solving a long series of similar problems.

To conduct testing using this method, stimulus material is required, which is forms with printed text.

Instructions: “On this piece of paper you see a series of words, one of which is in bold, and the other five are enclosed in brackets. Of these five words, it is necessary to emphasize the two that are most closely related to the generalizing word in front of the bracket. For example, the generalizing word “garden” and the words following it. A garden can exist without a dog, a fence, and even without a gardener, but it cannot exist without soil and plants. This means that the words “earth” and “plants” must be emphasized. Operating time is 3 minutes.

The subject classification method is used to study the processes of generalization and abstraction. It consists of distributing objects into groups depending on their similarities and differences. In addition, the use of this method makes it possible to identify the characteristics of the subject’s attention and personal reactions to his successes and failures.

To conduct the study, you must have a set of 70 cards, which depict a variety of objects and living beings. To obtain reliable data, you should use a standard set of cards.

The method of classifying objects is used both for the study of adults and children (from 6 years old). Depending on the age of the subject, some cards with images of objects unfamiliar to them (measuring instruments, teaching aids) are excluded from the general set or a small number of cards (20 pieces) are selected, distributing them into simple groups that are well known to the children.

For the simplest version of the technique, a set of 25 pictures is required. 20 pre-numbered pictures are always offered in the same order: apple, sofa, goat, horse, table, child, bicycle, cart, plums, woman, steamboat, wardrobe, dog, watermelon, sailor, whatnot, blacksmith, cat, airplane , pear.

Five unnumbered orientation cards are placed in front of the child: skier, bed, truck, cherry, sheep.

Show the child a stack of pictures: “We’ll put these pictures into groups - what goes with what.” Then the child is presented with the first picture - an apple: “Where do we put the apple?” If there are difficulties in speaking, the child can indicate with a gesture. If he shows correctly, the experimenter approves: “That’s right, put it with the cherry. This is fruit.” (The general concept is given by the experimenter himself.) If the subject’s attempt is unsuccessful, the experimenter himself explains: “Put it with the cherry, it’s fruit.”

Then they show a second picture - a sofa - with the same question: “Where should we put the sofa?” If the decision is incorrect, the experimenter again explains that this picture should be placed next to the bed, since it is furniture.

The experimenter continues to lay out and explain, giving generalized concepts until the child begins to lay out on his own. The protocol notes the number of the picture from which the child begins to correctly correlate objects according to a generalized attribute (numbering the pictures makes it easier to record in the protocol). These records make it possible to better understand the peculiarities of the processes of analysis and synthesis, to understand whether the child is able to establish a generalized connection between objects or whether he unites them according to specific characteristics.

Since the survey is in the nature of a training experiment, when analyzing the data, the number of stages necessary to master the principle of action and the possibility of applying this principle in further work of the same kind (i.e., “transfer”) become decisive.

The protocol notes the numbers of the pictures, the experimenter’s questions and explanations, the child’s actions, his questions and statements. This version of the technique does not cause any difficulties in children with primarily intact intelligence. In most cases, after jointly analyzing two or three (sometimes one) pictures, children grasp the principle of classification and then perform the work independently without errors or with isolated errors.

Elimination of an inappropriate item (fourth wheel)

The technique is designed to study the ability to make generalizations and give a logical explanation for their correctness. In some teaching aids, this technique is called a simplified version of the method of classifying objects.

An important condition for using the technique is the verbal justification of the choice. For children with speech impairments, a one-word answer with explanatory gestures is allowed if this gives the experimenter the opportunity to understand the principle that guided the child. When examining children who, due to speech defects, cannot explain their choice, this method has more limited use.

To conduct the experiment, you must have a set of cards, graded by degree of difficulty. Each card contains four objects, three of which are united by one common concept, and the fourth object does not fit this concept. For example: pocket watch, table lamp, alarm clock, five-kopeck coin; kerosene lamp, light bulb, sun, candles, etc.

You can create sets yourself, but be sure to comply with the peculiarities of the selection and design of cards (non-fixed position of the “extra” item, inclusion of color drawings).

All cards that will be offered to the child are arranged in advance in order of increasing difficulty and placed in a pile on the table. The instructions are given using the example of the easiest card: “Four objects are drawn here. Three objects are similar, they can be called in one word. But one object does not fit them. Find which one?”

If the child immediately correctly identifies an object, he is asked to explain: “Why is this object not suitable? How can these objects be called in one word?” If the child’s answer is incorrect, the experimenter works with him to analyze the first picture, label the three objects and explain why the fourth object should be excluded.

The next card, equal in difficulty to the first, is presented to the child with shorter instructions: “Here, too, one object does not fit with the others. Look, what needs to be removed here?”

If the task is completed correctly, they ask: “Why doesn’t it fit? How can you call these three items in one word?” If an item is incorrectly excluded, the child’s motivation is clarified using a question. Then they tell him what he did wrong, and repeat the detailed analysis with him using the example of this card.

The protocol notes the card number, the experimenter’s questions and comments, the excluded item, the child’s explanations and a generalizing word.

"Finding Numbers"

The technique is used to identify the speed of orienting-search movements of the gaze and determine the amount of attention in relation to visual stimuli. Suitable only for studying children who know numbers.

To conduct the experiment, you need to have five Schulte tables, which are tablets (60x90 cm) on which numbers from 1 to 25 are written randomly. On each of the five tables, the numbers are arranged differently. In addition, you need a stopwatch and a small (30 cm) pointer. The experiment can be carried out with children studying in the second grade of a public school or in the fourth grade of a special correctional school of the VIII type.

The child is briefly shown a table, saying: “On this table, the numbers from 1 to 25 are not in order.” Then the table is turned over and placed on the table. After this, the instructions continue: “You will have to show and say out loud with this pointer all the numbers in order from 1 to 25. Try to do this as quickly as possible and without mistakes. Understand?” If the child does not understand the task, it is repeated. The table is not opened. Then the experimenter places the table vertically at a distance of 70 - 75 cm from the child, says: “Start” and at the same time starts the stopwatch.

The child points to the numbers and names them, and the experimenter monitors the correctness of his actions. When the child reaches “25,” the experimenter stops the stopwatch.

Then the child is asked to show and name the numbers on the second, third, fourth, fifth tables in the same way.

When assessing the results, the first thing that becomes noticeable is the difference in the amount of time the child spends looking for numbers. For practically healthy children, 30 - 50 s are enough for one table (most often 40 - 42 s).

A noticeable increase in time for finding numbers in the last (fourth and fifth) tables indicates the child’s fatigue, and a decrease indicates a slow “getting into it.” Normally, each table takes approximately the same time.

Test for combination of signs (according to V.M. Kogan)

The technique is used to study the mental performance of children and adolescents. To conduct the study, you need a cardboard board measuring 40x40 cm, divided into 64 cells. Each of the seven cells (except the first from the left) of the top row depicts one (uncolored) geometric figure (square, triangle, circle, etc.). In each of the seven cells (except for the top) of the vertical row (on the left), one bright colored stroke is made (red, blue, green, brown, light blue, orange, yellow). The individual cards (49 of them) depict different figures. Their colors and shapes correspond to the colors and shapes shown on the board.

The experiment consists of four stages, each of which contains its own instructions. The cards are carefully shuffled.

Instructions for the first stage (simple recount): “Count these cards out loud, placing them one at a time on the table.” The experimenter shows how this should be done. While the child is counting, the experimenter, using a stopwatch, notes in the protocol the time spent on recounting every 10 cards (at the end there are only 9 of them) and on the entire recount.

Instructions for the second stage (recounting with sorting by color): “Now you must also count these cards out loud and at the same time arrange them into groups by color.” The protocol records the time spent on every 10 cards and on the entire recount.

Instructions for the third stage (recounting with sorting based on shape): “Count the same cards out loud and at the same time sort them not by color, but by shape.” The experimenter still records the time spent.

Instructions at the fourth stage (recounting based on color and shape with laying out the cards in free cells): “You must find a place for each card on this table, taking into account the color and shape. At the same time, continue to count - recounting the cards.” The same time indicators are entered into the protocol. If necessary, the experimenter can accompany verbal instructions with a demonstration.

At the end of the experiment, the psychologist is left with the following table (see protocol form).

The time spent at each stage is indicated by B 1, B 2, B 3, B 4, for example: B 1 = 52 s.

Coefficients D and K are calculated based on time indicators. Coefficient D (attention deficit) is defined as the difference between the time spent in the fourth stage of work and the sum of time spent in the second and third stages. It is determined by the formula D = B 4 - (B 2 + B 3).

Protocol form

Coefficient D

Factor K

Error curve

Error curve type

Coefficient D indicates the ability to combine signs, a deficit of voluntary attention and, in particular, indicates difficulties in distributing attention.

Coefficient K (workability) is determined by the formula K = D: B 4. This indicator allows you to evaluate how the test subject masters the operating principle. The higher the coefficient K, the faster the subject learned the principles of completing the task.

Time indicators (in seconds) of completing tasks according to V.M. Kogan healthy children:

Learning 10 words

This is one of the most commonly used techniques. It was proposed by A.R. Luria and is used to assess the state of memory, study fatigue, and attention.

No special equipment is required, but more than with other techniques, silence is a prerequisite. Before starting the examination, the experimenter must write down on one line a number of short (one- and two-syllable) words - simple, different in meaning and not having any connection with each other. Typically, each experimenter habitually uses one series of words. It is better to use several sets so that children cannot recognize them from each other.

In this experiment, very high accuracy of word pronunciation and consistency of instructions are required.

The instructions consist of several steps. First explanation: “Now I will read 10 words. You must listen carefully. When you finish reading, immediately repeat as many as you remember. You can repeat in any order. The order does not matter. Understand?”

The experimenter reads the words slowly and clearly. When the subject repeats the words, the experimenter places crosses opposite them in his protocol (see protocol form). Then the experimenter continues the instructions (second stage).

Continuation of the instructions: “Now I will read the same words again, and you must repeat them - both those that you have already named and those that you missed the first time - all together in any order.”

The experimenter again puts crosses next to the words that the subject reproduced.

Protocol form

Then the experiment is repeated again 3, 4 and 5 times, but without any instructions. The experimenter simply says, “One more time.”

If the subject names extra words, the experimenter must write them down next to the crosses, and if these words are repeated, he places crosses opposite.

If the child tries to insert any remarks during the experiment, the experimenter stops him. No conversations are allowed during the experiment. After repeating it five times, the experimenter moves on to other experiments, and at the end of the study, i.e. after about 50 - 60 minutes, he again asks to reproduce these words (without a reminder). To avoid mistakes, it is better to mark these repetitions not with crosses, but with circles.

Based on the results of the study, a “Memorization Curve” graph is drawn up. Based on the shape of the curve, we can draw some conclusions regarding the characteristics of memorization. It has been established that in healthy school-age children the “memorization curve” is approximately as follows: 5, 7, 9, or 6, 8, 9, or 5, 7, 10 words, i.e. by the third repetition, the subject reproduces 9 or 10 words; with subsequent repetitions (at least 5 times in total), the number of words reproduced is 9 - 10. Children with organic brain damage reproduce a relatively smaller number of words. They may say unnecessary words and get stuck on this mistake. Such repeated “extra” words, according to the observations of some psychologists, are encountered in the study of sick children suffering from ongoing organic brain diseases. Children in a state of disinhibition produce especially many such “extra” words.

The “memorization curve” may indicate both a weakening of active attention and severe fatigue. So, for example, sometimes a child reproduces 8 or 9 words for the second time, and on subsequent trials he recalls fewer and fewer of them. Such a student usually suffers from forgetfulness and absent-mindedness. The basis of forgetfulness is transient asthenia, exhaustion of attention. The “memorization curve” in these cases does not necessarily fall sharply down; sometimes it has a zigzag appearance, which indicates instability of attention and its fluctuations.

In some, relatively rare, cases, children reproduce the same number of the same words each time, i.e. the curve has a plateau shape. Such stability indicates emotional lethargy and lack of interest in remembering more. A low-lying “plateau” type curve is observed in dementia with apathy (paralytic syndromes).

The number of words retained in memory and reproduced by the subject an hour after repetition is more indicative of memory in the narrow sense of the word.

Using different, but equal in difficulty, sets of words, you can repeat this experiment in order to take into account the effectiveness of therapy, assess the dynamics of the disease, etc.

Indirect memorization (according to A.N. Leontiev)

To conduct the experiment, you must have sets of images of objects (pictures) and a set of words.

First option (6 - Helmet)

Set of cards: sofa, mushroom, cow, washbasin, table, branch, strawberry, felt-tip pen, plane, tree, watering can, house, flower, notebooks, telegraph pole, key, bread, tram, window, glass, bed, crew, tabletop electric lamp, picture in frame, field, cat.

Words to remember: light, lunch, forest, teaching, hammer, clothes, field, game, bird, horse, road, night, mouse, milk, chair.

Second option (after 10 years)

Set of cards: towel, chair, inkwell, bicycle, clock, globe, pencil, sun, glass, dinner set, comb, plate, mirror, markers (2 pcs.), tray, bakery house, factory pipes, jug, fence, dog, children's pants, room, socks and boots, penknife, goose, street lamp, horse, rooster, blackboard (school), shirt.

Words to remember: rain, meeting, fire, grief, day, fight, squad, theater, mistake, force, meeting, response, holiday, neighbor, labor.

All the cards are laid out in rows in front of the child in any order, but so that they are visible to him. Then they say: “You will need to remember a number of words. To make this easier, every time I say a word, you need to choose a card that will then help you remember the word. Here, for example, is the first word that you need to remember. .. (depending on which option is offered, it may be the word “rain”). Rain is not drawn here anywhere, but you can choose a card that will help you remember this word.” After the child chooses a card, it is put aside. Then, after 40 minutes or an hour, i.e. before the end of the study (after any other experiments have been done), the child is shown one card in random order and asked to remember which word it was selected to remember. At the same time, they always ask how they managed to remember or how this card reminded them of the rain. If the child starts work reluctantly, then such questions can be asked after the presentation of the third and fourth words. All selected cards are put aside. Then, after 40 minutes, i.e. before the end of the study (after any other experiments have been done), the child is shown one card in random order and asked to remember which word this card was selected to remember. And again they ask how they managed to remember or how this card reminded them of the corresponding word.

When analyzing the results, it is taken into account that there can be no right or wrong choice. The nature of the connection that the subject established between the word and the image on the card is analyzed.

From 6 to 7 years of age, indirect memorization prevails over direct memorization. With age, this gap increases even more in favor of indirect memorization. By the age of 15, healthy children can reproduce 100% of the presented material.

Children with impaired performance remember material much better with mediated memorization, since semantic connections create additional “supporting milestones” for them. Children with impaired purposeful thinking often cannot remember a single word (when reproduced they call pictures, not words), since even during the formation of a connection they “lose” the main goal of the work - the need to connect the choice of a picture with the subsequent reproduction of a word.

Let us give an example of the protocol of one of the examinations.

Examination protocol
mediated memorization Katya, 8 years old
(according to A.N. Leontiev)

Word	Selectable card	Explanation of connection	Playable word	Explanation
Light	Lamp	The lamp is shining	Bulb	Like the sun
Dinner	Bread	When they eat, they take bread	Eat	-
Forest	Mushroom	Mushrooms grow in the forest	Forest	-
Teaching	Notebook	When you study, you write	Write	-
Hammer	Shovel	Similar	Scoop	-
Cloth	Bed	Also made of matter	Bed	Sleep
Field	Field	It is depicted	Field	-
Game	Cat with a ball	Play with a ball	Playing	-
Bird	Cow	Also an animal	Animal	-
Horse	Crew	Carried by a horse	horse	-
Road	Automobile	Driving down the road	Sand	Riding on the sand
Night	House	Sleeping in the house at night	-	-
Mouse	Painting	It's like there's a mouse there	Hedgehog	Hedgehog
Milk	Cup	Pour into a glass	Milk	-
Chair	Sofa	They sit on them	Chair	-

Katya selected pictures for words at an average pace. For two words, when presented with a card, he cannot remember the corresponding word, but names the image on it. Such errors indicate a lack of ability to retain mediated connections in memory and the impossibility of remembering by association. The explanation of the connections is broken in 7 (!) words. This means that the process of establishing indirect connections is difficult, and the connections themselves are fragile. The technique confirms that the processes of semantic memory (storage, and therefore reproduction) in the girl are impaired.

Pictogram

The technique can be successfully used in military or forensic psychiatric examination. In recent years, attempts have been made to use this technique to study very young children, using words and phrases available to them.

To conduct the experiment, you need clean paper and pencils (simple and colored). In the sets of words and phrases prepared for the experiment, simple concepts can alternate with more complex, abstract ones, for example, “delicious dinner,” “hard work,” “happiness,” “development,” “sadness,” etc.

The child is explained that his memory will be tested (one might say “visual memory”). To remember individual word combinations, he must, without writing anything down, draw something that will help him remember the given word.

The first expressions selected from the easier ones can be used for detailed explanation, clarification of instructions, even showing if the child has difficulty understanding the instructions. As the work progresses, it is advisable to ask the child to provide explanations for the design, details, and content of the drawing. Whatever connections and drawings the child creates, disapproval should not be expressed. Only when the drawings are too multi-subject, and the child himself is more interested in the process of drawing than in choosing a connection to remember, can it be somewhat limited in time.

After an hour, the child is asked to remember the given words separately. You can name the words from the pictures and write captions for them. Sometimes the child can be provided with the necessary help.

When assessing the results of an experiment, first of all, the number of correctly reproduced words is calculated in relation to the total number of words presented for memorization. These data can be compiled with the results of direct memorization (using the “Learning 10 words” method).

The most valuable data is provided by the analysis of children's drawings. Everything can be important here: the manner of holding a pencil and drawing lines, the force of pressure on the pencil, the location of the drawings on the plane of the sheet, the choice of color, etc. But of course, the most important thing is to analyze the content of the drawings themselves. They reflect the child’s stock of knowledge and ideas, the characteristics of his individual life experience. The drawings reflect children's ability to be distracted, etc. Let us give as an example the protocol of one examination (see p. 83).

This section provides only some experimental psychological techniques. You can get acquainted with them in more detail in the specialized literature (S.Ya. Rubinshtein, M.I. Kononova, S.D. Zabramnaya, M.M. Semago).

Examination protocol using the "Pictogram" method

Word	Latent time, s	Drawing	Explanation	Playback
dark night		Shaded square	A square and everything is shaded. Shaded means dark, night	dark night
Happy holiday		Checkbox	During the holidays there is a demonstration. They go to demonstrations with flags	Holiday
Justice	2,05	(Refusal, additional request) Warrior with a gun	A warrior standing on the border is fair labor	Justice
Despair	1,43	Coffin with a human body	Well, death causes despair among loved ones	Despair
Delicious dinner		Plate	A plate, well, at least with salad	Dinner
Disease		Bed	Man lies on bed when he can't do anything	Disease
Envy	2,36	Trough, necklace, chain	Well, the envy of the old woman from the folk tale	Envy
Fear		Barely noticeable touches	Thunderstorm is very scary	Fear
Development	-	(Refusal, additional request, refusal)	-	-

Tests

Another direction in the study of children and adolescents with developmental disabilities is the metric approach, which involves quantitative measurement of certain indicators of mental development. This approach is carried out using tests.

Tests are standard sets of tasks and materials with which the test taker works. The procedure for presenting tasks is also standard: they are given in a certain sequence, the completion time and evaluation of the results are regulated.

In connection with testing, it is necessary to dwell on two concepts - reliability and validity - related to psychodiagnostic techniques. Reliability test is the independence of its results from the action of all kinds of random factors (such as testing conditions, the personality of the experimenter and the subject, previous testing experience or lack thereof, etc.). Validity test is the correspondence of the information received to the measured mental property or process.

Wechsler test

In the practice of examining both children and adults, D. Wechsler's test has become widespread, allowing one to assess a person's intelligence using a quantitative indicator - the intellectual development coefficient. The test was used to differentiate healthy and mentally retarded children, to study the intellectual activity of children with mental retardation, and to analyze the causes of academic failure. All studies confirmed fairly high reliability and validity of the test. There is a version of the methodology specially adapted to the conditions of our country, designed to study the intellectual development of children from 5 to 16 years old (A.K. Panasyuk, A.Yu. Panasyuk).

The advantage of the Wechsler test is that it allows you to get an idea not only of the general level of intelligence, but also of the features of its structure due to the combination of subtests aimed at studying various verbal and non-verbal (in the children's version - 12) intellectual characteristics, the degree of expression of which calculated on a single twenty-point scale. This makes it possible to establish which aspects of a child’s intellectual activity are the worst developed, through which aspects of compensation can occur, and to compare his achievements with average standards and examination results of other children.

The methodology is based on the principle that it is assumed that intelligence includes not only the ability to operate with symbols, abstract concepts, and think logically, but also to navigate the situation and solve problems with specific objects. Due to the fact that the technique consists of a verbal scale and an action scale (non-verbal), it is possible to obtain three final statistical assessments - general, verbal and non-verbal - with the corresponding intellectual coefficients.

The verbal scale consists of six tasks:

• 1) the general awareness task includes 30 questions; the stock of knowledge, memory for individual events and interests is revealed;
• 2) the general understanding task consists of 14 problem situations; the amount of practical information is determined, as well as the ability to evaluate and use previously accumulated life experience;
• 3) arithmetic task - a series of problems of increasing complexity; characterized by the ability to operate with numerical material, the ability to concentrate and short-term memory;
• 4) the task to establish similarities between concepts includes 12 pairs of words; the ability to form concepts is assessed;
• 5) “dictionary” - a list of 40 words of increasing difficulty; their meanings must be determined by the subject;
• 6) a task to memorize a series of numbers from three to nine terms in forward or reverse order; characterized by immediate recall or short-term memory.

The action scale also consists of six tasks:

• 1) the task of adding pictures is carried out on 20 drawings, each of which is missing one of the essential details; naming the missing part shows the ability to differentiate the main from the secondary;
• 2) task to arrange pictures: one of 7 series of pictures is presented in random order and should be placed in a logical sequence that reflects the dynamics of the events depicted; The ability to understand the situation as a whole is assessed, i.e. establish cause-and-effect relationships;
• 3) “composing figures from cubes” in accordance with a number of increasingly complex patterns; analytical-synthetic abilities and possibilities of spatial coordination and integration are identified;
• 4) task “folding objects”: from individual parts you need to make a figure of a person, a horse, a car and a face, i.e. using partial information to create a whole with significant freedom of choice of solution;
• 5) the coordination task is carried out on a number of triangles, divided in half, and is designed to recognize the connection between a certain number and the corresponding figure; the ability to learn new material is revealed;
• 6) “labyrinths”: finding the correct path in a series of increasingly complex labyrinths allows one to judge spatial concepts.

The results of completing each task are assessed separately, and this gives a qualitative description of various mental functions, especially if we take into account the methods of performing various tests. The variety of tasks allows you to assess abilities that are practically free from the influence of training. The presence of an action scale makes it possible to study children with hearing and speech impairments.

Noteworthy is the fact that the subtests included in the version of the Wechsler method for children are practically no different in content from the experimental psychological methods widely used in pathopsychology. This is the study of the child’s awareness and vocabulary, his ability to use knowledge in a specific situation, solving arithmetic problems, finding analogies and similarities between concepts, “sequential pictures”, “Koos cubes”, composing objects from separate parts, proofreading tests and labyrinths. For these pathopsychological techniques, ways of qualitative data analysis have been quite clearly developed, and the experimenter has the opportunity to make the necessary changes and additions to the test research procedure aimed at studying the quality of the disorder.

First of all, using this technique, it is necessary to take into account and strictly record all the individual characteristics of the subjects, as well as all the features of their behavior during the examination. This will make it possible to more accurately assess the nature of their intellectual impairments and make it possible to establish what influence personal and other factors have on the process of completing tasks.

The following indicators are of greatest interest.

1. Features of the child’s communication with the experimenter: is it easy to make contact, does he ask questions and what kind, does he tell something about himself, etc.

If a child is excessively shy, withdrawn, and has poor communication skills, it is advisable to begin examining him with nonverbal tasks. Bright cubes and pictures usually arouse interest in the child and relieve constraint and fear. When the child gets used to it a little and stops being inhibited, you can offer him verbal tasks. At the same time, you should not demand detailed answers from him; it is only important to find out how much he understands, knows various objects and phenomena, and knows how to generalize and compare them with each other. When qualifying a defect, it is necessary to take into account that the low quantitative indicators obtained by the child on verbal tests, in this case, are most likely a consequence of increased inhibition.

Sociable children usually react vigorously to all questions and tasks, often asking again, clarifying, giving examples from their own lives, etc. On the one hand, all this can serve as additional information for the experimenter, and on the other hand, it increases the examination time and disrupts its rhythm. In some cases, such children should be tactfully stopped and asked to answer only to the point.

2. Features of motivation: do the tasks arouse interest, what is the reaction to failure, how does the child assess his capabilities and achievements.

For children with strong cognitive motivation, any interruption of activity can cause an experience of failure and a feeling of dissatisfaction. Therefore, in cases where a child takes a very long time to navigate a task, searches for the most correct solution and does not fit into the allotted time limit, it is necessary to allow him to complete the task to the end and fix his individual pace of work. The quantitative assessment should be output in a standard manner.

3. Dynamic characteristics of activity: impulsiveness, disinhibition, haste in completing tasks or lethargy, slowness, exhaustion.

Examination of children with increased exhaustion and low performance should be carried out in several stages, giving them significant rest breaks. Such children complete tasks very slowly and often do not complete the tasks within the allotted time. Therefore, it is advisable not to interrupt the child, not to limit the time he completes tasks in order to find out whether he is in principle able to cope with them, but be sure to take into account the individual completion time. Low scores on subtests that have time limits should be considered a consequence of the slow pace of mental activity.

4. Features of attention: distractibility, switchability, fluctuations, self-control indicators.

5. Characteristics of motor skills: speed of movements, coordination, strength of muscle tone, accuracy of movements, etc.

6. Speech features: unformed phrasal speech, difficulties in pronunciation, incorrect use of words, slips of the tongue, speech inertia, violation of the regulatory function of speech.

7. Methods of completing tasks: solving by trial and error or using logical techniques, whether the found method is transferred to similar tasks, etc.

Thus, in contrast to the standard procedure for a test study, when only the result of completing a task is noted, it makes sense to record in detail and carefully the entire course of the experiment, recording, if possible, everything that the subject does and says. In this case, of great importance is the fact that the purity of the test itself is practically not compromised, since quantitative estimates are derived in a standard way, and any additions and changes made by the experimenter are used for qualitative analysis of the data obtained.

Test "Progressive Matrices Ravenna"

The test was proposed by L. Penrose and J. Raven in 1936. During the work, the test subject had to identify relationships between abstract figures. Two versions of the test are common - black and white and color; black and white is intended for examining subjects 8 - 14 and 20 - 65 years old, color - 5 - 11 years old.

In the black-and-white version, the subject consistently works with 60 patterns or compositions where part of the pattern or one of the elements is missing; it is necessary to select the missing part from the proposed options. The tasks are grouped into five series. In the first series it is necessary to find the missing part of the image, in the second - analogies between pairs of figures, in the third - the principle of development, change of figures, in the fourth - the principle of rearrangement of figures, in the fifth - the patterns of relationships and interactions between figures horizontally and vertically. Within each series, the difficulty of the tasks increases. The color version is easier and contains three series of tasks.

Such features of thinking are revealed as the ability to highlight essential features (for combining cards into groups) and the level of generalization accessible to a schoolchild or an adult. For children under 14 years of age, the “Classification of Objects” method, where drawn objects are presented on cards, will be adequate.

Progress of the task

The task takes place in three stages with three consecutive instructions from the psychologist. The subject is given a set of cards with words written (printed) on them. The list of words is in the materials for the method. There is also an approximate form for recording the results - a protocol of the experiment.

First stageThe procedure begins with the so-called “deaf” instruction: “Arrange the cards so that the words that go together are in the same group.” The number of possible groups is not specified. If the subject asks questions before starting the task, he is told: “Start, find out, then you will see for yourself.”

After the subject has independently formed several small groups of cards, he is asked why certain cards are placed together and what name they are given. Then the transition occurs to the second stage of the procedure. Instructions at the second stage sounds like this: “You correctly combined the cards into groups. Now give these groups short names. Continue working in the same way." After all the cards have been placed in groups and all groups have been given short names, the experimenter proceeds to third stage techniques. The following instructions are given: “In the same way as you combined card with card into separate groups and gave them names, now combine group with group without rearranging individual cards. There should be as few such groups as possible. They should have short titles." If the subject at this stage forms more than three groups, he is asked to form 2-3 main groups from the remaining groups. The protocol records the stages of the work, the names of the groups and cards in them, as well as the questions and answers of the subject.

When analyzing the results, it is of great importance at what stage certain mistakes were made; whether the subject defended his principles of combining cards into groups, whether he used the help of the experimenter, or what other features of thinking he showed in the classification. So, if the subject at the second stage formed separate groups of wild, domestic, flying, waterfowl animals and refused to combine these groups into one, then this indicates the degree of use of specific, detailed features in the direction of his thinking. If such associations took place easily, independently, without the experimenter indicating the need to enlarge the groups, then this can be qualified as the achieved level of generalization of thinking, the ability of the subject to focus not only on essential features, but also take into account their hierarchies, i.e. use essential connections between concepts. An indicator of this is the degree of difficulty or ease when searching for generalizing concepts that fix the basis for classifying cards into groups. If at the third stage of the technique the subject easily combined groups and adequately named generalizing features, then there is reason to believe that his thinking is characterized by the use of generalized guidelines and occurs at the categorical level.

In addition, analysis of the subject’s behavior during the study allows us to speak about the presence or absence of suggestibility and emotional stability. These proposals are tested by imposing on the subject inadequate reasons for combining groups, by the experimenter discrediting the subject’s work tactics, or by praising him when he makes mistakes. It follows that a psychologist must work with the technique, because in the latter case it is difficult to expect such a type of interaction between the subject and the experimenter, in which the subject will be able to accept the need to insist on his own, to oppose his justifications to the opinion of the experimenter. This technique gives reliable results when used in a complex of other techniques, also aimed at identifying the level of generalizations accessible to the test subject, the concreteness and generality of thinking, the purposefulness of mental activity, rigidity (difficulty switching from one method to another), the nature of conceptual reasoning mediating connections.

Material for the “Classification of Concepts” methodology

A list of words, each of which should be printed on a separate card

TV ruble apple firefly spotlight scales watch truck airplane compass boots notebook steamship cart drum ball briefcase globe electric oven wheel carp (fish) book bed vegetable store thermometer radio lion tiger elephant starling carp pigeon goose martin ant fly piano violin forceps axe scissors hammer saw

candle kerosene lamp electric lamp flashlight centimeter sailor doctor child football player Sun bear moon electric stove hail whale bug cucumber cabbage beet onion lemon pear apple Primus bike dress doll tulip pillow closet blanket buffet rain rose mattress cup pine cap snow spinning top spoon fork plate

Download the stimulus material of the technique for children

The subject classification method is one of the main ones used in almost every psychological study of a patient. The method is used to study the processes of generalization and abstraction, but makes it possible to analyze the sequence of conclusions, the criticality and thoughtfulness of the actions of patients, the characteristics of memory, the volume and stability of their attention, the personal reactions of patients to their achievements and failures. Proposed by K. Goldstein, modified by L.S. Vygotsky and B.V. Zeigarnik.

To conduct the experiment, you must have a deck of 70 cards, which depict a variety of objects and living beings. In the psychological laboratories of all psychoneurological institutions in our country, a unified subject classification has been adopted. The selection of objects, the features of the artistic design of each card (selection of colors, shading, the shape of the object, even the paper on which it is made) - all this has a certain significance that is essential for the experiment. It is not recommended to use homemade cards or sets of lotto cards yourself. With such a handicraft selection of cards, artifacts often arise.

The classification method is applicable to the study of children and adults of any educational level. However, when studying preschool children and illiterate adults, some cards should be excluded (measuring instruments, teaching aids).

In some cases, before starting work, it is necessary to give the patient some motivation for the task, a description of its meaning. This is done in different ways, depending on the mental state and mood of the patient.

A 50-year-old patient with a secondary education, suffering from cerebral vascular sclerosis, can be told: “This work to test attention, in appearance it is easy - a child’s game, but in fact it is intended to test the attention of people with higher education.”

When studying an 8th grade teenager, one might say, “This is for 11th graders.”

When examining a hypochondriac or aggravating patient during examination, complaining of fatigue and forgetfulness, one can say: “It would be difficult for you to read, let’s do this easy work. The drawings here are large, clear, and the work is easy, you just need to do it carefully.”

In most cases, such “prefaces” are not necessary. Before starting the experiment, the experimenter carefully shuffles the entire deck of cards and lays out 6-7 cards on top to facilitate the beginning of classification (for example, sheep, table, pear, goat, closet, horse, apple). Then he hands the entire deck to the patient (with the pictures facing up, and not the back side, as playing cards are held) and says: “Lay these cards out on the table, what goes with what.”

This is the first, so-called blind, stage of instructions (in total, instructions are given in three steps, at three different stages of completing the task). Since the instruction should always be the same, there is no need to write it down in the protocol, but be sure to mark all three of its stages (see Table 7.1). If a patient asks questions about how to lay it out, he is answered evasively at the first stage: “Start working. You will see for yourself how it should be done.” But it is necessary to write down these questions in the protocol.

From the very beginning, the experimenter records the patient’s actions and statements in the protocol. At the first stage, it is important to record how the patient tried to navigate the new task, and whether he himself understood the task. Did he immediately begin to combine objects by “type”, or began to put things next to each other that are often nearby in life (for example, clothes in a closet, carrots in a pan, a glass on the table), or simply, in bewilderment, laid out all the cards one by one.

After the patient places 15-20 cards on the table, a second instruction is given, and the second stage of work begins. It begins with a positive assessment or criticism of what the patient has already done. The experimenter says: “That’s right, you put the furniture together, so you need to combine everything by type so that each group contains objects of the same type, so that they can be called in one word.” Or, if the patient puts the cards in by mistake: “No, it doesn’t matter that the clothes are hanging in the closet. Items of the same type must be placed together so that they can be called in one word: furniture must be placed with furniture, clothes with clothes.”

The second stage is the longest. The experimenter records the patient's actions in the protocol and from time to time asks him why he put certain cards together, what this or that group can be called. It is not necessary to ask about the name of each group, especially if it is clear that the patient is classifying correctly. But even if the patient’s work is impeccable, it is necessary to ask about the names of several groups.

You should not ask the patient (as inexperienced experimenters often mistakenly do) only about those groups that are folded incorrectly. If the experimenter notices an error or an incomprehensible grouping, he should ask the patient about 1-2 correctly assembled groups and then, without changing his tone, about the group in which an error was made or an incomprehensibly motivated arrangement took place. Sometimes it is advisable not to notice the mistakes made by the patient at all in order to see if the patient himself discovers it, or in order to return to this mistake at the end of the work and then “discuss” it.

If the patient asks whether it is necessary to classify in detail or whether large groups can be established immediately, the experimenter answers evasively, i.e. says to the patient: “Whatever seems better to you, whatever you want.”

Some patients try to review all the cards first, begin to sort through them little by little, holding the deck under the table, on their knees, as if hiding it from the eyes of the experimenter and putting the reviewed card at the end of the deck, down. Such an attempt should be included in the protocol, but this cannot be allowed: the patient should be asked to immediately lay out each card on the table, and immediately find a place for it.

The second stage is completed when, with more or less help from the experimenter, the main groups are established: furniture, dishes, clothing, tools, transport, people, fruits, birds, vegetables, animals, measuring instruments, insects, teaching aids. It is not considered a mistake if the patient immediately unites all the animals, but it is also good if he divides them into domestic and wild animals.

When these groups are collected and named, they move on to the third stage. The patient is told: “You did the first part of the work well. Now we need to do the second part of the work. Previously, you connected cards with cards into groups, but now you need to connect group with group so that there are as few groups as possible, but so that you can give each group a name.” Next, using the example of 2-3 groups, the experimenter shows how this unification can begin. It should be taken into account that it is easiest to combine plants, but it is more difficult to combine all inanimate objects together. Therefore, some patients are helped to combine measuring instruments and instruments, while others receive flowers and fruits.

As the patient enlarges the groups, the experimenter asks them to make them smaller and smaller. Sometimes, if the patient has difficulty enlarging, he is told: “There should be only three groups” (meaning: plants, living beings, inanimate objects).

A sample experimental protocol based on the example of a study of a mentally healthy adult subject with a 7th grade education is given in Table. 7.1.

Table 7.1

Experiment protocol

Experimenter	Subject's actions *	Statements and associations of the subject
First stage(usual instructions) “Start posting. You will understand..."	looks at the first cards without starting to lay them out lays out one at a time, then, looking questioningly at the experimenter, puts in carrots and beets, a sheep and a goat	“How should they be grouped? Two at a time? You can have vegetables with vegetables, animals with animals
Second stage(usual instructions). "Yes, that's right..."	furniture + vegetables + domestic animals + many cards are placed one at a time, not noticing that they could already be combined adds a saw to the caliper	begins to comment on his actions: “These will be professions... and this...” "These are tools"
“No, this is not entirely true: work is not done with a caliper, a caliper is a measuring device, and a saw is a tool or tool.”	puts the saw away from the caliper, then adds a shovel and scissors to the saw places a scale, a watch and a centimeter on the caliper transport + (only one cart left) fish + insects	“Ah-ah, I got it! These are tools" "These are measuring instruments" “Where is the globe?”
“What is the globe used for?”	puts the globe to the books and notebooks	"It's all for learning"

End of table. 7.1

	all the cards are laid out basically correctly, but many remain uncombined, one by one he looks for cards lying one at a time and connects them correctly: a cart to transport, a child to people of different professions	“He is small... but also a person. It will be "people"
Third stage(usual instructions) “Is it possible to gather three groups?”	unites all plants, all animals, some things (furniture, clothes, dishes) unites transport, measuring instruments and tools, five groups left unites people with animals, all inanimate objects together three groups remain	“It will be home stuff.” "It's something technical" names groups: plants, living things, inanimate objects
* When a group has started correctly (even if not finished), the experimenter puts a “+” sign, for example “furniture +”.

It is clear from the protocol that the generalization task turned out to be not very easy for the subject, but still accessible. His judgments were moderately specific, and he used the experimenter’s help easily and quickly. A hint in the form of an explanation of what a caliper is is almost mandatory. This is why this measuring device was included in the set.

Analysis of experimental data presents significant difficulties. It should be taken into account, first of all, that the analysis and evaluation of certain actions and statements cannot be carried out regardless of the stage of the task. The same mistake made at the first, second or third stage has a different meaning and should be interpreted differently.

The patient’s mistakes at the first stage of work do not yet give the right to a negative assessment of his thinking: he could have interpreted the problem in the wrong way. Now, if a patient with little education immediately begins to generalize correctly, this can be regarded as a sign of quick orientation in new material and good intelligence.

A different assessment can be given to the same actions of the patient at the second stage. After the second instruction, an intellectually complete person usually easily identifies groups of domestic animals, animals, furniture, dishes, clothes, fruits, vegetables, etc. Even mental retards cope with such a grouping, although experiencing some difficulties when uniting more complex groups (transport, people). The greatest difficulty is combining a group of measuring instruments (thermometer, scales, calipers, watches, centimeter). If the patient independently united this group and named it, then this experimental fact indicates that complex generalizations are available to him. This does not occur with oligophrenia. In second place in difficulty is the unification of a group of people (since in the classification people are depicted as representatives of different types of activities).

If at the second stage of work the patient continues to establish specific situational groups, for example, unites a butterfly with a flower, since butterflies land on flowers, or unites a sailor with a steamship, a child with a book or with a dress, this indicates the patient’s inclination towards concrete thinking (especially if such errors are repeated despite the experimenter's critical comments).

In addition to identifying the extent to which simple generalizations are accessible to the patient, at the second stage of classification it becomes possible to identify a number of other features of the thinking of patients.

Some patients establish very fragmented, overly detailed groupings: tea utensils and kitchen utensils, forest birds and domestic birds, bedroom furniture and other furniture. Separating domestic animals (goat, sheep, horse) from animals (fox, bear, wolf), such patients experience difficulty, not knowing where to place the cat, since although it is a domestic animal, it is not the same as a sheep...

A similar tendency of patients to detail is often observed with epilepsy, in some cases - with remission of schizophrenia. It is also typical for these patients that when the experimenter suggests they enlarge the groups, for example, to unite all the birds, they do not agree with this, object, or agree with great reluctance. As a rule, the experimenter at the second stage does not give any instructions about which groups to establish, broadly generalized or trial.

One should distinguish from excessive detail in the classification such a task in which there are also a lot of groups, but this abundance is not due to fragmentation, but to the presence of groups of the same name. So, the patient began to unite different animals into one group: both domestic and wild. Then, when he met another animal, the patient forgot that he had already started such a group, did not find it on the table and put this animal in another place. As a result of this, no different groups arise in different places, i.e. of the same name (people in one place and people in another, furniture in one place and furniture in another, etc.). The presence of groups of the same name indicates absent-mindedness, forgetfulness of patients, a narrowing of their attention span (they do not see everything that lies in front of their eyes). Such features are characteristic of patients with vascular and other organic brain lesions.

At the second stage of classification, patients sometimes put some groups in extremely general terms, and others in excessive detail. Such inconsistency of thinking is observed in a wide variety of diseases: sometimes with schizophrenia, sometimes with organic diseases, but usually during a period of some mild trouble.

And finally, the last thing that is sometimes revealed at the second stage of classification is the diversity and whimsicality of the patients’ reasoning. So, the patient arranges furniture, dishes, people, vehicles into general groups, and next to this he places groups of iron and wooden objects and next to them - a group of blue and black objects. These erroneous, diverse groupings are not random, since after bewilderment or a critical remark from the experimenter, patients do not correct them, as if having come to their senses, but try to justify it logically. Sometimes, along with generalizing complex groups, such as, for example, a group of measuring instruments, the patient puts aside a group of objects that he loves, and nearby those that have sharp ends.

A boy suffering from schizophrenia, having correctly grouped all living beings, measuring instruments and instruments, put a globe and a clock in a separate group, giving this the following explanation: “When the globe rotates, a change of day occurs, and this change is shown in more detail by the clock.”

After the experimenter helped the boy take the globe to the teaching aids, he correctly combined all the plants, connected them with the teaching aids, explaining that “all plants grow on the globe (showed the globe), and in the books it is written about how these plants need grow it, and schoolchildren learn it.”

These data indicate that the boy was able to make generalized judgments, but at the same time he made mistakes caused by diffuseness and inconsistency of thinking.

The greatest interest at the second stage of classification is the discussion of the actions performed. The experimenter asks the patient why he put the card in this or that group and what this group can now be called. The patient’s answers and arguments, the corrections he makes to his work under the influence of the experimenter, are the most valuable material for analyzing the characteristics of his thinking.

The ability to pose questions and make comments is a special art of the experimenter. His remarks, comments and questions must be terse and monosyllabic. They must be entered into the protocol. It is unacceptable if the experimenter talks and asks too much. It is, of course, necessary to record and analyze the patient's answers and the names that the patient gives to different groups.

With mental underdevelopment, patients sometimes cannot find a common concept to designate a group that they have correctly assembled. Patients with schizophrenia sometimes come up with bizarre, ungrammatical group names. Thus, a patient student calls a group of cards depicting different utensils “means for storing volumes.” From such whimsical names, characteristic of patients with schizophrenia, one should distinguish the pretentiousness of expressions, usually inherent in psychopaths who are uncultured but want to make an impression. For example, such a patient calls a group of utensils “accessories of cultural life for eating.”

At the third stage, it is determined whether the patient can understand complex generalizations. People without education sometimes find it difficult to do this, but with a little help from the experimenter and with leading questions, they achieve the correct result.

If the patient, independently or with a little help from the experimenter, brings the combination of groups to three (living beings, plants, inanimate objects), then the experimenter has the right to write in the conclusion that the patient can understand complex generalizations. When assessing mistakes made by patients, educational level should be taken into account. So, if a patient with higher education at the third stage wants to unite a group of people with clothes or, in general, with things that a person uses, this can be regarded as a sign of some intellectual decline, a tendency towards concrete thinking. The same mistake, if made by a patient with a lower education, can be ignored.

Of interest is the relationship between the achievements of patients in the second and third stages. With concrete thinking and difficulty in abstraction processes, patients can successfully cope with the second stage but cannot cope with the third on their own. With intellectual preservation, but a narrowing of the attention span and a decrease in the working capacity of patients, the abundance of cards at the second stage makes it difficult, and they unexpectedly cope better, more confidently, and more clearly with the work at the third stage, where there is less material and the need for abstraction is greater.

A similar relationship between the difficulty of the second and third stages is observed in patients with schizophrenia, but for other reasons: the abundance of details in many pictures provokes bizarre associations and diverse judgments in them. Meanwhile, complex generalizations are less difficult for these patients. It happens that it is precisely patients with schizophrenia who, from the first stage of classification, divide cards into two groups: living and non-living matter.

The greatest importance in a test for classifying objects is how the patient accepts the experimenter’s help and advice. Sometimes he puts an object into a group that is completely inappropriate for it. It is worthwhile, however, for the experimenter to ask the patient “What lies in this group”? or “What is the name of the group?”, as the patient immediately notices and corrects his mistake. Therefore, it is an error of his attention and not of judgment. If, in response to the experimenter’s question, the patient does not correct the error, but tries to justify it, then this is an error of judgment.

Sometimes the patient challenges the experimenter’s direct indication of an error, disagrees with him, and continues to prove that he is right. Such a reaction from the patient indicates a decrease in criticism, because with any conviction the patient should have understood that the experimenter is better versed in this issue. This type of uncriticality occurs in patients with schizophrenia. Other manifestations of uncriticality are observed in paralytic and pseudoparalytic syndromes in organics. They don’t care where to put the card; they can easily correct their mistake after the experimenter’s remark and make a similar mistake again. These patients have no interest in achieving correct results and evaluation.

The emotional reactions of patients to the experimenter's praise and blame are of interest. Thus, patients who aggravate during a psychiatric examination are very upset at any approval of their work and, after approval, often begin to work worse. In the classification process, they often work like this: they establish the correct generalized groups, and then put completely inappropriate cards into each such group. If the experimenter praises them, the number of errors increases, and sometimes patients suddenly stop recognizing pictures that they previously recognized correctly, or even begin to place cards face down. These patients rarely reach the third stage of classification.

On the contrary, psychopathic patients or simply psychopaths show the ability to mobilize all their mental resources when praised by the experimenter. If they understand that the experiment is intended to test their mental abilities and if the experimenter praises them, they find themselves better in the experiment than in life. It would be a mistake to believe that in professional work they can act as intelligently and accurately as they reason under these conditions when classifying objects.

The entire time the patient is making the classification, the experimenter keeps as complete a protocol as possible (Table 7.2).

Experiment protocol

Table 7.2

The experimenter indicates his instructions only by entering the serial number of the stage in the left column. He must take care to enter this number in a timely manner, since the interpretation of the error depends on the stage at which it was made. In the same column, briefly write down your own questions and instructions.

It would be unrealistic to expect that the experimenter will have time to record in the second column all the patient’s actions without exception. In this column, the entry is made immediately in a partially generalized form. So, the experimenter writes: “clothing + furniture + animals +.” Such a record means that these groups were started and formed basically correctly, although, perhaps, not all representatives of this group have yet been assigned to it.

Next, the experimenter can write down: “Excessive detail: metal utensils and glass utensils separately.” Perhaps in other groups detail was also allowed, for example, large vehicles with engines and vehicles without engines were also divided, but the experimenter may not have time to record all types of detail. He picks out 1-2 crushings as an example to illustrate.

The following entries can be made: “Many of the same name; fruits and vegetables in two places”, “Forgetful: transport + on top of a cart, a shovel, and all the tools for it.” This means that the patient made the following mistake. Having correctly assembled a variety of vehicles, he placed a cart on top, then, forgetting that he was lying in this group, he added a shovel to the cart (specificity), and then to the shovel, correctly generalizing, he began to add various tools. If in the future the patient himself comes to his senses and corrects his mistake, being annoyed with it, then it should be interpreted as a manifestation of forgetfulness, fluctuations in attention, and not a disorder of thinking.

Regarding any strange unusual groupings, the experimenter must question the patient and record in the protocol both the entire composition of the cards in the group and the patient’s explanations. In such cases, you should not rush. If the patient himself is laying out too quickly, he should be stopped, write everything down, and then continue working.

In the third column there may be descriptive entries, for example: “Has difficulty naming groups”, “He talks out loud all the time, dictates the layout order”, “He says something about each card, comments on them.” It is better, however, if in this column it is possible to record verbatim the statements and formulations of patients. Verbatim written examples of statements should be placed in quotation marks.

To facilitate the interpretation of patients' errors in classification, a typical excerpt from the study protocol and its interpretation are given in Table. 7.3.

Table 7.3

Experiment protocol

This example demonstrates the concreteness of the patient’s thinking, that instead of generalizing objects, he groups them according to familiar, situational characteristics. This tendency to establish everyday connections can manifest itself along with some simple generalizations. Sometimes patients accept the experimenter’s critical instructions, correct one of the specific situational groupings they have made, but after this they stray onto an equally specific path of association in their subsequent actions.

It is not always easy to distinguish from manifestations of concrete thinking, but it is necessary to distinguish some errors (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4

Experiment protocol

From the example it is clear that the patient is able to generalize: he himself collected groups of measuring instruments and living beings. Moving on to the third stage, he did not begin to connect objects according to specific situational characteristics, but generalized the groups according to rather complex characteristics - origin “from the bowels of the earth” and “on its surface”. However, this was a somewhat unexpected and unusual approach to classification, which provided the basis for combining plants with inorganic matter and contrasting them with living beings according to their place of origin. Thus, the patient’s reasoning was based on different signs of generalization: both signs were abstract, but allowed the construction of a generalization in completely different, incompatible directions. This was a diverse construction of classification.

The “classification of objects” technique is of little use for repeated samples. Only if the patient was unable to do anything the first time and the experimenter did not “bring” him to the correct decision, is it worth trying to carry out the test again.

Otherwise, even after many years, patients “remember” how to fold, and the test becomes meaningless. When calculating the effectiveness of therapy, the test is not used.

In addition to the subject classification, at one time an attempt was made to create a similar classification of cards on which the same objects were replaced by their verbal designations (verbal classification). A comparison of the psychological characteristics of different classification options (subject and verbal) showed that the subject one presents more difficulties for the processes of abstraction and generalization, since colorful images of specific objects and details provoke specific associations. The verbal version of classifications is easier to generalize, but creates more stress on attention and memory.

• For more information about this, see: Rubinshtein S.Ya. Experimental methods of pathopsychology and experience of their use in the clinic. - M., 1970.