Improving the measurement of spatial aptitude by dynamic testing

Abstract Can spatial aptitude scores be increased by test-related training? Is construct validity influenced? The traditional psychometric view of test-related training as coaching, which threatens test validity, contrasts sharply with the view that performance modifiability measures a theoretically important construct that increases test validity (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978). This article reports on three studies of the dynamic testing of spatial ability in which training on the physical analogue of the mental folding task intervenes between a pretest and a posttest. Experiment 1 found that spatial ability can be significantly and substantially increased. Experiment 2 examined the impact of the dynamic testing procedure on the relationship of ability scores to other measures. Although sex differences in spatial ability were unchanged, the dynamic testing procedure increased predictive validity for training in text editing. Experiment 3 examined the impact on construct representation. The mathematical models of task difficulty indicated that the posttest more clearly represented rotational processing while the psychometric models supported the measurement of two abilities (i.e., initial status and gain). The implications for measuring learning ability by dynamic testing are discussed.

[1]  L. Vygotsky.  Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes: Harvard University Press , 1978 .

[2]  R. Sternberg.  Beyond IQ: A Triarchic Theory of Human Intelligence , 1984 .

[3]  M. Just,et al.  Cognitive coordinate systems: accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. , 1985, Psychological review.

[4]  Michele Andrisin Wittig,et al.  Sex-related differences in cognitive functioning : developmental issues , 1979 .

[5]  C. Harris.  Problems in measuring change , 1965 .

[6]  S. Embretson.  Test design : developments in psychology and psychometrics , 1985 .

[7]  Louis M. Gomez,et al.  Learner characteristics that predict success in using a text-editor tutorial , 1982, CHI '82.

[8]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

[9]  V. A. C. Henmon,et al.  Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--VIII. , 1921 .

[10]  Hans Spada,et al.  6 – The Assessment of Learning Effects with Linear Logistic Test Models , 1985 .

[11]  Susan E. Embretson,et al.  MULTIPLE PROCESSING STRATEGIES AND THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF VERBAL REASONING TESTS , 1986 .

[12]  L. Cronbach,et al.  How we should measure "change": Or should we? , 1970 .

[13]  H. Woodrow,et al.  The relation between abilities and improvement with practice. , 1938 .

[14]  P. Thorndyke,et al.  Individual differences in procedures for knowledge acquisition from maps , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  R D Bock,et al.  Further evidence of sex-linked major-gene influence on human spatial visualizing ability. , 1973, American journal of human genetics.

[16]  L. Cronbach,et al.  Construct validity in psychological tests. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  J. Mcglone,et al.  Sex differences in human brain asymmetry: a critical survey , 1980, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[18]  Mary F. Blade,et al.  Increase in spatial visualization test scores during engineering study. , 1955 .

[19]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Breakdowns in flexible use of information: Intelligence-related differences in transfer following equivalent learning performance , 1985 .

[20]  M. Budoff,et al.  Learning potential among the moderately and severely mentally retarded. , 1974 .

[21]  Edward L. Thorndike,et al.  Intelligence and its measurement: A symposium--I. , 1921 .

[22]  Negro intelligence and selective migration: a Philadelphia test of the Klineberg hypothesis. , 1951 .

[23]  S. Whitely.  Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. , 1983 .

[24]  Yaacov Rand,et al.  The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments and techniques , 1981 .

[25]  R. Feuerstein.  Instrumental Enrichment: An Intervention Program for Cognitive Modifiability , 1980 .

[26]  M. Budoff,et al.  Sensitivity and Validity of Learning Potential Measurement in Three Levels of Ability. , 1974 .

[27]  Samuel Messick,et al.  Time and Method in Coaching for the SAT. , 1981 .

[28]  B. Wright,et al.  Best Test Design. Rasch Measurement. , 1979 .

[29]  G. H. Fischer,et al.  The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research , 1973 .

[30]  H. Klausmeier,et al.  Classificatory Behaviors of Low-Socioeconomic-Status Children. , 1974 .

[31]  M. G. McGee.  Human spatial abilities: psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  R. Dawis,et al.  Effects of Cognitive Intervention on Latent Ability Measured from Analogy Items. , 1974 .

[33]  J. Carlson,et al.  Toward a differential testing approach: Testing-the-limits employing the Raven matrices☆ , 1979 .

[34]  R. Sternberg,et al.  An Aptitude-Strategy Interaction in Linear Syllogistic Reasoning. , 1980 .

[35]  S. Embretson.  CONSTRUCT VALIDITY: CONSTRUCT REPRESENTATION VERSUS NOMOTHETIC SPAN , 1983 .