Measuring the Influence of Complexity on Relational Reasoning

Relational complexity (RC) theory conceptualizes an individual’s processing capacity and a task’s complexity along a common ordinal metric. The authors describe the development of the Latin Square Task (LST) that assesses the influence of RC on reasoning. The LST minimizes the role of knowledge and storage capacity and thus refines the identification of a processing-capacity-related complexity effect in task performance. The LST is novel with one explicit rule that is easily understood by adults and children. In two studies, a test of 18 items encompassing three RC levels was administered to university (N = 73; 16-33 years) and school (N = 204; 8-19 years) students. Rasch analyses indicate that the LST scores were psychometrically stable across age groups and provides important diagnostic clues for task development. Consistent with RC theory, the LST is sensitive to parallel and serial (via segmentation) processing demands. The LST provides a strong basis for research on working memory and related constructs (fluid intelligence).

[1]  J. Bain,et al.  Information-Processing Demands of Transitive Inference , 1986 .

[2]  Graeme S Halford,et al.  Theory of mind and relational complexity. , 2003, Child development.

[3]  Scott L. Hershberger,et al.  The New Rules of Measurement : What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know , 1999 .

[4]  P. Fayers.  Item Response Theory for Psychologists , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[5]  G. A. Miller.  The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. , 1956, Psychological review.

[6]  Elazar J. Pedhazur,et al.  Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach , 1994 .

[7]  G. Thomson.  THE USE OF THE LATIN SQUARE IN DESIGNING EDUCATIONAL EXPERIMENTS , 1941 .

[8]  Susan E. Embretson,et al.  Multicomponent Response Models , 1997 .

[9]  G. Goude,et al.  On fundamental measurement in psychology , 1962 .

[10]  David F. Lohman,et al.  The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence , 1983 .

[11]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Cognitive complexity of suppositional reasoning: An application of the relational complexity metric to the knight-knave task , 2002 .

[12]  B. Wright.  Reasonable mean-square fit values , 1994 .

[13]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Item Response Theory , 1984, The History of Educational Measurement.

[14]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[15]  Robert J. Mislevy,et al.  Test Theory for A New Generation of Tests , 1994 .

[16]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Mathematics Education: Models and Processes , 1995 .

[17]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[18]  Richard D. Roberts,et al.  The effect of a test's difficulty on its correlation with intelligence , 1990 .

[19]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[20]  Kathleen M. Sheehan.  A TREE‐BASED APPROACH TO PROFICIENCY SCALING & DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT , 1997 .

[21]  Lazar Stankov,et al.  Complexity, Metacognition, and Fluid Intelligence , 2000 .

[22]  Graeme S. Halford,et al.  Children's ability to make transitive inferences: The importance of premise integration and structural complexity , 1998 .

[23]  John Sweller,et al.  Can we measure working memory without contamination from knowledge held in long-term memory? , 1998 .

[24]  J. Bain,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article How Many Variables Can Humans Process? , 2022 .

[25]  M. Kendall.  Statistical Methods for Research Workers , 1937, Nature.

[26]  Kathy E. Green,et al.  A Comparison of Two Methods of Decomposing Item Difficulties , 1987 .

[27]  Howard Wainer,et al.  The Rasch Model as Additive Conjoint Measurement , 1979 .

[28]  S. Phillips,et al.  Relational complexity metric is effective when assessments are based on actual cognitive processes , 1998 .

[29]  Susan M. Brookhart,et al.  The new rules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know , 1999 .

[30]  G. Halford,et al.  A cognitive complexity metric applied to cognitive development , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  Kathy E. Green,et al.  Components of item difficulty of Raven's matrices , 1992 .

[32]  G. Halford,et al.  Young children's performance on the balance scale: the influence of relational complexity. , 2002, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[33]  G. Halford.  Children's Understanding: The Development of Mental Models , 1993 .

[34]  S. Embretson.  A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests : Application to abstract reasoning , 1998 .

[35]  K. Holyoak,et al.  A System for Relational Reasoning in Human Prefrontal Cortex , 1999 .

[36]  D. Berch,et al.  Capacity limitations of a classic M-power measure: a modified dual-task approach. , 1997, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[37]  R. Hambleton,et al.  Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory , 1997 .