Individual differences in cognitive planning on the Tower of Hanoi task: neuropsychological maturity or measurement error?

The Tower of Hanoi (ToH) task was given to 238 children aged from 7 to 15 years, and 20 adults. Individual variation within an age band was substantial. ToH score did not correlate significantly with Verbal IQ, nor with ability to inhibit a prepotent response. We readministered the ToH to 45 children after 30 to 40 days. The test-retest correlation of .5 is low in relation to accepted psychometric standards, though at least as high as reliability of the related Tower of London (ToL) in adults. The reasons for low reliability remain unclear: task novelty did not seem to be involved, as children did not improve on retest. We conclude that it is not safe to use this test to index integrity or maturation of underlying neurological systems in children. We compared our results with three published studies using the ToL with children, and found similar levels of performance on problems involving the same number of moves. Another study using automated ToL obtained much poorer scores, suggesting that computerised presentation may impair children's performance.

[1]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  I. Baron.  Test of Everyday Attention for Children; The Thames Valley Test Company, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, UK , 2001 .

[3]  Patrick Rabbitt,et al.  Test\re-test reliability of the CANTAB and ISPOCD neuropsychological batteries: theoretical and practical issues , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  B. Pennington,et al.  A neuropsychological examination of the underlying deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: frontal lobe versus right parietal lobe theories. , 1998, Developmental psychology.

[5]  C. Nelson,et al.  The functional emergence of prefrontally-guided working memory systems in four- to eight-year-old children , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[6]  M. Welsh,et al.  Towers of Hanoi and London: Reliability and Validity of Two Executive Function Tasks , 1997, Assessment.

[7]  Paul W. Burgess,et al.  Theory and methodology in executive function research , 1997 .

[8]  R. Dolan,et al.  Neural systems engaged by planning: a PET study of the Tower of London task , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  Peter J. Anderson,et al.  The Tower of London Test: Validation and standardization for pediatric populations. , 1996 .

[10]  Bruce F. Pennington,et al.  Executive functions and working memory: Theoretical and measurement issues. , 1996 .

[11]  J. Grafman,et al.  Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions? Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[12]  R. Krikorian,et al.  Tower of London procedure: a standard method and developmental data. , 1994, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[13]  A. Diamond,et al.  The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 3 1 2 –7 years old on a stroop- like day-night test , 1994, Cognition.

[14]  R. Morris,et al.  Neural correlates of planning ability: Frontal lobe activation during the tower of London test , 1993, Neuropsychologia.

[15]  Bruce F. Pennington,et al.  A normative‐developmental study of executive function: A window on prefrontal function in children , 1991 .

[16]  W. Grant Willis,et al.  Validation of executive function tasks with young children , 1991 .

[17]  T. Shallice.  Specific impairments of planning. , 1982, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[18]  H. H. Spitz,et al.  Tower of Hanoi performance of retarded young adults and nonretarded children as a function of solution length and goal state. , 1982, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[19]  J. Guilford.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education , 1943 .