Performance assessments with microworlds and their difficulty

Applied Psychological Measurement

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 156-180

  Kluge, Annette ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST GALLEN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Control performance; Difficulty; Knowledge; Microworlds; Performance assessment; Self efficacy

Indexed keywords

EID: 38849207615     PISSN: 01466216     EISSN: 15523497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0146621607300015     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Azen, R., & Budescu, D.V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129-148.
3. Badke-Schaub, P., & Strohschneider, S. (1998). Complex problem solving in the cultural context. Le Travail Humain, 61, 1-28.
4. Bandura, A., & Wood, R.E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 805-814.
5. Beauducel, A., & Kersting, M. (2002). Fluid and crystallized intelligence and the BIS. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 97-112.
6. Bennett, R.E., Morley, M., & Quardt, D. (2000). Three response types for broadening the conception of mathematical problem solving in computerized tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 294-310.
7. Blech, C., & Funke, J. (2005). DYNAMIS review: An overview about applications of the DYNAMIS approach in cognitive psychology. Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Department of Psychology.
8. Brehmer, B., & Doerner, D. (1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 171-184.
9. Buchner, A. (1995). Basic topics and approaches to the study of complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 29-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Clauser, B.E. (2000). Recent issues and recent advances in scoring performance assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 310-324.
11. Debowski, S., Wood, R.E., & Bandura, A. (2001). Impact of guided exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory mechanisms and information acquisition through electronic search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1129-1141.
12. Drner, D., Kreuzig, H.W., Reither, F., & Studel, T. (1994). Lohhausen. Vom Umgang mit Unbestimmtheit und Komplexitt [Lohhausen: About handling uncertainty and complexity]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber. (Original work published 1983 )
13. Drner, D., & Preussler, W. (1990). Die Kontrolle eines einfachen kologischen Systems [Controlling a simple ecological system]. Sprache und Kognition, 4, 205-217.
14. Frensch, P.A., & Funke, J. (1995). Definitions, traditions, and a general framework for understanding complex problem solving. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Funke, J. (1985). Steuerung dynamischer Systeme durch Aufbau und Anwendung subjektiver Kausalmodelle [Controlling dynamic systems through acquisition and application of individual mental models]. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 193, 443-465.
16. Funke, J. (1992). Wissen ber dynamische Systeme: Erwerb, Reprsentation und Anwendung [Knowledge about dynamic systems: Acquisition, representation, and application]. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
17. Funke, J. (1993). Microworlds based on linear equation-systems: A new approach to complex problem solving and experimental results. In G. Strube & K. F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge (pp. 313-330). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
18. Funke, J. (1998). Computer-based testing and training with scenarios from complex problem-solving research: Advantages and disadvantages. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 90-96.
19. Funke, J. (2001). Dynamic systems as tools for analysing human judgement. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 69-89.
20. Funke, U. (1995). Szenarien in der Eignungsdiagnostik um im Personaltraining. In B. Strauss & M. Kleinmann (Eds.), Computersimulierte Szenarien in der Personalarbeit [Computer simulated scenarios for personnel work] (pp. 145-216). Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
21. Gray, W.D. (2002). Simulated task environments: The role of high-fidelity simulations, scaled worlds, synthetic environments, and laboratory tasks in basic and applied cognitive research. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 2, 205-227.
22. Hambleton, R.K. (2000). Advances in performance assessment methodology. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 291-294.
23. Hambleton, R.K., Jaeger, R.M., Plake, B.S., & Mills, C. (2000). Setting performance standards on complex educational assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 355-366.
24. Heineken, E., Arnold, H. -J., Kopp, A., & Soltysiak, R. (1992). Strategien des Denkens bei der Regelung eines einfachen dynamischen Systems unter verschiedenen Totzeitbedingungen [Thinking strategies to control a simple dynamic system under different conditions of feedback delay]. Sprache & Kognition, 11, 136-148.
25. Hochberg, Y., & Tamhane, A. (1987). Multiple comparison procedures. New York: John Wiley.
26. Hornke, L.F., & Kersting, M. (2006). Optimizing quality in the use of Web-based and computer-based testing for personnel selection. In D. Bartram & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Computer-based testing and the Internet: Issues and advances (pp. 149-162). New York: John Wiley.
27. Kersting, M. (1998). Differentielle Aspekte der sozialen Akzeptanz von Intelligenztests und Problemlseszenarien als Personalauswahlverfahren [Differential psychological aspects of applicants' acceptance of intelligence test and problem solving scenarios as diagnostic tools for personnel selection]. Zeitschrift fr Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 42, 61-75.
28. Kersting, M. (1999). Diagnostik und Personalauswahl mit computergesttzten Problemlseszenarien? Zur Kriteriumsvaliditt mit Problemlseszenarien und Intelligenztests [Assessment and personnel selection through computer-based scenarios for problem solving: On criterion validity with problem solving scenarios and intelligence tests]. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
29. Kluge, A. (2004). Wissenserwerb fr das Steuern komplexer Systeme [Knowledge acquisition for controlling complex systems]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Publishers.
30. Krner, S. (2001). Multiflux-Entwicklung und Validierung eines simulationsbasierten Intelligenzdiagnostikums [Multiflux-Development and validation of a simulation-based assessment tool for testing intelligence]. Mnster, Germany: Waxmann.
31. Macan, T.H., Avedon, M., Paese, M., & Smith, D.E. (1994). The effects of applicants' reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715-738.
32. Obermann, C. (1991). AIRPORT. Problemlsesimulation 2.2 [AIRPORT problem solving simulation]. Gttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
33. Preussler, W. (1998). Strukturwissen als Voraussetzung fr die Steuerung komplexer dynamischer Systeme [Structural knowledge as a prerequisite for controlling complex and dynamic systems]. Zeitschrift fr Experimentelle Psychologie, 45, 218-240.
34. Putz-Osterloh, W. (1993). Strategies for knowledge acquisition and transfer of knowledge in dynamic tasks. In G. Strube & K. F. Wender (Eds.), The cognitive psychology of knowledge (pp. 331-350). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
35. Schuler, H., Frier, D., & Kaufmann, M. (1993). Personalauswahl im eurpoischen Vergleich [A European comparison of personnel selection techniques]. Gttingen, Germany: Hrogrefe.
36. Shotland, A., Alliger, G.M., & Sales, T. (1998). Face validity in the context of personnel selection: A multimedia approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 124-130.
37. Simon, H. (1978). Information-processing theory of human problem solving. In W. K. Estes (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognitive processes (pp. 271-295). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. Strauss, B. (1995). Zur Operationalisierung der Komplexitt in dynamischen Systemen [On operationalizing complexity in dynamic systems]. Zeitschrift fr Psychologie, 20, 73-99.
39. Vollmeyer, R., Burns, B.D., & Holyoak, K.J. (1996). The impact of goal specificity on strategy use and the acquisition of problem structure. Cognitive Science, 20, 75-100.
40. Wagener, D. (2001). Psychologische Diagnostik mit komplexen Szenarios. Taxonomie, Entwicklung, Evaluation [Psychological assessment based on complex scenarios: Taxonomy, development, evaluation]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.
41. Wittmann, W.W., & Hattrup, K. (2004). The relationship between performance in dynamic systems and intelligence. Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, 21, 393-409.