Virginia Tompkins, Derek E Montgomery, Rebecca A Dore, Bridget Kiger Lee
{"title":"思维理论与跨生命周期的文字理解:荟萃分析。","authors":"Virginia Tompkins, Derek E Montgomery, Rebecca A Dore, Bridget Kiger Lee","doi":"10.1037/dev0001869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers argue that theory of mind (ToM) abilities are needed for text (listening or reading) comprehension. Although many studies have supported this claim, findings are mixed and researchers have disagreed on how fundamental this relation is-for example, whether ToM and text comprehension are related merely because of shared variance with verbal and executive function skills. To address these issues more definitively, we conducted a meta-analysis examining ToM and text comprehension, which included 47 independent samples with 5,123 participants ranging in age from 3 to 70 years of age (<i>M</i> = 10.53 years). We found a statistically significant association (<i>r</i> = .33) between ToM and text comprehension across 157 effect sizes. This relation did not differ based on whether data were cross-sectional or longitudinal, the age of participants, or most characteristics of the ToM or comprehension tasks (e.g., the degree to which they were narrative or inferential). However, the effect size was stronger in some languages and for listening comprehension rather than reading comprehension tasks. In longitudinal designs, the effect size did not differ depending on whether ToM was assessed before text comprehension or the reverse. Finally, we conducted meta-analyses controlling for verbal and/or executive function abilities and found that the relation between ToM and text comprehension was significant when controlling for each as well as both abilities (<i>r</i> = .22-.32). The current findings provide the strongest evidence to date that there is a fundamental relation between ToM and text comprehension. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48464,"journal":{"name":"Developmental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Theory of mind and text comprehension across the lifespan: A meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Virginia Tompkins, Derek E Montgomery, Rebecca A Dore, Bridget Kiger Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/dev0001869\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Researchers argue that theory of mind (ToM) abilities are needed for text (listening or reading) comprehension. Although many studies have supported this claim, findings are mixed and researchers have disagreed on how fundamental this relation is-for example, whether ToM and text comprehension are related merely because of shared variance with verbal and executive function skills. To address these issues more definitively, we conducted a meta-analysis examining ToM and text comprehension, which included 47 independent samples with 5,123 participants ranging in age from 3 to 70 years of age (<i>M</i> = 10.53 years). We found a statistically significant association (<i>r</i> = .33) between ToM and text comprehension across 157 effect sizes. This relation did not differ based on whether data were cross-sectional or longitudinal, the age of participants, or most characteristics of the ToM or comprehension tasks (e.g., the degree to which they were narrative or inferential). However, the effect size was stronger in some languages and for listening comprehension rather than reading comprehension tasks. In longitudinal designs, the effect size did not differ depending on whether ToM was assessed before text comprehension or the reverse. Finally, we conducted meta-analyses controlling for verbal and/or executive function abilities and found that the relation between ToM and text comprehension was significant when controlling for each as well as both abilities (<i>r</i> = .22-.32). The current findings provide the strongest evidence to date that there is a fundamental relation between ToM and text comprehension. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developmental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developmental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001869\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developmental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001869","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究人员认为,文本(听力或阅读)理解需要心智理论(ToM)能力。尽管许多研究都支持这一观点,但研究结果却不尽相同,而且研究人员对这种关系的基本程度也存在分歧--例如,心智理论和文字理解能力是否仅仅因为与言语和执行功能技能存在共同差异而相关。为了更明确地解决这些问题,我们对 ToM 和文字理解能力进行了荟萃分析,其中包括 47 个独立样本,共有 5123 名参与者,年龄从 3 岁到 70 岁(M=10.53 岁)不等。我们发现,在 157 个效应大小的样本中,ToM 与文本理解力之间存在统计学意义上的显著关联(r = .33)。这种关系并不因数据是横向的还是纵向的、参与者的年龄、ToM 或理解任务的大多数特征(如叙述或推理的程度)而有所不同。然而,在某些语言和听力理解而非阅读理解任务中,效应大小更强。在纵向设计中,效果大小并不因 ToM 是在文本理解之前评估还是相反而有所不同。最后,我们进行了元分析,对言语和/或执行功能能力进行了控制,发现 ToM 与文本理解之间的关系在控制两种能力的情况下都是显著的(r = .22-.32)。目前的研究结果提供了迄今为止最有力的证据,证明 ToM 与文本理解之间存在根本性的关系。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
Theory of mind and text comprehension across the lifespan: A meta-analysis.
Researchers argue that theory of mind (ToM) abilities are needed for text (listening or reading) comprehension. Although many studies have supported this claim, findings are mixed and researchers have disagreed on how fundamental this relation is-for example, whether ToM and text comprehension are related merely because of shared variance with verbal and executive function skills. To address these issues more definitively, we conducted a meta-analysis examining ToM and text comprehension, which included 47 independent samples with 5,123 participants ranging in age from 3 to 70 years of age (M = 10.53 years). We found a statistically significant association (r = .33) between ToM and text comprehension across 157 effect sizes. This relation did not differ based on whether data were cross-sectional or longitudinal, the age of participants, or most characteristics of the ToM or comprehension tasks (e.g., the degree to which they were narrative or inferential). However, the effect size was stronger in some languages and for listening comprehension rather than reading comprehension tasks. In longitudinal designs, the effect size did not differ depending on whether ToM was assessed before text comprehension or the reverse. Finally, we conducted meta-analyses controlling for verbal and/or executive function abilities and found that the relation between ToM and text comprehension was significant when controlling for each as well as both abilities (r = .22-.32). The current findings provide the strongest evidence to date that there is a fundamental relation between ToM and text comprehension. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Developmental Psychology ® publishes articles that significantly advance knowledge and theory about development across the life span. The journal focuses on seminal empirical contributions. The journal occasionally publishes exceptionally strong scholarly reviews and theoretical or methodological articles. Studies of any aspect of psychological development are appropriate, as are studies of the biological, social, and cultural factors that affect development. The journal welcomes not only laboratory-based experimental studies but studies employing other rigorous methodologies, such as ethnographies, field research, and secondary analyses of large data sets. We especially seek submissions in new areas of inquiry and submissions that will address contradictory findings or controversies in the field as well as the generalizability of extant findings in new populations. Although most articles in this journal address human development, studies of other species are appropriate if they have important implications for human development. Submissions can consist of single manuscripts, proposed sections, or short reports.