International Journal of

Behavioral Development
Associations between private speech, 1–11
ª The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
behavioral self-regulation, and cognitive sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0165025414556094
abilities ijbd.sagepub.com

Tuija Aro,1 Anna-Maija Poikkeus,2 Marja-Leena Laakso,2

Asko Tolvanen,2 and Timo Ahonen1

Abstract
We examined the associations between 5-year-old children’s private speech, behavioural self-regulation, and cognitive abilities. Beha-
vioural self-regulation was assessed using parental and preschool teacher questionnaires. Cognitive abilities (i.e., language, inhibition, plan-
ning and fluency, and memory) were assessed with neurocognitive tests, and the effectiveness of private speech (i.e., whether the child
performs better when using speech than when not using speech) with the Hammer Task. About 43% of the children used private speech
spontaneously, and about 76% performed better on the Hammer Task when they used speech. Associations between behavioural self-
regulation and speech effectiveness were few, but all cognitive scores were significantly associated with the speech effectiveness score,
i.e., the poorer the child’s neurocognitive test performance was, the more he/she benefited from using speech. The findings lend support
to the relevance of children’s cognitive abilities when seeking understanding on the development, use, and effectiveness of private speech.

Keywords
behavioural self-regulation, children, cognitive abilities, private speech

One of the central developmental tasks for a preschool-age child is
the development from other-control to self-control of behaviour
through the process of speech internalization (Vygotsky, 1962; see
also Olson & Lunkenheimer, 2009). During the preschool years, the
child shifts from using language merely for communicative pur-
poses to using it also as a tool to regulate his/her behaviour
(Vygotsky, 1978). This process entails a change in locus of control
from behavioural regulation by the caregiver to regulation by pri-
vate speech, and finally to regulation by inner speech (Kohlberg,
Yaeger, & Hjertholm, 1968; Vygotsky, 1962; see also Berk,
1992; Winsler, Diaz, Atencio, McCarthy, & Chabay, 2000). Thus,
it is well understood that private speech forms an intermediate link
between the control provided by the caregiver’s speech (i.e., other-
control) and that provided by inner speech (i.e., self-control). How-
ever, our understanding on the factors affecting development and
use as well as effectiveness of private speech among young children
is still vague.
Vygotsky (1962) postulated that the function of private speech is
to guide one’s thought processes, allowing for selective attention,
voluntary memory functions, planning, and problem-solving to
develop. Via its regulatory function, self-directed speech (private
or inner) is supposed to improve performance; therefore, among
young children it is often used when facing challenging tasks. In the
early years, children’s task performance typically improves with the
use of speech (e.g. Balamore & Wozniak, 1984; Berk, 1992; Bivens &
Berk, 1990; Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005; Winsler, Manfra, & Diaz,
2007; see also Al-Namlah, Fernyhough, & Meins, 2006; Kraft & Berk,
1998; Müller, Zelazo, Hood, Leone, & Rohrer, 2004), and the amount
of self-directed speech peaks when the task is neither too easy nor too
difficult (e.g. Diaz, 1992; Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005).
During the preschool years, task success with silence typically
increases, but the rate at which children shift from private to inner
speech, as well as their capability to use speech to improve their
performance, appears to vary. For instance, children with deficits
in language development tend to be delayed in their internalization
of speech (Lidstone, Meins, & Fernyhough, 2012). Empirical evi-
dence suggests also that children with deficits in behavioural con-
trol have delays in speech internalization (Corkum, Humpries,
Mullane, & Theriault, 2008; Winsler et al., 2000), and children with
ADHD often use more overt as well as covert private speech than
typically-developing children (Berk & Landau, 1993; Diaz, Wins-
ler, Atencio, & Harbers, 1992; Winsler, 2009; see also Corkum
et al., 2008; Winsler et al., 2007).
In addition to use of private speech, another area of interest is its
effectiveness for task performance. Although emergence of private
speech has been shown to improve performance among young chil-
dren, to our knowledge, only a few studies have directly addressed
effectiveness of private speech, especially among children with
developmental difficulties. Recently, private speech has been
shown to improve problem-solving performance (the Tower of
London) among children with deficits in language development
(Lidstone et al., 2012) as well as to improve performance in a
speech–action coordination task (the Hammer task) among beha-
viourally at-risk children and control children (Winsler et al.,
2007). On the other hand, Meichenbaum and Goodman (1969)
1
University of Jyväskylä & Niilo Mäki Institute, Jyväskylä, Finland
2
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
Corresponding author:
Tuija Aro, University of Jyväskylä & Niilo Mäki Insitute, PO Box 35, 40014
University of Jyväkylä, Finland.
Email: tuija.i.aro@jyu.fi

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015

2 International Journal of Behavioral Development
found that self-verbalizations were less effective in directing beha-
viour among impulsive kindergarten-age children than among chil-
dren with more advanced reflective skills. Similarly, Berk and Potts
(1991) reported that private speech was less effective in channelling
motor behaviour among 6–12 year-old children with ADHD than
among children without attention problems. Berk and Landau
(1993) discuss the possibility that for a subgroup of children with
learning deficits inner speech (with external manifestations) does
not have the same functional relationship with behaviour as it does
for their peers. It can be speculated that the surplus reliance on
speech beyond what would be typical for the age normalizes the
performance of children with deficits in behavioural control (see
Corkum et al., 2008; Winsler, 2009; Winsler et al., 2007).
Development of private speech has been shown to be linked
with cognitive maturation (e.g. Berk, 1986; Kohlberg et al., 1968;
Vygotsky, 1962; see also Müller, Jacques, Brocki, & Zelazo,
2009), and also the effectiveness of private speech may be affected
by cognitive processing abilities and their deficits. It has been sug-
gested that private speech emerges and peaks earlier among chil-
dren with higher IQ (e.g. Deutsch & Stein, 1972; Kohlberg et al.,
1968), but the association between IQ and amount of private speech
is negative among older children (Kohlberg et al., 1968).
Neuropsychologically-oriented studies have explored the neurolo-
gical processes involved in overt and covert speech (e.g. Jones,
2009; Jones & Fernyhough, 2007; Palmer et al., 2001), but empiri-
cal evidence on the associations between specific cognitive func-
tions and manifestations or effectiveness of self-directed speech
is scant. Although language, attentional skills (i.e., executive func-
tions and inhibition), and memory have theoretical associations
with emergence of private speech, little is known about their bear-
ings on the effectiveness of private speech. In the present study, we
were interested in both the association between effectiveness of
children’s private speech and their behavioural self-regulation
skills (i.e., hyperactivity, inattention, and lack of effort) and cogni-
tive skills (i.e., language, inhibition, planning and fluency, and
short-term memory).
Berk and Landau (1993) indicated that language skills measured
with vocabulary had a small but significant negative correlation
with incidence of task-relevant externalized private speech among
elementary-school children, but they did not study effectiveness of
private speech. More recently, Lidstone and colleagues (2012) sug-
gested that at younger-age deficits in language development would
be associated with lower rate of private speech due to its later emer-
gence, whereas in middle childhood, language difficulties would be
associated with a lesser degree of internalization. These findings, in
line with those of Kohlberg and colleagues (1968), suggest that
cognitive maturation is associated with the timing of emergence
and internalization of private speech so that kindergarteners with
better skills tend to peak earlier in rate of private speech. Evidence
on the effectiveness of private speech and language skills is scant,
but the recent study by Lidstone and colleagues (2012) suggests that
children with specific language impairment use private speech
effectively in a problem-solving task (the Tower of London).
The central role of inhibition and executive skills in private
speech is supported by the findings that children who are behaviou-
rally at-risk are often delayed in their speech internalization process
(e.g. Winsler et al., 2000). Children with behaviour-regulation
problems are also shown to have deficits in underlying cognitive
functions such as attention and working memory (Rapport et al.,
2009; Willcutt et al., 2001). Studies conducted among children with
ADHD, e.g. by Berk and Potts (1991) as well as Meichenbaum and
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
Goodman (1969), indirectly suggest that poor inhibition or defi-
cient executive skills may influence effectiveness of private speech.
The development and use of private speech may also be interwo-
ven with the development of short-term memory or the ability to use
it (see also Barkley, 2012) as thinking out loud may activate neural
networks that are involved in memory functions. Hitch, Halliday,
Schaafstal, and Heffernan (1991) noted that speaking or listening
to speech activates an internal articulatory loop, and this activation
is important when the child’s ability to use inner speech in short-
term memory has not been fully developed. Private speech may
contribute to activation of the articulatory loop, which in turn helps
in refreshing the memory trace (see Baddeley, 2001; Repovs &
Baddeley, 2006; see also Al-Namlah et al., 2006).
In sum, research linking private speech and cognitive function
has mainly focused on the association between the children’s cog-
nitive maturity and use or amount of different types of private
speech (from overt to inaudible), and there is a paucity of systema-
tic research literature on the associations between specific cognitive
functions and effectiveness of self-directed speech (private or inner
speech). Furthermore, the earlier studies have mainly used correla-
tional approach and have not compared child performances in situ-
ation with use of private speech to situation without speech
(however, see Lidstone et al., 2012, and Winsler et al., 2007).
Therefore they provide only indirect evidence on the effectiveness
of private speech for child’s performance.
In the present study, we measured the child’s use of private
speech (i.e., amount) and its effectiveness (i.e., whether a child per-
forms better when using private speech) with the Hammer Task, a
speech-action coordination task of tapping sequences created by
Winsler and colleagues (e.g. Winsler et al., 2007; Winsler et al.,
2000) based on the work by Vygotsky (1962; and subsequently
Balamore & Wozniak, 1984). The task involves an experimental
design with conditions which aim to elicit both spontaneous and
prompted private speech and conditions where the child is asked
to perform the task without using private speech. These different
conditions, although with relatively small number of items, allow
the comparison of the child’s performance in the task with and
without private speech. In this study, we calculated a speech effec-
tiveness score indicating whether child performs better in task items
when using private speech compared to task items when he/she
does not use private speech. The Hammer Task has been previously
used in a similar way by Winsler and colleagues (2007) who exam-
ined the effects of children’s private speech use on task perfor-
mance comparing a group of behaviourally at-risk children and a
group of control children.
Behavioural self-regulation skills were assessed in the present
study using parental and preschool teacher ratings of hyperactivity,
inattention, and lack of effort with the Five-to-Fifteen questionnaire
(Kadesjö et al., 2004), and cognitive performance was measured
with individually administered neuropsychological tests.
The specific questions addressed and hypotheses set in our study
were as follows:
What percentage of 5-year-old children use private speech spon-
taneously during the Hammer Task (i.e., the condition at the begin-
ning phase of the task without any manipulation of child’s use of
speech with tester instructions)? Is spontaneous use of speech asso-
ciated with item difficulty? What percentage of children perform
better when using speech, i.e., they show speech effectiveness
(speech effectiveness score higher than 1; the probability of cor-
rectly responding to items with private speech divided by the prob-
ability of responding correctly without private speech)? According
Aro et al.
to previous studies (e.g. Al-Namlah et al., 2006; Winsler et al.,
2000) we expected that some of the 5-year-old children in our sam-
ple may have stopped using overt private speech, but many of them
would still use it spontaneously, at least some of the time. Accord-
ing to previous literature, we expected that the use of spontaneous
speech would peak on items of medium difficulty (e.g. Fernyhough
& Fradley, 2005). Based on earlier findings (e.g. Müller et al.,
2004; Winsler et al., 2007) indicating that young children’s task
performance improves with the use of self-directed speech, we
expected children to perform better in the Hammer Task when they
used speech than when they did not use speech.
Are the spontaneous use and effectiveness of private speech
associated with behavioural self-regulation assessed using parental
and preschool teachers’ ratings of hyperactivity, inattention, and
lack of effort? We expected to find a negative association between
behavioural self-regulation skills and the amount of spontaneous
private speech (i.e., children with low regulative skills would speak
more often; see Corkum et al., 2008; Winsler, 2009; Winsler et al.,
2007), but since the literature concerning effectiveness of the use of
private speech and the children’s behavioural self-regulation skills
is limited (however, see Berk & Potts, 1991, and Meichenbaum &
Goodman, 1969), we did not set any specific hypothesis.
Are the spontaneous use and effectiveness of private speech
associated with children’s cognitive abilities (i.e., language, inhibi-
tion, planning and fluency, and short-term memory)? Based on the
earlier suggestions that cognitive skills are positively associated
with private speech at kindergarten-age (Kohlberg et al., 1968),
we expected positive associations between cognitive skills and
amount of spontaneous private speech (i.e., children with higher
cognitive skills would use more private speech spontaneously). Evi-
dence on associations between effectiveness of private speech and
different cognitive abilities is much more limited than that concern-
ing the associations between amount of private speech and cogni-
tion, therefore we did not set any specific hypotheses.
Materials and method
Participants and procedure
The present study involved data from 102 children. This was a sub-
sample of a larger longitudinal community-based sample of 508
children and their families who had been enrolled in a longitudinal
study on early language and communication development. The first
data collection phase consisted of early communication screen
(ITC; part of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales
Developmental Profile CSBS-DP, Wetherby & Prizant, 2002) filled
out by the parents when the children were between 6 and 24 months
of age (see Määttä, Laakso, Tolvanen, Ahonen, & Aro, 2012). The
families were originally recruited through child health clinics in
Central Finland. Child health clinics are regularly attended by over
95% of Finnish parents and their children from the child’s birth to
school entry. The longitudinal study involved five assessment
points, but only a subgroup of the children participated in all of
them: 1) early communication screen, 2) individual assessments
at 2 years of age, 3) individual assessments at 3 years of age, 4) par-
ental questionnaires at 4 years 7 months, and 5) individual assess-
ment at 5 years 3 months. The present analyses involved
questionnaire data collected when the children were 4 years 7
months of age and data from cognitive skills assessments at 5 years
3 months of age.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
3
Questionnaires. At the fourth phase of the study, at 4 years 7
months of age, 472 out of the 508 families who had participated
in the first data collection phase (between 6 and 24 months of age)
could be located for contact. Out of these 472 parents, 296 (62.7%)
returned the parental questionnaire. The preschool teacher’s ques-
tionnaire was obtained concerning only a subgroup, 182 (38.6%)
children, because many of children did not attend preschool at this
young age. The questionnaire data used in the present analyses
involved scales from the parental and teacher questionnaires asses-
sing difficulties in self-regulation at the behavioural level, such as
hyperactive and inattentive behaviour, and lack of effort from the
Five-to-Fifteen questionnaire (FTF; Kadesjö et al., 2004; see also
Korkman, Jaakkola, Ahlroth, Pesonen, & Turunen, 2004).
Individual assessments. At the fifth phase of the study, at the age of
5 years 3 months, a subsample of children (n ¼ 102) participated in
the individual assessments of cognitive skills. All the children who
participated in the fifth phase of data collection were included in the
present study, and all of them had also participated in the fourth
phase of the longitudinal study. Of these 102 children, 70 had par-
ticipated in all earlier data collection phases (early communication
screen between 6 and 24 months of age, individual assessments at 2
and 3 years of age, and parental questionnaire at 4 years 7 months of
age) and 32 had participated in the first phase (early communication
screen 6 to 24 months) and the fourth phase (parental questionnaire
4 years 7 months). In the questionnaire at the 4 years 7 months, the
parents of these 32 children had reported a concern for language
difficulties or hyperactivity, or for problems in executive func-
tions (i.e., score at or below 1 SDs in the parental questionnaire).
The individual assessments at 5 years 3 months of age consisted of
two to three sessions and involved measures of memory, language,
perception, attention, executive functions, and parent–child
interaction.
Sample description. All 102 families completed a written consent
form prior to participating in the individual assessments. The chil-
dren were all Caucasian and spoke Finnish as their native language.
The children were assessed with a short version (30 items) of the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT; Dunn & Dunn, 1981).
The sample mean (MPPVT ¼ 16.67, SDPPVT ¼ 3.63; min ¼ 5 and
max ¼ 24) was close to the mean of the comprehensive
population-based sample of 1,837 Finnish children who had taken
the same short version of the test at 6 years of age, i.e., 1 year older
than the present sample (MPPVT ¼ 19.83; SDPPVT ¼ 3.36).
Since only a subsample of the original community-based sample
participated in the present study, comparisons on maternal educa-
tion were made between the children who were involved in the
present study (n ¼ 102) and those who had participated in the
follow-up at previous ages, but not in the present study, and who
had reported maternal education (n ¼ 378). These comparisons
revealed no statistically significant differences in the mothers’ edu-
cation (n ¼ 378; Meducation ¼ 3.78, SDeducation ¼ 1.94 and n ¼ 102;
Meducation ¼ 4.22, SDeducation ¼ 2.04). Education was assessed using
a 7-point scale ranging from a basic level of education to advanced
educational training: 1 ¼ ‘‘comprehensive school education with-
out any vocational education’’ and 7 ¼ ‘‘comprehensive school
or upper secondary general school diploma combined with a higher
university degree, master’s or doctorate-level degree’’. There were
also no significant differences between the children who dropped
off before and those participating in the present study on any of the
4 International Journal of Behavioral Development
Infant Toddler Checklist scales (ITC, Whetherby & Prizant, 2002)
at 2 years of age.
Next, we conducted analyses concerning the prevalence of lan-
guage and/or behaviour regulation problems within the sample of
children for whom parental ratings were available at the age of 4
years 7 months (n ¼ 296). Parent-rated risks concerning children’s
language development or ADHD-type behaviour were found to be
somewhat overrepresented in the present sample (n ¼ 102) com-
pared to those who were not involved in the present study, but who
had the questionnaire data from the age of 4. 7 years (n ¼ 194). The
former children had higher risk scores on the receptive language,
expressive language, and hyperactivity scales of the FTF parental
questionnaire in comparison to children who did not participate
in the individual assessment (F(1, 294) ¼ 6.88; p  .05; F(1,
294) ¼ 22.50; p  .001, and F(1, 294) ¼ 6.14; p  .05, respec-
tively). About 9% of the children had been given parental ratings
indicating problems (i.e., below 2.0 SD, Finnish standardization
norms) in hyperactivity, and around 8% in receptive and/or expres-
sive language skills. According to parental reports, however, only
four of the children had received a diagnosis of specific language
impairment, and none were diagnosed as having ADHD at 5 years
of age. (It is worth noting that it is rather rare in Finland to diagnose
preschool-aged children with ADHD.)
Measures
Hyperactivity, inattention, and lack of effort at 4 years 7 months
of age. The Five-to-Fifteen questionnaire (FTF) (Kadesjö et al.,
2004; Korkman et al., 2004) is a screening questionnaire developed
in the Nordic countries for assessing symptoms of ADHD and its
comorbidities among children from 5 to 15 years of age. The FTF
can be used by parents as well as personnel in preschool settings. It
contains 181 questions covering eight developmental domains
(motor skills, attention and impulsivity, perception, memory, lan-
guage, learning, social skills, emotional and behavioural problems).
Three out of the four scales in the Attention and Impulsivity domain
were used in the present study. The Hyperactivity scale consists of
nine items (e.g. Difficulties in waiting for one’s turn), the Inatten-
tion scale consists of nine items (e.g. Difficulties in sustaining
attention in tasks and activities), and the Lack of effort scale (orig-
inally the Hypoactivity scale) consists of four items (e.g. Seems list-
less, sluggish, and lacking energy). These three scales tap into the
behavioural level of self-regulation whereas the fourth subscale
assesses executive functions (planning and monitoring one’s
actions). The forth subscale was omitted due to time constraints.
The respondents (parents and preschool teachers) gave ratings on
a 3-point scale: 0 (does not apply), 1 (applies sometimes or to some
extent), or 2 (definitely applies). Korkman and colleagues (2004)
reported a reliability coefficient of .89 for the Attention and Impul-
sivity domain (consisting of the Hyperactivity, Inattention, Lack of
effort, and Executive functions scales), and reported that the FTF
showed good external validity and sensitivity in screening devel-
opmental disorder with high (93%) rate of positive hits and low
rate (7%) of misses; specificity was not good (63% false posi-
tives). The Cronbach alpha in the present study (for the three
scales) for the parental data was .86 (n ¼ 296) and for the pre-
school data .92 (n ¼ 182).
Speech–action coordination task (the Hammer Task) at 5 years 3
months of age. The Hammer Task, adapted from Balamore and
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
Wozniak (1984), and its later version by Winsler and colleagues
(Winsler et al., 2007), was administered in the individual assess-
ments when the children were 5 years 3 months old. In this task,
each child was asked tap a sequence of coloured pegs placed on a
rectangular pegboard (one peg located in each corner, and the fifth
peg in the centre) with a plastic hammer. The task consisted of two
parts: The first involved the tapping of sequences of coloured pegs,
and the second numerical tapping. Both parts included two condi-
tions: The first condition involved conducting each task without
speech instruction and the second with speech instruction (i.e.,
asking the child to either use or not use private speech, depending
on whether or not the child spontaneously did so under the first
condition). Before commencing with these two parts officially,
each child was asked to perform two practice task items to ensure
that he/she had understood the task and could name the colours of
the pegs.
In the first part of the Hammer Task, the examiner asked the
children to tap progressively longer sequences of coloured pegs,
with two task items for each sequence length. The children moved
on to the next higher sequence if they correctly hit the pegs in the
order stated by the examiner for at least one of the two task items
(e.g. sequence of two colours: red – blue; sequence of three colours:
blue – yellow – green). In the first condition (without speech
instruction; maximum of eight items), the children were simply
asked to tap the pegs in the requested order. In the second condition
(with speech instruction; maximum of eight items), the children
were given a similar set of task items to execute, but this time they
were told to do the opposite of what they had done spontaneously
with respect to speech use in the first condition. That is, if they had
used private speech spontaneously even once during the first task,
then they were asked to do the following tasks silently; if, on the
other hand, they had not used private speech spontaneously during
the first tasks, then they were asked to use private speech for the
following tasks. The maximum number of task items was 16 in the
first part, but not all of the children completed all tasks.
In the second part of the Hammer Task (numerical tapping), the
examiner asked the children to tap the centre peg a specific number
of times. They moved on to the next higher sequence if they cor-
rectly hit the right number of pegs for at least one of the two task
items. In the first condition (without speech instruction; maximum
of four items), the examiner asked the children simply to hit the peg
with the hammer a specific number of times without instructing
them to use private speech. In the second condition (with speech
instruction; maximum of four items), the children were told to do
the opposite of what they had done spontaneously in regard to
speech use in the first condition. The maximum number of task
items was eight in the second part, but not all children completed
all tasks. The Cronbach alpha for all of the Hammer Task task items
(8 þ 8 in part 1 and 4 þ 4 in part 2) in the present data was .71.
It must be noted that although in both parts of the Hammer Task,
the children were instructed to do the opposite in the second condi-
tion of what they had done spontaneously in the first condition
regarding private speech, they were not always able to do so. For
instance, the two children who used private speech as many as six
times in the first condition of part 1 (task items 1-8) continued to
use it a couple of times after being asked to complete the succeed-
ing items silently during the following task items. Of the 58 chil-
dren who did not use private speech spontaneously in the first
condition of part 1 (task items 1–8), nine children used speech
only two times or less after being asked to use vocalization (task
items 9–16).
Aro et al.
The number of items in which the child used private speech
spontaneously (i.e., without being prompted to do so) in part 1 (con-
dition without speech instruction; items 1–8) was used as the mea-
sure of amount of spontaneous speech. In order to calculate a
speech effectiveness score, we first calculated the total number of
tasks completed by the children with private speech (either sponta-
neously or after being requested) and the total number of tasks com-
pleted without speech. Second, two probability scores were
calculated: The probability of a child completing a task correctly
1) while using private speech; number of tasks completed correctly
while using private speech divided by the total number of tasks
completed with speech; P(C|S), and 2) while not using speech; num-
ber of task items completed correctly without using private speech
divided by the total number of task items completed without speech;
P(C|NS) (see Winsler et al., 2007). Finally, the speech effectiveness
score; probability of correct reactions while using private speech
divided by probability of correct reactions while not using private
speech; P(C|S)/P(C|NS), was computed for each child. This speech
effectiveness score indicated how probable it would be for a child to
complete a task item correctly while using private speech, taking
into account the total number of task items completed with as well
as the total number of task items completed without speech. For
example, a child completes 24 items. He/she uses speech in 15
items and performs correctly in 11 of them, and he/she does not use
speech in 9 items and performs correctly in all of them. His/her
scores would be as follows: P(C|S) ¼ 11/15 and P(C|NS) ¼ 9/9, and
the effectiveness score would be .73/1 ¼ .73 (below 1) indicating
that he/she got more items correctly without speech than with
speech. Similarly, another child also completes 24 items. He/she
uses speech in 12 items and performs correctly in six of them, and
he/she does not use speech in 12 items and performs correctly in
four of them. His/her scores would be as follows: P(C|S) ¼ 6/12 and
P(C|NS) ¼ 4/12, and the effectiveness score would be .50/.33 ¼
1.50 indicating that he/she got more items correctly with speech
than without speech.
Cognitive abilities at 5 years 3 months of age. The raw scores of
the cognitive tests (tests of language, inhibition, planning and flu-
ency, and memory) were first standardized according to local norms
and converted to z scores to ensure that all variables were on the
same scale (M ¼ 0, SD ¼ 1). Next, cognitive composite scores were
formed based on these standardized scores. Each of the composite
scores consisted of three to four tests. In the analyses, these cogni-
tive composites will be referred to by the skill respective domain:
language, inhibition, planning and fluency, and memory.
Language. The composite score for language was formed based on
the standardized scores of four language tests: the Sentence Repeti-
tion and the Repetition of Nonsense Words of the NEPSY (A
Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment; Korkman, Kirk,
& Kemp, 1998), the Similarities subtest of the Wechsler Intelli-
gence Scale for Children (WPPSI-R; Wechsler, 1989, 1995), and
the Korpilahti Sentence Comprehension test (Korpilahti, 1998).
The Sentence Repetition assesses a child’s ability to repeat sen-
tences of increasing complexity and length (in the present data
M ¼ 21.25, SD ¼ 4.68, min ¼ 6, and max ¼ 29). The Repetition
of Nonsense Words assesses phonological encoding and decoding
through a task in which the child is asked to repeat nonsense words
(in the present data, M ¼ 9.53, SD ¼ 2.17, min ¼ 2, and max ¼ 14).
The Similarities subtest is a measure of verbal reasoning and
abstract thinking (in the present data, M ¼ 16.42, SD ¼ 4.04,
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
5
min ¼ 2, and max ¼ 23). The Korpilahti Sentence Comprehension
test consists of sentences that are read aloud to the child, and the
child is then asked to choose the picture from three alternatives
that best matches the meaning of the sentence (in the present data,
M ¼ 21.25, SD ¼ 4.17, min ¼ 6, and max ¼ 29).
Inhibition. The composite score for inhibition consisted of standar-
dized scores of the following three tests: the Knock and Tap subtest,
the Inhibition subtest, and the Statue subtest of the NEPSY (Kork-
man et al., 1998). The Knock and Tap subtest is a nonverbal
conflict-solving task (of the classic ‘‘go/no-go’’ type) that measures
self-regulation and the inhibition of immediate responses. Children
were instructed to knock on a table with their knuckles when the
examiner tapped with his/her flat palm and vice versa. A total of
15 trials were conducted in pseudorandom order (in the present
data, M ¼ 26.97, SD ¼ 3.63, min ¼ 12, and max ¼ 30). The Inhibi-
tion subtest is a timed task designed to assess a child’s ability to
inhibit automatic responses in favour of novel responses, and the
ability to switch between response types. In the first part, the child
looks at a series of black and white shapes (squares or circles) and
names each one of them, after which he/she is asked to name their
opposite shape in another run-through (in the present data, M ¼
34.93, SD ¼ 5.93, min ¼ 0, and max ¼ 40). In the second part, the
child looks at a series of black and white arrows (upward or down-
ward) and names each arrow’s direction, after which he/she is asked
to state their opposite direction in a second run-through (in the pres-
ent data, M ¼ 31.80, SD ¼ 6.08, min ¼ 1, and max ¼ 40). The Sta-
tue subtest is designed to assess motor persistence and inhibition.
The child is asked to maintain a body position with his/her eyes
closed for a 75-second period and to inhibit his/her impulse to
respond to sound distractions made by the examiner at standard
intervals (in the present data, M ¼ 11.71, SD ¼ 3.92, min ¼ 0, and
max ¼ 15).
Planning and fluency. The composite score for planning and flu-
ency was formed from the standardized scores of the following
three tests: the Design Fluency and Word Fluency of the NEPSY
(Korkman et al., 1998), and the Block-Design subtest of the
WPPSI-R (Wechsler, 1989, 1995). The Verbal Fluency subtest is
a speed test assessing the ability to generate words according to
semantic categories (animal, food, drink), and at later ages also
according to phonemic categories (starting with a requested pho-
neme). The child needs to bear in mind the requested category and
to avoid repeating words that he/she has already said (in the present
data, M ¼ 15.56, SD ¼ 6.08, min ¼ 1, and max ¼ 29). The Design
Fluency subtest assesses the child’s ability to generate novel
designs as quickly as possible from structured and unstructured
arrays of dots by connecting two or more dots. In order to attain
a high score on this task, the child needs to systematically monitor
his/her progress and avoid repeating patterns (in the present data,
M ¼ 10.92, SD ¼ 4.51, min ¼ 1, and max ¼ 27). For the Block-
Design subtest, which is to be completed within a specified time
limit, the child uses coloured blocks to build designs based on
model pattern. The Block-Design task measures both spatial and
planning processes, via the ability to analyse and synthesize an
abstract design (e.g. Shallice, 1982) (in the present data, M ¼
24.74, SD ¼ 6.09, min ¼ 6, and max ¼ 29).
Memory. The composite score for memory consisted of the standar-
dized scores of the following three tests assessing short-term mem-
ory: the Digit-Span Forward Recall and the Digit-Span Backward
6 International Journal of Behavioral Development

Table 1. Descriptives concerning children’s measures.

Variable M (SD) min max

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (raw score) 16.67 (3.63) 5 24

Behavioural self-regulation (Five-to-Fifteen raw score / z score)
Impulsivity, parents 5.14 (3.24) / .45 (.97) 0/ 2.87 12 / 1.08
Inattention, parents 4.96 (3.11) / .59 (.99) 0/ 3.13 13 / 1.00
Lack of effort, parents 1.21 (1.58) / .14 (.32) 0/ 1.11 6 / .11
Impulsivity, preschool 3.04 (3.64) / .18 (1.08) 0/ 3.60 16 / 1.08
Inattention, preschool 3.90 (3.77) / .26 (1.19) 0/ 4.08 16 / 1.00
Lack of effort, preschool 1.71 (1.68) / .18 (.34) 0/ 1.32 7 / .11
Cognitive scores (z score)
Language .15 (.81) 2.38 1.75
Inhibition .02 (.67) 3.00 1.17
Planning and fluency .09 (.68) 1.89 1.67
Memory .06 (.71) 2.29 1.61
Hammer Task scores (raw score)
Items completed 21.3 (3.12) 8 24
Correct responses 13.73 (4.35) 2 24
Responses with spontaneous speech in part 1a 1.22 (1.95) 0 8
Responses with speech upon instruction in part 1b 4.05 (3.18) 0 8
Total responses with speechc 8.65 (3.13) 0 15
Probability of task-items correct with speech .73 (.22) 0 1
Probability of task-items correct without speech .59 (.20) 0 1
Speech effectiveness score 1.41 (.73) 0 5.14

Note. n ¼ 101.
a
Sum of responses with speech in task-items 1–8 on part 1 without speech instruction.
b
Sum of responses with speech in task-items 9–16 on part 1 with speech instruction.
c
Sum of responses with speech in all task-items (part 1 and part 2).

Recall from the WPPSI-R (Wechsler, 1989, 1995), and the Corsi
Block-Tapping Test of spatial memory (Grossi, Orsini, Monetti,
& DeMichele, 1979). The Digit-Span tests require the repetition
of number sequences both forward and backwards (in the present
data, M ¼ 4.75, SD ¼ 1.40, min ¼ 0, and max ¼ 8; M ¼ 1.84.,
SD ¼ 1.27, min ¼ 0, and max ¼5, respectively). The Corsi
Block-Tapping Test is administered using a set of nine 3.1-cm
block cubes irregularly arranged on a board. The examiner taps the
blocks in sequences of increasing length (up to a maximum
sequence of six blocks), and the child is required to reproduce each
sequence in the same order immediately after the demonstration. A
score is given for the longest sequence that the child is able to repro-
duce correctly, with a possible maximum score of six (in the present
data, M ¼ 3.82, SD ¼ .95, min ¼ 0, and max ¼ 6).
Results
Spontaneous use of private speech, task item difficulty,
and speech effectiveness
The Hammer Task data were available for 101 children (53 boys
and 48 girls) at the age of 5 years and 3 months. One child of those
participating to the individual assessments at 5 years 3 months of
age had missing data on the Hammer Task. On average, the children
completed 21 task items and performed 13 of these correctly (see
Table 1), the maximum score being 24 (8 þ 8 in part 1, 4 þ 4 in
part 2). Private speech was used spontaneously by 42.6% of the
children (i.e., they spoke spontaneously at least once in the condi-
tion without speech instruction which consisted of the first eight
task items in part 1). On average, the children used speech in
8.65 (SD ¼ 3.13) of the task items. Only two children (2.0%) did
not use speech at all whereas some children used speech in 15 task
items. It was more common for the children to perform tasks with-
out than with private speech: only 20.8% of the children did more
task items with speech than without speech, 60.4% of the children
did more task items without private speech than with private
speech, and the rest of the did as many task items with speech as
without speech.
To examine whether the difficulty of the Hammer task items
was associated with the amount of spontaneous speech, we looked
at the percentage of correct answers and the amount of speech used
in the first eight task items in part 1. The percentage of children per-
forming correctly decreased as the Hammer task items became lon-
ger: In the first and second task items (both with a sequence of two
colours), 89.1% and 91.1% of the children, respectively, performed
correctly. In the third and fourth task items (sequence of three col-
ours), 73.7% and 83.0% performed correctly. In the fifth and sixth
task items (sequence of four colours), 37.1% and 44.4%, and in the
last two (sequence of five colours), 18.5% and 24.1% performed
correctly. These percentages demonstrate that the difficulty of the
items increased as they became longer. Only 54 children reached
the last two items. The number of correct answers provided for the
first and last task items was significantly different—t(53) ¼ 10.74;
p  .001; paired samples t test comparing number of correct
answers in the first and last task items for those who completed all
the items—indicating that more correct answers were provided by
the children in the first task items.
Children’s use of spontaneous speech did not vary much after
the very first tasks: although the easiest task items elicited less
speech than the longer and more difficult ones, the amount of
speech did not increase linearly with the difficulty of the items after
the third task item. In the first and second task items (sequence of
two colours), only 5.5% and 8.9% of the children, respectively,
used speech; and 10.9% used speech in one or both of the 2-color

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015

Aro et al. 7

Table 2. Intercorrelations between behavioural self-regulation, cognitive scores and speech effectiveness score.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Behavioural self-regulation, Five-to-Fifteen

1. Impulsivity, parents
2. Inattention, parents .495**
3. Lack of effort, parents .001 .450**
4. Impulsivity, preschool .053 .053 .084
5. Inattention, preschool .025 .275* .183 .536**
6. Lack of effort, preschool .112 .157 .372** .342** .721**
Cognitive scores
7. Language .079 .169 .160 .021 283* .369*
8. Inhibition .141 .142 .077 .168 .244* .296* .387**
9. Planning and fluency .053 .135 .119 .062 .250* .460* .556** .406**
10. Memory .013 .146 .103 .162 .216 .403* .625** .449** .379**
11. Speech effectiveness .081 .005 .175 .010 .008 .236** .312** .320** .200** .322**

Note. n ¼ 101.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

trials. In the third and fourth task items (sequence of three colours),
28.8% and 17.0% used speech; and 32.0% used speech in one or
both of the 3-color trials. In the fifth and sixth task items (sequence
of four colours), the percentages were 18.9% and 23.3%; and 25.6%
used speech in one or both of the 4-color trials. In the seventh and
eight task items (sequence of five colours), the percentages were
16.4% and 31.5%, respectively; and 31.5% used speech in one or
both of the 5-color trials. When the number of children using speech
in either one or both of the items in each difficulty level were com-
pared, it was found (using paired samples t test comparing number
of children using speech in the two consecutive difficulty levels)
that there was a significant difference in number of children using
speech between 2-colour trials (10.9%) and 3-color trials (32.0%),
t(99) ¼ 4.60; p  .001. No reliable difference was detected between
3-color trials (32.0%) and 4-color trials (25.6%), t(88) ¼ 1.97; p ¼
.052, although there was a trend for decreasing amount of speech.
Also, no difference was detected between 4-color trials (25.6%) and
5-color trials (31.5%), t(53) ¼ .275; p ¼ .784. The correlation
between the use of speech and the correctness of the performance
was similar across that tasks with varying difficulty level; e.g. in the
first two task items (r ¼ .08–.10) and the last two task items (r ¼
.08–.18).
To examine the extent to which the children performed better
when using speech (either spontaneously or after a request) than
when not using speech, a score indicating speech effectiveness
(i.e., probability of correct responses to task items while using
speech divided by probability of correct responses while not using
speech) based on calculated probabilities of correct responses with
and without private speech. On average, the children got more items
correct when they used private speech than when they did not: the
average score indicating the probability of responding to task items
correctly while using private speech was .73, while the average
score when not using private speech was .59. For 76.2% of the chil-
dren, the speech effectiveness score (M ¼ 1.41; SD ¼ .73) was
higher than 1 (see Table 1) which indicates that for the majority
of the children speech was effective. To test the statistical signifi-
cance of the probability to perform better with speech than without
speech we tested whether the effectiveness score minus 1 is differ-
ent from zero. The statistically-significant finding, t(100) ¼ 5.58;
p ¼ .000, indicated that children performed more often correctly
with speech than without speech. The speech effectiveness score
was used as a continuous variable in the subsequent analyses.
Behavioural self-regulation skills, speech effectiveness,
and the amount of spontaneous private speech
The associations between private speech and behavioural self-
regulation skills (as rated by both parents and preschool teachers
using the FTF) were first examined using correlational analyses.
Next, we applied multivariate general linear model (GLM) analysis
separately for parent ratings and preschool teacher ratings with the
measure of private speech in question (speech effectiveness or the
amount of spontaneous private speech) entered as the independent
variable, and the three continuous FTF scale scores (i.e., impulsiv-
ity, inattention, and lack of effort) entered as dependent variables.
The advantage of using GLM is that multivariate tests of signifi-
cance can be employed when responses on multiple dependent vari-
ables are correlated. Hypothesis-testing can be made using the
independent univariate tests after the multivariate test.
Parental questionnaires were available for 101 children, and pre-
school questionnaire data were available for 71 children. The cor-
relations between the speech effectiveness score and measures of
behavioural self-regulation difficulties (i.e., impulsivity, inatten-
tion, and lack of effort) were non-significant (r ¼ .005 – .174),
except for the significant correlation between speech effective-
ness and teachers’ ratings of lack of effort (r ¼ .236; see Table
2). The correlations between the amount of spontaneous private
speech and behavioural self-regulation difficulties were also
non-significant (r ¼ .14 – .03).
Next, the association between children’s speech effectiveness
and their behavioural self-regulation difficulties were analysed
using the GLM technique; the measures of behavioural self-
regulation difficulties (impulsivity, inattention, and lack of effort)
were regressed on the speech effectiveness score. The results of the
GLM analysis with parental ratings indicated no association
between the speech effectiveness score and children’s behavioural
self-regulation difficulties, F(3, 97) ¼ 1.36; p ¼ ns. The results of
the GLM analysis with preschool teacher ratings, however, showed
a significant association between the speech effectiveness score and
behavioural self-regulation difficulties, F(3, 67) ¼ 2.78; p  .05.
The univariate tests indicated a significant association between the
speech effectiveness score and children’s lack of effort, F(1, 69) ¼
4.07; p  .05; partial 2 ¼ .056. The regression coefficients (b ¼
.11) indicated that the children rated by their teachers as showing
less effort (lower z score) had higher speech effectiveness scores; in

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015

8 International Journal of Behavioral Development
Figure 1. Cognitive scores of the speech effectiveness groups.
Note. No effect group n ¼ 21; Some effect group n ¼ 64; and Clear effect
group n ¼ 16.
other words, their performance on the Hammer Task was better
when they used private speech than when they did not use speech.
There were no associations between the amount of sponta-
neous private speech and behavioural self-regulation (parent rat-
ings: F(3, 97) ¼ .47; p ¼ ns; preschool teacher ratings: F(3, 67)
¼ .49; p ¼ ns).
Cognitive abilities, speech effectiveness, and the
amount of spontaneous private speech
To analyse the associations between private speech and cognitive
scores (language, inhibition, planning and fluency, and memory),
we first conducted correlational analyses. Next, we applied multi-
variate GLM analysis, and the measure of private speech in ques-
tion (speech effectiveness or the amount of spontaneous private
speech, respectively) was entered as the independent variable, and
the four continuous cognitive scores were entered as dependent
variables.
Although the Hammer Task data were available for 101 chil-
dren, two of these children had missing data on some of the cogni-
tive variables; therefore, they were excluded from these analyses.
The correlations between the speech effectiveness score and cogni-
tive scores were moderate, but statistically significant (p  .05):
language r ¼ .312, inhibition r ¼ .320, planning and fluency
r ¼ .200, and memory r ¼ .322 (see Table 2). The correlations
between the amount of spontaneous private speech and cognitive
scores were non-significant (r ¼ .04–.06).
Next, associations between speech effectiveness and cognitive
abilities were analysed using the multivariate GLM; the child’s
cognitive abilities (i.e., language, inhibition, planning and fluency,
and short-term memory) were regressed on the speech effectiveness
score. The GLM results indicated a negative significant association
between the speech effectiveness score and the four cognitive
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
scores, F(4, 94) ¼ 5.87; p  .001. The subsequent univariate tests
indicated significant associations between the speech effectiveness
score and language skills (F(1, 99) ¼ 14.81; p  .001; partial 2 ¼
.132; b ¼ .406), inhibition skills, F(1, 99) ¼ 11.51; p  .001; par-
tial 2 ¼ .106; b ¼ .302, planning and fluency, F(1, 99) ¼ 5.28;
p  .05; partial 2 ¼ .052; b ¼ .216, and memory, F(1, 99) ¼
17.58; p  .001; partial 2 ¼ .153; b ¼ .376. The regression coef-
ficients indicated that the poorer a child’s performance was on the
cognitive tests, the better he/she performed on the Hammer Task
items when using private speech compared to task items where
he/she did not use speech. The effects of the different cognitive
skills did not differ from each other. There were no associations
between the amount of spontaneous private speech and cognitive
scores, F(4,94) ¼ .21; p ¼ ns.
To illustrate the association between cognitive abilities and
speech effectiveness, the children were divided into subgroups
according to their speech effectiveness score. Children having a
score below or equal to 1 formed the group labelled ‘‘No effect’’
(n ¼ 21), while children having a score above 1 but below or equal
to 2 formed the group labelled ‘‘Some effect’’ (n ¼ 64), and chil-
dren with a score higher than 2 formed the group labelled ‘‘Clear
effect’’ (n ¼ 16). Figure 1 shows that children in the ‘‘Clear effect’’
group had the lowest cognitive scores.
Discussion
The present study examined the associations between 5-year-old
children’s behavioural self-regulation, cognitive abilities, and their
private speech during a structured task (the Hammer Task). More
specifically, we analysed the extent to which the children used pri-
vate speech and whether they performed better in the Hammer Task
when using speech than when not using it (i.e., speech effective-
ness), and whether the amount of spontaneous speech and speech
effectiveness were associated with the children’s behavioural
self-regulation (i.e., impulsivity, inattention, and lack of effort) and
cognitive abilities (language, inhibition, planning and fluency, and
memory). The results indicated that 42.6% of the children used pri-
vate speech spontaneously (at least sometimes without being
prompted), and most of the children (76%) performed better (got
more of the items correctly) when they used speech than when they
did not use it. Children used spontaneous speech less in the easiest
task items (i.e., first and second items) than in the longer and more
difficult ones, but the use of speech did not increase linearly with
the task difficulty. Associations were found between speech effec-
tiveness and all cognitive abilities, but associations between speech
effectiveness and behavioural self-regulatory skills emerged only
for teachers’ ratings of lack of effort. No associations were found
between the amount of spontaneous private speech used during the
Hammer Task and behavioural self-regulatory skills or cognitive
abilities.
We found, in line with our expectation and earlier literature (e.g.
Winsler et al., 2007), that it is relatively common for 5-year-old
children to use overt private speech in a task situation: 42.6% of the
children in our study used private speech spontaneously at least
once in the Hammer Task. For most of the children, private speech
was effective, as about 76% had a speech effectiveness ratio above
1, indicating that they performed better when they used speech than
when they did not use it. This finding suggests that speech serves as
a self-regulatory tool (e.g. Vygotsky, 1962; Winsler et al., 2007; for
a review, see Winsler, 2009). The children used speech more when
Aro et al.
prompted to do so than spontaneously. In part 1 under the condition
of no instruction to use speech (first set of 8 task-items), the average
of responses with speech was 1.22 whereas under the condition of
instruction to use speech (second set of 8 task-items) on average
4.05 of responses were with speech. This can be interpreted to sug-
gest that 5-year-olds do not typically have the awareness that they
might perform better if they speak out loud during a task. This has
been indicated by the findings by Winsler and Naglieri (2003)
showing that only about 16% of 5-year-old children were aware
of the benefits of using private speech (see also Manfra & Winsler,
2006).
The amount of spontaneous speech during the Hammer task was
not associated with ratings of behavioural regulatory skills, which
was contrary to our expectations based on the literature document-
ing that private speech tends to be more frequent among children
with self-regulatory problems than without them (for a review, see
Winsler, 2009; see also Corkum et al., 2008). The present sample
involved 9% of children with high scores in hyperactivity (below
2.0 SD, Finnish standardization norms), as rated by adults, but
none of the children had been diagnosed with ADHD at this early
age. It is therefore plausible that variation in behavioural self-
regulatory skills was too small in the present sample for associa-
tions with the amount of spontaneous speech to emerge.
Recent studies among children with impairments, e.g. children
diagnosed with ADHD (for a review, see Corkum et al., 2008, and
Winsler, 2009) and specific language impairments (Lidstone et al.,
2012), indicate that these children utilize private speech for self-
regulation. In the present study, no systematic associations were
found between the effectiveness of private speech and parental rat-
ings of children’s behavioural self-regulation skills indicating that
the regulational skills were not strongly associated with speech
effectiveness. However, a correlation emerged between speech
effectiveness and preschool teachers’ ratings of children’s lack of
effort, suggesting that children rated as lacking effort (e.g. listless,
sluggish, and lacking energy) in the preschool setting benefitted
from using private speech in the Hammer Task. Deficiencies in
effort may be more evident in the context of preschool where chil-
dren are likely to face challenging tasks that require persistence
than in the children’s homes where similar tasks are less frequently
observed by the parents. The finding of higher efficiency of private
speech among children with poor effort can be understood as an
indicator that these children needed private speech to gain control
of their underlying deficient attentional control system (see also
Winsler, 2009), and therefore they should be encouraged to use pri-
vate speech. Medication has been shown to normalize the use of pri-
vate speech among children with a combined type of ADHD (see
Kopecky, Chang, Klorman, Thatcher, & Borgstedt, 2005) suggest-
ing that improved ability to channel effort reduces the need for reg-
ulatory self-speech. Further research is needed to obtain a better
understanding of the mechanisms through which private speech is
associated with the successful use of attention and executive func-
tions in learning situations, as well as which attentional character-
istics of the child are associated with the effectiveness of private
speech.
The literature indicates that cognitive skills are positively asso-
ciated with the emergency and internalization of private speech
among younger children (Kohlberg et al., 1968; Lidstone et al.,
2012), but later in development the correlation is negative. Contrary
to our expectations, we did not find associations between amount of
spontaneous speech and cognitive skills. A more challenging task
requiring planning and monitoring, metacognitive problem-
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
9
solving strategies and elaboration or including feedback compo-
nents, might have elicited more variance in use of speech (see
Kopecky et al., 2005; Winsler, 2009).
The present study focused on the associations between cognitive
skills and effectiveness of private speech which has been addressed
less frequently than the emergency and quantity of private speech at
different ages. We found strong associations between children’s
speech effectiveness and cognitive test performance. Use of private
speech (spontaneously or after a request) was more beneficial for
the children with weaker cognitive skills suggesting that they
needed private speech to control or aid their cognitive performance,
although they did not differ in the amount of spontaneous speech
from other children. On the other hand, children with better cogni-
tive skills did not seem to need to use private speech to perform well
in the Hammer Task, i.e., they performed well both with and with-
out speech.
It is plausible that children with weaker cognitive skills bene-
fitted from private speech more because the Hammer Task was
more difficult for them. This interpretation is supported by the
post-hoc analyses indicating rather high correlations between the
amount of correct answers in the Hammer Task and cognitive skills
(r varying between .56–.72). Children with less mature cognitive
skills may have benefited from using private speech because the
repetition of the given stimuli aided them in planning their action
(see Lidstone et al., 2012) and in refreshing memory trace of the
instruction (see Baddeley, 2001; Repovs & Baddeley, 2006; see
also Winsler, 2009, and Marvel & Desmond, 2012). Recently, Kray
and colleagues (Kray, Kipp, & Karbach, 2009) found that labelling
the given visual stimulus in a selective inhibitory control task
increased the accuracy of children’s responses, suggesting that
inner speech helps in the maintenance of task representations. There
is also evidence indicating that speech motor processes aid lan-
guage comprehension (see Pickering & Garrod, 2007; see also Wil-
son & Knoblich, 2005). On the first part of the Hammer Task,
where children need to map names of colours according to their
semantic constituents, use of private speech may serve to link
semantic understanding and speech production. These associations
between self-vocalization, working memory, and semantic process-
ing warrant further research among different age groups. Among
younger children, such as 3-year-olds, more association may have
emerged between cognitive skills and both amount of spontaneous
private speech and effectiveness of private speech. Optimally a
longitudinal design should be used to analyse possible changes in
the associations between effectiveness of private speech and cogni-
tive skills from kindergarten to early school years.
Prior studies have indicated that the level of task difficulty is of
high relevance for the elicitation of private speech, and that private
speech is evoked by optimally challenging tasks (e.g. Diaz, 1992;
Fernyhough & Fradley, 2005). Fernyhough and Fradley (2005)
showed a quadratic relation between speech and task difficulty with
amount of speech peaking in tasks which were neither too simple
nor too difficult. Thus, solving a task in silence can be associated
both with a too easy task and a too difficult task (see Winsler, Diaz,
& Montero, 1997). Our data indicated that the amount of sponta-
neous speech increased after the first two task items, but it did not
continue to increase although the items became longer, and more
difficult. Winsler (2009) claimed that the appearance of private
speech is ‘‘intimately linked with the individual’s task-specific
competence’’ (Winsler, 2009, p. 10). It is possible—and also sug-
gested by the rather high correlations between correct answers and
cognitive skills—that for the 5-year-olds with lower cognitive
10
abilities the Hammer Task was optimal for private speech to be a
useful tool to improve the performance, whereas for the children
with better cognitive abilities the task was so easy that they did not
need to resort to private speech. This is in line with the earlier find-
ings by Winsler and Naglieri (2003) which show that among chil-
dren between 5 and 7 years of age, talking to oneself did not
affect the performance of children with higher-ability levels,
whereas the use of speech improved the performance of lower-
achieving children.
Our study contributed to the literature on private speech by
investigating its associations to cognitive abilities and behavioural
self-regulation skills. However, there were limitations. First, the
study was carried out in a sample of children with a slight overpre-
sentation of difficulties in language development or hyperactivity,
according to parental ratings. Nevertheless, none of the children
were diagnosed with ADHD, and only four were diagnosed as hav-
ing a specific language impairment. Second, a rather simple task
and only in a single test situation was used to elicitation of private
speech. A longitudinal design with multiple assessments would
have provided opportunities to examine changes across age (see
Winsler, 2009). Furthermore, the Hammer Task and the cognitive
tests were performed in the same laboratory setting, whereas the
self-regulations ratings were based on parent and preschool teacher
ratings. The context and its interaction with individual characteris-
tics in measuring self-regulation and executive skills is likely to be
meaningful as pointed out by McClelland, Ponitz, Messersmith, and
Tominey (2010). A more complex task (requiring planning and
monitoring, for example) would probably have elicited more
speech among the children than in the present study where the
majority of the children completed more task items without than
with private speech. Coding the quantity and type of private speech
(i.e., task-relevant, task-irrelevant, or partially internalized; see e.g.
Berk & Landau, 1993) could have given valuable information
regarding the phase of internalization and it’s association to various
cognitive skills. The advantage of using the Hammer Task was the
opportunity to compare conditions with and without speech but a
different type of test situation would have given possibility analyse
use of spontaneous private speech.
Our findings lend support to the importance of including chil-
dren’s cognitive abilities in studies investigating the development,
use, and effectiveness of private speech. Cognitive tests, particu-
larly of planning skills and short-term memory, need to be incorpo-
rated in future research designs. It is important to raise awareness
about the effects of using private speech, especially among children
with deficits or delays in cognitive abilities, as well as to model its
use for both teachers and parents. Using private speech effectively
in challenging tasks sets the stage for refining one’s metacognitive
strategies and reasoning skills.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Al-Namlah, A., Fernyhough, C., & Meins, E (2006). Socio-cultural
influences on the development of verbal mediation: Private speech
and phonological recording in Saudi Arabian and British samples.
Developmental Psychology, 42, 117–131.
Baddeley, A. (2001). Is working memory still working? European Psy-
chologist, 7, 85–97.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
International Journal of Behavioral Development
Balamore, U., & Wozniak, R.H. (1984). Speech–action coordination in
young children. Developmental Psychology, 20, 850–858.
Barkley, R. A. (2012). Executive functions. What they are, how they
work, and why they evolved. New York, NY: Guilford Press
Berk, L. E. (1986). Relationship of elementary school children’s private
speech to behavioral accompaniment to task, attention, and task per-
formance. Developmental Psychology, 22, 671–680.
Berk, L. E. (1992). Children’s private speech: An overview of theory
and the status of research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private
speech. From social interaction to self-regulation, (pp. 17–53).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berk, L. E., & Landau, S. (1993). Private speech of learning disabled
and normally achieving children in classroom academic and labora-
tory contexts. Child Development, 64, 556–571.
Berk, L. E., & Potts, M. K. (1991). Development and functional signif-
icance of private speech among attention-deficit hyperactivity dis-
ordered and normal boys. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
19, 357–377.
Bivens, J. A., & Berk, L. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the devel-
opment of elementary school children’s private speech.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 443–463.
Corkum, P., Humpries, K., Mullane, J., & Theriault, F. (2008). Private
speech in children with ADHD and their typically developing peers
during problem-solving and inhibition tasks. Contemporary Educa-
tional Psychology, 33, 97–115.
Diaz, R. M. (1992). Methodological concerns in the study of private
speech. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech. From
social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 55–81). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Diaz, R. M., Winsler, A., Atencio, D. J., & Harbers, K. (1992). Media-
tion of self-regulation through the use of private speech. Interna-
tional Journal of Cognitive Education and Mediated Learning, 2,
1–13.
Deutsch, F., & Stein, A. H. (1972). The effects of personal responsibil-
ity and task interruption on the private speech of preschoolers.
Human Development, 15, 310–324.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Tes-
t-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Fernyhough, C., & Fradley, E. (2005). Private speech on an executive
task: Relations with task difficulty and task performance. Cognitive
Development, 20, 103–120.
Grossi, D., Orsini, A., Monetti, C., & DeMichele, G. (1979). Sex differ-
ences in children’s spatial and verbal memory span. Cortex, 15,
667–528.
Hitch, G., Halliday, M., Schaafstal, A., & Heffernan, T. (1991). Speech,
‘‘inner speech,’’ and the development of short-term memory:
Effects of picture-labeling on recall. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 51, 220–234.
Jones, S., & Fernyhough, C. (2007). Neural correlates of inners speech
and auditory verbal hallucinations. Clinical Psychology Review, 27,
140–154.
Jones, S. (2009). The neuropsychology of covert and overt speech:
Implications for the study of private speech in children and adults.
In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech,
executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation
(pp. 69–80). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kadesjö, B., Janols, L.-O., Korkman, M., Mickelsson, K., Strand, G.,
Trillingsgaard, A., & Gillberg, C. (2004). FTF (Five to Fifteen): The
development of a parent questionnaire for the assessment of AD/HD
and comorbid conditions. European Child and Adolescent Psychia-
try, 13(suppl. 3), III/3–III/13.
Aro et al.
Kohlberg, L., Yaeger, J., & Hjertholm, E. (1968). Private speech: Four
studies and a review of theories. Child Development, 39, 691–739.
Kopecky, H., Chang, T., Klorman, R., Thatcher, J., & Borgstedt, A.
(2005). Performance and private speech of children with attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder while taking the tower of Hanoi test:
Effects of depth of search, diagnostic subtype, and methylphenidate.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 625–638.
Korkman, M., Jaakkola, M., Ahlroth, A., Pesonen, A. E., & Turunen,
M. M. (2004). Screening of developmental disorders in
five-year-olds using the FTF (Five-to-Fifteen) questionnaire: A
validation study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
13(suppl. 3), III/31–III/38.
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (1998). NEPSY. A developmental
neuropsychological assessment. Manual. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Korpilahti, P. (1998). Lausetesti: Kuullun ymmärtämisen lausetasoinen
testi [Listening comprehension test]. Helsinki, Finland: Language
and Communication Care Oy.
Kraft, K., & Berk, L. E. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Sig-
nificance of open-ended activities and make-believe play for verbal
self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 637–658.
Kray, J., Kipp, K. H., & Karbach, J. (2009). The development of selec-
tive inhibitory control: The influence of verbal labeling. Acta Psy-
chologica, 130, 48–57.
Lidstone, J., Meins, E., & Fernyhough, C. (2012). Verbal mediation of
cognition in children with specific language impairment. Develop-
ment and Psychopathology, 24, 651–660.
Manfra, L., & Winsler, A. (2006). Preschool children’s awareness of
private speech. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
30, 537–549.
Marvel, C. L., & Desmond, J. E. (2012). From storage to manipulation:
How the neural correlates of verbal working memory reflect varying
demands on inner speech. Brain & Language, 120, 42–51.
McClelland, M. M., Ponitz, C. C., Messersmith, E. E., & Tominey, S.
(2010). Self-regulation. Integration of cognition and emotion. In W.
F. Overton (Vol. Ed.) & R. M. Lerner (Ed. in chief), The Handbook
of Life-Span Development. Cognition, Biology, and Methods. Vol. 1
(pp. 509–553). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Meichenbaum, D., & Goodman, J. (1969). Reflection-impulsivity and
verbal control of motor behavior. Child Development, 40, 785–797.
Müller, U., Jacques, S., Brocki, K., & Zelazo, P. (2009). The executive
functions of language in preschool children. In A. Winsler, C. Fer-
nyhough & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech, executive function-
ing, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 53–68).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Müller, U., Zelazo, P., Hood, S., Leone, T., & Rohrer, L. (2004). Inter-
ference control in a new rule use task: Age-related changes, label-
ing, and attention. Child Development, 75, 1594–1609.
Määttä, S., Laakso, M.-L., Tolvanen, A., Ahonen, T., & Aro, T. (2012).
Developmental trajectories of early communications skills. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 1083–1096.
Olson, S., & Lunkenheimer, E. (2009). Expanding concepts of
self-regulation to social relationships: Transactional processes in
the development of early behavioral adjustment. In A. Sameroff
(Ed), The transactional model of development: How children and
contexts shape each other (pp. 55–76). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015
11
Palmer, E., Rosen, H., Ojemann, J., Buckner, R., Kelley, W., & Peter-
sen, S. (2001). An event-related fMRI study of overt and covert
word stem completion. Neuroimage, 14, 182–193.
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2007). Do people use language produc-
tion to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cogni-
tive Sciences, 11, 105–110.
Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Raiker, J. S., &
Alderson, R. M. (2009). Hyperactivity in boys with attention-defi-
cit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): An ubiquitous core symptom
or manifestation of working memory deficits? Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 37, 521–534.
Repovs, G., & Baddeley, A. (2006). The multi-component model of
working memory: Explorations in experimental cognitive psychol-
ogy. Neuroscience, 139, 5–21.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 298,
199–209.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psy-
chological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1995). WISC-III. Wechslerin lasten älykkyysasteikko.
Käsikirja. [Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Manual]. Hel-
sinki, Finland: Psykologien kustannus.
Wetherby, A., & Prizant, B. (1992). Profiling young children’s commu-
nicative competence. In S. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Perspective
on communication and language intervention: Development,
assessment, and intervention (pp. 217–251). Baltimore, MD: Paul
H. Brookes.
Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., Boada, R., Ogline, J. S., Tunick, R.
A., Chhabildas, N. A., & Olson, R. K. (2001). A comparison of the
cognitive deficits in reading disability and attention-deficit/hyper-
activity disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 157–172.
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in
perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460–473.
Winsler, A. (2009). Still talking to ourselves after all these years: A
review of current research on private speech. In A. Winsler, C. Fer-
nyhough & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech, executive function-
ing, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 3–41).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R., & Montero, I. (1997). The role of private speech
in the transition from collaborative to independent task performance
in young children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 59–79.
Winsler, A., Manfra, L., & Diaz, R. M. (2007). ‘‘Should I let them talk?’’
Private speech and task performance among preschool children
with and without behavior problems. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22, 215–231.
Winsler, A., & Naglieri, J. (2003). Overt and covert verbal
problem-solving strategies: Developmental trends in use, aware-
ness, and relations with task performance in children aged 5 to
17. Child Development, 74, 659–678.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R. M., Atencio, D. J., McCarthy, E. M., & Chabay, L.
A. (2000). Verbal self-regulation over time in preschool children at
risk for attention and behavior problems. Journal of Child Psychol-
ogy and Psychiatry, 41, 875–886.