Fig 1.
Flow of liquid task.
Fig 2.
Example configuration of the bunnies at the start of a speed task trial.
Fig 3.
Spatial tasks.
Table 1.
Mean score (standard deviation) by age group on total causal score (max = 21), prior knowledge, description (max = 6), explanation (max = 9) and mechanism (max = 3).
Fig 4.
Profile of scores on a) flow of liquid (max = 10); and b) speed (max = 17).
Table 2.
Mean score (standard deviation) by age group on rotation (max = 16), paper folding (max = 14), vocabulary and block design.
Table 3.
Zero-order and partial correlations between total causal score, verbal and nonverbal ability, spatial-temporal analysis and spatial ability (significant associations in bold).
Table 4.
Hierarchical regression analysis with total causal score as dependent variable (significant predictors in bold).
Fig 5.
Path model including standardised coefficients for the effects of flow of liquid, log block design, age × rotation, age and vocabulary on causal score (subsidiary relationships in grey).
Table 5.
Percentages of children obtaining perfect scores on the flow of liquid task at each level of explanation response.
Fig 6.
Materials in the correct order of prediction for the causal reasoning tasks.
Fig 7.
Materials for the distance/time/velocity and rotation tasks.
Table 6.
Mean score (standard deviation) by age group on total causal score (max = 33), description (max = 3), prediction, justification (max = 9), explanation (max = 12) and mechanism (max = 3).
Fig 8.
Profile of scores on a) flow of liquid (max = 12); b) distance; c) time; and d) velocity (max = 6 for all).
Table 7.
Mean score (standard deviation) by age group on rotation (max = 16), vocabulary and block design.
Table 8.
Zero-order and partial correlations between measures (significant associations in bold).
Table 9.
Hierarchical regression analysis with total causal score as dependent variable (significant predictors in bold).
Fig 9.
Path model including standardised coefficients for the effects of exp flow of liquid, DTV, log block design, age and vocabulary on causal score, with (top right) the model for Study 1 shown for comparison (subsidiary relationships in grey).
Table 10.
Percentages of children (N = 124) obtaining perfect scores on the flow of liquid task at each level of explanation response.
Table 11.
Characteristics of the two cohorts.
Fig 10.
Schematic showing the relationship between spatial-temporal, spatial, verbal and nonverbal ability in the prediction of causal reasoning.