Find the Mistake!

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Individual Differences Pub Date : 2023-02-20 DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000386
Sonja Breuer, Thomas Scherndl, T. Ortner
{"title":"Find the Mistake!","authors":"Sonja Breuer, Thomas Scherndl, T. Ortner","doi":"10.1027/1614-0001/a000386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Reasoning ability has commonly been regarded as the best predictor of academic and occupational success. Due to concerns about the validity of multiple-choice (MC) formats, test security breaches, and the fact that the difficulty levels of most existing reasoning assessments target the population mean, there is a constant need for new reliable and valid test instruments that can be applied to assess fluid intelligence in advanced cognitive performance areas. We developed a novel computerized figural matrices test to assess nonverbal reasoning for university student aptitude assessment. In two studies, we generated, revised, and empirically validated the Isometric Matrices Test (IMT). Our results show that the IMT is less prone to test-wiseness strategies than existing reasoning tests. In a third study, we created and evaluated an innovative Find the Mistake (FtM) response format as an alternative to classical multiple-choice formats. Overall, both response formats revealed satisfactory psychometric quality in terms of item difficulties and discrimination, test-retest reliability, construct and criterion validity, and Rasch or two-parameter logistic (2PL) model fit, but in one MC version, the internal consistency was low due to negative discrimination indices. The MC response format turned out to be easier than the FtM format, with men slightly outperforming women in both response modes. We propose the IMT as a useful tool for assessing nonverbal reasoning ability in above-average performance areas and discuss the automatic generation of larger IMT item pools for adaptive testing in order to increase test security and reliability.","PeriodicalId":47049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000386","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. Reasoning ability has commonly been regarded as the best predictor of academic and occupational success. Due to concerns about the validity of multiple-choice (MC) formats, test security breaches, and the fact that the difficulty levels of most existing reasoning assessments target the population mean, there is a constant need for new reliable and valid test instruments that can be applied to assess fluid intelligence in advanced cognitive performance areas. We developed a novel computerized figural matrices test to assess nonverbal reasoning for university student aptitude assessment. In two studies, we generated, revised, and empirically validated the Isometric Matrices Test (IMT). Our results show that the IMT is less prone to test-wiseness strategies than existing reasoning tests. In a third study, we created and evaluated an innovative Find the Mistake (FtM) response format as an alternative to classical multiple-choice formats. Overall, both response formats revealed satisfactory psychometric quality in terms of item difficulties and discrimination, test-retest reliability, construct and criterion validity, and Rasch or two-parameter logistic (2PL) model fit, but in one MC version, the internal consistency was low due to negative discrimination indices. The MC response format turned out to be easier than the FtM format, with men slightly outperforming women in both response modes. We propose the IMT as a useful tool for assessing nonverbal reasoning ability in above-average performance areas and discuss the automatic generation of larger IMT item pools for adaptive testing in order to increase test security and reliability.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
找出错误!
摘要推理能力通常被认为是学业和职业成功的最佳预测因素。由于对多项选择(MC)格式的有效性、测试安全漏洞的担忧,以及大多数现有推理评估的难度水平都是针对人群平均值的,因此不断需要新的可靠有效的测试工具,可以用于评估高级认知表现领域的流动智能。我们开发了一种新的计算机图形矩阵测试来评估大学生能力评估中的非语言推理。在两项研究中,我们生成、修订并实证验证了等距矩阵测试(IMT)。我们的结果表明,与现有的推理测试相比,IMT不太倾向于测试明智策略。在第三项研究中,我们创建并评估了一种创新的“发现错误”(FtM)回答格式,作为经典多项选择格式的替代方案。总体而言,两种回答形式在项目难度和辨别力、重测信度、结构和标准有效性以及Rasch或双参数逻辑(2PL)模型拟合方面都显示出令人满意的心理测量质量,但在一种MC版本中,由于辨别指数为负,内部一致性较低。MC的回答方式比FtM的回答方式更容易,男性在两种回答方式中的表现都略优于女性。我们提出IMT作为一种有用的工具,用于评估高于平均水平的表现领域的非语言推理能力,并讨论了自动生成更大的IMT项目库用于自适应测试,以提高测试的安全性和可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Individual Differences
Journal of Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Researchers, teachers, and students interested in all areas of individual differences (e.g., gender, temperament, personality, intelligence) and their assessment in human and animal research will find the Journal of Individual Differences useful. The Journal of Individual Differences publishes manuscripts dealing with individual differences in behavior, emotion, cognition, and their developmental aspects. This includes human as well as animal research. The Journal of Individual Differences is conceptualized to bring together researchers working in different areas ranging from, for example, molecular genetics to theories of complex behavior.
期刊最新文献
Validation of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) in Persian “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Being Flexible in Zuckerman’s Alternative Personality Space Stoicism Changing Ourselves
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1