Search

Figural matrices tests are among the most popular and well-investigated tests used to assess inductive reasoning abilities. Solving these tests requires the selection of a target that completes a figural matrix among distractors. Despite their generally good psychometric properties, previous matrices tests have limitations associated with distractor construction that prevent them from realizing their full potential. Most tests allow participants to identify the correct response by eliminating distractors based on superficial features. The goal of this study was to develop a novel figural matrices test which is less prone to the use of response elimination strategies, and to test its psychometric properties. The new test consists of 48 items and was validated with N = 767 participants. Measurement models implied that the test is Rasch scalable, inferring a uniform underlying ability. The test showed good to very good reliability (retest-correlation: r = 0.88; Cronbach's alpha: α = 0.93; split-half reliability: r = 0.88) and good construct validity (r = 0.81 with the Raven Progressive Matrices Test, r = 0.73 with global intelligence scores of the Intelligence Structure Test 2000R, and r = 0.58 with the global score of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Test). It even superseded the Raven Progressive Matrices Tests in criterion-related validity (correlation with final year high school grades (r = −0.49 p <.001)). We conclude that this novel test has excellent psychometric properties and can be a valuable tool for researchers interested in reasoning assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted two studies to replicate and extend, as well as test, the limits of previous findings regarding an apparent disconnect between scientific-reasoning skills in psychological science, on the one hand, and scores on standardized tests of general intelligence, on the other. In Study 1, we examined whether this disconnect would extend beyond psychological science to additional sciences as well, such as nutrition and agriculture. The results did indeed extend, suggesting that scientific reasoning across various natural sciences is comparable to scientific reasoning in psychological science, but different in kind from the reasoning required on conventional standardized tests. In Study 2, we examined whether these findings were linked to the format of presentation of scientific problems. Whereas real scientific-reasoning problems are open-ended, standardized tests tend to use multiple-choice format. We discovered that using multiple-choice format did indeed result in an apparently closer relation of the scientific-reasoning tests to two of the conventional ability measures (SAT Reading and Number Series) but not to two other tests (Letter Sets and SAT Math). Thus, one can increase the correlations of scientific-reasoning tests with at least some standardized ability tests but at the cost of content validity and ecological validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]