{"title":"The fundamental issues with behavioral development.","authors":"M. Commons","doi":"10.1037/BDB0000022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this issue, besides a few stage related articles, there are articles highlighting periods of development, behavior analytical training and psychometric approaches to stage. The issue shows the breadth and depth of behavior developmental approaches. In this issue of Behavioral Development Bulletin, as well as other recent issues, Stage-related models and scoring schemes other than the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) have been presented (Commons, GaneMcCalla, Barker, & Li, 2014; Commons & Richards, 1984; Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, & Krause, 1998). To facilitate comparisons between the different articles, here and elsewhere (Commons, Richards, & Armon, 1984), I include a correspondence table and stage schemes. There are two correspondence tables. Table 1 shows the correspondence between MHC, Fischer skill theory (Fischer, 1980; Fischer, Hand, & Russell, 1984; Fischer & Hencke, 1996; Fischer & Lazerson, 1984), and Inhelder and Piaget theory (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Piaget, 1952, 1954, 1964) for infant and preschool stages. Not all stage theories include the early developmental stages. Table 2 shows the correspondence between MHC, skill theory, and other theories for stages between Order 7: Preoperational and Order 16: metacrossparadigmatic. No other stage theories were determined to have definitions for the highest Order 16 and only one for Order 15. The authors of the stage theories of early concrete (primary) and above have been asked to review the correspondence table and in most cases they have done so. In number of cases the people were deceased so their students and followers have been asked to look at the correspondence table. Although many of the theories and schemes are strongly stage-based or psychometric in nature, there are many schemes that are not based on modern stage theories and are induced from experience. Even in psychometric cases like Loevinger’s theory, Cook-Greuter has suggested stage correspondence. Some of the scoring schemes such as that of Elliot Jaques are based more on other variables than just on stage variables. Because of these factors, correspondence across different stage theories has limits in its interpretation.—Michael Lamport Commons, Editor","PeriodicalId":314223,"journal":{"name":"The Behavioral Development Bulletin","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Behavioral Development Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/BDB0000022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
In this issue, besides a few stage related articles, there are articles highlighting periods of development, behavior analytical training and psychometric approaches to stage. The issue shows the breadth and depth of behavior developmental approaches. In this issue of Behavioral Development Bulletin, as well as other recent issues, Stage-related models and scoring schemes other than the model of hierarchical complexity (MHC) have been presented (Commons, GaneMcCalla, Barker, & Li, 2014; Commons & Richards, 1984; Commons, Trudeau, Stein, Richards, & Krause, 1998). To facilitate comparisons between the different articles, here and elsewhere (Commons, Richards, & Armon, 1984), I include a correspondence table and stage schemes. There are two correspondence tables. Table 1 shows the correspondence between MHC, Fischer skill theory (Fischer, 1980; Fischer, Hand, & Russell, 1984; Fischer & Hencke, 1996; Fischer & Lazerson, 1984), and Inhelder and Piaget theory (Inhelder & Piaget, 1958; Piaget, 1952, 1954, 1964) for infant and preschool stages. Not all stage theories include the early developmental stages. Table 2 shows the correspondence between MHC, skill theory, and other theories for stages between Order 7: Preoperational and Order 16: metacrossparadigmatic. No other stage theories were determined to have definitions for the highest Order 16 and only one for Order 15. The authors of the stage theories of early concrete (primary) and above have been asked to review the correspondence table and in most cases they have done so. In number of cases the people were deceased so their students and followers have been asked to look at the correspondence table. Although many of the theories and schemes are strongly stage-based or psychometric in nature, there are many schemes that are not based on modern stage theories and are induced from experience. Even in psychometric cases like Loevinger’s theory, Cook-Greuter has suggested stage correspondence. Some of the scoring schemes such as that of Elliot Jaques are based more on other variables than just on stage variables. Because of these factors, correspondence across different stage theories has limits in its interpretation.—Michael Lamport Commons, Editor