A comparative study of mastery motivation in young children with Down's syndrome: similar outcomes, different processes?

Abstract

The main conclusion was that children with DS in the MA range of 24-36 months do not differ in their persistence with challenging tasks when compared with typically developing children of the same MA. The implication is that motivational development is delayed for children with DS, rather than deficient. However, there were some indications of possible differences in the processes underlying mastery behaviour in the two groups. The study addresses a number of conceptual and methodological issues associated with mastery motivation research, and stresses the important contribution that future longitudinal studies could make.

Music as the Means to Stimulate Novelty and Challenge Seeking in Persons with Intellectual Disability

“…The low level of innovation in the second condition of the study is also in line with other studies which, based on Harter's model, proved the low tendency of people with intellectual disability to seek out optimal challenge (Harter, 1974;Balla and Zigler, 1979;Zigler and Balla,1981;Zigler and Hodapp, 1991;Gilmore et al, 2003;Niccols et al, 2003). These studies viewed the issue from a problemsolving point of view, using manipulating mazes, puzzles, and shape sorters.…”

“…People with low effectance motivation usually tend neither to get involved in subsequent mastery attempts nor look for new challenges. Some researchers who studied motivational problems in participants with intellectual disability have supported Harter's model in this population (Harter, 1974;Balla and Zigler, 1979;Zigler and Balla, 1981;Zigler and Hodapp, 1991;Gilmore et al, 2003;Niccols et al, 2003). The researchers proved the low mastery or effectance motivation in children with intellectual disability, and confirmed their low tendency to demonstrate any challenge seeking behaviour in different physical, cognitive or academic domains.…”

A Review of Self-Report and Alternative Approaches in the Measurement of Student Motivation

“…Response or reaction time is commonly used in both neuropsychological and behavioral methodology, and it is assumed that improvement in response time due to motivation or rewards is attributable to increased arousal, which results in improved attention and motor preparedness to respond to highly valued stimuli (Elliott et al 2003;Washburn and Putney 2001). Interest and motivation measures have also included displays of positive affect during task-related behavior (Gilmore et al 2003). More specific bodily behavioral measures consist of hand speed and facial displays, including eye contact and frequency of eyes closed, although Reeve and Nix (1997) concluded that there may not be a consistent, reliable group of facial displays related to intrinsic motivation.…”

Observational Assessment and Maternal Reports of Motivation in Children and Adolescents With Down Syndrome

“…Most empirical work has been undertaken with young children with Down syndrome. Gilmore, Cuskelly, and Hayes (2003) found no differences on measures of task persistence between children with Down syndrome (M chronological age [CA] 5 63.8 months) and a typically developing group (M CA 5 30.81 months) matched for mental age (MA). Using the same approach, but with younger children, Glenn, Dayus, Cunningham, and Horgan (2001) found no differences between children with Down syndrome and typically developing children at MAs of 18 and 24 months.…”

“…In contrast to the results from experimental tasks, comparisons of parent reports of child motivation have generally identified significant differences, with parents of children with intellectual disability reporting lower motivation in their children than parents of children who are developing typically (Gilmore et al, 2003;Ruskin et al, 1994). Zigler, BennettGates, Hodapp, and Henrich (2002) found lower scores on all subscales of an instrument developed to measure personality-motivation factors when comparing teacher reports of adolescents with intellectual disability (M CA 5 14.5) with MAmatched children who were developing typically (M CA 5 7.9).…”