Abstract
This study assessed Hooper et al.'s contention that the type of pictorial stimulus affects the quality of an individual's written expression. These researchers contended that pictorial stimuli should be photographs (rather than line drawings), should have a clear protagonist, and should present a novel problem-situation that can be solved in a stepwise manner. A pictorial stimulus developed from Hooper et al.'s specifications was compared to a conventional line drawing stimulus (from PIAT-R Written Expression) in its ability to evoke writing samples. Subjects comprised 50 men and women aged 13 to 46 years. It was hypothesized that the “Hooper” stimulus would yield higher scores than a conventional stimulus on items assessing structure and cohesiveness of the story, but not on items that assess writing mechanics. The results of the ANOVAs supported the hypothesis, in accordance with Hooper et al.'s prediction. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
