Dimensions of performance in the interpretation of diagrams, tables, and maps: Some gender differences in the Swedish scholastic aptitude test

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 565-582

  Åberg Bengtsson, Lisbeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040882950     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199905)36:5<565::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-L     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Åberg-Bengtsson, L., & Ottosson, T. (1995, August). Primary school children's understanding of bar charts and line graphs: A preliminary analysis. Paper presented at the Sixth EARLI Conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
2. Anastasi, A. (1958). Differential psychology: Individual and group differences in behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
3. Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). Amos users' guide. Ver. 3.6. Chicago, IL: Small Waters Corporation.
4. Beniger, J.R., & Robyn, D.L. (1978). Quantitative graphics in statistics: A brief history. The American Statistician, 32, 1-11.
5. Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
6. Bentler, P.M., & Dudgeon, P. (1996). Covariance structure analysis: Statistical practice, theory and directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 563-592.
7. Berg, C.A., & Phillips, D.G. (1994). An investigation of the relationship between logical thinking structures and the ability to construct and interpret line graphs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 323-344.
8. Berg, C.A., & Smith, P. (1994). Assessing students' abilities to construct and interpret line graphs: Disparities between multiple-choice and free-response instruments. Science Education, 78, 527-554.
9. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps (W.J. Berg, Trans.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
10. Carroll, J.B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Clement, J. (1989). The concept of variation and misconceptions in Cartesian graphing. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 11, 77-87.
12. Feingold, A. (1988). Cognitive gender differences are disappearing. American Psychologist, 43, 95-103.
13. Goldberg, F.M., & Anderson, J.H. (1989). Student difficulties with graphical representations of negative values of velocity. The Physics Teacher, 27, 254-260.
14. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988a). Hierarchical models of individual differences and cognitive abilities. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 35-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988b). Models of intelligence. In J.P. Keeves (ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 437-441). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16. Gustafsson, J.-E. (1994, April). Dimensions of ability measured by the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
17. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407-434.
18. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Stahl, P. A. (1996). STREAMS user's guide. Ver. 1.6 for Windows. Mölndal, Sweden: Multivariate Ware.
19. Gustafsson, J.-E., & Stahl, P.A. (1997). STREAMS user's guide. Ver. 1.7 for Windows. Mölndal, Sweden: MultivariateWare.
20. Gustafsson, J.-E., Wedman I., & Westerlund, A. (1992). The dimensionality of the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 21-39.
21. Guthrie, J.T., Weber, S., & Kimmerley, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186-221.
22. Halpern, D.K. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23. Horn, J.L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In B.B. Wolman (ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 267-300). New York: Wiley.
24. Horn, J.L., & Cattell R.B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253-270.
25. Hoste, R. (1982). Sex differences and similarities in performance in a CSE biology examination. Educational Studies 8, 141-151.
26. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.
27. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equational modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28. Kerslake, D. (1981). Graphs. In K. Hart (ed.), Children's understanding of mathematics: 11-16 (pp. 120-126). London: John Murray.
29. Lewandowsky, S., & Spence, I. (1989). The perception of statistical graphs. Sociological Methods and Research, 18, 200-242.
30. Loehlin, J.C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Mäkitalo, Å. (1993). Gender differences in performance on the DTM subtest in the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test as a function of item position and cognitive demands. Thesis, Department of Education and Educational Research, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden.
32. Mäkitalo, Å. (1994). Non-comparability of female and male admission test takers (Report No. 1994:06). Göteborg, Sweden Department of Education and Educational Research, Göteborg University.
33. Maury, S., Janvier, M., & Baillé, J. (1990). Diagram processing procedures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 5, 293-307.
34. Ottosson, T. (1997). Motivation for orienteering: An exploratory analysis using confirmatory factor analytic techniques. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 38, 111-120.
35. Pedhazur, E.J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Preece, J. (1983). Graphs are not straightforward. In T.R.G. Green, S.J. Payne, & G.C. van der Veer (eds.), The psychology of computer use (pp. 41-56). London: Academic Press.
37. Rindler, S.E. (1979). Pitfalls in assessing test speededness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 16, 261-270.
38. Rosén, M. (1995). Gender differences in structure, means and variances of hierarchically ordered ability dimensions. Learning and Instruction, 5, 37-62.
39. Shah, P., & Carpenter, P.A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 124, 43-61.
40. Stage, C. (1993). Gender differences on the SweSAT: A review of studies since 1975 (EM No. 7). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Education, University of Umeå.
41. Wainer, H. (1980). A test of graphicacy in children. Applied Psychological Measurement 4, 331-340.
42. Wainer, H. (1992). Understanding graphs and tables. Educational Researcher, 21, 14-23.
43. Wainer, H., & Steinberg, L.S. (1992). Sex differences in performance on the mathematics section of the Scholastic Aptitude Test: A bidirectional validity study. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 323-336.
44. Wester, A. (1992). Item bias with respect to gender interpreted in the light of problem-solving strategies (EM No. 3). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Education, University of Umeå.
45. Wester-Wedman, A. (1992a). Förlängd provtid på DTK-provet [Extended testing time of the DTM test]. (PM No. 54). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Education, University of Umeå.
46. Wester-Wedman, A. (1992b). Ett försök med öppna frågor i DTK-provet [Using open-ended questions in the DTM test] (PM No. 56). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Education, University of Umeå.
47. Wester-Wedman, A. (1992c). Hur tänker provtagarna - egentligen? [How do test takers actually think?] (PM No. 51). Umeå, Sweden: Department of Education, University of Umeå.
48. Wilder, G.Z., & Powell, K. (1989). Sex differences in test performance: A survey of literature. (College Board Report, No. 89-3). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
49. Willingham, W.W., & Cole, N. (1997). Gender and fair assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Winn, W. (1993). An account of how readers search for information in diagrams. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 162-185.
51. Winn, W., & Holiday, W. (1982). Design principles for diagrams and charts. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text (Vol. 1, pp. 277-299). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.