Measuring the influence of complexity on relational reasonings - The development of the latin square task

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 146-171

  Birney, Damian P ^a   Halford, Graeme S ^b   Andrews, Glenda ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Latin square; Rasch analysis; Reasoning; Relational complexity; Working memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 31944440331     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164405278570     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Andrews, G., & Halford, G. S. (1998). Children's ability to make transitive inferences: The importance of premise integration and structural complexity. Cognitive Development, 13, 470-513.
2. Andrews, G., & Halford, G. S. (2002). A cognitive complexity metric applied to cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 153-219.
3. Andrews, G., Halford, G. S., Bunch, K. M., Bowden, D., & Jones, T. (2003). Theory of mind and relational complexity. Child Development, 74, 1476-1500.
4. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5. Andrich, D., Lyne, A., Sheridan, B., & Luo, G. (1998). RUMM: Rasch unidimensional measurement models. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory.
6. Birney, D. P. (2002). The measurement of task complexity and cognitive ability: Relational complexity in adult reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Australia.
7. Birney, D. P., & Halford, G. S. (2002). Cognitive complexity of suppositional reasoning: An application of the relational complexity metric to the knight-knave task. Thinking and Reasoning, 8, 109-134.
8. Boag, C. C., Härtel, C. E. J., & Halford, G. S. (in press). An integrated model of situation awareness and decision making in air traffic control to explain performance errors. In Proceedings of the European Association for Aviation Psychology Conference, Scotland.
9. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Embretson, S. E. (1993). Psychometric models for learning and cognitive processes. In N. Frederiksen, R. J. Mislevy, & I. I. Bejar (Eds.), Test theory for a new generation of tests (pp. 125-150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Embretson, S. E. (1996). Multicomponent response models. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modem item response theory (pp. 305-321). New York: Springer.
12. Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380-396.
13. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. English, L. D., & Halford, G. S. (1995). Mathematics education: Models and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Fisher, R. A. (1925). Statistical methods for research workers. London: Oliver & Boyd.
16. Foley, E. J., & Berch, D. B. (1997). Capacity limitations of a classical M-Power measure: A modified dualtask approach. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 129-143.
17. Green, K. E., & Kluever, R. C. (1992). Components of item difficulty of Raven's Matrices. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 189-199.
18. Green, K. E., & Smith, R. M. (1987). A comparison of two methods of decomposing item difficulties. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 369-381.
19. Halford, G. S. (1993). Children's understanding: The development of mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Halford, G. S., Andrews, G., Dalton, C., Boag, C. C., & Zielinski, T. (2002). Young children's performance on the balance scale: The influence of relational complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 81, 383-416.
21. Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E., & Bain, J. D. (2005). How many variables can humans process? Psychological Science, 16, 70-76.
22. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998a). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 803-831.
23. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., & Phillips, S. (1998b). Relational complexity metric is effective when assessments are based on actual processes. Behavioral and Brain Science, 21, 848-864.
24. Hambleton, R. K., & Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Norwell, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
25. Linacre, J., & Wright, B. (1994). Chi-square fit statistics. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(2), 361.
26. Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7, 107-127.
27. Masters, G. N., & Wright, B. D. (1996). The partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modem item response theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28. Maybery, M. T., Bain, J. D., & Halford, G. S. (1986). Information-processing demands of transitive inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 600-613.
29. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
30. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
31. Pedhazuer, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Perline, R., Wright, B., & Wainer, H. (1979). The Rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 237-255.
33. Sheehan, K.M. (1997). A tree-based approach to proficiency scaling and diagnostic assessment. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 333-352.
34. Spilsbury, G., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. (1990). The effect of a test's difficulty on its correlation with intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1069-1077.
35. Stankov, L. (2000). Complexity, metacognition and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 121-143.
36. Sweller, J. (1998). Can we measure working memory without contamination from knowledge held in long-term memory? Behavioral and Brain Science, 24, 845-846.
37. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
38. Thomson, G. H. (1941). The use of the Latin square in designing educational experiments. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 11, 135-137.
39. Waltz, J. A., Knowlton, B. J., Holyoak, K. J., Boone, K. B., Mishkin, F. S., de Menezes Santos, M., et al. (1999). A system for relational reasoning in human prefrontal cortex. Psychological Science, 10, 119-125.
40. Wright, B. D. (1999). Fundamental measurement for psychology. In S. E. Embretson & S. L. Hershberger (Eds.), The new rules of measurement: What every psychologist and educator should know (pp. 65-104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Wright, B. D., Linacre, J., Gustafson, J.-E., & Martin-Lof, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.