University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A Factor Analysis Of The Figural-Evaluation Abilities

(USC Thesis Other)

A Factor Analysis Of The Figural-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content This dissertation has been
microfilmed exactly as received 6 9 - 1 3 ,0 6 5
INGEBRETSEN, Kaaren Elizabeth, 1941-
A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE FIGURAL-EVALUATION
ABILITIES.
University of Southern California, Ph,D., 1969
Psychology, general
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan
A FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE FIGURAL-
EVALUATION ABILITIES
by
Kaaren Elizabeth Ingebretsen
A. Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
January 1969
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOO L
UNIVERSITY PARK
LO S ANGELES, CA LIFO RN IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Kaaren Elizabeth Ingebretsen
under the direction of h&X... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
{ .'77 ]'
7
Dean
_ , Jan. 6, 1969
Date........................
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is very difficult to properly thank all those
who aided in the completion of this dissertation. At this
time, however, the author would like to express gratitude
to the members of her dissertation committee, Professors
J. P. Guilford, R. Hoepfner, and N. Metfessel, for their
advice and guidance.
The author is especially thankful for the oppor
tunity to have done research under the auspices of
Dr. Guilford, whose theory of intelligence was the basis
for this study, and whose contribution was immeasurable.
In addition, it was Dr. Guilford’s grant from the Office of
Naval Research, Contract Nonr-228(20), that provided the
financial support for the study, and their participation
was truly appreciated.
Dr. Ralph Hoepfner deserves much of the credit for
the work done on revising and adapting the tests utilized
to measure the cognition factors. The author also greatly
welcomed his advice and support throughout the study and
during many theoretical discussions on the evaluation
process.
The author is deeply indebted to Mr. William
Doherty, who offered his assistance in all stages of this
study and whose knowledge and ingenuity in computer pro
gramming greatly aided in the analysis of the data.
The Department of Architecture at the University
of Illinois at Chicago Circle provided the sample for this
study. The author wishes to thank the Dean, Donald Hanson,
for his cooperation, and Professors Thomas Jaeger, Phillip
Kupritz, and David Rasche, whose interest and logistical
talents made the large-scaled testing possible.
Last, but certainly not least, the author would
like to thank a very patient and thoughtful husband.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM .............................
The Importance of the Problem
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . ........
Background of the Figural Area-
A Summary of Early Figural Factors
The Controversy over the Spatial-
Manipulation Abilities
The Controversy over the Closure Factors
Further Figural Factors
Background of Evaluation
III. THE HYPOTHESES ...........................
The Definition of Evaluation
The Relation of Figural Evaluation to
Aesthetic Judgments
Figural Evaluation and Psychophysics
Evaluation and Cognition
Definition of Figural Information
The Factors and Their Measures
The Factors of Evaluation
The Cognition Factors
The Divergent-Production Factors
The Other Reference Factors
IV. PROCEDURES ...............................
—— The Sample
Administration of the Test Battery
Scoring Procedures
iv
Page
ii
vi
1
15
48
111
V. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 117
Descriptive Statistics for the Tests
The Intercorrelations
The Factor Analysis
VI. RESULTS.................................... 128
The Interpretation of the Factors
The Ability Factors
The Two Control Factors
VII. DISCUSSION.................................. 173
The Evaluation Factors
The Cognition Factors
The Divergent-Production and Other
Reference Factors
The Relative Confusion between Operations,
Products, and Contents
The Evaluation Factors in Relation to
those in the Previous Studies
Tests Recommended for the Figural-
Evaluation Factors
VIII. SUMMARY .................................. 192
REFERENCES................ 195
APPENDIX................ 207
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. A Matrix of the Figural Factors........... 3
2. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities
and Distributions of Scores............ 118
3. Correlation Matrix of 74 Variables
(N=188).................................. 122
4. Unrotated Factor Matrix ................... 125
5. Rotated Factor Matrix ...................... 126
vi
! CHAPTER I I
i
i
| THE PROBLEM
i i
| The present study had two main purposes. The
(first was to demonstrate the existence of five figural-
evaluation abilities hypothesized by Guilford's Structure-
of-Intellect model but as yet undiscovered by factor^
analytic techniques. The second was to confirm the
usefulness of the model in adding organization to a vastly j
proliferated field of figural-spatial abilities.
t :
The Structure-of-Intellect model, first presented
i in 1958 (Guilford, 1958) and more thoroughly treated in
I i
the book The Nature of Human Intelligence (Guilford, 1967),
hypothesizes 120 independent factors of intelligence.
I Briefly stated, the model defines information as "that
i which the organism discriminates" and attempts to organize
i intellectual abilities in terms of three major categories:
i I
i • |
| a content category, which defines the type of information; j
!an operation category, which defines the major kind of
intellectual activity undertaken; and a product category,
which defines the resultant form of the information after
processing by the organism.
2
Each independent ability is seen as a specific
intersection of a particular operation, product, and con
tent. In all there are five operations, cognition (C),
memory (M), convergent production (N), divergent produc
tion (D), and evaluation (E); six products, units (U),
classes (C), relations (R), systems (S), transformations
(T), and implications (I); and four types of content, fig
ural (F) , symbolic (S), semantic (M), and behavioral (B).
The present study, then, can be seen as an attempt to
demonstrate the existence of the abilities involving the
particular operation of evaluation, the particular content
of figural material, and five of the six products (the
unit factor having been demonstrated previously).
A matrix of the 30 figural abilities hypothesized
by the Structure-of-Intellect model is presented in
Table 1. Each cell represents a separate figural ability
and is denoted by its appropriate trigram symbol (opera
tion, content, and product). The table presents a unified
way of describing which of the figural factors are Under
investigation in this study and indicates whether or not
they have been previously demonstrated.
As can be seen, almost all of the known figural
factors were included in this study. The figural
divergent-production abilities have been fairly well
established by two investigations (Guilford § Hoepfner,
1966a; Gershon, Guilford, § Merrifield, 1963). However,
Table I
A M atrix of the F ig u ra l F a c to rs
O p eratio n s
P ro d u cts
*
Cognition M em ory D ivergent
P ro d u ctio n
C onvergent
P ro d u ctio n
E valuation
Units
CFU MFU DFU b f r u E FU
K .I K K, I U K .I
C la s s e s
CFC MFC DFC NFC E FC
K, I U K K U ,I
R elations
C FR
K, I
MFR
U
DFR
U
NFR
U
E F R
U .I
S ystem s
C FS
K .I
MFS
K, I
DFS
K .I
NFS
U
EFS
U .I
T ra n sfo rm a tio n s
C F T
K, I
M FT
U
r
D FT
K, I
N FT
K, I
E F T
U, I
Im plications
C F I
K, I
M FI
U
D FI
K, I
N FI
U
E F I
U ,!
Note. — K - Known o r p rev io u sly d em o n strate d ; U - Unknown, and I - under in vestigation in this study.
4
in reviewing the literature, it was realized that many of
the cognitive factors (corresponding to the first column
in Table 1) had never been simultaneously tested and there
by isolated from each other. Most of these abilities were
discovered prior to the advent of the Structure-of-
Intellect model and were placed into the various cells of
the model on a logical basis rather than by actual test.
Their classification as known, therefore, is tenuous. The
same can be said about the two memory factors and, to a
lesser degree, about the two convergent-production factors.
It is hoped that by the inclusion of so many fig
ural factors in one study, some unification of the figural
area can be effected. It is held that the Structure-of-
Intellect model offers a reasonable and necessary organi
zation of the various figural abilities.
The Importance of the Problem
The relevance of the figural-spatial abilities in
any comprehensive discussion of intelligence can no longer
j
be denied. As the demand for trained technologists has j
increased, the potential of tests in the spatial area for |
accurate predictions in the field has become recognized. j
I. MacFarland Smith (1964) has presented a compre
hensive review of the relationships discovered between
certain spatial abilities and various areas of importance
such as education, technical professions, temperament, and
basic physiological processes. Smith argues strongly for
the inclusion of spatial tests in the process of educa
tional selection.
There is evidence, although somewhat conflicting,
that spatial tests are useful in predicting mathematical
achievement. The negative evidence comes from reports on
the validity of the Differential Aptitude Test constructed
by Bennett, Seashore, and Wesman for the Psychological
Corporation. Results reported by Cronbach (1960) indicate
that although the spatial-relations (SR) tests had positive
correlations with marks in plane and solid geometry, they
were not superior to the correlations of the Numerical
Ability or Abstract Reasoning tests. Cronbach concludes
. . . generally small positive correlations of SR
with the criterion, equally good correlations for
nonspatial tests. These data, and data on other tests,
point to the conclusion that spatial ability does not,
per se, predict success in high school courses
[p. 277]. '
It should be noted, however, that the Abstract Reasoning
test in the D. A. T. battery is actually a figural test
very similar to those designed to measure the factor CFR.
Werdelin (1959) conducted a study which concen
trated on the relationship between geometry and the space
abilities (primarily CFT and CFS, in terms of the
Structure-of-Intellect factors). The results indicated
that these spatial abilities were important to success in
various aspects of geometry, particularly geometrical
construction and abstraction. At the same time, spatial
abilities did not seem important to arithmetic or algebraic
equations.
Hills (1955)" conducted a validity study on success
in college mathematics. The tests utilized were devised
in terms of the Structure of Intellect. Nine factors in
all were represented, but only one test per factor was
included. The study was somewhat complex in that it had
many different groups of subjects divided according to
their curriculum, criterion, and institution. The corre
lations varied considerably. It can be concluded, however,
that significant degrees of association did exist between
success in mathematics, judged either by grades in calculus
or ratings of proficiency, and the tests designed to mea
sure factors CFT (Spatial Visualization) and CFS (Spatial
Orientation). The results were well confirmed for students
with a mathematics or engineering curriculum, but were
somewhat conflicting for physics students. It is inter
esting to note that over all groups the tests for factors
CFT and CFS along with a test for DFT (Match Problems) had
considerably more significant correlations with the various
criteria than did the general verbal tests designed to
measure verbal comprehension (CMU) and general reasoning
(CMS).
The above studies, as well as others cited by
Smith (1964) , seem to indicate that the predictive value__
7
of spatial tests increases as the level of mathematics
considered increases. The trend is not surprising in light
of the fact that many of the concepts utilized in higher
mathematics have distinct spatial overtones. Higher mathe
matics seem to demand a facility in thinking in terms of
visual imagery. For example, such concepts as area,
length, dimensions, symmetry, and vector have an immediate
relationship to the spatial area. In addition, as Smith
points out, many concepts such as continuity, maximums
and minimums, and limits can be communicated most easily
by geometrical illustrations.
The argument has been raised that the increased
importance of spatial tests in higher mathematics is in
part due to the training and practice in these tasks. The
evidence, however, is to the contrary. In a study by
Myers (1958a), no significant differences on spatial rela
tions tests were found between two groups of subjects, one
of which had received previous training in mechanical
drawing. The content of a mechanical-drawing class can
certainly be seen as being more closely related to items
in a spatial test than that of an advanced mathematics
course. If there were no effect when mechanical drawing
was practiced, it certainly would seem logical that there
would be no effect if advanced mathematics were practiced.
Additional evidence cited by Smith (1964) leads him to
conclude that gains in performance on spatial tests after
training are likely to be small, certainly not enough to
account for the significant rise in importance of spatial
tests in predicting higher mathematics.
Smith (1964) has undertaken studies relating spa
tial tests to various courses in the secondary grammar and
technical schools in Britain. Three main tests were uti
lized in these studies: Spatial Test I (N. F. E. R.),
Moray House Space Test I, and Spatial Test 2 (N. F. E. R.).
Smith states that factorial results on these tests indi--.-
cated that they could all be considered fairly good mea
sures of "k," or the general space factor found apart from
Mg" (general ability) by many British psychologists. The
definition of "k" as given by Smith is closely aligned with
the factor CFT or visualization in the Structure of Intel
lect. Smith considers it a broad space factor that is
involved in any test in which success "... depends criti
cally on an ability to distinguish a particular configura
tion from others which differ in shape or form [p. 96]."
The emphasis is on situations where the relations between
the parts of a configuration cannot be immediately grasped.
"The relations must be grasped implicitly, and that is what
is implied by the statement that such tests involve an
ability to perceive and retain in mind a figure as an
organized whole [Smith, p. 98]."
Smith reports on three follow-up studies which
validated the tests of spatial ability and other selection
tests against criteria of success in technical courses in
a secondary technical school and in a variety of courses
in grammar schools. In general, the results present a
strong case for the validity of spatial tests in predicting
success in various technical skills. Of particular inter
est, however, was the general finding that pupils who per
form well on verbal tests, relative to spatial tests, tend
to do well in subjects in which the usual criterion for
success is based on a written or essay type of examination.
On the other hand, students who perform well on spatial
tests, relative to verbal tests, do well in subjects in
which the criterion of success is based upon the execution
of an actual job or work such as in technical drawing,
mathematics, art, mechanical science, and woodwork. The
difference in criterion measures would seem to be quite
important. It is possible that much of the confusion found
in the various validity studies can be attributed to the
confusion and uncertainty as to what a particular criterion
measure actually represents.
Figural abilities have also been found important in
the various classification and screening programs employed
by the military services. It is significant that all the
services include some spatial tests in their initial selec
tion and classification procedures. Although it is diffi
cult to compare the various batteries, a study by Zachert
10
(1952) would seem to indicate that they all attempt to
measure the factor CFT.
There is a tendency, particularly in the Air Force,
to increase the number of figural measures at each level of
personnel classification. For example, the purpose of the
Airman Qualifying Examination is to provide measures of
aptitude in order to predict successful completion of tech
nical training. In accordance with various validity
studies, measures defining three figural factors were
included in the Airman Qualifying Examination (Lecznar,
1963). The three factors can be seen as EFU, CFT, and NFT
in terms of the Structure of Intellect. The Air Force
Officer's Qualifying Examination adds the factor CFS to
those listed above (Guilford § Lacey, 1947).
It should be noted that many of the tests utilized
by the services today are based on tests and research
undertaken during World War II. There has been a consider
able lack in the development of new measures.
There certainly has been no dearth of studies
involving the spatial abilities. Yet, as Smith (1964)
states in the conclusion of his book:
At the present time, there is a developing educational
crisis, because of the unsatisfied demand for personnel
trained in all fields in which spatial ability is of
fundamental importance. The technical revolution has
put a premium on spatial ability at all levels, whether
required for tile-laying or for topology. It is
strange that in this situation there appears to be some
reluctance on the part of educationists to accept the
positive evidence for the value of spatial tests for
11
educational guidance and selection. It is as if this
evidence, like that pertaining to the unconscious,
related to a kind of knowledge which is unwelcome to
the majority of educationists [p. 299].
It is not illogical to suggest that much of the
hesitancy to utilize the research on spatial abilities
arises from the lack of organization in the field. It is
one thing to recognize the importance of general spatial
concepts in various areas, it is quite another to delimit
effectively which spatial abilities are related to which
specific jobs. As of now, the research strongly indicates
that spatial abilities are important, but their relation
to various areas can only be connected by means of the
specific test utilized, or, in some cases, to a few well-
known cognitive factors.
It is here that the Structure-of-Intellect model
offers a significant contribution. The value of a theoret
ical background for the entire field of aptitude measures
cannot be denied. Research undertaken in accordance with
theory has the added advantage of precise control. With a
clearly presented structure for the aptitudes in the fig
ural area, greater agreement and generality could be
achieved in validity studies. In a like manner, the knowl
edge concerning the skill or course predicted should be
increased.
Guilford, Hoepfner, and Petersen (1965), in a
recent study on the prediction of success in high-school
12
mathematics and algebra (no figural tests were included),
reported a tendency for factor tests to predict better
than the more general standard test when the level of
mathematics predicted increased. This tendency, taken
along with the evidence that spatial abilities become more
important as the technical complexity or level of the task,
be it mathematics, engineering, or woodwork, increases
(Smith, 1964), emphasizes all the more the need for factor
constructs in the figural area.
An additional advantage of the Structure-of-
Intellect model comes from the fact that it ascribes full
intellectual status to the figural area. Many writers
(Arnheim, 1965; Smith, 1964) have bewailed the fact that
spatial ability has not been considered as indicative of
general competence as has verbal ability. However, more
and more, the idea of visual thinking is gaining promi
nence. It has begun to be recognized that spatial aptitude
relates to far more than specific courses high in spatial
content, that in actuality people who have these abilities
tend to reason in a style different from those that do not.
Most important is the fact that this figural thinking is
to be seen as just as sophisticated, as just as logically
tight as the conceptual thought processes carried out on
verbal material. As Arnheim (1965) states when discussing
various figural activities,
Visual thinking is constantly used by everybody. . . .
In all these instances the elements of a problem
situation are changed, rearranged, and transformed; the
emphasis is shifted, new functions are assigned, new
connections are discovered. Such operations, under
taken with a view to attaining solutions, constitute
what is known as thinking. And yet, many educators
and psychologists are still reluctant to admit that
perceptual thought processes are as exacting and inven
tive and require as much intelligence as the handling
of intellectual concepts [pp. 1-2].
It should be noted along these lines that while the
Structure of Intellect has parallel semantic, symbolic, and
behavioral abilities that correspond to the figural abili
ties, the parallelism does not mean that the description of
the process engaged in by the organism must be the same.
Full recognition is given to the fact that variation in
content often produces profound variation in the thought
processes required of the organism.
These facts speak for the importance of a compre
hensive study of figural and spatial factors. It should
also be mentioned that there are strong suggestions that
the as yet unidentified factors of figural evaluation will
be of considerable predictive importance. As examined in
a later section, the definition for evaluation utilized in
the present study can be closely aligned with the process
of verification often employed in describing the last
stage of problem solving or creative production (Dewey,
1910; Merrifield, Guilford, Christensen, § Frick, 1962).
Guilford (1966), in his model for creative problem solving,
maintains that evaluation abilities operate throughout the
14
entire process and not just in the final stages. He states
that, in general, the operation of evaluation performs a
filtering function, helping to select information and to
accept or reject information from the operations of cogni
tion and production.
In either case, there is good reason to believe
that the evaluation abilities will be of value in many
figural problem-solving situations, whether it be a
specific problem or such general problems as those faced
by architects, engineers, or pilots.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Background of the Figural Area
Tests designed to assess spatial ability appeared
very early. Guilford (1967) reports that tests of a fig
ural nature appeared in Binet's first battery. It is
interesting to note that in 1907, E. Sequin designed a form
board test, not for measurement purposes but as a rehabili
tative device for improving the sensory functioning of the
feebleminded (Guilford, 1967). Variations of this test
are still in use today, often as a measure of CFT, although
it is probably complex, having both CFS and CFT variance.
With the advent of factor-analytic techniques,
spatial tests soon defined a spatial factor. Spearman, in
his book Abilities of Man (1927), presented considerable
evidence for the existence of a spatial factor, but was
reluctant to recognize it as a separate entity apart from
Mg," or general ability.
In 1935, El Koussy conducted a comprehensive inves
tigation. His battery of 28 tests included many spatial
16
and mechanical tests along with reference tests known to
measure "g.M El Koussy concluded that spatial tests were
primarily tests of "g," but that some spatial tests
involved a group factor over and above theiT MgM content.
The spatial factor was called the "k" factor and through
means of introspective reports from the subjects, El Koussy
hypothesized that spatial tests with "k" loadings required
the use of visual imagery for their solution, whereas those
without "k" loadings depended on a process of generaliza
tion and abstraction without the use of visual imagery.
About the same time that the Mk" factor was receiv
ing considerable attention, other investigators (Alexander,
1935) separated a group factor that seemed to be common to
a number of performance tests. The factor was labeled "F"
and generally believed to involve practical ability. In
1940, Price conducted an investigation with the specific
intent of clarifying the domains of the "F" and "k" fac
tors. Price's battery of tests included both performance
tests, similar to t^hose used by Alexander, and paper-and-
pencil spatial tests similar to those used by El Koussy.
Price concluded that the factor found apart from "g" in
performance tests was the same as the factor found in space
tests. The only exception was when the performance test
involved no spatial relations (i.e., when the subject was
blindfolded).
17
The name "k" factor was henceforth applied, in
Britain, to describe spatial variance in both performance
and paper-and-pencil tests. Smith (1964) refined the
definition of the factor as depending "critically on an
ability to distinguish a particular configuration from
others which differ in shape or form [p. 96]." The "k"
factor remains today, in Britain, as the one factor, apart
from "g," used to describe the spatial variance in tests.
All other types of spatial operations are seen as mere
subdivisions of "k".
In America, the development of the spatial domain
proceeded along somewhat different lines, perhaps due to
the influence of Thurstone's method of multiple factor
analysis and the preference for rotation of factors.
Kelley (1928) felt that the ubiquitousness of "g" was
primarily due to the failure to supply sufficient controls
on such variables as age, sex, and various personality
traits. Using a method for comparing correlation patterns,
Kelley found evidence for two space factors in a select,
in terms of academic ability, group of third graders. One
factor involved the sensing and retention of geometric
forms and can be aligned somewhat to MFU. Kelley described
the second factor as requiring the manipulation of forms.
It was best represented by a test that can be seen as a
variation of the Form Board Test (CFT, CFS). The two
factors were weakly confirmed in a study of kindergarten
18
students, but collapsed in a sample of regular third-grade
students and in a sample of seventh graders.
There still was a tendency, however (primarily
due to Gestalt tradition), to view psychological or mental
operations as the same regardless of the particular content
of the material operated upon. In 1933, G. M. Smith
offered some concrete evidence on this point. He designed
a batteiyof tests in such a way that the tests could either
be grouped together on the basis of content (verbal,
numerical, or figural) or on the bdsis of form or operation
(analogies, general classification, or construction). The
results showed that greater similarity existed between
tests having the same content. In other words, the tests
tended to cluster on the basis of content rather than
operation.
In 1938, L. L. Thurstone published his study on
the Primary Mental Abilities. He extracted 13 orthogonal
factors, seven of which he interpreted. Of these seven,
he felt four were fairly clear (verbal, number, space, and
memory). The three less clear factors were tentatively
identified as a perceptual factor, a word factor, and an
inductive factor. Thurstone's space factor was defined by
a number of tests such as Cubes, Flags, Lozenges B, and
Surface Development, as well as some verbal tests.
Thurstone interpreted the space factor as facility in visual
and spatial imagery.
19
Shortly thereafter, Thurstone conducted a separate
study on the perceptual factor (1938b). He operated on
the hypothesis that the perceptual factor involved the dis
covery and identification of perceptual detail. Tests of
a semantic, symbolic, and figural nature were designed
specifically to investigate this hypothesis. The results
gave proof of the existence of what was later termed the
perceptual-speed factor. The factor perceptual speed was
discovered many times in the Army Air Force (AAF) studies
(Guilford § Lacey, 1947), and can be somewhat aligned with
the factor EFU (evaluation of figural units). Now, how
ever, it can be seen that perceptual speed at that time
was actually a confounding of three factors, EMU, ESU, and
EFU, a point which shall be discussed in greater detail in
the next section.
In 1944, Thurstone turned his attention to the
perceptual field and factor analyzed a number of perceptual
tasks, many of which had a distinct spatial nature. He
found eleven factors, which were obliquely rotated, four
of which are of particular interest here. Factor A was
defined by such tests as Shape Constancy, P. M. A. Space
composite, Gottschaldt Figures, and, to a lesser degree,
Hidden Digits, Street Gestalt Completion, and Mutilated
Words. Factor A was interpreted as the ability to effect
closure from an unorganized presentation or against dis
traction. Factor E, defined by such tests as Two-Hand
Coordination, Hidden Pictures, and Gottschaldt Figures,
was interpreted as the ability to manipulate two config
urations simultaneously; to shake off one set and take on
another, seemingly involving flexibility. Factor F was
seen as speed of perception (not perceptual speed) and was
defined by such tests as Street Gestalt Completion, Mutila
ted Words, and Dark Adaptation (scores on this last test
consisted of the length of time it took an examinee to
recognize a letter projected on a screen after being
exposed to a bright light). The three factors (A, E, and
F) were, surprisingly, not highly correlated with one
another.
The last factor of interest, Factor B, was consid
erably narrower, both in its interpretation and in the
nature of the tests that had significant loadings on it.
The factor was defined by such tests as the Miiller-Lyer
Illusion, the Sanders Illusion, and the Poggendorf Illu
sion, and was interpreted as involving a resistance to
optical illusion in geometric designs. Due to Factor B’s
narrow nature, Thurstone did not feel it would be of
general importance, but felt it was interesting in that it
showed that there was a common optical illusion factor
despite the fact that such illusions usually have low
inter-correlations with each other.
Perhaps the most extensive amount of research on
the figural-spatial area was conducted by the Army Air
Force Aviation Psychology Program. Due to the desire to
classify successfully persons who would succeed in such
jobs as pilot, navigator, and bombardier, many of the tests
developed were figural in nature so as to be in line with
the actual job requirements of these people (Guilford §
Lacey, 1947). However, few of the factors found were
described as being of a distinct figural nature. In many
cases, even though the factor was defined entirely by
figural tests, the possibility of a distinct spatial or
figural ability was not realized, and the interpretation
of the factor was of a general nature. That is, many of
the factors were seen as defining an operation regardless
of the particular content. For example, the factor per
ceptual speed was continually identified in the AAF by the
figural tests Spatial Orientation I, or variations of it,
and Thurstone’s test Identical Forms. The factor was
described as the ability to discriminate rapidly visual
differences in form and detail (Guilford § Lacey, 1947).
The AAF researchers, however, saw no difference between
their factor and that described by Thurstone (1938b) , which
was defined by semantic, symbolic, and figural tests. It
was not until later that some of the factors first discov
ered under the Army Air Forces (AAF) program were success
fully split into separate verbal, symbolic, and figural
22
Other factors, however, discovered in the AAF pro
gram, were immediately recognized as being of a distinct
figural nature. A factor termed visual memory was clearly
discovered in the factor analysis of the memory tests and
was weakly confirmed in two separate samples in the inves
tigation of the perceptual-speed area. A length-estimation
factor appeared two times, in the mechanical test battery
and in the perceptual test battery, the latter involving
two separate samples.
Perhaps the greatest interest that arose from the
AAF studies was due to the discovery of additional space
factors. This discovery was the beginning of a controversy
that is still present today. The situation first arose in
the analysis of the nonverbal reasoning battery, when a
test, Spatial Visualization, originally believed to measure
nonverbal reasoning, split off from the other reasoning
tests and defined a factor of its own, along with the tests
Mechanical Principles and Pattern Comprehension. The one
thing in common to the tests loading on this factor, termed
visualization (Vz), was the requirement of the manipulation
of visual imagery. In the same battery, another space
factor, space I (S^) , was identified, led by such tests as
Complex Coordination and Instrument Comprehension II. The
factor had appeared in previous AAF studies and had
often been interpreted As representing the spatial compo
nent of the Complex Coordination test. Further —
23
investigations on these two factors, Vz and S^, showed
that some of Thurstone's space-factor tests, such as
Punched Holes, Surface Development, and Lozenges, loaded
on the Vz factor while others, such as Cards, Figures, and
Cubes, tended to load on the factor.
Considerable evidence for the separation of the
two factors existed. They appeared together and were suc
cessfully separated in six main AAF studies: the nonverbal
reasoning study, the foresight and planning study (two
samples), the integration study, and the perceptual-speed
study (also with two samples) (Guilford § Lacey, 1947).
The AAF researchers felt that their description of
the Vz factor was very close to Thurstone's (1938a)
description of his space factor, that is, the ability to
utilize visual images or the mental manipulation of visual
images. The Vz factor can also be easily aligned with the
"k" factor described by British researchers. The task of
interpreting the factor, however, remained. It soon
was described as a spatial-relations factor. Tests loading
on the Sj factor involved the spatial arrangements of
right-left, up-down, forward-backward, in either the stim
uli or the responses. Numerous hypotheses were advanced
about the nature of the factor. The most popular
hypothesis was that it involves the ability to perceive
visual spatial arrangements.
24
Further confusion arose when in the AAF's
perceptual-speed analysis, Thurstone's Hands test split off
to define a third space factor along with the tests Cards
and Flags. Although the latter two tests also loaded on
the spatial-relations (Sj) factor, the investigators felt
that a new non-specific factor existed (Guilford § Lacey,
1947). The new factor, space 2 (S2), was tentatively de
scribed as rotational or positional space. Further exami
nation suggested that Si and S2 could be separated along
the lines of directional versus positional discrimination.
A Summary of Early Figural Factors
In 1951, French published a monograph that summa
rized the majority of factor-analytic studies in the apti
tude and achievement area that had been conducted. He then
indicated the factors which seemingly had been identified
and cross-identified with enough certainty to receive a
name. Approximately 59 factors were named, 8 of which
were distinctly visual-figural in nature. These eight
pertinent factors and French's description of them are
summarized below:
Gestalt Flexibility--A factor comparable to
Thurstone's Factor E found in his perceptual study (1938b).
It is concerned with the "manipulation of two configura
tions simultaneously or in succession [French, 1951,
p. 110]."
25
Gestalt Perception--According to French, a doubtful
cross-identification of Thurstone's Factor F, speed of per
ception, and a factor found by Bechtoldt (1947) described
as "facility in restructuring formal perceptual material
possessing a weak intrinsic structure."
Figure Illusions--Identified by Thurstone's Factor
B found in the perceptual study mentioned earlier.
Length Estimation--A hypothesized cross-
identification of AAF's length-estimation factor (Guilford
§ Lacey, 1947) and a triplet found by H. Woodrow (1938).
French states that his combination was tentative, for the
tasks employed by Woodrow required a more complicated
judgment; that of estimating percentage length.
Visualization--Vi was primarily identified by the
AAF research. French stated that its exact nature was not
clear. He felt that "it is probably the ability to com
prehend imaginary movements in three-dimensional space or
the ability to manipulate objects in imagination [p.
247]." It should be noted here, in contrast, that the AAF
researchers felt strongly that "the important feature of
visualization is not whether one, two, or three-dimensional
movement of the visual image is concerned, but whether
movement of any sort takes place [Guilford $ Lacey, 1947,
p. 295]."
Visual Memory--French stated that evidence for
this factor was quite weak, coming entirely from the AAF
26
research. He felt that the tests loading on this factor
required the memory of an entire visual field.
Spatial Orientation (SO)--Once again French stated
that the nature of this factor was not clear. He identi
fied it mainly from the S2 factor found in the AAF
perceptual-speed battery. French stated that SO seemed to
involve an ability to remain unconfused by the orientation
in which a spatial pattern is presented. French also
tentatively cites three other studies in which he believed
the spatial-orientation factor had appeared. One of the
studies was Thurstone's study on the Primary Mental Abili
ties (1938a). French cross-identifies Thurstone's eleventh
factor with the AAF's space2 « There does seem to be some
support for this cross-identification, in that the leading
test on the eleventh factor was the Hands test with Flags
also loading highly just as in the AAF analysis. The cross-
identification in the other two studies, Woodrow (1939) and
Michael, Zimmerman, 6 Guilford (1950), is quite doubtful.
In the latter study, French cross-identifies the visualiza
tion (VZ2) factor with his spatial-orientation factor.
The original investigators, however, preferred to
describe this factor, upon which the tests Form Board and
Punched Holes loaded, as reflecting a specialized aspect
of the reasoning process termed visual-motor reasoning
for lack of a better name. Michael, et al., believed
that the Vz2 factor was a reflection of the requirement
27
that the response be drawn in. Since two of the authors
were instrumental in the AAF research which first defi
nitely isolated the space2 factor, it seems reasonable to
assume they would recognize the cross-identification of
Vz2 if it was justified.
Space--French cross-identified the AAF space^ or
spatial-relations factor with Thurstone's space factor.
French interpreted this space factor as "the ability to
perceive spatial patterns accurately and to compare them
with each other [French, 1951, p. 2351." It should be
noted that it has been previously said that the AAF
^researchers preferred to align their Vz factor with the
interpretation given by Thurstone to his space factor.
The important word here is "interpretation." The AAF
researchers felt that Thurstone's space factor was a con
founding of their Vz and Sj factors and that the original
interpretation of Thurstone's space factor more appropri
ately described the process required in the Vz tests.
Much of the research in the spatial area following
French's monograph in the early 1950's was centered around
two main controversies. The foundation for these contro
versies had already been laid. One controversy centered
around the spatial-manipulation factors (Sj, S2 , and Vz
versus Thurstone's space factor), and the other centered
around the number and description of closure factors
(Factors A, E, and F in Thurstone's perceptual study).
28
The Controversy over the Spatial-
Manipulation Abilities
In 1953, Zimmerman re-rotated Thurstone's original
solution in the Primary Mental Abilities study, to see if
the data could not be brought into accord with the AAF anal-
yses. Zimmerman found that the Thurstone sp;ace factor could
be split into two separate factors very similar to the
and Vz factors found in the AAF program. This evidence,
along with French's monograph, convinced most investigators
that at least two spatial factors were required to account
for the various spatial-manipulation tasks required of the
subjects. However, there still was considerable disagree
ment as to the precise interpretation of the factors.
Thurstone himself later identified additional space
factors. In 1950 he reported three space factors: Sj, S2 ,
and S3 . S} was defined as the ability to visualize a rigid
configuration from a new position, while S2 was more con
cerned with the ability to visualize when an essential
feature of the visualization process involved grasping the
movement of the parts of the configuration in relation to
each other. Thurstone felt that S3 involved the ability
to orient oneself in the spatial system of which the body
is a part. He felt that the AAF's Sj factor (spatial rela
tions) was a combination of his S^ and S3 factors. How
ever, no complete isolation of Thurstone’s S3 factor from
his Si factor was ever achieved. In 1951 Thurstone
29
recognized the existence of his Si, S2 , and S3 factors
defined as above and a k factor which was defined as the
ability to make left-right discrimination with respect to
the location of the human body.
In 1952, Guilford, Fruchter, and Zimmerman analyzed
tests from the Army Air Forces Sheppard Field battery of
experimental tests with the hope of confirming the exis
tence of the AAF's S2 factor found in the perceptual-speed
study (Guilford § Lacey, 1947). The AAF's S2 is comparable
to Thurstone's k and French's spatial orientation. The
results did not verify the existence of the S2 factor;
instead, a doublet factor consisting of the two parts of
the Object Orientation test, an adaptation of Thurstone's
Hands test, appeared. The evidence at this time indicated
that the k or S2 factor was a very narrow, specific fac
tor involving left-right discrimination with respect to
the human body, but there was still much to be said about
the interpretation of Thurstone's Si and S3 combination
and his S2 and the AAF's Si and Vz.
In actuality, the discussion that follows only
involves two factors. The combination of Thurstone's Si
and S3 is comparable, in test loadings, to the AAF's Si,
and Thurstone's S2 is aligned, according to the test load
ings, with the AAF's Vz factor. However, the interpreta
tion given to the two factors differs according to the
investigators. Some support for Thurstone's interpretation
30
of the two factors is given in a study by Werdelin (1959).
In a sample of boys, Werdelin found evidence for two space
factors differentiating them according to the manipulation
of a whole versus the manipulation of parts.
Michael, Zimmerman, § Guilford (1950) offered two
different hypotheses concerning the nature of the two fac
tors, and conducted two studies, one with college students
(1950), the other with high-school students (1951) , to test
these hypotheses. Michael, et al., felt that the AAF's Si
factor involved the ability to comprehend the arrangement
of elements with a visual system, primarily in reference to
the human body. The subject had to be able to distinguish
whether an element was higher or lower, left or right, or
nearer or farther from another element in the same visual
field. The visualization factor, comparable in test load
ings to Thurstone's S2 , on the other hand, defined the
ability to mentally manipulate visual images; to be able to
recognize the new position of an object after it had under
gone specified movements. The authors report the separa
tion of the two factors in both samples. However, most of
the tests were not univocal. An encouraging sign was that
the leading test for the Si factor, Spatial Orientation
from Part V of the Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey, did
tend to be univocal.
In two papers, Zimmerman (1953, 1954) proposed
three separate hypotheses for the distinction between the
Vz and factors. One hypothesis proposed that the two
factors were on a continuum based on the amount of rotation
of movement required by the test items. If the movement
was slight the subject would tend to move himself, while if
the movement was large, he would find it necessary to form
a mental image of the object and then proceed with the
rotation. A second hypothesis held that there was a diffi
culty continuum. If a test was relatively easy it would
load on the perceptual-speed factor, if moderately complex
on the Si or spatial-relations factor, and if definitely
complex on the visualization factor. The third hypothesis
was similar to that proposed by Michael, et al. (1950) in
stating the factor was essentially concerned with direc
tional discrimination, while Vz was the ability to mentally
manipulate visual images. In Zimmerman's second paper
(1954), he examined the last two hypotheses in greater
detail, presenting some evidence and argument in favor of
the second hypothesis, that which proposed a difficulty
continuum.
At the same time, Michael (1954) suggested some of
the various research procedures that could be utilized in
the attempt to distinguish clearly between the two factors.
Among the methods recommended was the gathering of intro
spective reports by the subjects attempting the various
tests. Studies by Myers (1958b) and Barratt (1952) fol
lowed this procedure. Both studies yielded some
32
interesting information concerning the processes and strat
egies the examinees seemed to undergo when presented with
tasks designed to measure the two factors. Perhaps the
most significant discovery was that the examinees could
utilize different strategies on the same test. For exam
ple, the Barratt (1952) study presented evidence for two
strategies. One strategy involved the attempt by the exam
inee to orient himself with respect to the object, that is,
to rotate his own position to be in line with that of the
object's, which can be seen as similar to the AAF's abil
ity. The second strategy is similar to the Vz ability in
which the examinee mentally imagines the object rotating
in space apart from his own body. The interesting fact is
that not all examinees used the same strategy on one given
test, that is, apparently the test did not force one strat
egy or another on the examinee, which would obviously con
found the factorial structure of the test.
The evidence that different examinees tended to
utilize different strategies on the same test allows a
reinterpretation of the argument and evidence Zimmerman
(1954) presents in favor of the difficulty hypothesis men
tioned above. Even though the factors can be distinguished
on the basis of the operations suggested by Michael, et al.
(1950), the variation of difficulty level might be neces
sary to force on the subject a particular strategy.
33
In 1957, Michael, Guilford, Fruchter, and Zimmer
man summarized and related the space factors found by
various investigators. For review, the tests defining the
AAF Sj_, French's space, and Thurstone's and S3 are com
parable; tests defining the AAF's visualization, French's
Vj-visualization,and Thurstone's S2 are comparable; and
the tests defining the AAF S2 , Thurstone's k, and hesitantly,
French's spatial orientation are comparable. The authors,
Michael, et al. , present a summary table describing the
similarities and differences between the three spatial fac
tors that had been distinguished.
Today, in the Structure-of-Intellect model, the Sj
factor occupies the CFS cell, the cognition of figural
systems, and the Vz factor occupies the CFT cell, the cog
nition of figural transformations. The main hypothesized
difference between the two is very similar to that proposed
by Michael, et al. (1950). CFS is defined by those tests
where the human body serves as the central reference point,
while CFT tests require the subject to manipulate an object
apart from his own body.
The Controversy over the Closure Factors
The second major controversy during the 1950's
revolved around the closure factors. As mentioned before,
Thurstone (1944) identified three factors concerned with
closure: Factor A, speed and strength of closure, Factor
34
E, flexibility of closure, and Factor F, speed of percep
tion.
Bechtoldt, in 1947, identified a factor entitled
facility of restructuring formal perceptual material pos
sessing a weak intrinsic structure. The factor mainly
involved the tests Mutilated Words and Four Letter Words.
It is Bechtoldt's factor that French cross-identified with
Thurstone's Factor F, and called gestalt perception,
describing it as the ability to form closure from an unor
ganized or incomplete presentation. The second closure
factor mentioned by French was similar to Thurstone's
Factor E, flexibility of closure, and was said to represent
the ability to manipulate two configurations simultaneously.
The second closure factor was best represented by varia
tions of the Gottschaldt Figures Test.
Confusion arose due to the fact that Thurstone's
Factor A, speed and strength of closure, was not cross-
identified. Factor A's interpretation involved more than
Factor F, for it included the tasks requiring closure from
an unorganized presentation and tasks requiring closure
despite some distraction. This last task is perhaps best
represented by the test Hidden Letters, where the subjects'
task is to recognize a capital letter concealed in a square
of unorganized dots.
The ability to form closure against unorganized
distraction has never been consistently identified with
35
just one of the closure factors. Depending upon the study,
it has either been ignored, placed with the flexibility-
of-closure factor, or placed with French’s gestalt-
perception factor. Botzum (1951) found that the test Hid-
den Letters had no high loadings on either of his two®
closure factors which he cross-identified with Thurstone's
factors A and E. Pemberton (1952) also reported two clo
sure factors, flexibility of closure and speed of closure.
Neither of these factors included the ability to form clo
sure against unorganized distraction. Roff (1952) found
that the test Hidden Digits, a variation of Hidden Letters,
loaded on his perception-through-camouflage factor, which
was aligned with Thurstone's Factor E. Hidden Digits did
not load on Roff's perceptual-closure factor, which was
similar to French's gestalt perception, in that it was
described as the ability to form closure from an unstruc
tured presentation.
The controversy continues today. Research by the
Aptitudes Research Project at U.S.C. (ARP), prior to the
advent of the Structure of Intellect, indicated that the
essential feature of the tests defining flexibility of clo
sure was the requirement that the subject break down one
configuration in order to form another (Frick, Guilford,
Christensen, and Merrifield, 1959; Guilford § Merrifield,
1960). The factor was placed in the cell NFT, the conver
gent production of figural transformations, since
36
configurations must be redefined in order to solve the
tasks. French's factor, gestalt perception, was placed in
the cell CFU, cognition of figural units.
The ability to form closure against distraction has
not yet been concretely identified with either CFU or NFT.
From the definition and logic behind the two factors, it
would seem that closure against unorganized distraction
should measure CFU and not NFT. A test representative of
this ability was included in the present battery along with
standard tests of CFU and NFT.
Further Figural Factors
While much of the research beginning in the 1950's
was involved in the two controversies mentioned above,
there was also new research which led to the identification
of additional figural abilities. One particular group, the
ARP at U.S.C., under the direction of J. P. Guilford, under
took a continuation of the work begun in the AAF and exam
ined with greater scrutiny the concepts developed there.
It was there that distinctly figural factors parallel to
verbal factors in the area of reasoning and creativity were
first recognized.
A separation between figural and conceptual mate
rial was noted in several analyses of the various reasoning
abilities tentatively discovered in the AAF research pro
gram (Green, Guilford, Christensen, 6 Comrey, 1953;
Guilford, Christensen, Kettner, Green, § Hertzka, 1954;
Kettner, Guilford, § Christensen, 1959). In the 1954
report (Guilford, et al.), the authors state "In our anal
yses a restriction of one reasoning factor to conceptual
material and of a parallel one to perceptual material is
indicated for the first time [p. 323]." In the Kettner,
et al,, study (1959), a cross validation of the previous
studies, the investigators hypothesized and found a sepa
ration between seeing perceptual relations and seeing per
ceptual similarities as well as between the corresponding
conceptual factors. These two figural factors were
eventually placed, respectively, into the cells CFR and
CFC, cognition of figural relations and cognition of fig
ural classes. In the same study (Kettner, et al., 1959),
there was a tendency for the factor eduction of correlates
to split into figural and conceptual factors, but the
evidence was not conclusive.
In a study of the planning abilities (Berger,
Guilford, § Christensen, 1957), a distinctly perceptual
factor of foresight was found separated from a similar
factor of conceptual foresight. Also in this study, a
factor named adaptive flexibility was found which contained
only figural tests. The adaptive-flexibility factor was
seen as involving the ability to change sets or approaches
to problems. The factor also appeared in a study of flexi
bility (Frick, et al., 1959), and once again it was
38
primarily figural although there was still no definite
statement that it was strictly figural. Today the factor
adaptive flexibility occupies the DFT cell, divergent pro
duction of figural transformations, in the Structure of
Intellect, and has been successfully separated from the
parallel semantic factor DMT (Guilford, Merrifield, 8 Cox,
1961; Guilford 8 Hoepfner, 1966a).
The great amount of factor-analytic research con
ducted by the ARP provided the basis for the formulation of
the Structure-of-Intellect model (Guilford, 1958). Table 1
presents the thirty distinct figural abilities now hypothe
sized by the model.
Background of Evaluation
Perhaps the earliest identification of a factor
that seemed to involve a verification process or a com
parison of information was the perceptual factor in
Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities (PMA) Study (1938a).
As mentioned, Thurstone undertook a separate study to fur
ther investigate this factor (1938b). At that time he
hypothesized that the perceptual factor was the ability to i
!
discover and identify perceptual detail, and he developed
a number of tests to examine this hypothesis. It should be
noted that a majority of the tests utilized were of a sym
bolic or semantic nature, so the factor was probably a
combination of what are now described as ESU, EMU, and EFU,
39
the evaluation of symbolic, semantic, and figural units,
respectively. Thurstone noticed that the test Identical
Forms, the leading test in the PMA analysis and now con
sidered a pure measure of EFU, split its variance between
the perceptual and space factors. Undoubtedly this was
due to the lack of other figural tests designed to measure
the perceptual factor and the abundance of symbolic and
semantic tests.
In 1941, Coombs identified a factor he cross -
identified with Thurstone's perceptual factor. The tests
loading on Coombs's factor were all symbolic in nature. The
test Identical Forms loaded univocally on the space factor
with Cards and Figures, once again most likely due to the
lack of figural tests of similar factor content. It was
not until the Army Air Forces research (Guilford § Lacey,
1947) that the test Identical Forms loaded univocally on a
factor termed perceptual speed, cross-identified with
Thurstone's perceptual factor. A primary cause can be seen
in the greater number of figural tests designed for the
factor, particularly Spatial Orientation I, Spatial Orien
tation II, and Speed of Identification, which requires the
matching of airplanes. Still there was no real separation
on the basis of content, for tests of a symbolic or seman
tic nature often had loadings on the perceptual-speed
factor.
In 1947, Bechtoldt, in an investigation of percep-
-tual speed, isolated three factors which would seem to be
the counterparts of ESU, EMU, and EFU, for the tests which
loaded on Bechtoldt's three factors are very similar to
those used to define the three Structure-of-Intellect fac
tors today. Bechtoldt, however, gave them quite different
interpretations. Factor C, which would seem to be the
antecedent of ESU, he described as the "speed of recogni
tion of predetermined symbols in context of discrete dis
tractions." Factor A, which is like EMU, he described as
the "fluency of associational recognition with perceptual
materials," and, finally, Factor Y, which is like EFU, he
described as "facility in organizing simultaneous visual
configurations under distraction of a continued act."
During the 1950's, the ARP at U.S.C. began to divide
the perceptual-speed factor on the basis of content. The
name "perceptual speed" became restricted to those tasks
inherently figural in nature. In a study on evaluation
by Hertzka, Guilford, Christensen, and Berger (1954), a
factor tentatively identified as speed of evaluation was
isolated. No definite interpretation of the factor was
given, but several hypotheses were advanced. Two of the
tests that loaded on speed of evaluation, Word Checking I
and Word Checking II, seemed to require identifying named
objects that possess specified attributes, certainly a task
similar to that required by tests defining Bechtoldt's
factor A (later named speed of association by French). The
speed-of-evaluation factor might have been recognized as a
semantic parallel to perceptual speed at this time, except
for the fact that the third test loading on the factor did
not seem to fit the description above. The third test,
Ratio Estimation, requires judgments of length. The
authors, therefore, preferred to emphasize the speeded
nature of the three tests and suggested that speed of
evaluation might be cross-identified with Thurstone's
speed-of-judgment factor (Thurstone, 1944). The speed-of-
judgment factor was defined by tests with time scores,
consisting of such varied tasks as selecting trait names,
sorting figures on the basis of color or form, and compar
ing large and small weights. It should be noted that a
later report (Guilford, 1957) dismissed Thurstone's speed-
of-judgment factor as being primarily motivational in
nature. The question of the possible separation of EFU,
ESU, and EMU remained, therefore, until two studies under
taken by Nihira, Guilford, Hoepfner, and Merrifield (1964),
and Hoepfner, Guilford, and Merrifield (1964), at which
time separation was confirmed in accordance with the hy
potheses put forth in the Structure-of-Intellect model.
The study of the evaluation abilities was stimu
lated by the isolation of a factor termed "judgment" in the
AAF research during World War II. Since the term "poor
judgment" was used often in listings citing the reasons for
42
failure in pilot training, it was considered important to
develop tests that would seemingly measure judgment. In
the planning and foresight study (Guilford § Lacey, 1947)
a factor emerged, led by the test Practical Judgment, which
seemed to lay claim to the name "judgment" despite its
confounding with general reasoning.
The AAF research program (Guilford § Lacey, 1947)
conducted a special investigation of the judgment factor.
The original judgment tests were highly dependent on
mechanical knowledge. New forms were developed with non
mechanical items. The new tests still seem to define a
factor, but they had considerable reasoning variance. The
items that worked best were work-planning-type items where
a verbally stated problem predicament of everyday life was
presented, with the examinee to choose the best solution
from several alternatives.
A closer examination of the test items revealed
that they often required the examinee to make estimates of
weights, distances, and time needed to carry out stated
tasks. It was felt that this estimation ability might be
the unique component in the judgment tests. Accordingly,
several pure tests of practical estimation, both absolute
and relative, were developed and factor analyzed along with
the other judgment tests. Both work-planning and estima
tion tests had low reliability and the general conclusion
was that the judgment factor had low to moderate predictive
43
validity for pilot selection after the variance due to
reasoning, planning, and mechanical experience was removed.
A judgment factor like that of the AAF was tenta
tively discovered in four analyses by the ARP at U.S.C.
(Guilford, et al., 1954; Wilson, Guilford, Christensen,
5 Lewis, 1954; Berger, et al., 1957; Kettner, et al.,
1959). A special study on the judgmental abilities, now
termed evaluational abilities in order to avoid confusion
with the many connotations judgment has in experimental
and social psychology, was undertaken by Hertzka, et al.
(1954). The preliminary definition of evaluation was "The
awareness of the agreement of an object, situation, conclu
sion, or creation with standards or criteria of suitability
[p. 582)." Hertzka, et al., pointed out that under this
definition a factor termed logical reasoning, found in
previous analyses by the ARP and in the AAF research, might
be more appropriately seen as evaluational, the criterion
being logical consistency. It was hypothesized that evalu
ations could be made in terms of logical consistency, with
either formal or informal logic, and in terms of practical
feasibility, experience, and social custom.
The authors found four factors they felt were eval
uational. One, speed of evaluation, has been discussed
previously and can be seen as a vague forerunner of EMU.
Another, perceptual evaluation, was best defined by tests
that required the subject to judge rapidly the length of
44
pairs of lines or the size of figures. The authors felt
perceptual evaluation could possibly be the length-
estimation factor found in the AAF studies, but also recog
nized its possible relationship to the perceptual-speed
factor, for the leading test for perceptual evaluation,
Ratio Estimation, also loaded on the perceptual-speed
factor.
The third factor of interest was called logical
evaluation and was cross-identified with the logical-
reasoning factor as suggested in the authors1 initial
hypothesis. The tests best defining the logical-evaluation
factor were of the formal syllogistic type. The fourth
factor, termed experiential evaluation, seemed to depend
on the examinee's familiarity with common objects and situ
ations. The common feature here, as in all the evaluation
tests, seemed to be a certain amount of ambiguity which
forced the examinee to make assumptions as well as to take
account of the facts.
Another factor, sensitivity to problems, first
found in a study of creative thinking (Wilson, et al.,
1954), was later believed to be evaluational in nature
(Merrifield, et al., 1962). "Sensitivity to problems"
apparently involved the ability to see defects, needs, and
deficiencies and was described as evaluational in the sense
that being aware of a problem is an example of evaluation.
45
Since the formulation of the Structure-of-Intellect
model and, therefore, the hypotheses of 24 distinct evalu
ation abilities, two major studies on the semantic and
symbolic factors of evaluation have been undertaken
(Nihira, et al., 1964; Hoepfner, et al., 1964). The seman
tic study (Nihira, et al., 1964) utilized a definition of
evaluation similar to that employed by Hertzka, et al.
(1954), Emphasis was placed on introducing uncertainty at
the point of response. Accordingly, care was taken to
present abput equally desirable alternatives from which the
examinee was to choose the '•best'’ one. Five of the six
hypothesized semantic-evaluation factors were found, the
factor EMT not appearing. Three of the evaluation factors
found by Hertzka, et al., were identified as measures of
semantic evaluation. The logical-evaluation factor was
clearly linked to the factor EMI; the experiential-
evaluation factor was confirmed, although weakly, and iden
tified as EMS, and the speed-of-evaluation factor, as has
been mentioned, was linked with EMU. The factor EMR was
isolated and defined by tests especially designed to mea
sure it. The results showed that the factor sensitivity
to problems was not evaluational in nature. Tests for
"sensitivity to problems" tended to load on the CMI or
cognition-of-semantic-implications factor.
In the study on the symbolic factors of evaluation
(Hoepfner, et al., 1964), undertaken at about the same
46
time, evaluation was seen as "a matter of decision con
cerning criterion satisfaction [p. 6 ).M Subsumed under
this definition were two separate views of evaluation:
evaluation as "sensitivity to error" (the absolute judg
ment concerning defects, inconsistencies, deficiencies,
etc.), and as estimation (relative judgments as to which
bit of information deviates the least or the most from the
standard).
The symbolic study differed from the semantic in
that fewer factors of a symbolic-evaluative nature had
been found previously. There was weak evidence for two
factors. One was the factor identified as ESU in the
Hoepfner, et al., study. The antecedents of this factor
can be seen in the studies by Thurstone (1938b) , Bechtoldt
(1947), and Coombs (1941), but as mentioned before, it was
never given full recognition as being distinct from fig-
ural perceptual speed. The other factor, for which there
was weak evidence, was one seemingly parallel to that of
logical evaluation in the semantic area (Guilford, et al.,
1954). The factor was most often defined by the test
Symbol Manipulation, which was a syllogistic-type test
involving letter symbols, rather than words. Symbol Manip
ulation did lead the ESR factor in the Hoepfner, et al.,
study, but no real cross-identification can be made due
to the weakness of the previously found factor. In sum
mary, the study by Hoepfner, et al., was able to provide
47
evidence for all six hypothesized symbolic-evaluation
factors. Such results increased the prospects for finding
and differentiating the figural factors of evaluation.
CHAPTER III
THE HYPOTHESES
The formal hypothesis is that the six figural-
evaluation abilities, predicted from the Structure-of-
Intellect model, exist and can be identified in the sample
population and are independent from each other as well as
from other factors in the model. In addition, it is
hypothesized that the other figural factors in this study,
listed in Table 1, would be confirmed as independent
entities.
The hypotheses are to be tested by means of factor
analysis. Except in cases where the factor was considered
well established, at least three tests designed to measure
the hypothesized factor were included in the battery in
order to ensure overdetermination of the factor axes. An
extensive description of the factors and the tests designed
to measure them is presented in the next section.
In terms of the Structure of Intellect, the main
hypothesis deals with the operation of evaluation, figural
content, and all the products. The underlined terms
require precise definitions.
48
49
The Definition of Evaluation
One of the major problems in the study of evalu
ation as a source of individual differences has been in
developing a precise definition that would enable univocal
tests to be developed for its measurement. Three studies
in the past (Hertzka, et al., 1954; Nihira, et al., 1964;
Hoepfner, et al., 1964) have attempted to define evalua
tion. The various past definitions of evaluation are
reviewed here since much has been learned from their suc
cesses and failures.
In the Hertzka, et al., study, evaluation was seen
as the ability to make "good” or proper decisions to prac
tical or logical problems. More precisely, evaluation was
"an awareness of the agreement of an object, situation,
conclusion, or creation with standards or criteria of suit
ability [p. 582]." Unfortunately, in many circumstances
when this definition was used, no specific criterion for
"suitability" was empirically given and it was left to the
test developer to decide what was "good" or "suitable" in a
particular problem. The common feature of the tests
utilized to measure evaluation in the Hertzka, et al.,
study was ambiguity. The authors purposely designed the
tests so that the examinee had to give the most reasonable
response by not only taking into account the facts, but by
making certain assumptions about the facts.
50
In 1960, with the formulation of the Structure of
Intellect, evaluation was defined as the process of "reach
ing decisions or making judgments concerning the goodness
(correctness, suitability, adequacy, desirability) of
information in terms of criteria of identity, consistency,
and goal satisfaction [Guilford § Merrifield, 1960,
p. 5]." The semantic study (Nihira, et al., 1964) empha
sized the decision process called for in the definition
above. The authors, in accordance with the Hertzka, et
al., finding that evaluation tests employed a certain
amount of ambiguity, utilized the "uncertainty principle."
The "uncertainty principle" introduced ambiguity at the
point of response by making the alternative choices about
equally "good," forcing the examinee to make a decision as
to the "best" alternative. The authors felt that uncer
tainty at the point of response would aid in the separation
of evaluation and cognition, for, in cognition, uncertainty
was traditionally at the point of comprehending the speci
fications of the criteria and not at the point of response.
Results of the semantic study indicated that the
"uncertainty principle" was not always successful. Undoubt
edly, one of the causes for failure can be related to the
old stumbling block of determining, on a universal basis,
what is the "good" or "best" response.
The symbolic study (Hoepfner, et al., 1964) pre
sented a more refined definition of evaluation: as
". . . a matter of decision concerning criterion satisfac
tion [p. 6]." Specified under this general definition were
two different forms or methods of measuring evaluation.
The first, termed ’'sensitivity,” implied absolute judgments
and involved the detection of any kinds of defects, defi
ciencies, inconsistencies, etc. The second, termed
"estimation," implied relative judgments. Here, the exam
inee had to determine which of several alternatives devi
ated the least (or sometimes the most) from the standard.
However, many of the estimation tests, once again, required
the examinee to make assumptions and to select "best"
answers without having any empirical basis for the deter
mination of "best." It seems reasonable that when no
empirical basis for "best" is present, the response elic
ited will be a preference response which may or may not
be related to any ability.
In summary, then, the emphasis on the decision
aspect of evaluation in the first three studies, often led
to a view that evaluation is similar to the type of judg
ment or decision making studied in traditional laboratory
tasks or mentioned in philosophical discussions. The
ambiguity present in the tests of evaluation often resulted
in a subjective preference response which could not be
empirically verified as either right or wrong.
The failure of a definition of evaluation that
emphasized decision making was first noted in the symbolic
52
study and was elaborated upon in a study which reanalyzed
the semantic and symbolic factors of evaluation (Hoepfner,
Nihira, § Guilford, 1966). In the conclusion of the
reanalysis study, a new definition of evaluation which
emphasized comparison was formed: "a process of comparing
information with known information according to logical
criteria, reaching a decision concerning criterion satis
faction [p. 45]."
The definition of evaluation utilized in the pres
ent study was formulated after an intensive analysis of the
previous investigations and preliminary testing in the fig
ural area. The definition employed can be seen as a
restriction of the definition suggested by Hoepfner, et
al. (1966). The present study views evaluation as the
process of comparing information, in terms of known speci
fications , with a given standard of information on the
basis of logical criteria such as identity and consistency.
Special attention will be given to those parts of the defi
nition underlined above.
Preliminary testing in the figural area immediately
confirmed the necessity of changing the emphasis in evalua
tion from decisions to comparison as suggested by Hoepfner,
et al. (1966). It was soon learned, however, that the
important features of the comparison process had to be
specified. The act of comparison, according to Webster, is
the "juxtaposing of items to establish similarities and
53
dissimilarities." The comparison process itself, there
fore, does not specify which of several possible similari
ties is to be considered the most important, or which simi
larity is to be given the most weight when a selection
among several similar objects must be made. The specifica
tion of importance is necessary any time no uniquely
correct empirical basis for importance can be determined
by the examinee.
The problem of lack of concrete specifications most
often arises in the estimation-type test of evaluation
which calls for relative judgments (Hoepfner, et al.,
1964). An illustrative example is provided by the follow
ing item from the test Abbreviations, designed to measure
factor ESI, evaluation of symbolic implications. The exam
inee is to choose one of three alternative words that a
given abbreviation best implies. For example, given the
abbreviation "crnt," select from the following words the
one that "crnt" best implies: crescent, coronation, or
current. The choice of response for this item depends not
so much on the accuracy of the comparison process as upon
the weighting system the examinee applies to the various
observed similarities and disssimilarities between the
implication of the abbreviation and the alternative words.
The keyed response for this item is "current," but it could
just as well be "crescent." The choice of response depends
on whether the examinee thinks having the first and last
54
parts of the word well represented is most important, or
whether he thinks having the first, middle, and last parts
of the word only sketchingly represented is most important.
The decision is obviously an arbitrary one and there is no
concrete or empirical basis as to which is best.
The point of this digression is to emphasize the
need to specify the weight system to be used in the com
parison process. In other words, the aspects of the com
parison process and their relative importance must be
specified. The inclusion of the phrase "in terms of known
specifications" in the present definition of evaluation is
meant to eliminate the possible development of subjective-
judgment or personal-preference tests to measure evaluation.
It should be noted that the restriction "in terms
of known specifications" in no way eliminates the use of
relative judgments typically called for in the estimation-
type test. All that is required is that the aspects to be
used in the comparison process be known. The word "known"
is used instead of the word "stated" because it is possible
that in the semantic area, due to the wide and consistent
use of words, some sort of universal weighting system is
agreed upon. However, evidence for a universal system of
weighting with figural or symbolic material is lacking and
so estimation tests in those content areas should definitely
specify an arbitrary weighting system which all subjects
would be required to use. An arbitrary weighting system
55
allows the variance of an estimation test to be attributed
solely to the comparison process and not to personal
preferences.
A few other restrictions in the present definition
are to be noted. It is stated that the comparison is to be
between information and a given standard of information.
The usual format of evaluation tests employed in this study
presents items of information that are to be compared with
given standard information. There has been some debate as
to whether the standard needs to be presented to the sub
ject (Hoepfner, et al., 1964). The answer would appear to
be yes, unless it can be guaranteed that all subjects are
capable of producing an accurate representation of the
requested standard. However, this guarantee is unlikely,
for in the majority of cases one would expect that exam
inees would differ in the accuracy of the standard they
could produce. Under these circumstances the evaluative
variance of the test would be confounded with cognitive or
memory variance, depending upon whether the distortion of
the standard took place while in memory storage or upon its
original recognition or discovery.
As mentioned before, in the present study the
process of evaluation is seen in the light of the tradi
tional problem-solving model, that is, as a process of
verification, checking or testing information against some
s'tandard information. To avoid confusion, it should be
56
noted that in the semantic study, evaluation was also
linked to problem solving, but at that time the link was
only seen as pertinent in those situations where uncertain
ty was involved: "The operation of evaluation should play
an important role at the last phase of the problem-solving
process if the possible solutions are at all doubtful or
competitive [Nihira, et al., 1964, p. 6]." The present
study, however, links evaluation to the process of verifi
cation (Dewey, 1910) where the final solution is examined
to see if it meets the specifications called for in the
definition of the problem.
The Relation of Figural Evaluation
to Aesthetic Judgments
The present definition of evaluation states that
logical criteria are to be used in the comparison process.
In the conclusion of the reanalysis study, the authors also
restricted the criteria for the symbolic and semantic areas
to those logical in nature, but discussed the possibility
of using aesthetic criteria with figural material. Exam
ples of aesthetic criteria are originality, pleasantness,
and expertness. However, comparisons based on aesthetic
criteria are most likely a matter of personal preference.
In one study (Skager, Schultz, § Klein, 1966) that asked
experts to scale artistic products on such criteria as
general preference, technical facility, and "involvement,"
57
it was found that judgments tended to be based solely on a
preference continuum. Although aesthetic criteria do not
seem in accord with the proposed definition of evaluation,
artistic principles such as symmetry, balance, and perhaps
flexibility, if given proper specifications, can conceivably
be used as standards against which given items of figural
information can be checked according to the acceptable
logical criteria.
Figural Evaluation and Psychophysics
Both psychophysics and figural-evaluation tests ask
the examinee to compare the figural qualities of given
material. However, the similarity between the two ends
there. Psychophysics and the general area of scaling are
in essence methods for determining the examinee’s subjec
tive weighting system. In scaling studies it is assumed,
and desired, that the response depend on the various dimen
sions of the stimuli and on the particular weighting system
applied to these dimensions by the subject. In the study
of the figural-evaluation abilities, the response should
depend only on the accuracy of the comparison process and
not on personal weighting systems.
Evaluation and Cognition
Evaluation requires the comparison of information.
In order to test the comparison process, of course, the
items of information to be compared must be cognized, and
58
in this fact lies the possible confounding of evaluation
and cognition variance. The main solution to the problem
is to make the cognition of the items of information in an
evaluation test very easy. In this way, little if any
variance will arise from the cognition process. Instead,
the variance can be attributed to the comparison process
or evaluation.
Definition of Figural Information
The Structure of Intellect views figural material
as information in concrete form as perceived or recalled in
the form of images. In the present study, attention is
paid only to visual figural material. However, the possi
bility of parallel factors in the other sense modalities
should be recognized.
Many different types of material can be used in the
figural area. Such material as faces, ordinarily seen as
behavioral information, letters, ordinarily symbolic, and
meaningful objects, often semantic, can be successfully
used in a figural test as long as it is their distinct fig
ural qualities and attributes that are utilized.
The Factors and Their Measures
A description of the tests used in the study to de
fine the 23 factors under investigation follows. Addition
al information about the tests, as well as a sample item
from each, is to be found in the Appendix. Considerable
59
test construction was necessary in the evaluation area,
while test revision, selection, and construction was needed
in the cognitive area. Test construction proceeded by
utilizing the Structure-of-Intellect model in two different
ways. One way involved developing tests that were in
accord with the definition given the factor in question by
its appropriate trigram of operation, content, and product.
The second utilized tests developed for parallel factors
in the model as examples for the new tests. Parallel fac
tors are those that have at least two of the three trigrams
in common. In other words, a test which measured factor
ESC could be helpful in designing a test for EFC, since
there is only a change in content. It should be noted,
however, that in the figural area, many tests designed for
the same operation and product as symbolic or semantic
tests are strikingly different due to the content change.
Six separate pretest batteries of evaluation and
cognition tests were constructed, so that the difficulty
level of the tests, their reliabilities, time limits, and
instructions could be assessed. The pretest data also
gave some indication as to whether the test was measuring
the factor that it was designed to measure. The examinees
were in all cases undergraduate students in psychology at
the University of Southern California. Extensive item-
analysis procedures were conducted on those tests that
60
showed low reliabilities and/or which had inappropriate
difficulty levels.
From the results of the pretesting, 27 tests in
the evaluation area and 21 tests in the cognitive area
were selected for inclusion in the final battery. In
addition, 24 tests representing eleven well-established
factors were included for control purposes and to ensure
a comprehensive coverage of the figural area. Of the
eleven factors, seven are in the divergent-production
area, four are figural, and three semantic. A figural
memory factor, a figural convergent-production factor,
and the two well-known factors of general reasoning and
verbal comprehension complete the list of factors included
in the study.
The Factors of Evaluation
The tests of evaluation were developed in accor
dance with the present definition of evaluation, which is
repeated here for convenience. Evaluation is the process
of comparing information, in terms of known specifications,
with a given standard of information on the basis of logi
cal criteria such as identity and consistency. However,
to offer some concrete proof of the necessity of specifying
the aspects of the comparison process, three tests of sub
jective judgment, those with no set specifications, were
61
included in the battery. The subjective nature of these
tests is noted in the discussion of the tests that follows.
Evaluation of Figural Units (EFU)
EFU has typically been identified as the perceptual-
speed factor first discovered by Thurstone (1938b) and
later confirmed by the AAF research (Guilford 6 Lacey,
1947) as well as other investigators. In the preceding
chapter, the history of the EFU factor was traced, noting
its final restriction to the figural area. The EFU factor
has been found in six analyses at the ARP at U.S.C. (Green,
et al., 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954; Wilson, et al., 1954;
Hertzka, et al., 1954; Gershon, Guilford, § Merrifield,
1963; Hoepfner, et al., 1964), and was usually defined by
the tests Identical Forms, Perceptual Speed, or the AAF
tests Spatial Orientation, I and II. The factor has been
conceived as involving the ability to judge whether figural
units are the same or different; to observe rapidly percep
tual detail.
Four tests designed to measure EFU were in the bat
tery. Thurstone's test Identical Forms was chosen, due to
its past identification with the EFU factor. The test
Perceptual Speed, from Part IV of the Guilford-Zimmerman
Aptitude Survey, was not included, for it was felt that it
was too similar to Identical Forms. Both tests require the
comparison of figural objects on the basis of shape and
62
internal detail, asking the examinee to choose the alterna
tive figure that is identical to a given figure. The tests
are highly speeded, requiring the rapid matching of percep
tual detail, which is why the name perceptual speed has
been applied to factor EFU.
The test Judgment of Size employed a new approach
to EFU. It was proposed that shape and detail were not
the only unit properties upon which figures could be com
pared, such properties as size, density, and length could
also be included in the measurement of EFU. Following this
logic, the test Judgment of Size asks the examinee to
select the alternative figure that is exactly the same
size as the given figure. It was also felt that the EFU
ability involves accuracy as well as speed, so the test
Judgment of Size was made a power test. In other words,
the examinees had ample time to attempt every item. In
the pretestings, Judgment of Size had an average reliabili
ty in the high ,50's and showed promising intercorrelations
with the other tests designed for EFU. It should be noted
that preliminary tests requiring comparisons on the basis
of length and numerosity had poor reliabilities and their
intercorrelations indicated that they were specific in
nature, so they were not included in the final battery.
The third EFU test, Judging Figural Combinations,
asks the examinee to compare figural units on both size
and shape. The examinee is to determine whether all of the
63
geometric figures in an item box are contained in a given
or key box. The figures have to be of the same size and
shape, but can be in different positions. The test is mod
erately speeded and requires a scanning ability, for the
examinees are instructed that each item box cannot be care
fully inspected. The pretesting reliability for Judging
Figural Combinations was in the high .70's.
The last test designed to measure EFU, Judging
Specified Figures, was adopted by analogy to Double
Descriptions. The test Double Descriptions was designed
to measure EMU, evaluation of semantic units, and success
fully helped define that factor in the semantic study con
ducted by Nihira, et al. (1964). Double Descriptions
requires the subject to determine rapidly which of four
alternative objects best fits two specified criterion
attributes. For example, given the attributes "round" and
"hard," choose the one object that best fits this descrip
tion: gold, record, steel, or coin (coin being the keyed
answer).
In order to be in line with the present definition
of evaluation, Judging Specified Figures employed a slight
ly different format. It was felt that with figural mate
rial, the uncertainty present in the selection of "best"
would result in a response which depended upon a person's
personal weighting of the importance of the two attributes.
Therefore, in Judging Specified Figures, two figural
64
properties are specified and the examinee is simply to
choose, from a number of figures, those that contain both
specified properties. The test would seem to involve the
ability to recognize the presence of stated figural proper
ties. On this basis, the test Judging Specified Figures
might have some EFC, evaluation of figural classes,
variance. In the tests designed to measure EFC, certain
classes are given and must be used to group figures.
Judging Specified Figures would seem to be a classes test
if the two given or specified properties can be said to
define a class. However, due to its similarity to Double
Descriptions and also due to the fact that the pretest
results were inconclusive, Judging Specified Figures was
entered as an EFU measure. Pretest data showed a relia
bility in the high . 70's or .80's. The intercorrelations,
in some testings, showed a clustering with the EFC tests.
Evaluation of Figural Classes (EFC)
In the Structure of Intellect, classes are items of
information grouped together on the basis of their common
properties. In the cognition area, the examinee must dis
cover or recognize the common property in a set of figures.
The operation of evaluation requires the subject to match,
or compare, classes in terms of logical criteria. In the
typical evaluation test, the examinee is given several
65
desired common properties and is required to determine
which item figures match which common properties.
Two of the EFC tests were developed by analogy to
tests successful in the semantic or symbolic area. Best
Figural Class is analogous to the test Best Number Class
in the symbolic area. In the figural adaptation, four
different figural classes are given: tangents, intersec
tions, parallel lines, and curves. The classes are
arbitrarily given varying weight by stating that each is
worth a certain number of points. The examinee is then to
assign an item figure to a class in which it belongs, and
also in which it will receive the most points. Obviously,
it is possible for an item figure to belong to more than
i
one class; the decision on which class to choose must be |
based on the number of points each is worth. Best Figural
Class had good reliability in the various pretestings,
usually in the high . 80’s or low .90's. Its correlational j
i
pattern indicated it had little cognitive variance. j
Best Figure Pairs is an adaptation of the semantic |
test Best Word Pairs and the symbolic test Best Number
Pairs. In the figural form, the examinee must determine
j
which of three pairs of figures makes the best class. In
i
the figural and symbolic forms "best" is determined by an j
arbitrary ranking of the four classes that are to be con- |
i
i
sidered. The inclusion of an arbitrary ranking system is j
!
necessary to avoid personal-preference responses. The^ j
figural classes to be used in the test Best Figure Pairs
are, in order from best to worst: right angles, parallel
lines, identical shapes, and open figures. It is fairly
obvious that there is no concrete reason for considering a
class of right angles to be "better" than a class of paral
lel lines. The use of an arbitrary ranking system is one
way of specifying the aspects of the comparison process
required by the definition of evaluation utilized in the
present study.
The symbolic test, Best Number Pairs, was not a
univocal measure of the ESC factor (Hoepfner, et al.,
1964). Its major loading was on CSC, cognition of symbolic
classes, with a side loading on ESC, and in the reanalysis
study (Hoepfner, et al., 1966) it went almost univocally
on CSC. These results were not encouraging to the success
of Best Figure Pairs. However, the test Best Number Pairs
included a category or class entitled "no property in com
mon," which probably introduced considerable cognitive
variance in the test. Before the "no property in common"
category could be chosen, the examinee would have to be
certain no possible class existed, and this would seem to
require him to cognize all the possible classes he could
that were related to the item in question. Best Figure
Pairs, on the other hand, contains only pre-set classes and
these are the only classes the examinee is asked to use in
the comparison process. It was believed that the exclusion
67
of a "no property in common" category would eliminate much
of the cognitive variance, and the pretesting results
seemed to confirm this belief. The reliability of Best
Figure Pairs in the pretestings was usually in the low
.80's.
The third test designed for EFC is a new type of
test in both idea and format. Best Figural Class Separa
tion requires the examinee to select the pair of figural
properties that can best sort a group of nine figures.
The specification for the comparison process is that the
classes formed are to be as mutually exclusive and as
complete (by including all nine figures) as possible.
Much has been said about the relationship between
evaluation and cognition. Oftentimes evaluation tests
consist of comparing cognized items of information. The
cognition, of course, is made very easy and the comparison
process is expected to introduce the individual differences.
The test Best Figural Class Separation attempts to use
convergent production in a like manner. Many convergent-
production-of-classes tests ask the examinee to sort fig
ures into classes based upon common properties. At some
point, it seems reasonable to assume, the examinee must
compare possible ways of sorting the figures. It is this
process of comparison that Best Figural Class Separation
attempts to emphasize. The examinee must compare various
ways of sorting nine figures under the specification that
68
the one to be selected is the one that provides for two
distinct classes.
Pretesting showed the reliability of Best Figural
Class Separation to be around .40 and so additional items
were developed for the final battery. The intercorrela-
tional pattern was promising, although its communality was
lower than for the other EFC tests.
The fourth test included for factor EFC, Figure
Matching, is an old test that has never found a factorial
"home." The suggestion had been made that it is a test of
evaluation (Hertzka, et al., 1954). Figure Matching had
appeared in four studies conducted at the ARP at U.S.C.
(Green, et al., 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954; Hertzka, et
al., 1954; Kettner, et al., 1959). In the first two
studies it tended to load on an eduction-of-perceptual-
relations factor, but in the last two studies it had no
significant (over .30) loadings on any factor including
eduction of perceptual relations.
Figure Matching is one of the tests, believed to be
dependent upon the subjective judgment or personal prefer
ence of the examinee, that was included in the present
study for control purposes. The test requires the examinee
to select the one alternative figure that best belongs in
*
the same class as a given figure. The given figure repre
sents a single member class. In the original form, the
instructions emphasized that the alternative with the
69
greatest similarity and the most properties in common with
the given figure should be chosen. The present form elim
inates similarity from the examinee's consideration and
places the emphasis on number of common properties.
The structure of the test Figure Matching is not in
line with the present definition of evaluation. The choice
of the alternative depends on how many common properties
the examinee can recognize, which would be cognitive vari
ance, and on how he ranks the importance of the various
figural properties, which would be a matter of personal
preference. For example, suppose an examinee were trying
to decide between two alternatives, one which he believes
has parallel lines and acute angles in common with the
given figure, the other which he believes has parallel
lines and curved lines in common with the given figure.
His choice, if not just strictly a guess, would obviously
depend on his personal ranking of the importance of curved j
lines vs. acute angles and not on an evaluative ability.
Initial pretesting showed that the test Figure
Matching had no reliability, which is what would be ex- j
pected if the test had keyed answers (keyed on the basis of
i
the test developer's preference) but was eliciting prefer- j
ence responses. However, in the previous studies at the
ARP, Figure Matching had reliabilities which ranged from
.47 to .77. Two separate extensive item analyses were
performed. Many items were revised and new items were
70
developed. At the third pretesting, Figure Matching had a
reliability of .40.
A number of other tests designed for the EFC factor
were not included in the final battery due to poor pretest
results. One, Class Judgment, is mentioned here because
its failure helped to formulate the present restricted
definition of evaluation. The stimuli for Class Judgment
were irregular polygons constructed in a random manner by
a method suggested by Attneave and Arnoult (1956). In the
test Class Judgment, each item consisted of two groups of
three irregular polygons. One of the groups contained fig
ures of greater objective similarity. The objective simi
larity was determined by a variation of a method developed
by LaBerge and Lawrence (1955), which provides for "fami
lies’' of figures to be created by randomly moving one or
more points. Class Judgment had low reliability and pre
liminary factor analysis indicated it was of a specific
nature. In reviewing the uses that had been made of the
Attneave figures, it was found that in most cases they were
used in studies involving the psychophysics of shape or in
scaling studies which were investigating the determinants
of stimulus complexity. The relationship between the Class
Judgment test and subjective judgments elicited purposely
in scaling studies became immediately apparent. From then
on, evaluation tests were carefully designed to avoid the
possibility of a subjective response.
71
Evaluation of Figural Relations (EFR)
Six tests were designed to measure the EFR factor.
The Structure of Intellect defines a relation as a meaning
ful connection between items of information. In the seman
tic area, a relation typically involves an abstraction of
use or function. For example, the two word pairs,
traffic:signal, and river:dam have the same relationship
because a signal can be seen as a method of controlling
traffic just as a dam is a method of controlling a river.
In the figural area, no such relationship of use
or function can be formed without semantic variance enter
ing the test. In the cognitive area, figural relations
have typically involved figural changes either in the form
of trends or in an analogy format. For example, pairs of
figures can be seen as having the same relationship if, in
both, the first figure is whole and in the second it is
divided into equal parts, or if the first figures have
right angles which change into acute angles in the second
figure.
The emphasis on figural changes in defining figural
relations caused some concern as to the possible confound
ing of figural relations and transformations. The trans
formation product has typically been defined as a change
or redefinition of information. There has been some con
founding of figural relations and transformations in the
cognitive area (Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Green, et al.,
72
1953). However, tests designed for the cognition of fig
ural transformations have typically involved three-
dimensional changes or movement emphasizing a visualization
ability. Perhaps the emphasis on three-dimensional move
ment minimized the confounding of the two factors CFR and
CFT. More is said about the problem of separating rela
tions and transformations in the discussion of factor EFT.
Of the six tests designed for factor EFR, four
emphasize the fact of figural changes, but one of these is
a subjective-judgment test. The other two tests are more
perceptual in nature, requiring judgments about the per
ceptual relations between figures.
The test Angle Estimation requires the examinee to
select an alternative angle that is closest in size to a
given angle. The relational variance stems from the
assumption that the two lines of an angle bear a certain
relationship of distance or rate of divergence from each
other. Pretesting reliability, a lower-bound estimate
obtained from Angle Estimation's communality, was in the
.40's, and the correlational pattern seemed promising.
The second perceptual type of test, Perceptual
Relation Judgment, employed a different approach. The
examinee is given a figural trend such as a line decreasing
in length. He is then asked to determine whether various
steps in the trend are equivalent, which forces him to
consider the relationship between neighboring pairs of
73
figures that make up the given trend. Pretesting reliabil
ity for Perceptual Relation Judgment was in the high .50's.
The test Correct Figural Trends was developed by
analogy to two tests, Correct Letter Orders and Correct
Number Series, which were developed for the symbolic study.
In the two symbolic tests, a verbally stated principle is
given and the examinee is to determine whether sequences of
symbols follow the given principle.
The analogy between the symbolic tests and Correct
Figural Trends is not exact, for the symbolic tests were
actually designed for factor ESS, evaluation of symbolic
systems, and did load weakly on that factor. Correct
Letter Orders and Correct Number Series were considered
systems tests, for the stated principle was seen as repre
senting a systematic order. The familiar number series or
progressive numbers test has long been seen as involving
system variance (Kettner, et al., 1959; Guilford, et al.,
1965). However, in the figural area, a series test, Figure
Matrix, has typically helped define the cognition of fig
ural relations (Green, et al., 1953; Guilford, et al.,
1954; Berger, et al., 1957; Kettner, et al., 1959). It
seems logical that figural series are actually relational
trends.
In Correct Figural Trends, the verbally stated
trends can be seen as requiring successive figural changes.
The examinee is to inspect various figural series and
74
determine whether or not they follow the stated trend
exactly. Pretesting showed that Correct Figural Trends
did tend to group with other relational tests. The reli
ability was usually around .50.
The fourth EFR test, Prescribed Relations, is
another early test that had not yet found a factorial
"home." Prescribed Relations asks the examinee to select
the alternative that shows the result of all the verbally
stated changes to be made on a given figure. In the study
by Green, et al. (1953), Prescribed Relations split its
variance between the factors eduction of perceptual rela
tions (now CFR) and eduction of correlates. In a later
study (Guilford, et al., 1954), Prescribed Relations failed
to load on the eduction-of-perceptual-relations factor.
Instead, it loaded on a factor with the test Symbol Manip
ulation, now seen as a measure of ESR (Hoepfner, et al.,
1966) , which was vaguely described as the ability to work
with symbols or figures according to given rules. In the
cross-validation study (Kettner, et al. , 1959), Prescribed
Relations loaded only on an unidentifiable doublet factor,
along with the test Seeing Trends.
An extensive item analysis on Prescribed Relations
resulted in the elimination of about one-half of the old
items, new items being constructed to emphasize the eval-
uational nature of the test. The present form requires
the examinee to compare possible alternative changes with
75
given changes in accordance with the criterion of identity.
Pretesting reliability was in the .60's. Prescribed Rela
tions appeared to separate from the cognitive tests and
cluster with other EFR tests.
The test Identical Figural Relations asks the
examinee to determine whether or not pairs of figures have
the same relation as a given pair. The relations, as in
Correct Figural Trends and Prescribed Relations, are pri
marily in terms of figural changes. Identical Figural
Relations can be seen as analogous to Similar Pairs, a
partially successful measure of ESR in the symbolic study
(Hoepfner, et al., 1964). However, in Similar Pairs, the
examinee is to compare various word pairs, while in Identi
cal Figural Relations, three pairs of figures are each
compared to a given pair of figures.
The last test for the factor EFR, Nearest Figural
Relations, is actually a subjective-judgment test. The
examinee is asked to pick from four alternative pairs of
figures the one which has a relation most like that of a
given pair. The term subjective judgment is applied
because no alternative pair has exactly the same relation
as the given pair, and the examinee is given no set speci
fications as to what is important in the comparison
process. It is obvious that there is no universal hier
archy or scale of figural relationships, and that the
76
closeness of one type of relation to another is a matter
of the examinee's personal preference.
Nearest Figural Relations was included in the final
battery for control purposes: to see how well the
subjective-judgment type of test would fare. It should be
noted that analogous forms of Nearest Figural Relations,
Matched Verbal Relations, and Related Words I were success
ful measures of EMR and ESR, respectively (Nihira, et al.,
1964; Hoepfner, et al., 1964).
Evaluation of Figural Systems (EFS)
The Structure-of-Intellect theory considers systems
„to be complexes of interrelated parts and/or organized
aggregates of items of information. The CFS (cognition-of-
figural-systems) factor is seen as the ability to recognize
spatial arrangements as they would appear from different
positions in the larger spatial system of which the body
is considered the central part or origin. Typically,
tests designed for the factor CFS derive their system vari
ance from the three-dimensional system of space. It seems
logical that tests in which the system variance is supplied
by the figure itself and not by the larger spatial system
should also help define the various figural systems factors
in the Structure of Intellect. Indeed, figure-supplied
system tests do define the divergent-production-of-figural-
systems (DFS) factor, but then, no spatial systems tests
77
have been utilized as measures of DFS. In the present
study, it was hypothesized that both figure-supplied and
spatially-supplied tests would group together on one sys
tems factor. Accordingly, tests of both kinds were
developed for factor EFS.
The test Judging Figural Balance is a two-
dimensional, figure-supplied, systems test. The examinee
is asked to determine which of three types of balance or
symmetry a flat pattern best represents. The three types
of balance are defined and examples of each are given. The
examinee must match the various patterns to one of the cri
terion types of symmetry. Further information concerning
the three types of balance utilized is to be found in
Appendix A.
The idea of using judgments concerning symmetry in
tests of intelligence is not new. Considerable use has
been made of the PATCO, Pattern Completion Test, developed
by Hector (Hector, 1958; Fridjhon, 1961). The PATCO test
is a completion test, requiring the examinee to place a
rectangle in a pattern of rectangles in such a way that the
pattern becomes symmetrical. Thomas (1965) also argues for
the use of tests of symmetry in the prediction of artistic
aptitudes. The test Judging Figural Balance was an attempt
to utilize artistic principles in an evaluation test. As
mentioned before, aesthetic criteria are not appropriate
78
in the study of figural-evaluation abilities, but it is
possible to utilize artistic principles.
There was a possibility that Judging Figural
Balance would have some EFC variance, for its format was
like that of Best Figural Class. Pretesting indicated that
the examinees did not view the three types of symmetry as
figural classes, for Judging Figural Balance separated from
the EFC tests and clustered with the other EFS tests. Pre
test reliabilities for Judging Figural Balance were in the
.80's.
Best Map Placement is another new figure-supplied
systems test. The stimuli are medieval maps, certain por
tions of which have been cut out. The examinee's task is
to determine which of several alternative insets best fits
into each cut-out portion. The criteria for best is the
consistency the inset has with the surrounding area of the
map. The examinee must evaluate the various insets and
decide which one, if placed in the cut-out portion, would
create the most consistent area or terrain. Best Map
Placement went well with the other EFS tests in the pre
testing. Its reliability was in the .60's.
the stimuli for the third systems test, Internally
Consistent Figures, are figures drawn or made from con
nected rectangular planes to represent three-dimensional
objects. Some of the figures are what is termed "impos
sible." In the "impossible" figure, the rectangular
79
planes, which make up the figure, could never, in reality,
be connected in the manner shown. The strategic adjustment
of perspective effects enables the figure to appear con
nected in the drawing. The task of the examinee is to
determine whether the figures are internally consistent,
that is, if they could exist. It was believed that the
task would require the examinee to inspect each figure to
see if it is consistent with the known information that the
figures were to be made from connected rectangular planes.
The figures in Internally Consistent Figures are considered
three-dimensional, but the systems variance arises from the
interacting parts of the figure and not from the larger
spatial system. The test Internally Consistent Figures
was very promising in pretesting. Its reliability was in
the high .70's and it was the leading test on the EFS
factor.
In the last two tests designed for factor EFS,
systems variance is introduced by utilizing the larger
spatial system of which the body is a part. Closest Spa
tial Series presents four photographic views of a scene,
such as one might see when walking down the street or in a
circle around the scene. The examinee is to determine
which end view, view number one or four, is farther away
from its adjacent view. In other words, the examinee must
compare the movement or change in position between views
one and two with that between views three and four and
80
determine which is the greater.
The test Similar Orientations was developed as an
evaluational form of the test Spatial Orientation, one of
the most successful tests for measuring CFS, cognition of
figural systems. The cognitive test, Spatial Orientation,
requires the examinee to discover the direction and distance
a boat has moved in relation to a target. The evaluation
test, Similar Orientation, gives the examinee an example
of a particular change in position and asks him to compare
this change with other changes in position in accordance
with the criterion of identity.
Similar Orientations uses photographs of arrange
ments of wooden blocks as stimuli. The photographs are
presented in pairs, with a change in position taking place
between the upper and lower pictures. The examinee is
instructed that the blocks themselves have not moved, only
his own position relative to them, thereby establishing
the body as the main reference point. The examinee is to
determine whether or not his movement in each of these
alternative pairs of pictures is in the same direction and
the same distance as it is in the given pair of pictures.
Pretesting showed Similar Orientations to have a reliabil
ity in the .60*s.
Evaluation of Figural Transformations (EFT)
A transformation is defined as a change or
81
redefinition of information. As mentioned under the dis
cussion of factor EFR, there was some fear that transfor
mations and relations would be confounded in the figural
area. It was felt that artificial separation between EFR
and EFT would exist, if figural transformations were
restricted to three-dimensional relations. Accordingly,
tests involving three-dimensional transformations and two-
dimensional transformations were included for the measure
ment of EFT.
The test Judging Rearrangements is similar to the
test Jumbled Words, which was a successful measure of EST,
evaluation of symbolic transformations (Hoepfner, et al.,
1964). The symbolic test, Jumbled Words, asks the examinee
to judge whether or not each of five alternative words is
an accurate anagramatic derivation from the given word.
In like manner, Judging Rearrangements asks the examinee to
determine whether or not each alternative figure is a
rearrangement of all of the parts of a given figure. Pre
testing showed Judging Rearrangements to have a reliability
in the high .80's. It had some relational variance, but
strongly led the EFT factor along with Least Movement.
Artistic Interpretations is the final subjective-
judgment test included in the battery for control purposes.
The examinee is given a drawing of an object said to repre
sent its reality and four alternative artistic interpreta
tions of the object. The examinee must choose the one
82
artistic interpretation that is the least distorted from
reality. No specifications are given to direct the exam
inee in the comparison process, and it would appear that
the response depends on the subjective judgment of the
examinee. Pretesting showed a reliability in the .40's.
Artistic Interpretations split its variance between EFT
and EFR.
Least Movement is the one te^fc^j|j|^gned for EFT
that requires the examinee to compare three-dimensional
transformations. In this respect, it is like many of the
tests designed for factor CFT, cognition of figural trans
formations. The most common test for CFT, Spatial Visual
ization, requires that the examinee recognize what a clock
looks like after specified rotations in space. In the
evaluative test, Least Movement, the examinee is given a
picture of an electric iron and three alternative pictures
of the iron after some rotations. The examinee is required
to compare the various rotations of the iron from its given
position and to determine in which alternative the iron has
been rotated the least.
In the first pretesting, Least Movement had low
reliability, so extensive item-analysis procedures were
applied. Least Movement seemed to load univocally on the
factor EFT and went nicely with Judging Rearrangements, in
the pretestings.
83
Evaluation of Figural Implications (EFI)
An implication is an extrapolation of information
usually
. . . in the form of expectancies, predictions, known
or suspected antecedents, concomitants, or consequences.
The connection between the given information and that
extrapolated is more general and less definable than
a relational connection [Guilford 8 Hoepfner, 1966b,
p. 4],
In the figural-spatial area an implication is often seen
as the expectancy or consequence of a certain spatial
arrangement. Utilizing the present definition of evalua
tion, the factor EFI was seen to involve the ability to
compare, on certain specified aspects, various implications
to a standard or desired implication, determining whether
or not they meet the criterion of identity or consistency.
The factor CFI, cognition of figural implications, was
seen as the ability to discover an implication, and perhaps
to utilize this discovery. It was felt that in tests
designed for CFI, there should be a "gap" in the informa
tion with the examinee being required to discover the spa
tial implication of that "gap." For EFI, however, the
examinee should be able to assess the implication easily,
but be required to examine it to see if it meets certain
given rules or criteria. From these definitions it was
decided that two tests, Planning a Circuit and Route
Planning, formerly thought to be measures of CFI, would
instead be measures of EFI.
84
Most Effective Path, which is the new name for the
test Planning a Circuit, was first developed during the AAF
research program as a measure of perceptual foresight
(Guilford 8 Lacey, 1947). Since then, it has appeared in one
study at the ARP (Berger, et al., 1957), at which time its
variance was split between the perceptual-foresight factor
and the adaptive-flexibility factor. Most Effective Path
is a maze test in which the appropriate pathway is obscured
by a network of other paths. In its present form, the in
structions have been changed to eliminate the reference to
electrical circuits. Instead, the maze pathways are pre
sented as part of a game. Certain rules for following the
interconnecting lines are given, and the examinee is to
determine which of five contestants can reach a goal and
return without retracing any line. The task requires the
examinee to compare the various implications of the path
ways to see if they meet the criteria of no retracing. The
emphasis is on examining the implications according to
given rules. There is no "gap" in information. The exam
inee is not really required to discover the implications;
they are present on the page for his careful examination.
Pretest reliability was in the . 70's.
Essential Maze Routes, which is the new name for
Route Planning, was also originally developed in the AAF
program as a paper-and-pencil form of the apparatus test,
Foresight and Planning Maze Test, Cl 405A. In two studies
at the ARP (Berger, et al., 1957; Marks, Guilford, 5
Merrifield, 1959), Route Planning helped to define the
supposed perceptual-foresight factor, although in the
second study its factorial content was somewhat complex.
The stimuli of Essential Maze Routes are line mazes, with
four starting points indicated and a goal in the center.
Situated on various lines of the maze are capital letters.
The examinee must determine through which letter he must
pass in going from each starting point to the goal. The
task can be seen as requiring the examinee to explore
quickly the various routes, comparing them as to their
common points. Once again there is no real "gap" in the
information, the implications of the line maze are present
and subject to examination. Essential Maze Routes had a
reliability in the high . 70’s in pretesting.
In addition to the two tests Most Effective Path
and Essential Maze Routes, three new tests were developed
for factor EFI. The test Best Move Selection was designed
to force the direct comparison of implications. The
stimuli of Best Move Selection are various patterns of
squares. The examinee is given four game pieces, each
with its own characteristic move, and asked to determine
which piece can cover all the squares of the pattern in
the fewest possible moves. The task requires the examinee
to compare the implication of the particular pattern of
squares with the implications of the four game pieces,
86
matching them in accordance with the specification of
fewest possible moves. Pretesting showed Best Move Selec
tion to have a reliability in the .70's.
The fourth test for factor EFI, Judging Figural
Elaborations, uses coded incomplete figures as stimuli.
The idea of coded figures comes from a reasoning test,
102 D-A, developed under the U. S. Air Force. In Judging
Figural Elaborations, the meaning of the code is given to
the subjects. Taking the code meaning into account, the
examinee must determine whether the coded incomplete fig
ure could be one and only one of five key figures, could
be more than one key figure, or could not be any key fig
ure. The task emphasizes the comparison of the possible
implications of the coded figure with the structural impli
cations of the key figures. The reliability of Judging
Figural Elaboration was in the high .50's.
The last test for EFI, Poster Judgment, utilized
six different types of printing. For each item a rectan
gular sign, of given size, is presented along with various
stated phrases. The examinee is to determine which types
of printing, samples of which are given, allow the phrase
to be printed within the sign rectangle. The task requires
the examinee to compare the implication of the size and
spacing of the print with the implication of the size of
the sign and length of the phrase. The reliability of
Poster Judgment was in the . 70's in pretesting.
87
Since two tests, formerly defined as measures of
CFI, were being used in this study as measures of EFI, a
special pretest to examine their factorial structure was
needed. Accordingly, a battery of tests which contained
the five hypothesized EFI tests mentioned above and four
tests designed to measure CFI was assembled. The cognition
tests are described in detail in the next section, and only
a brief description is given here. One of the cognitive
tests, Competitive Planning, is an AAF test which helped
define the perceptual-foresight factor in three studies
(Guilford 8 Lacey, 1947; Berger, et al., 1957; Marks, et
al. , 1959). Another test, Pattern Arrangement, was
developed by analogy to a successful measure of CSI. The
other two tests for CFI were developed in accordance with
the definition of CFI as the discovery of a figural impli
cation.
The data from the pretesting was factor analyzed
and rotated orthogonally to a fixed target matrix of
loadings in accordance with a procedure developed by
Cliff (1966). The procedure provides a least-squares fit
of a matrix to a specified target matrix. Two separate
rotations were made, one to a target matrix in accordance
with the present hypothesis of EFI and CFI, and another
to the hypothesis that Most Effective Path and Essential
Maze Routes were actually cognition tests. The results
88
indicated that Most Effective Path and Essential Maze
Routes were correctly classified as EFI tests.
The Cognition Factors
The Structure-of-Intellect theory views cognition
as the immediate discovery, recognition, or comprehension
of information in various forms. As mentioned in Chapter
I, the figural-cognition factors have been around for a
long time. However, due to the lack of a comprehensive
testing in which all the cognition factors were present,
their separation was considered to be in need of clarifica
tion. The major task in the cognition area was not test
development, but test selection and revision. At times,
however, new test development was necessary, because of
test shortages for some abilities.
Cognition of Figural Units (CFU)
CFU has typically been considered the closure fac
tor which represents the ability to "close" figural infor
mation; to perceive a complete visual form from an
unorganized or incomplete presentation. As mentioned in
the review of the literature, there seem to be two closure
factors. Speed of perception has been seen as CFU, while
flexibility of closure has been aligned with factor NFT,
the convergent production of figural transformations. It
was also mentioned that there was no concrete evidence to
indicate which factor included the ability to form closure
89
against distraction. In the present study, it was hypothe
sized that the factor CFU includes the ability to form
closure against unorganized distraction, and since tests
designed to measure both the CFU and NFT factors were in
the battery, there was an opportunity to investigate this
hypothesis.
The first test for CFU, Hidden Print, is an adap
tation of Thurstone’s Hidden Letters test. The examinee
must identify a capital letter or a number hidden in a
square of dots. Hidden Print requires the examinee to
form closure against the distraction of the unorganized
mass of dots. It was placed in the battery to see if it
would help define CFU, as hypothesized, or NFT. Hidden
Print went with the other CFU tests in pretestings, having
a reliability in the high .50's.
Figure Completion is a new test, involving new
stimuli, but similar in idea and content to the old Street
Gestalt Completion test. Both tests require the examinee
to identify pictures of objects that have been partially
erased. The Street Gestalt Completion test helped define
both factor A, speed and strength of closure, and factor
F, speed of perception, in Thurstone's perceptual study
(1944). In a study at the ARP at U. S. C. (Green, et al.,
1953), Street Gestalt Completion loaded on a factor seen
as a combination of flexibility of closure and speed of
perception. A more recent study (O’Sullivan, Guilford, 8
90
deMille,- 1965) shows Street Gestalt Completion defining
the CFU factor along with Mutilated Words. Pretesting
showed Figure Completion to perform in a more univocal
manner than the old Street Gestalt Completion test. Figure
Completion had a reliability in the .70’s.
Mutilated Words is a test originally developed by
Thurstone. The examinee must identify words in which
parts of each letter are missing. Due to its symbolic
content, there has been some question as to whether it is
a pure measure of CFU. In the study by Green, et al.
(1953), it did load on the combination closure factor with
Street Gestalt Completion, but it also had a significant
loading on a word-fluency factor. In the more recent
study (O'Sullivan, et al., 1965) it did load on the CFU
factor, but no factor similar to that in the Green, et al.,
study was present in the battery. Pretesting showed Muti
lated Words to cluster with the other CFU tests, but not
in a very univocal manner.
The last CFU test, Close-Ups, is a new test in
both idea and content. Close-Ups is based on an idea by
William Hillcourt. It asks the examinee to identify
objects in close-up photographs. The photographs are
taken at very close range, so that the entire object can
not be seen, and the image appears somewhat blurred. Pre
testing showed Close-Ups to have a reliability in the high
,50's and to be a promising measure of CFU.
91
Cognition of Figural Classes (CFC)
CFC is the ability to recognize classes or common
*
properties in items of figural information. The two tests
for CFC included in the present battery were univocal mea
sures of CFC in a recent study on the classification fac
tors (Dunham, Guilford, § Hoepfner, 1966).
Figure Classification presents groups of three fig
ures whose class concepts must be cognized. The examinee
is to show his cognition of each class by matching one of
five alternative figures with it. Figural Class Inclusion
requires the examinee to cognize the common property of
two figures and then to select the alternative figure that
contains that same common property. Pretesting showed the
two tests, Figure Classification and Figural Class Inclu
sion, to have reliabilities in the .50's, somewhat lower
than the reliabilities found in the Dunham, et al. (1966)
study.
Cognition of Figural Relations (CFR)
CFR is seen as the ability to recognize figural
relations between forms. As discussed under the factor
EFR, figural relations have typically been figural changes.
Tests previously used to measure factor CFR, Figure Anal
ogies and Figure Matrix, have often loaded on the visual
ization factor, CFT, or the spatial-relations (SR) factor,
CFS, or tests for these factors have loaded on factor CFR
92
(Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Green, et al., 1953). Part of
the reason for the confused factorial structure was seen
as resulting from the fact that many items in the old CFR
tests contain visualization or system variance. Accord
ingly, the old CFR tests were completely revised for the
present study, eliminating those items that seem to have
system or visualization (rotational) variance.
Figure Analogies is a new form of the old AAF test
by the same name. The examinee is given a first pair of
figures that are related. He is then asked to complete a
second pair of figures, by choosing one of five alternative
figures, so that the relation between the second pair of
figures is the same as the relation between the first pair
of figures. In the AAF studies (Guilford 5 Lacey, 1947),
Figure Analogies was first developed as a measure of non
verbal reasoning and loaded variously on reasoning II and
III, general reasoning, integration III, and slightly on
visualization. In a later study at the ARP (Kettner, et
al., 1959), Figure Analogies led on the eduction-of-
perceptual-relations factor, the forerunner of CFR. Pretest
ing with the new form showed a reliability in the .80's.
Figure Matrix asks the examinee to recognize the
figural trends in the rows and columns of a three-by-three
matrix of figures, and then to select the alternative
figure that could be appropriately placed into a designated
blank cell. Figure Matrix was also utilized in the AAF
93
studies as a nonverbal reasoning test. It was seen to
involve the ability to see rules or principles (Guilford
§ Lacey, 1947). Figure Matrix has appeared in four studies
at the ARP (Green, et al. , 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954;
Kettner, et al., 1959; O'Sullivan, et al., 1965) primarily
loading on the eduction-of-perceptual-relations or CFR
I factor, although also having some system and transformation
variance. Figure Matrix was revised for the present study,
eliminating those items which seemingly required visual
ization or that were so complex that system variance could
I
;enter in.
The last test chosen for factor CFR, Figure Series,
f
i
iis based on a test by R. B. Cattell. In Figure Series,
|
the examinee is given a series of three figures and he
must choose the alternative figure that goes next in the
i
I
!series. The test appeared in one study at the ARP (Berger,
et al., 1957), where it was hypothesized as a measure of
|the ability to extrapolate or predict figural information.
iThe results showed, however, that the hypothesis was not
supported. Figure Series failed to load substantially on
any factor in the Berger, et al*. , study. Due to its fig
ural trend nature, Figure Series was considered as a
potential test for CFR in the present study. The test was
revised so as to eliminate any system or transformation
variance. Pretesting showed Figure Series to have a
94
reliability in the high ,50’s, and showed it sharing its
variance between CFR and EFR.
Cognition of Figural Systems (CFS)
CFS is seen as the spatial-relations factor,
space 1 (AAF) , space 1 (Thurstone, 1951), and space
(French, 1951)', which was the subject of so much contro
versy in the 1950's (see Chapter II). In terms of the
Structure of Intellect, CFS is described as "the ability
to comprehend arrangements apd positions of visual objects
in space [Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966b]." The distinguishing
feature of factor CFS is that the human body is used as the
central reference point in assessing the arrangement of the
objects.
The test Spatial Orientation is from Part V of the
Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey. It was chosen for
inclusion in the battery because it traditionally has
appeared as the one univocal measure of the CFS factor
(Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et al., 1951). The test
Spatial Orientation requires the examinee to indicate how
the position of a boat in relation to a target has changed
from one picture to another. In other words, the examinee
must describe the movement or change in position that has
taken place. Pretesting showed Spatial Orientation to
have a reliability in the high ,80's.
95
Space Positioning is a revised form of an old test
named Spatial Orientation (not to be confused with the
test mentioned above). In Space Positioning the examinee
is given an overhead view of an arrangement of pool balls.
He is then presented with various other views of the balls
and asked to indicate at which point on a circle he would
have to be located in order to get each such view. Space
Positioning, in its older form, appeared in one study at
the ARP (Green, et al., 1953). At that time it led on the
spatial>relations (CFS) factor. Pretesting showed Space
Positioning to have a reliability in the .90's.
Spatial Comprehension is a new test developed from
an old idea. It had never been included in a major analy
sis. Spatial Comprehension gives a detailed verbal descrip
tion of a certain place. From the verbal description, the
examinee is to locate correctly the positions of various
landmarks on a diagram provided for that purpose. The
task of Spatial Comprehension requires the examinee to
orient himself correctly in the spatial system of the place
described in the verbal statement. Pretesting showed that
Spatial Comprehension was a difficult test for most exam
inees. It was included in the battery, however, because
of its novel format.
The inclusion of the test Blocks was an attempt to
utilize a test in which the system variance stemmed from
the figure itself and not from the larger spatial system.
96
Blocks is an adaptation of the test Block Counting devel
oped by L. L. Thurstone. The items consist of a pile of
blocks of which some are lettered. The examinee is to
determine the number of blocks each lettered block touches.
The task was seen as requiring the examinee to grasp or
comprehend the system or arrangement of blocks. It was
hoped that Blocks would be one measure of CFS that did not
require the comprehension of the larger spatial system of
which the body is a part.
It should be noted that many tests, which in the
past were considered measures of CFS, were purposely not
included in the present study. Such tests as Cards,
Lozenges, and Cubes have often been used as measures of
CFS. They were not selected in this study since their
construction is such that the examinee can solve the items
either by the manipulation of visual images or by the rapid
assessment of spatial relations. In other words, these
tests do not force one strategy or another and so would
likely split their variance on CFS and CFT, as they have
in times past (Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et al.,
1951; Guilford § Lacey, 1947).
Cognition of Figural, Transformations (CFT)
CFT, or visualization, was the other factor
involved in the major controversy over the spatial manip
ulation abilities. CFT is described as the ability to
97
visualize how a figure or object will appear after manipu
lation; the ability or facility in manipulating visual
images. As for CFS, the tests selected for CFT were those
which seem to force a visualization strategy.
The Spatial Visualization test is from Part VI of
the Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey. The examinee is
asked to choose the alternative that depicts the way a
clock would look after specified rotations. The rotations
must be done in the order given, which forces the examinee
to create a mental image of the clock after each rotation.
The test Spatial Visualization has appeared in two studies
(Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et al., 1951) in which it
led on the Vz factor, but also had some loading on the
spatial-relations and general-reasoning factors. Pretest
ing showed Spatial Visualization to have a reliability in
the .90’s.
Block Rotation asks the examinee to select, from
five alternative blocks, the one that is a rotation of the
given block. The task seems to require the examinee to
attempt to rotate the given block to each of the positions
represented by the alternatives. The alternative that
represents an actual possible rotation of the given block
is, of course, the correct answer.
Block Visualization is an adaptation of the AAF
test Spatial Visualization III, CI203A, which was in itself
an adaptation of the Verbal Cubes test developed by
J. P. Guilford. Block Visualization gives a verbal descrip
tion of how a block of wood is painted and cut into parts.
The examinee must solve certain problems by visualizing
how the block looks before and after it is cut. The use
of verbal descriptions instead of pictorial representations
in visualization tests was quite common in the AAF studies.
The AAF researchers felt that a verbal presentation would
force the examinee to form a visual image of the object
described. With a pictorial presentation, the examinee
can often attempt to solve the problem by assessing the
spatial relations in the arrangement, which would be a
CFS ability. On the other hand, with verbal presentations,
one runs the risk of a confounding with general reasoning
(cognition of semantic systems [CMS]), and such confounding
was present in some AAF studies (Guilford § Lacey, 1947).
The last test chosen for factor CFT, Paper Folding,
has a long history. Paper Folding is a new form of the
old test entitled Punched Holes developed by J. P. Guilford.
In Thurstone's study (1938a), Punched Holes helped to
define the space factor. In the AAF research (Guilford §
Lacey, 1947), Punched Holes helped define the Vz factor,
but it had some reasoning variance. In four studies at
the ARP, U. S. C., (Green, et al., 1953; Guilford,-et al.,
1954; Wilson, et al. , 1954; Hertzka, et al., 1954), Punched
Holes again had some reasoning variance or some reasoning
tests would load on the Vz factor with Punched Holes.
99
Paper Folding uses as stimuli pieces of paper each
of which is folded and cut in a specified way. The exam
inee is to select the alternative that shows what the piece
of paper would look like when it is unfolded. The task can
be seen as requiring the examinee to visualize the unfold
ing of the paper. It was hoped that the new form would
have less reasoning variance.
Cognition of Figural Implications (CFI)
Prior to the present study, factor CFI was aligned
with the perceptual-foresight factor (Berger, et al., 1957;
Marks, et al., 1959) defined by the tests Route Planning,
Planning a Circuit, and Competitive Planning. As was noted
under the discussion of the factor EFI, the first two tests
are now classified as measures of EFI. Competitive Plan
ning, however, was still classified as a CFI test, in that
it requires the examinee actually to discover an implica
tion.
Competitive Planning was first developed in the
AAF's planning and foresight study (Guilford § Lacey, 1947)
as a test of the ability to plan by deduction. In Compet
itive Planning the examinee must determine the result of
a game where two contestants, Black and White, take turns
filling in the sides of uncompleted squares. The objective
of the game is to complete as many squares as possible.
Certain rules of the game are given. The examinee must
100
determine what the result will be if both contestants make
the best possible moves. The task requires the examinee
to see the implications of each move and he must look well
beyond the step upon which he is working. The game is
designed so that the obvious steps, those that provide
immediate gains such as the completion of one square, are
not always the best in terms of the optimal solution.
Competitive Planning has been in two studies at
the ARP (Berger, et al., 1957; Marks, et al., 1959). In
the first it led on the perceptual-foresight factor along
with Planning a Circuit and Route Planning. The latter two
tests, however, had significant loadings on the factor
adaptive flexibility (DFT). In the second study (Marks,
et al. , 1959), Competitive Planning was complex, sharing
its variance with the general-reasoning factor, a penetra
tion factor, and the perceptual-foresight factor.
The instructions for Competitive Planning were
revised in the present study to make them more comprehen
sible. Pretesting showed Competitive Planning to have a
reliability around .50 and to correlate well with the other
CFI tests.
Circle Continuations is a new test designed for
CFI. The examinee is given a portion of a circle, and
asked to determine by inspection which of five dots would
be directly on the circle if it were completed. The exam
inee must discover the implication or extrapolation of the
101
given portion of the circle. There is definitely a "gap"
in the information which the examinee must fill.
Circle Continuations had an average pretest reli
ability in the high .40's. Item analysis was necessary to
correct the high difficulty level of the test. Circle
Continuations loaded strongly on the CFI factor in the
special pretest of CFI and EFI tests.
Line Continuations is a new paper-and-pencil adap
tation of Poggendorff's Illusion. The examinee is asked
to determine which of four alternative lines is the con
tinuation of a given line. The given line is straight and
curved in about an equal number of items. The lines which
interrupt the given line are also parallel straight and
curved lines. The task in Line Continuations requires the
examinee to bridge the gap in information created by the
interruption of the given line, and the test is, obviously,
an illusion test. It was felt that such illusions and the
resistance to them might be measures of CFI. Illusion
tests have previously been found to measure their own
specific factor (Thurstone, 1944; Roff, 1952), but it was
felt that this could be due to great format differences
and the lack of other appropriate CFI tests in the battery.
There is some evidence that illusion tests in general cor
relate with other tests of a figural-spatial nature. Smith
and Smith (1963) conducted an experiment on the illusion
of parallelism, and found that the degree to which an adult
102
is able to resist the illusion of parallelism is highly
correlated with his performance on paper-and-pencil tests
of visualization. Correlations as high as .98 were found.
Pretesting showed Line Continuations to have a reliability
in the high ,40's, and to load highly on the CFI factor.
The last test developed for factor CFI, Pattern
Arrangement, is similar to the test Word Patterns, a mea
sure of CSI. In Word Patterns, the examinee must arrange
a given set of words, in an efficient manner, into a kind
of crossword-puzzle pattern. The examinee must take into
account the implications of the positions of common letters
in the various words.
In the figural test, Pattern Arrangement, the exam
inee is asked to arrange black and white pieces into a
single most efficient pattern. The pieces are made from
squares and triangles and there are rules as to their over
lapping and combination. The examinee must take into
account the implication of the various pieces, their color,
pattern, and form. In Pattern Arrangement, as in Competi
tive Planning, the most obvious combinations are not always
the best in terms of forming the most efficient solution.
Pattern Arrangement had a reliability in the high ,50's
in pretesting. It loaded strongly with the other CFI
tests, but seemed to have some EFI variance.
103
The Divergent-Production Factors
Divergent production is seen as the generation of
information from given information where the emphasis is
on variety and quantity of output. The two most recent
and comprehensive studies of these factors were by
Guilford, et al. (1961), and by Guilford and Hoepfner
(1966a). The divergent-production factors are included
in the present study as reference or marker factors, to
ensure the separation of the experimental factors from
other factors in the Structure of Intellect. Due to their
well-established nature, the divergent-production factors
and the tests selected to measure them are given only
brief descriptions here, noting those instances where new
forms or scoring methods were utilized. Further informa
tion concerning these factors and the tests can be found
in the two studies cited above.
Divergent Production of Figural Units (DFU)
DFU is considered as the ability to produce many
different figures from certain given elements. Two tests
were included as measures for DFU. The first, Make a
Figure Test, asks the examinee to combine three given fig
ural elements in as many different ways as he can. The
second, Sketches, asks the examinee to produce many recog
nizable objects by adding different figural details to a
simple basic design. Tie examinees are told not to add
104
extensive detail, but just enough to make the object recog
nizable, hoping that the unit property of the test would be
emphasized.
Divergent Production of Figural Systems (DFS)
DFS is the ability to produce a variety of figural
systems from the same given figural elements. The test
Designs asks the examinees to combine any or all of a given
set of figural elements into as many different patterns as
they can. Examinees are given credit any time they produce
a design based on a different principle of organization.
There are numerous possible organizational principles, for
credit is given both when the examinee uses a different
method of combining the elements into individual figures
and when he utilizes a different arrangement or sequence
of individual figures in a pattern. Credit is not given
if the examinee uses the same principle of organization,
but different given figural elements.
The second test for DFS, Monograms, asks the exam
inee to combine three given letters into many different
monograms. Once again, the scoring procedure provides for
credit to be given only when a different system is pro
duced. Monograms are judged to represent different systems
when certain principles such as orientation, shared lines,
and position have been varied. It should be noted that
the scoring procedures for both Designs and Monograms were
105
revised somewhat to emphasize the giving of DFS credit
only in cases where a new system had been produced. It
was hoped that the new emphasis would eliminate some of
the confusion that has existed between DFU and DFS tests
(Guilford, et al., 1961; Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966a).
Divergent Production of
Figural Transformations' (DFT)
DFT has frequently been termed the adaptive-
flexibility factor. It is seen as the ability to operate
upon figural information in revised ways; to be able to
change sets concerning possible ways of solving figural
problems. Match Problems II asks the examinee to remove
a specified number of matches (sides) from a given pattern
of squares or triangles and leave a specified number of
squares or triangles. The examinee is to produce different
methods of solving each problem, and for each different
method credit is given.
The second measure for DFT, Planning Air Maneuvers,
requires the examinee to indicate the most efficient method
for "skywriting" specified letter combinations. A new
scoring guide assigns score values to every possible solu
tion based on its relative efficiency.
Divergent Production of
Figural Implications (t?FI)
DFI represents the ability to elaborate upon given
figural information. In the test Decorations, the examinee
106
is asked to decorate differently two identical outline
drawings. Each different decoration produced receives
from one to four points depending on its complexity and
amount of detail. The second test for DFI, Figure Produc
tion, asks the examinee to add to given simple lines in
order to produce a meaningful figure. Once again, scores
for each item vary in accordance with the amount of mean
ingful detail produced.
Divergent Production of
Semantic Units (DMu)
DMU involves the ability to produce many elementary
ideas appropriate to certain given specifications. Idea
tional Fluency I was developed as an alternate form of the
old test also called Ideational Fluency I, and this is its
first major testing. Ideational Fluency I asks the exam
inee to list as many things as he can think of that .belong
to a broadly defined class.
The second measure for DMU consisted of the fluency
score on the first part of the test Plot Titles. In Plot
Titles the examinee is asked to list as many titles as he !
can that are related to a given short-story plot. The
score for DMU consisted of all the titles the examinee
listed that were clearly related to the plot. In the past,|
the DMU score for Plot Titles has consisted only of the
number of non-clever titles listed. In the present study,
it was felt that all titles, both clever and non-clever,
107
should be included in the measurement of DMU. There seemed
no reason to assume that just because a title was excep
tionally clever, it was not an indication of producing a
relevant idea and thereby DMU.
Divergent Production of
Semantic Transformations (DMT)
DMT has been termed the originality factor, involv
ing the ability to produce a variety of unusual, remote
or clever responses which evidence a reinterpretation of
the same situation or object. The second part of the test
Plot Titles was used as one measure of DMT. Only those
titles that were especially succinct, remotely, but clever
ly related to the plot or which gave the plot a reinterpre
tation or new emphasis, were given credit. The second
test for DMT, Alternate Signs, asks the examinee to draw
different symbols or signs to express the meaning of a
given word. Credit was given for each drawing that repre
sented a different aspect of the meaning of the given
word.
Divergent Production of
Semantic Implications (DMI)
DMI represents the ability to produce many ante
cedents, concurrents, or consequents of given information.
In Planning Elaboration II, the examinee is to list as
many details as necessary to make an outlined activity
work. The second measure for DMI, Possible Jobs, requires
108
the examinee to list as many as six possible jobs that
might be indicated by a pictured emblem.
The Other Reference Factors
Convergent Production of
Figural Transformatioris~"(NFT)
NFT is the flexibility-of-closure factor discussed
in Chapter II. In terms of the Structure of Intellect,
NFT is seen as the ability to break down one gestalt to
form another. It was included in the battery as a control
to ensure the independence of CFU. In addition, its
presence permits the test of the hypothesis that closure
against unorganized distraction is a measure of CFU rather
than NFT. Two measures of NFT were included. Penetration
of Camouflage asks the examinee to circle all the human
faces he can find hidden in the lines of a realistic draw
ing. In Hidden Figures, the examinee must determine which
one of five basic figures is hidden in each figural item.
Cognition of Semantic Units (CMU)
CMU, or verbal comprehension, was included in the
battery as a general control for the detection of any pos
sible verbal variance in the figural tests. Both measures
of CMU, Verbal Comprehension and Word Completion, require
the examinee to be able to comprehend the meaning of words
or ideas. The former is a multiple-choice vocabulary
test, while the latter is a completion test requiring the
109
examinee to define given words.
Cognition of Semantic Systems (CMS)
CMS is the Structure of Intellect's interpretation
of the general-reasoning factor. It was included in the
battery to ensure the separation of the figural tests,
many of which are very complex, from any general-reasoning
variance. In the test Necessary Facts, the examinee is to
determine what information is needed in order to attain
solutions for given arithmetic problems. The examinee
does not have to solve the problems, he just has to recog
nize what additional information is needed for a solution
to be attained. The second test for CMS, Problem Solving,
does require the examinee to solve verbally stated arith
metic problems, but the extent of numerical calculations
is minimized.
Memory for Figural Systems (MFS)
MFS is not truly a reference factor, for its
existence has not yet been firmly established in any major
study. The tests included here were developed as part of
a larger memory study, which is still in progress. The
tests performed very well in pretesting and were included
in the present study in the hope that any confounding of
the evaluative or cognitive figural tests with figural
memory would be noted.
110
All of the tests designed for MFS emphasized the
ability to remember figural systems. Monogram Recall asks
the examinee to sketch monograms that had been presented
on a previously studied page. Orientation Memory asks the
examinee to place buildings in a network of streets so that
they are in the same position as they were on a previously
studied page. Remembering Object Orientation presents
pairs of objects on the test page. The examinee is to
select the one of eight arrows that indicates what the
direction was from the first object to the second on a
previously studied page. The last test for MFS, System-
Shape Recognition, asks the examinee to determine whether
groups of odd-shaped objects have the same position and
orientation to each other as they had on a previously
studied page.
CHAPTER IV
PROCEDURES
The Sample
The battery of 72 tests representing 23 factors
was administered to approximately 250 students enrolled in
the Department of Architecture at the University of Illi
nois at Chicago Circle, at the invitation of the school.
Examinees who failed to take all of the test booklets were
eliminated, reducing the final sample to 188. The statis
tical results reported in the next two sections were based
upon this final sample of 188.
There were two main reasons behind the acceptance
of architectural students for the sample. One reason was
the fact that of the 72 tests included in the battery, 62
were of a figural nature. The pretesting with undergradu
ate psychology students revealed that many of the examinees
were ' ’ overwhelmed*' with the figural nature of the tests
and a motivational and practice problem was feared
if a sample not used to figural material was utilized.
Ill
112
In addition, with a sample less familiar with figural mate
rial, there is the possibility of not detecting differen
tiated abilities. As Thurstone states in his book Multiple
Factor Analysis,
. . . in factorial studies that are made for the dis
covery of an underlying order in a domain, the best
procedure is not to select a random group of subjects,
but rather to select the subjects so that their attri
butes are as diverse as possible in the domain to be
studied [Thurstone, 1947, pp. 324-325].
Architectural students could be expected to be
proficient in the figural area. Since they are college
students, the present sample was probably select, in terms
of general academic ability. In addition, some self-
selection in terms of figural abilities probably existed,
for the examinees did choose the field of architecture for
their major course of study. Since the sample was select,
it was expected that the intercorrelations between the
tests and the factor loadings might be reduced somewhat
from what they would be in a more heterogeneous sample
(Guilford, 1954).
The second reason for using a sample of architec
ture students centered around the possible confounding
effects of sex differences. Sex differences with figural
material have been reported many times in the literature
(Werdelin, 1959; Sherman, 1967). The present sample con
sisted mostly of males, only 13 females being included
in the final sample. It was felt that these particular
113
girls would be highly proficient in spatial material, com
pared to other girls, due to the self-selection in choice
of major study. Sherman (1967) cites a number of studies
that seem to indicate that sex differences in space percep
tion are due to differential practice. If this is indeed
the case, the girls in this study can be expected to be
more nearly equal with boys, in terms of figural abilities,
than with other girls outside of an architectural curric
ulum. Nevertheless, sex was included in the battery as a
control variable.
Administration of the Test Battery
The 72 tests were organized into 16 test booklets,
with the requirements that no two tests representing the
same factor be included in the same test booklet, and that
the time required for each booklet be around 40 to 50
minutes. Total testing time was 12 hours, conducted in
four three-hour testing sessions. Each testing session
covered four test booklets with a small break occurring
between the second and third booklet.
The major testing took place over the eight-day
period from January 12 to January 19, 1968. Two separate
groups were administered the tests in the same order and
with the same administrator. The first group, consisting
mostly of sophomores and juniors, was tested on the morn
ings of Friday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday. The second
114
and larger group, consisting of mostly freshmen, juniors,
and seniors, was tested on the afternoons of Friday,
Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The testing conditions were
adequate for both groups and there was no reason to suspect
any difference to arise due to the varying testing
conditions.
Additional, similar testing sessions were conducted
during the eight-day period from April 3 to April 10, 1968,
in order to obtain data on students entering the school for
the first time in the spring quarter. At this time also,
data was received from seven subjects who had missed one
or two of the previous testing sessions.
Scoring Procedures
All of the tests were scored by hand and individ
ually checked by a different scorer. Scoring keys for all
tests were carefully constructed from guides used during
pretesting and where appropriate, in the case of marker
tests, from standard scoring guides. The answer-sheet
tests were scored according to keys provided for that pur
pose. In most cases, the scores for multiple-choice or
true-false tests were corrected for guessing. The correc
tion formulas applied and additional information concerning
the nature of all the scores are presented in the Appendix.
As mentioned earlier, some of the keys for the
divergent-production tests were revised in the present
115
study. In all cases, the divergent-production tests were
scored and check-scored by people trained especially for
that task, or by those who had previous experience in
scoring divergent-production tests in other studies, for
despite their scoring guides, divergent-production tests
have typically required a certain amount of judgment, for
example, as to whether a response is clever, unusual, or
remote. The keys for the two measures of DFS, Monograms
and Designs, were revised to emphasize the system variance
in the scoring procedure. A new key had to be developed
for the new form of Ideational Fluency I. Responses to
Ideational Fluency I were collected and catalogued with
frequencies being noted as an aid in developing the new
key. Responses to each item were also tabulated for the
DFT test, Planning Air Maneuvers. In this test responses
were given varying credit depending upon their relative
efficiency in terms of actual distance taken to "skywrite"
a pair of letters. In the test Plot Titles, a new key was
not used, only a new method of formulating the total score
for DMU. In the present study, the DMU score consisted of
the total number of relevant titles produced in the first
part of the test, while the DMT score consisted of the
number of clever titles listed in response to the second
part of the test. In the past, the DMU score has been the
number of non-clever titles produced in response to both
parts of the test and the DMT score has been the number of
116
clever titles produced. It was felt that the old method
of scoring tended to force an arbitrary negative correla
tion between the DMU and DMT measures.
There was one exception to the entire scoring pro
cedure. Mean scores were arbitrarily given on the two
vocabulary tests, Verbal Comprehension and Word Completion,
to three students whose native language was not English.
Although English was not their native tongue, their com
prehension of the language was quite good, and they had no
trouble in the other semantic tests or in understanding
the verbal instructions of all tests.
CHAPTER V
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Descriptive Statistics for the Tests
The part scores for each test were punched onto
IBM cards and submitted to a computer program that obtained
the total scores and yielded information on the total-score
distribution and reliability, as well as the means and
standard deviations for the part and total scores. Table 2
presents the descriptive data for the total scores of all
the tests.
The score distributions for five tests were so
badly skewed or truncated that they did not seem to meet
the assumptions of the Pearson-r correlation coefficient.
Accordingly, they were dichotomized as near their medians
as possible. The five dichotomized tests are: Block
Rotation, Internally Consistent Figures, Judging Specified
Figures, Problem Solving, and Space Positioning.
To aid in the subjective process of deciding
whether to dichotomize a distribution, various r-maximum’s,
117
T a b le 2
118
T e st
M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v ia t io n s ,
N a m e a n d C o d e
R e l i a b i l i t i e s ,
M e a n
a n d D i s t r i b u t io n
S ta n d a r d
D e v ia tio n
s o f S c o r e s
R e l i a b i l it y *
F o r m of
D i s t r i b u t io n
1. A l t e r n a t e S ig n s D M T 0 2 B 14. 20 3. 64 . 73 0
2. A n g le E s t i m a t i o n E F R 0 6 A 6. 16 2. 12 . 30C 0
3. A r t i s t i c I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s E F T 0 1 A 11. 86 3. 50 . 35C 0
4. B e s t F i g u r a l C l a s s E F C 0 1 A 17. 04 5. 63 . 81 -
5. B e s t F i c u r a l S e p a r a t i o n E F C 0 4 A 6. 05 3. 19 . 4 6 ° 0
6. B e s t F i g u r e P a i r s E F C 0 2 A 16. 29 5. 06 . 72 0
7. B e s t M a p P l a c e m e n t E F S 0 1 A 15. 5 1 2. 84 . 52 0
8. B e s t M ove S e l e c ti o n E F I0 2 A 1 5 .5 5 6. 08 . 82 -
9. B lo c k R o ta t io n C F T 0 6 A 12. 5 7 3. 60 . 77
10, B lo c k V i s u a l i z a t i o n C F T 0 5 A 1 5 .7 1 6. 55 . 80 0
11. B lo c k s C F S 0 5 A 70. 77 14. 68 . 89 0
12. C i r c l e C o n t i n u a ti o n s C F I 0 4 A 12. 78 4. 37 . 59 0
13. C l o s e - u p s C F U 0 7 A 17. 01 3. 03 . 66 0
14. C l o s e s t S p a t i a l S e r i e s E F S 0 2 A 4. 71* 4. 9 3® . 50° 0
15. C o m p e t it i v e P l a n n i n g G F I0 1 A 1 1. 44 5. 91 . 73 0
16. C o r r e c t F i g u r a l T r e n d s E F R 0 1 A 23. 78 8. 76 . 48 0
17. D e c o r a t i o n s D F I 0 2 B 4 2 . 8 1 10. 05 . 75 +
18. D e s ig n s D F S 0 1 B 16. 78 4. 22 . 81 0
19. E s s e n t i a l M a z e R o u te s E F I0 4 A 25. 43 5. 17 . 82 -
20. F i g u r a l C l a s s I n c lu s i o n C F C 0 4 A 11. 21 4. 01 . 49 0
21. F i g u r e A n a lo g i e s C F R 0 1 A 24. 54 3. 98 . 60 -
22. F ig u r e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n C F C 0 1 A 14. 24 3. 03 . 50 0
23. F ig u r e C o m p l e t i o n C FU G 6A 28. 19 4. 82 . 75 0
24. F i g u r e M a tc h in g E F C 0 3 A 8. 59 2. 84 . 34C 0
25. F i e u r e M a t r i x C F R 0 2 B 16. 1 0 3. 14 . 45 0
26. F i g u r e P r o d u c t i o n D F I0 3 A 26. 66 7. 65 . 84 0
27. F ig u r e S e r i e s C F R 0 3 A 13. 51 3. 44 . 67 0
28. H id d e n F i g u r e s N F T 0 4 B 1 1 .1 2 2. 82 . 7 3 C -
29. H id d en P r i n t C F U 0 8 A 26. 07 2. 86 . 61 -
30. I d e a t i o n a l F l u e n c v I D M U 0 1 D 4 6 . 94 10. 78 . 70 0
31. I d e n tic a l F i g u r a l R e l a t i o n s E F R 0 2 A 19. 93 5. 71 . 39^ 0
32. Id e n ti c a l F o r m s E F U 0 2 A 39. 16 7. 75 . 6 l 6 0
33. I n t e r n a l l y C o n s i s t e n t F i g u r e s E F S 0 4 A 19. 5 1 3. 68 . 52
34. J u d g in g F i g u r a l B a l a n c e E F S 0 3 A 17. 02 5. 52 . 73 -
35. J u d s i n e F i e u r a l C o m b i n a t i o n s E F U 0 3 A 29. 80 5. 48 . 49 0
36. J u d g in g F i g u r a l E l a b o r a t i o n s E F I0 1 A 1 3. 8 1 . 6. 43 . 80 0
37. J u d g in g R e a r r a n g e m e n t s E F T 0 3 A 45. 27* 9. 22 . 73 -
38, J u d g in g S p e c i f i e d F i g u r e s E F U 0 5 A 51. 36 8. 23 . 59
39. J u d g m e n t o f S iz e E F U 0 4 A 22. 93 4. 18 . 46c 0
40. L e a s t M o v e m e n t E F T 0 4 A 14. 36 4. 12 . 51° 0
41. L ine C o n ti n u a ti o n s C F I 0 5 A 1 3. 80 2. 57 . 15C 0
42. M ak e a F i g u r e T e s t D F U 0 2 B 38. 01 9. 66 . 79 0
4 3. M a tc h P r o b l e m s II D F T 0 2 C 1 1. 64 3. 49 . 61 0
4 4. M o n o g r a m R e c a l l M F S 0 1 A 12. 12 2. 40 . 46 0
4 5. M o n o g r a m s D F S 0 3 B 13. 62 3. 89 . 81 0
4 6. M o s t E f f e c t i v e P a t h E F I0 3 A 15. 55 5. 17 . 74 0
4 7. M u t il a te d W o r d s C F U 0 3 A 15. 59 3. 29 . 7 2 C 0
4 8. N e a r e s t F i g u r a l R e lat ions E F R 0 4 A 8. 45 3. 1 1 . 4 1 ° 0
49. N e c e s s a r y F a c t s C M S0 4 A 9 . 7 3 2. 77 . 66 0
50. O r i e n t a t i o n M e m o r y M F S 0 3 A 12. 70 3. 12 . 55 0
51. P a p e r F o ld in g C F T 0 7 A 1 7 .7 8
72. 96
6. 38 . 86 0
52. P a t t e r n A r r a n g e m e n t C F I 0 6 A 1 5. 06 . 74 -
53. P e n e t r a t i o n of C a m o u f l a g e N F T 0 2 B 24. 89 6. 56 . 75 0
54. P e r c e p t u a l R e l a t i o n J u d g m e n t E F R 0 5 A 10. 85 5. 45 . 55° 0
55. P la n n i n g A i r M a n e u v e r s D F T 0 1 C 35. 40 1 1. 51 . 71 0
56. P la n n i n g E l a b o r a t i o n II D M 101B 2 1 .4 3 5. 91 . 66 0
57. P lo t T i t le s D M T 0 1 G ( c le v e r ) 2 .4 1 1. 48 . 4 8 s +
58. P lo t T i t l e s D M T 0 1 G (flu e n cy ) 7. 06 2. 93 . 6 3® 0
59. P o s s i b l e J o b s D M I0 3 B 22. 54
72. 18
5. 13 . 70 0
6 0 . P o s t e r J u d g m e n t E F I 0 5 A 1 3. 94 . 69 -
6 1 . P r e s c r i b e d R e l a t i o n s E F R 0 3 A 1 4 .0 1 2. 93 . 4 5 ° 0
62. P r o b l e m S o lv in g C M S0 5 A 7. 49 2. 33 . 6 9 C - -
63. R e m e m b e r i n g O b j e c t O r i e n t a t i o n M F S 0 2 A 19. 33 7. 13 . 76 0
64. S i m i l a r O r i e n t a t i o n s E F S 0 5 A 15. 37 7. 45 . 72C 0
65. S k e t c h e s D F U 0 1 B 21. 15 5. 23 . 91 0
66. S p a c e P o s it i o n i n g C F S 0 6 A 2 4 . 21 d 5. 16 . 77
6 7. S p a t i a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n C F S 0 7 A 9. 71 4. 91 . 34 0
68. S p a tia l O r i e n t a t i o n C F S 0 4 A 15. 27 10. 41 . 99 0
69. S p a tia l V i s u a l i z a t i o n C F T 0 1 A 20. 00 5. 98 . 84 0
70. S y s t e m - S h a p e R e c o g n i t i o n M F S 0 4 A 18. 36 6. 73 . 36 0
71. V e r b a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n C M U 0 2 D 1 3. 74 3. 69 . 78c 0
72.
73.
74.
W o rd C o m p l e t i o n C M U 0 1 B
Sex
Y e a r in S c h o o l
1 3. 41
1. 94
2. 15
2. 87
. 25
1. 30
. 70C 0
a E x c e p t w h e r e n o te d , a l l r e l i a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e s a r e b a s e d on th e S p e a r m a n - B r o w n e s t i m a t e o f w h o l e - t e s t
r e l i a b i l i t y f r o m s e p a r a t e l y t i m e d h a l v e s .
^ T h e s k e w n e s s o f s c o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s is d e s c r i b e d a s fo llo w s : + + , s t r o n g p o s i ti v e ; +, s lig h t p o s itiv e ; 0,
e s s e n t i a l l y s y m e t r i c ; - . s l i g h t ly n e g a t iv e ; s t r o n g n e g a tiv e .
CR e l i a b i l it y e s t i m a t e b a s e d on K u d e r - R i c h a r d s o n f o r m u l a 20.
^ T o t a l s c o r e s d i c h o t o m i z e d at th e m e d i a n s fo r i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s .
M a n y n e g a t iv e s c o r e s r e s u l t e d f r o m th e c o r r e c t i o n f o r g u e s s i n g .
^ T o lal s c o r e s C - s c a l e d f o r i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s .
^h ^ u s e d a s e s t i m a t e of r e li a b il i t y .
with the test in question and other tests of differing
distributions, were computed in accordance with a formula
presented by Carroll (1961). The r-maximum tells what the
highest correlation between the two tests in the sample
can be, even if they are assumed to be perfectly correlated
in the population. The r-maximum gives an indication of
the amount of distortion which takes place in the Pearson-r
coefficient when the two tests' sample distributions differ
from each other. In the present study, an arbitrary cri
terion was used to aid in the judgment of whether to
dichotomize a test. A test was dichotomized if its
r-maximum was distorted from 1 . 0 0 to a greater degree than
the absolute difference between the standard error of a
zero Pearson-r in a sample of 188 and the standard error
of a zero tetrachoric correlation in a sample of 188. The
criterion was chosen because it was felt that the correc
tion formula which is usually applied to phis and point-
biserial correlations to make them comparable to
Pearson-r's actually over-corrects the correlations.
Therefore, it was considered desirable not to dichotomize
variables. The difference between the standard errors of
the Pearson-r and tetrachoric correlation was chosen as
the criterion, for the solution to the problem of meeting
Pearson-r requirements is to utilize the tetrachoric cor
relation as Carroll recommends. However, the tetrachoric
correlation is more unstable, im samples of moderate size,
120
than is the Pearson-r, so some accuracy of approximation
to population correlations is lost by its use. Therefore,
it was felt that a test would not be dichotomized if the
loss of accuracy of its Pearson-r, in terms of r-maximum,
was less than the loss in accuracy which would result from
using a tetrachoric correlation. To repeat, the loss in
accuracy resulting from the use of the tetrachoric corre
lation was considered as the difference between the stan
dard error of a tetrachoric correlation and of a Pearson-r
for a sample of 188. It should be noted that the criterion
was rather strict; r-maximum had to be around .94.
In addition to the five tests dichotomized at their
medians, three tests were C-scaled (Guilford, 1965) to
normalize their distributions. Typically these tests,
Pattern Arrangement, Judging Rearrangements, and Poster
Judgment, contained extreme scores. The means and the
standard deviations presented in Table 2 for these tests
and those dichotomized are based on the raw scores, that
is, on the scores before transformation.
f
Spearman-Brown estimates of reliability were com
puted on those tests having two parts. Kudar-Richardson
(K-R), formula 21, estimates of reliability were computed
for one-part non-speeded tests. In addition, the K-R
reliability is reported in each case where there was a
great discrepancy between the Spearman-Brown and K-R esti
mates, in the belief that the K-R reliability best
121
represents the reliability of the total scores entered in
factor analysis. The K-R reliability can be seen as repre
senting the average Spearman-Brown reliability if the test
were split into two parts in all possible ways.
The Intercorrelations
The total scores of 72 tests, eight of which were
C-scaled or dichotomized, were punched onto IBM cards along
with scores for the two control variables of sex and year
in school. Intercorrelations for the 74 variables were
obtained as part of the BMD03M factor-analysis program
(Dixon, 1965). For variables that had been artificially
dichotomized, the computer program automatically computes
point-biserial and phi coefficients depending, respective
ly, upon whether one or both of the variables are dichoto
mized. The point-biserial and phi coefficients were
corrected by standard formulas in order to make them better
estimates of Pearson-r coefficients (Guilford, 1965;
Guilford § Perry, 1951).
The intercorrelations for the 74 variables included
in the study are presented in Table 3 (all decimal points
i
are omitted). All the correlations represent either
Pearson-r coefficients or estimates of the Pearson-r. It
|
should be noted that many negative correlations were found, |
particularly between the divergent-production tests and the
various cognitive and evaluative tests. Although the
it
I
1
Table 3 122
Correlation Matrix of 74 Variables (N=188)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
1. . Alternate Signs
05 02 16 03 08 09 03 02 19 10 22 14 06 14 17 20 28 10 11 17 12 21 25 03 50 25 10 09
2. Angle E stim a tio n
05 01 13 06 0B 08 08 08 14 22 09 12 11 10 25 12 11 20 14 17 06 14 02 12 11 15 08 14
3. A rtistic Interpretations 02 -■01 06 -■02 00 07 06 08 10 09 ■ ■ 05 17 17 15 03 02 02 08 14 09 07 13 08 13 07 07 00 06
4. B est F igu ral C la s s
16 13 06 21 37 20 32 29 45 45 18 27 20 27 41 11 07 31 24 39 32 31 28 19 13 32 24 18
5. B est F ig u ra l C la s s Separation
03 06 -■ 02 21 29 10 15 31 26 26 08 10 20 16 26 09 ■ -06 20 23 20 34 09 19 27 05 21 30 04
6. Best Figure P a ir s 06 08 00 37 29 24 27 38 44 32 19 13 21 19 43 06 02 31 31 43 36 22 21 31 08 42 33 15
7. Best Map P la cem en t 09 08 07 20 10 24 09 25 28 28 22 24 14 16 22 10 00 34 19 25 24 32 18 30 18 30 31 27
8. Best Move S election
03 08 06 32 15 27 09 21 29 29 04 07 11 20 35 10 07 34 20 28 10 05 13 23 12 32 19 08
9. Block Rotation 02 08 08 29 31 38 25 21 45 47 16 21 17 21 36 -01 03 33 35 43 27 34 24 38 02 40 21 21
10. Block V isualization 19 14 10 45 26 44 28 29 45 54 28 30 27 32 48 10 04 45 33 57 36 32 26 38 18 55 32 24
11. Blocks
10 22 09 45 26 32 28 29 47 54 27 28 21 40 45 12 22 54 39 44 30 32 24 31 08 52 27 33
12. C ircle Continuations 22 09 ■ -05 18 08 19 22 04 16 28 27 18 00 14 30 10 13 29 13 18 23 30 07 11 15 32 22 10
13. C lo se-u p s
14 12 17 27 10 13 24 07 21 30 28 18 15 21 28 -01 13 23 17 35 15 55 31 16 21 24 24 45
14. C lo sest Spatial Series 06 11 17 20 20 21 14 11 17 27 21 00 15 14 23 -06 -04 24 24 24 26 18 20 20 ■ -01 19 15 17
15. C om petitive Planning
14 10 15 27 16 19 16 20 21 32 40 14 21 14 34 00 10 40 21 26 08 13 23 16 07 29 09 05
16. C orrect Figura I Trends 17 25 03 41 26 43 22 35 36 48 45 30 28 23 34 10 17 46 37 48 40 31 20 34 12 51 36 28
17. D ecorations 20 12 02 11 09 06 10 10 -01 10 12 10 -01 -06 00 10 33 08 03 04 06 08 08 -03 28 12 17 -07
18. r e s i g n s 28 11 02 07 -06 02 00 07 03 04 22 13 13 -0 4 10 17 33 20 03 07 07 05 03 06 12 08 15 03
19. E ssen tial Maze Routes 10 20 0B 31 20 31 34 34 33 45 54 29 23 24 40 46 08 ■20 31 42 20 21 23 34 11 37 25 18
20. F igural C lass Inclusion 11 14 14 24 23 31 19 20 35 33 39 13 17 24 21 37 03 03 31 32 39 20 13 31 04 30 25 13
21. Figure A nalogies
17 17 09 39 20 43 25 28 43 57 44 18 35 24 26 48 04 07 42 32 37 32 25 29 20 52 36 32
22. Figure C lassification
12 06 07 32 34 36 24 10 27 36 30 23 15 26 08 40 06 07 20
39 37 24 13 36 06 33 31 15
23. Figure C om pletion 21 14 13 31 09 22 32 05 34 32 32 30 55 18 13 31 08 05 21 20 32 24 27 17 30 33 34 41
24. Figure Matching 25 02 08 28 19 21 18 13 24 26 24 07 31 20 23 20 08 03 23 13 25 13 27 09 18 26 18 09
25. Figure Matrix
03 12 13 19 27 31 30 23 38 38 31 11 16 20 16 34 -03 06 34
31 29 36 17 09 08 32 26 17
26. Figure Production 50 M 07 13 05 08 18 12 02 18 08 15 21 -01 07 12 28 12 n 04 20 06 30 18 08 23 14 19
27. Figure Series 25 15 07 32 21 42 30 32 40 55 52 32 24 19 29 51 12 08 37 30 52 33 33 26 32 23 36 23
28. Hidden Figures 10 08 00 24 30 33 31 19 21 32 27 22 24 15 09 36 17 15 25 25 36 31 34 18 26 14 36 34
29. Hidden Print 09 14 06 18 04 15 27 08 21 24 33 10 45 17 05 28 -07 03 18 13 32 15 41 09 17 19 23 34
30. Ideational Fluency I
26 03 10 20 05 06 07 12 21 20 16 06 10 01 13 20 12 21 17 21 10 14 19 13 13 33 16 11 -01
31. Identical F igural Relations 00 14 07 22 15 28 18 18 32 24 25 -08 25 08 22 23 11 01 30 26 42 13 13 18 20 11 27 08 12
32. Identical F o r m s 12 13 05 27 14 15 32 17 35 26 39 19 28 10 13 33 10 17 35 .28 32 25 37 18 28 17 34 28 20
33. Internally C onsistent F igures 15 11 07 23 12 12 02 11 17 07 06 09 33 12 05 16 03 01 04
09 21 17 20 25 15 10 24 24 28
34. Judging F igu ral Balance 17 16 11 39 29 34 29 30 31 47 38 30 25 20 11 37 09 -04 38 24 43 26 27 32 28 20 40 38 21
35. Judging F igu ral Combinations 13 16 -08 22 11 23 27 18 28 27 28 20 23 07 09 36 08 14 31 24 35 24 22 04 27 18 36 21 20
36. Judging F igu ral Elaborations 23 08 07 27 18 30 25 20 28 35 29 11 24 24 26 38 17 17 41 23 43 30 18 35 21 19 40 33 21
37. Judging R earrangem ents 11 11 08 32 17 34 30 25 37 44 43 33 30 30 15 46 11 12 39 39 52 35 36 15 28 16 45 35 33
38. Judging Specified Figures -01 30 06 31 10 34 17 14 23 39 49 32 25 17 14 40 02 15 41 31 36 12 22 25 21 -04 33 38 28
39. Judgment of Size 08 -12 05 03 -03 00 17 14 -06 -01 10 05 02 -05 -03 01 07 02 -01 -02 -05 01 11 -03 00 18 09 -01 11
40. Least Movement 13 19 05 16 04 17 21 13 33 19 19 20 25 09 07 18 08 -03 14 13 25 14 26 12 05 17 27 15 12
41. Line Continuations 15 14 06 17 04 15 16 04 10 29 35 39 17 03 12 21 00 17 23 04 16 10 18 12 07 24 20 07 22
42. Make A Figure Test 22 17 00 17 01 08 -03 06 -0 2 09 20 07 17 07 11 11 22 48 13 13 11 10 07 04 12 25 05 20 03
43. Match P rob lem s II 18 02 02 27 28 41 19 18 61 45 49 19 11 16 19 30 14 12 35 32 38 27 24 20 27 18 39 20 15
44. M onogram R ecall 10 16 04 07 13 21 14 18 23 19 20 08 17 20 14 27 12 01 31 23 30 31 13 25 27 07 24 27 26
45. M onogram s 41 05 -03 -08 -06 -01 03 -03 04 04 15 12 06 -04 02 08 29 51 08 -04 09 01 08 11 05 35 15 14 04
46. Most Effective Path 14 12 20 28 23 33 28 29 38 49 50 29 28 24 27 38 05 13 46
29 42 24 27 27 37 13 44 39 28
47. Mutilated Words 15 06 14 15 06 18 12 04 13 12 21 32 30 04 03 13 -01 -04 07
17 18 07 40 07 05 24 14 12 28
48J . N earest F igural Relations 03 06 -07 21 10 24 11 17 36 23 30 05 13 12 13 31 09 04 13
20 32 25 15 11 20 08 31 14 1 <
49. N e c e s s a r y Facts 24 14 13 39 30 40 25 37 39 56 39 24 27 23 30 44 03 05 37
25 46 34 21 23 35 19 46 29 18
50. Orientation M emory 11 13 04 15 09 14 20 10 23 24 26 05 10 04 22 14 12 09 17
18 32 19 16 09 19 08 20 18 IE
51. P aper Folding 12 20 14 34 32 38 40 32 48 64 54 25 35 18 24 48 13 07 52
38 61 37 34 25 51 23 57 38 3^
52. Pattern A rrangem ent 14 12 -05 29 20 38 35 22 46 47 39 17 23 23 27 35 06 04 41
20 42 19 28 16 24 12 41 24 21
53, Penetration of Camouflage 19 15 12 15 01 13 33 00 14 20 21 23 37 11 16 21 13 01 19 14 26 16 41 29 15 29 31 22 2(
54. # P ercep tu al Relation Judgment 03 00 -08 14 06 23 08 10 14 22 17 18 00 -02 16 27 02 -08 20
08 23 17 12 00 09 07 36 17 1(
55. Planning Air Maneuvers 17 21 12 26 07 24 10 19 21 34 40 15 18 15 23 34 15 28 33
21 30 17 23 08 22 08 28 32 2<
56. Planning Elaboration II 33 03 04 14 -02 03 00 13 08 12 13 06 04 02 16 09 29 33 10
06 12 08 12 06 00 26 17 15 0!
57. Plot T itles (clever) 24 21 -03 11 -01 12 06 04 02 12 18 12 12 03 14 15 20 10 06
05 10 17 16 20 -05 17 17 12 0 ‘
58. Plot T itles (fluency) 29 -01 -04 05 -10 -01 00 07 00 -0 2 09 04 00 -13 10 07 25 42 06
-13 10 -05 -01 02 -07 20 08 -01 -o:
59. P o s s ib le Jobs 39 10 06 20 05 09 18 11 15 17 18 12 08 05 17 11 26 26 14
06 10 12 11 21 10 32 16 13 t
60. P o s te r Judgment 10 10 13 16 16 21 14 18 30 28 40 11 26 12 21 29 00 04 25
30 33 30 18 14 26 11 35 20 Z‘
61. P r e s c r ib e d Relations 12 15 08 34 21 14 27 23 26 39 31 15 27 11 19 42 13 03 30
30 38 39 25 05 34 20 36 28 V
62. P r ob lem Solving 15 -04 21 33 30 42 13 30 38 57 36 05 06 29 33 35 -04 00 34
30 38 38 02 14 25 07 44 14 1
63. R em em b ering Object Orientation 10 -02 02 08 22 13 -03 06 12 13 14 14 -05 04 11 11 -04 02 13
16 20 17 04 05 15 02 18 23 1
64. S im ilar Orientations 14 04 11 28 11 31 23 18 33 41 39 14 16 22 24 40 03 12 35
26 31 30 17 21 26 -01 33 23 1
65. Sketches 51 00 07 -01 -05 03 07 00 -05 11 10 22 14 -06 07 01 29 33 01
-06 06 13 14 09 00 51 12 05 1
66. Space P ositioning 22 17 08 39 18 26 32 17 40 56 47 28 22 14 21 34 06 03 46 20 50 24 26 18 23 14 50 24 1
67. Spatial C om prehension 09 01 09 16 17 32 16 21 32 42 24 12 22 09 14 22 10 09 18 27 35 22 12 16 35 14 42 22 1
68. Spatial Orientation 17 24 15 25 19 27 15 30 24 44 35 15 24 23 19 44 09 08 37
26 29 26 23 21 29 17 37 29 1
69. Spatial V isualization 12 24 13 45 16 40 31 28 51 65 54 25 30 25 23 53 02 00 47 31 55 34 35 19 39 10 53 34 3
70, System -Sh ap e Recognition 09 04 05 12 13 17 23 10 08 19 16 09 07 00 12 17 00 01 23
17 29 18 05 -03 23 02 15 16 1
71. Verbal C om prehension 23 17 09 31 19 21 15 20 23 30 19 16 10 04 09 38 26 12 20
30 25 30 20 14 19 26 26 27 0
72. Word C om pletion 20 10 21 30 16 30 14 20 27 37 22 17 23 13 20 43 20 11 24
26 26 27 1 7 24 07 14 28 20 1
73. Sex 10 07 15 21 03 12 01 08 19 22 17 15 28 19 18 10 -12 -08 14
-05
19 02 20 28 -01 11 12 05 1
74. Year in School 09 09 09 13 -02 -04 10 -01 00 07 25 07 14 10 06 03 04 -02 11 -08 12 -02 15 10 -05 16 09 07 .2
JKL
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 51
) 28 10 11 17 12 21 25 03 50 25 10 09 26 00 12 15 17 13 23 11 -01 08 13 15 22 18 10 41 14 15 03 24 11 12 14 19 03 17 3:
I 11 20 14 17 06 14 02 12 11 15 08 14 03 14 13 11 16 16 08 11 30 -12 19 14 17 02 16 05 12 06 06 14 13 20 12 15 00 21 o:
I 02 08 14 09 07 13 08 13 07 07 00 06 10 07 05 07 11 -0 8 07 08 06 05 05 06 00 02 04 -03 20 14 -0 7 13 04 14 -05 12 -08 12 0-
1 07 31 24 39 32 31 28 19 13 32 24 18 20 22 27 23
39 22 27 32 31 03 16 17 17 27 07 -08 28 15 21 39 15 34 29 15 14 26 1'
) -06 20 23 20 34 09 19 27 05 21 30 04 05 15 14 12 29 11 18 17 10 -03 04 04 01 28 13 -06 23 06 10 30 09 32 20 01 06 07 -0.
) 02 31 31 43 36 22 21 31 08 42 33 15 06 28 15 12 34 23 30 34 34 00 17 15 08 41 21 -01 33 18 24 40 14 38 38 13 23 24 o:
3 00 34 19 25 24 32 18 30 18 30 31 27 07 18 32 02 29 27 25 30 17 17 21 16 -03 19 14 03 28 12 11 25 20 40 35 33 08 10 01
} 07 34 20 28 10 05 13 23 12 32 19 08 12 18 17 11 30 18 20 25 14 14 13 04 06 18 18 -03 29 04 17 37 10 32 22 00 10 19 i :
03 33 35 43 27 34 24 38 02 40 21 21 21 32 35 17 31 28 28 37 23 -06 33 10 -02 61 23 04 38 13 36 39 23 48 46 14 14 21 Oi
D 04 45 33 57 36 32 26 38 18 55 32 24 20 24 26 07 47 27 35 44 39 -01 19 29 09 45 19 04 49 12 23 56 24 64 47 20 22 34 l.
2 22 54 39 44 30 32 24 31 08 52 27 33 16 25 39 06 38 28 29 43 49 10 19 35 20 49 20 15 50 21 30 39 26 54 39 21 17 40 i
0 13 29 13 18 23 30 07 11 15 32 22 10 06 -08 19 09 30 20 11 33 32 05 20 39 07 19 08 12 29 32 05 24 05 25 17 23 18 15 0<
13 23 17 35 15 55 31 16 21 24 24 45 10 25 28 33 25 23 24 30 25 02 25 17 17 11 17 06 28 30 13 27 10 35 23 37 00 18 O'
6 -04 24 24 24 26 18 20 20 -01 19 15 17 01 08 10 12 20 07 24 30 17 -0 5 09 03 07 16 20 -04 24 04 12 23 04 18 23 11 -0 2 15 0
0 10 40 21 26 08 13 23 16 07 29 09 05 13 22 13 05 11 09 26 15 14 -0 3 07 12 11 19 14 02 27 03 13 30 22 24 27 16 16 23 I
0 17 46 37 48 40 31 20 34 12 51 36 28 20 23 33 16 37 36 38 46 40 01 18 21 11 30 27 08 38 13 31 44 14 48 35 21 27 33 0
33 08 03 04 06 08 08 -03 28 12 17 -07 12 11 10 03
09 08 17 11 02 07 08 00 22 14 12 29 05 -01 09 03 12 13 06 13 02 15 2
3 20 03 07 07 05 03 06 12 08 15 03 21 01 17 01 -04 14 17 12 15 02 -03 17 48 12 01 50 13 -04 04 05 09 07 04 0] -08 28 3
8 ■20 31 42 20 21 23 34 11 37 25 18 17 30 35 04 38 31 41 39 41 -01 14 23 13 35 31 08 46 07 13 37 17 52 41 19 20 33 1
3 03 31 32 39 20 13 31 04 30 25 13 21 26 28 09 24 24 23 39 31 -0 2 13 04 13 32 23 -04 29 17 20 25 18 38 20 14 08 21 0
4 07 42 32 37 32 25 29 20 52 36 32 10 42 32 21 43 35 43 52 36 -05 25 16 11 38 30 09 42 18 32 46 32 61 42 26 23 30 1
6 07 20
39 37 24 13 36 06 33 31 15 14 13 25 17 26 24 30 35 12 01 14 10 10 27 31 01 24 07 25 34 19 37 19 16 17 17 0
8 05 21
20 32 24 27 17 30 33 34 41 19 13 37 20 27 22 18 36 22 11 26 18 07 24 13 08 27 40 15 21 16 34 28 41 12 23 1
8 03 23
13 25 13 27 09 18 26 18 09 13 18 18 25 32 04 35 15 25 -0 3 12 12 04 20 25 11 27 07 11 23 09 25 16 29 00 08 0
3 06 34 31 29 36 17 09 08 32 26 17 13 20 28 15 28 27 21 28 21 00 05 07 12 27 27 05 37 05 20 35 19 51 24 15 09 22 0
8 12 11 04 20 06 30 18 08 23 14 19 33 11 17 10 20 18 19 16 -04 18 17 24 25 18 07 35 13 24 08 19 08 23 12 29 07 08 2
2 08 37 30 52 33 33 26 32 23 36 23 16 27 34 24 40 36 40 45 33 09 27 20 05 39 24 15 44 14 31 46 20 57 41 31 36 28 1
7 15 25 25 36 31 34 18 26 14 36 34 11 08 28 24 38 21 33 35 38 -01 15 07 20 20 27 14 39 12 14 29 18 38 24 22 17 32 1
i7 03 18 13 32 15 41 09 17 19 23 34 -01 12 20 28 21 20 21 33 28 11 12 22 03 15 26 04 28 28 17 18 15 34 21 20 10 24 0
2 21 17 21 10 14 19 13 13 33 16 11 -01 18 12 03 15 21 15 14 03 -0 7 03 12 30 19 -09 20 14 16 11 23 -0 2 09 16 12 03 01 4
1 01 30
26 42 13 13 18 20 11 27 08 12 18 16 10 25 26 27 24 15 -06 25 04 05 29 16 -03 20 02 13 24 09 38 25 22 13 19 C
0 17 35 .28 32 25 37 18 28 17 34 28 20 12 16 14 22 28 23 34 34 14 06 03 20 27 20 15 39 24 18 17 22 36 18 31 05 07 C
13 01 04
09 21 17 20 25 15 10 24 24 28 03 10 14 20 08 15 17 07 -01 15 -02 06 02 10 08 14 00 14 15 13 09 -06 24 -03 07 1
>9 -0 4 38
24 43 26 27 32 28 20 40 38 21 15 25 22 20 15 38 40 33 05 22 28 03 25 14 06 38 22 12 42 03 54 34 27 09 15 c
>8 14 31 24 35 24 22 04 27 18 36 21 20 21 26 28 08 15 23 36 19 17 14 17 22 30 15 10 21 21 22 25 10 38 20 27 12 03 ]
.7 17 41 23 43 30 18 35 21 19 40 33 21 15 27 23 15 38 23 25 26 01 23 06 08 34 37 17 36 08 14 41 23 40 38 32 17 26 1
,1 12 39
39 52 35 36 15 28 16 45 35 33 14 24 34 17 40 36 25 39 04 28 19 18 29 23 05 41 28 31 44 19 45 34 24 19 19 ]
)2 15 41 31 36 12 22 25 21 -0 4 33 38 28 03 15 34 07 33 19 26 39 -1 7 04 23 17 25 27 04 43 18 01 26 13 38 22 14 04 29 -(
)7 02 -01
-02 -05 01 11 -03 00 18 09 -01 11 -07 -06 14 -01 05 17 01 04 -17 04 03 -0 2 02 -08 14 -02 03 -05 -03 11 07 -03 06 -04 -15 (
)8 -03 14 13 25 14 26 12 05 17 27 15 12 03 25 06 15 22 14 23 28 04 04 16 -03 19 13 00 16 16 15 23 13 23 15 23 04 04 (
)0 17 23 04 16 10 18 12 07 24 20 07 22 12 04 03 -02 28 17 06 19 23 03 16 16 15 09 22 15 18 -02 21 07 24 18 11 08 09 ]
12 48 13 13 11 10 07 04 12 25 05 20 03 30 05 20 06 03 22 08 18 17 -02 -03 16 06 02 42 13 03 09 12 10 06 07 09 -04 15
14 12 35 32 38 27 24 20 27 18 39 20 15 19 29 27 02 25 30 34 29 25 02 19 15 06 21 09 36 13 26 29 18 44 36 21 09 22
12 01 31
23 30 31 13 25 27 07 24 27 26 -09 16 20 10 14 15 37 23 27 -08 14 09 02 21 00 22 09 23 17 38 34 17 23 10 17 (
19 51 08
-04 09 01 08 11 05 35 15 14 04 20 -03 15 08 06 10 17 05 04 14 00 22 42 09 00 22 12 03 03 11 06 03 10 -04 21 ;
35 13 46
29 42 24 27 27 37 13 44 39 28 14 20 39 14 38 21 36 41 43 -02 16 15 13 36 22 22 20 21 40 27 50 31 21 16 36
31 -04 07
17 18 07 40 07 05 24 14 12 28 16 02 24 00 22 21 08 28 18 03 16 18 03 13 09 12 20 14 14 11 13 18 24 07 00 i
39 04 13
20 32 25 15 11 20 08 31 14 17 11 13 18 14 12 22 14 31 01 -05 15 -02 09 26 23 03 21 14 29 20 30 22 01 15 12 t
03 05 37
25 46 34 21 23 35 19 46 29 18 23 24 17 15 42 25 41 44 26 -03 23 21 12 29 17 03 40 14 29 08 45 38 10 15 30
12 09 17
18 32 19 16 09 19 08 20 18 15 -02 09 22 13 03 10 23 19 13 11 14 07 10 18 38 11 27 11 20 08 32 21 10 12 16 i
13 07 52
38 61 37 34 25 51 23 57 38 34 09 38 36 09 54 38 40 45 38 07 23 24 06 44 34 06 50 13 30 45 32 43 27 20 28
06 04 41
20 42 19 28 16 24 12 41 24 21 16 25 18 -06 34 20 38 34 22 -03 15 18 07 36 17 03 31 18 22 35 21 43 13 30 33
13 01 19
14 26 16 41 29 15 29 31 22 20 12 22 31 24. 27 27 32 24 14 06 23 11 09 21 23 10 21 24 01 10 10 27 13 07 06 1
02 -08 20
08 23 17 12 00 09 07 36 17 10 03 13 05 -03 09 12 17 19 04 -04 04 08 -04 09 10 -04 16 07 15 15 12 20 30 07 17
15 28 33
21 30 17 23 08 22 08 28 32 24 01 19 07 07 15 03 26 19 29 -15 04 09 15 22 17 21 36 00 12 30 16 28 33 06 17
29 33 10
06 12 08 12 06 00 26 17 15 05 45 07 09 10 00 10 14 11 -02 09 04 14 31 15 03 29 10 03 06 21 07 09 15 08 17 07
20 10 06
05 10 17 16 20 -05 17 17 12 07 15 00 07 18 13 05 07 16 26 02 07 09 09 15 11 08 03 07 03 15 02 10 12 13 02 02
25 42 06
-13 10 -05 -01 02 -07 20 08 -01 -01 35 01 05 04 -06 19 09 -0 2 00 03 -11 09 29 06 -01 40 06 02 05 08 03 -03 06 10 -04 10
26 26 14
06 10 12 11 21 10 32 16 13 12 38 06 04 18 21 14 22 20 -02 10 10 12 26 20 12 27 08 07 18 38 08 19 04 10 01 00
00 04 25
30 33 30 18 14 26 11 35 20 29 10 15 25 20 25 06 30 29 24 -03 12 14 12 26 27 09 42 17 20 29 23 33 22 00 1 1 24
13 03 30
30 38 39 25 05 34 20 36 28 29 19 26 28 24 25 29 27 32 20 03 24 10 07 23 22 -01 22 18 28 38 21 47 25 07 14 15
04 00 34
30 38 38 02 14 25 07 44 14 15 09 30 19 10 30 25 46 31 18 00 01 13 06 42 21 -10 31 01 29 54 21 50 38 12 26 18
04 02 13
16 20 17 04 05 15 02 18 23 15 -01 05 10 22 12 10 12 18 23 -17 03 17 03 12 19 09 18 08 07 16 19 20 00 02 21 06
03 12 35
26 31 30 17 21 26 -01 33 23 19
07 18 17 15 27 10 32 32 23 06 16 11 01 29 15 03 30 07 24 31 20 35 28 10 18 27
29 33 01
-06 06 13 14 09 00 51 12 05 12 28 -11 05 07 03 10 08 09 -05 16 02 16 33 09 -04 42 14 13 -01 13 10 05 01 22 -04 16
06 03 46
20 50 24 26 18 23 14 50 24 13 12 29 34 00 46 18 27 44 33 -05 35 27 03 26 16 05 29
16 23 38 23 53 30 12 18 15
10 09 18
27 35 22 12 16 35 14 42 22 10 19 13 10 03 19 24 24 26 19 -01 16 03 08 23 23 08 28 16 21 40 24 35 20 03 02 19
09 08 37
26 29 26 23 21 29 17 37 29 1 15 16 23 13 30 09 26 26 23 02 25 15 09 27 14 07 31 07 13 36 20 39 21 10 20 29
02 00 47 31 55 34 35 19 39 10 53 34 36 10 29 28 12 44 23 42 52 45 04 37 27 03 43 31 -02 42 17 28 49 26 63 44 18 26 37
00 01 23
17 29 18 05 -03 23 02 15 16 12 -02 15 16 06 10 16 20 18 10 07 07 05 -0 2 12 30 -05 1 10 07 09 ' 45 30 15 06 17 06
26 12 20
30 25 30 20 14 19 26 26 27 07 33 24 29 17 36 28 31 29 20 00 14 07 13 24 11 -01 25 13 21 38 10 35 6 21 17 00
20 1 24
26 26 27 17 24 07 14 28 20 10 36 25 24 10 35 20 37 32 21 -01 18 07 07 22 13 -01 22 12 13 33 1 32 20 18 19 04
• 12 -08 14
-05 19 02 20 28 -01 1 12 05 1 12 13 09 12 08 -0 7 16 05 14 -05 23 12 00 10 10 04 22 19 00 27 12 04 06 13 15 15
04 -02 11
-08 12 -02 15 10 -05 16 09 07 .24 08 05 03 -01 28 07 12 1 14 20 08 26 -05 0 6 - 0 7 05 14 26 -06 15 -03 05 07 18 -02 -03
47 4 8 49 5 0 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6 0 61 6 2 63 6 4 65 6 6 67 6 8 69 70 71 7 2 7 3 74
15 0 3 24 11 12 14 19 03 17 33 24 29 39 10 12 15 10 14 51 22 09 17 12 09 2 3 20 10 09
06 06 14 13 20 12 15 0 0 21 03 21 - 0 1 10 10 15 - 0 4 - 0 2 04 00 17 01 24 24 04 17 10> 0 7 0 9
14 - 0 7 13 04 14 - 0 5 12 - 0 8 12 04 - 0 3 - 0 4 06 13 08 21 02 11 07 08 09 15 13 05 0 9 21 15 0 9
15 21 39 15 34 29 15 14 26 14 11 05 2 0 16 34 33 08 28 -0 1 39 16 25 4 5 12 31 30 21 13
06 10 30 09 32 20 01 06 07 - 0 2 - 0 1 - 1 0 05 16 21 30 22 11 - 0 5 18 17 19 16 13 19 16 0 3 - 0 2
18 24 40 14 38 38 13 23 24 03 12 -0 1 09 21 14 42 13 31 0 3 26 32 27 4 0 17 21 30 12 - 0 4
12 1 1 25 20 4 0 35 33 08 10 0 0 06 00 18 14 2 7 13 - 0 3 23 07 32 16 15 31 23 15 14 01 10
04 17 37 10 32 22 00 10 19 13 04 07 11 18 2 3 30 06 18 00 17 21 30 28 10 2 0 20 0 8 - 0 1
13 36 39 23 48 46 14 14 21 08 02 00 15 30 26 38 12 33 - 0 5 40 32 24 51 0 8 23 27 19 0 0
12 23 56 24 6 4 47 20 22 34 12 12 - 0 2 17 28 3 9 57 13 41 1 1 56 4 2 44 65 19 30 37 2 2 07
21 30 39 26 54 39 21 17 40 13 IS 09 18 40 31 36 14 39 10 4 7 24 35 54 16 19
22 17 25
32 05 24 05 25 17 23 18 15 06 12 04 12 11 15 05 14 14 22 28 12 15 25 09 16 17 15 07
30 13 27 10 35 23 37 00 18 0 4 12 00 08 26 2 7 06 - 0 5 16 14 22 2 2 24 30 07 10 23 28 14
04 12 23 04 18 23 11 - 0 2 15 02 03 - 1 3 05 12 1 1 29 04 22 - 0 6 14 09 23 25 00 0 4 13 19 10
03 13 30 22 24 27 16 16 23 16 14 10 17 21 19 33 11 24 07 21 14 19 23 12 0 9 20 18 06
13 31 44 14 48 35 21 27 33 09 15 07 11 29 4 2 35 11 40 01 34 22 44 53 17 38 43 10 03
-01 09 03 12 13 06 13 02 15 2 9 20 25 26 00 13 - 0 4 - 0 4 03 29 06 10 09 02 00 26 20 - 1 2 04
- 0 4 0 4 05 09 07 0 4 01 - 0 8 28 33 10 42 26 04 0 3 0 0 02 12 33 03 09 09 00 01 12 11 - 0 8 - 0 2
07 13 37 17 52 41 19 20 33 10 06 06 14 25 30 34 13 35 01 4 6 18 37 4 7 23 20 24 14 11
17 2 0 25 18 38 20 14 08 21 06 05 - 1 3 06 30 30 30 16 26 - 0 6 20 27 26 31 17 3 0 26 -OS - 0 8
18 32 46 32 61 4 2 26 23 30 12 10 10 10 33 38 38 20 31 06 50 35 29 55 29 25 26 19 12
07 25 34 19 37 19 16 17 17 08 17 - 0 5 12 30 39 38 17 30 13 24 22 26 34 18 30 27 0 2 - 0 2
40 15 21 16 34 28 41 12 23 12 16 - 0 1 11 18 25 02 04 17 14 26 12 23 35 05 2 0 17 2 0 15
07 1 1 23 09 25 16 29 00 08 06 20 02 21 14 05 14 05 21 09 18 16 21 19 - 0 3 14 24 2 8 10
05 20 35 19 51 24 15 09 22 00 -0 5 - 0 7 10 26 34 25 15 26 00 23 35 29 39 23 19 07 - 0 1 - 0 5
24 08 19 08 23 12 29 07 08 26 17 20 32 U 20 07 02 - 0 1 51 14 14 17 10 02 26 14 1 1 16
14 31 46 20 57 41 31 36 28 17 17 08 16 35 36 44 18 33 12 50 42 37 53 15 26 28 12 0 9
12 14 29 18 38 24 22 17 32 15 12 -0 1 1 3 20 28 14 23 23 05 24 22 29 34 16 27 2 0 05 0 7
28 17 18 15 34 21 20 10 24 05 07 -0 1 12 29 29 15 15 20 12 13 10 11 36 12 0 7 10 11 24
16 1 1 23 - 0 2 09 16 12 03 01 45 15 35 38 10 19 09 - 0 1 07 28 12 19 15 10 - 0 2 33 36 12 08
02 13 24 09 38 25 22 13 19 07 00 01 06 15 26 30 05 18 -1 1 29 13 16 29 15 24 25 13 05
24 18 17 22 36 18 31 05 07 09 07 05 0 4 25 28 19 10 17 05 34 10 23 28 16 29 24 0 9 03
00 14 15 13 09 - 0 6 24 - 0 3 07 10 18 04 18 20 24 10 22 15 0 7 0 0 03 13 12 07 17 10 12 - 0 1
22 12 42 03 54 34 27 09 15 00 13 - 0 6 21 25 25 30 12 27 03 46 19 30 44 10 36 35 08 28
21 22 25 10 38 20 27 12 03 10 05 19 14 06 29 25 10 10 10 18 24 09 23 16 28 20 - 0 7 07
08 14 41 23 4 0 38 32 17 26 14 07 09 22 30 2 7 4 6 12 32 08 27 2 4 26 42 20 31 37 16 12
t 28 31 44 19 45 34 24 19 19 11 16 - 0 2 20 29 32 31 18 32 09 4 4 26 26 52 18 29 32 05 11
18 01 26 13 38 22 14 04 29 - 0 2 26 00 - 0 2 24 20 18 23 23 - 0 5 33 19 23 45 10 20 21 14 14
03 - 0 5 - 0 3 11 07 - 0 3 06 - 0 4 - 1 5 09 02 03 10 - 0 3 0 3 00 - 1 7 06 16 05 - 0 1 02 0 4 07 00 - 0 1 - 0 5 20
16 15 23 13 23 15 23 04 04 04 07 - 11 10 12 24 01 03 16 01 35 16 25 37 07 14 18 23 0 8
18 - 0 2 21 07 24 18 11 08 09 14 09 09 12 14 10 13 17 11 16 27 03 15 27 05 0 7 0 7 12 26
3 03 09 12 1 0 06 07 09 - 0 4 15 31 09 29 26 12 07 06 03 01 33 03 08 09 03 - 0 2 13 07 0 0 - 0 5
& 13 26 29 18 44 36 21 09 22 15 15 06 20 26 23 42 12 29 09 26 23 27 4 3 12 2 4 2 2 10 06
2 09 23 17 38 34 17 23 10 17 03 1 -0 1 12 27 22 21 19 15 -0 4 16 23 14 31 30 1 1 13 10 - 0 7
2 12 03 03 11 06 03 10 - 0 4 21 29 08 4 0 2 7 09 - 0 1 - 1 0 09 03 42 05 08 07 - 0 2 - 0 5 - 0 1 - 0 1 0 4 05
20 21 40 27 50 31 21 16 36 10 03 06 08 42 22 31 18 30 14 29 28 31 4 2 1 1 25 2 2 22 14
0 14 14 1 1 13 18 24 07 00 03 07 02 0 7 17 18 01 08 07 13 16 16 07 17 10 1 3 12 19 26
14 29 2 0 30 22 01 15 12 06 03 05 18 20 28 29 07 24 -0 1 23 21 13 28 0 7 21 13 0 0 - 0 6
0 14 29 08 45 38 10 15 30 21 15 08 38 29 38 54 16 31 13 38 4 0 36 49 09 38 33 2 7 15
7 11 20 08 32 21 10 12 16 07 02 03 08 23 21 21 19 20 10 23 24 20 26 45 10 11 12 - 0 3
0 13 30 45 32 43 27 20 28 09 10 - 0 3 19 33 4 7 50 20 35 05 53 35 39 6 3 30 35 32 04 05
18 22 35 21 4 3 13 30 33 I 5 12 06 0 4 22 25 38 00 28 01 30 2 0 21 4 4 15 16 20 0 6 07
24 01 10 10 27 13 07 06 08 13 10 10 00 07 12 02 10 22 12 03 10 18 06 21 18 13 18
6 07 15 15 12 20 30 07 17 17 02 - 0 4 01 1 1 L4 26 21 18 -0 4 18 0 2 20 26 17 17 19 15 - 0 2
6 00 12 30 16 28 33 06 17 07 02 10 00 24 15 18 06 27 16 15 19 2 9 37 06 0 0 04 15 - 0 3
0 03 06 21 07 09 15 08 17 07 19 41 39 07 12 22 0 2 05 35 00 09 12 12 08 24 29 0 5 10
3 07 0 3 15 02 10 1 2 13 02 02 19
08 31 15 07 14 00 10 21 14 - 0 6 20 15 - 0 7 28 28 0 4 03
6 02 05 08 03 - 0 3 06 10 - 0 4 10 41 08 30 - 0 3 - 0 5 14 - 0 4 - 0 5 50 - 0 2 07 - 1 9 - 1 1 - 0 5 05 05 0 3 08
8 07 18 38 08 19 04 10 01 00 39 31 30 10 0 9 27 07 17 33 16 15 13 13 02 28 34 0 6 0 7
2 17 20 29 23 33 22 00 1 1 24 07 15 - 0 3 10 27 27 18 34 06 29 28 23 36 09 22 22 2 2 11
2 13 28 38 21 4 7 25 07 14 15 12 07 - 0 5 09 27 32 18 31 05 4 0 29 36 4 0 21 34 29 0 4 ~ r r
01 29 54 21 50 38 12 26 18 22 14 14 27 27 32 32 46 08 45 27 28 52 26 4 2 4 2 0 5 - 0 3
8 08 07 16 19 20 00 02 21 06 0 2 00 - 0 4 07 18 18 32 18 01 22 10 14 18 25 15 1 0 0 - 0 4
0 07 24 31 2 0 35 28 10 18 27 05 10 - 0 5 17 34 31 46 18 07 41 18 32 51 18 10 19 19 1 1
4 13 -0 1 13 10 05 01 22 - 0 4 16 35 21 50 33 06 05 08 01 07 - 0 2 10 02 - 0 7 - 0 6 1 5 14 10 10
-9 16 23 38 23 53 30 12 18 15 00 14 - 0 2 16 29 4 0 45 22 41 - 0 2 24 48 6 9 18 26 28 19 14
:8 16 21 40 24 35 20 03 02 19 09 - 0 6 0 7 15 28 29 27 10 18 10 24 20 32 15 17 24 16 04
i 07 13 36 20 39 21 10 20 29 12 20 - 1 9 13 23 36 28 14 32 02 48 20 48 09 34 31 19 03
12 17 28 49 26 6 3 44 18 26 37 12 15 - 1 3 36 4 0 52 18 5 1 - 0 7 69 32 48 29 30 30 23 08
. 1 10 07 09 45 30 15 06 17 06 08 -06 - 0 5 02 09 21 26 25 18 - 0 6 18 15 09 29 14 1 - 0 1 - 0 8
!5 13 21 38 10 35 6 21 17 00 24 28 05 28 22 34 42 15 10 15 26 7 34 30 14 63 - 0 2 08
iZ 12 13 33 1 32 20 18 19 04 29 28 05 34 22 29 4 2 1 19 14 28 24 31 30 1 6 3 1 1 11
IZ 19 0 0 27 12 04 06 13 15 15 05 04 03 06 22 04 05 00 19 10 19 16 19 23 - 0 1 - 0 2 1 1 1
14 26 - 0 6 15 - 0 3 05 07 18 - 0 2 - 0 3 10 03 08 07 I 12 - 0 3 - 0 4 1 10 14 04 03 08 - 0 8 08 1 1 1
123
finding of negative correlations is not exceptionally
unusual (Guilford, et al., 1961; Gershon, et al., 1963;
Hoepfner, et al., 1964; Guilford $ Hoepfner, 1966a;
O’Sullivan, et al., 1965), they are noted here for they
obviously affected the achievement of positive manifold in
the final factor matrix.
The Factor Analysis
The 74 x 74 matrix of intercorrelations was sub
mitted to the BMD03M program for principal-components fac
tor analysis. For the first extraction, the squared
multiple correlation of each variable was used as its esti
mate of communality. The computer program extracts factors
until a negative eigenroot is encountered. This procedure
resulted in the extraction of 48 factors associated with
positive eigenroots, 25 of which were retained for rota
tion. The 25 factors, the hypothesized number, can be seen
as representing 23 ability factors and the two control
factors of sex and yedr in school. ;
Assuming 25 factors, the communalities obtained
from the first extraction were utilized as new estimates
!
of the communalities, and the correlation matrix was once j
!
again submitted to BMD03M. In this manner, an iterative |
procedure was set up and continued until no communality
| changed more than .02 from one cycle to the next. The 25
i
factors retained for rotation accounted for 90.7% of the
124
total common-factor variance and are presented in Table 4
(decimal points are omitted except in eigenroots).
The 25 principal axes were then rotated orthogo
nally by means of an analytic procedure developed by Cliff
(1966). The procedure allows one to rotate maximally, in
a least-Squares sense, to a target matrix of hypothesized
factor structure. The first target matrix was constructed
by inserting loadings for each test, equal to the square
root of their communalities, on the one factor the tests
were hypothesized to measure. The results from the first
rotation indicated which of the tests were factorially
complex and which did not conform to their hypothesized
content. By taking into account these results, a new
target matrix was constructed, and in this manner a series
of rotations was carried out.
After approximately seven Matrix rotations, some
very small graphic rotations were performed between
selected pairs of factors, primarily to increase the posi
tive manifold and simple structure of the factor matrix.
The final rotated factor matrix is presented in Table 5
(all decimal points are omitted). The differences between
the unrotated and rotated communalities were minimal, the
largest being of the order of .02 with most being .0 0 .
The final factor matrix departs somewhat from the
typical finding of positive manifold in an ability area.
However, as stated before, the finding is not unusual,
Table 4
Unrotated Factor Matrix
125
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
1. A ltern a te S ign s 30 -5 3 02 09 03 02 13 -21 -01 -02 07 -12 04 00 -0 4 06 11 02 02 02 -0 4 06 -09
2. A ngle E s tim a tio n 25 - 0 4 -1 3 -0 9 05 12 -26 -02 -21 19 05 02 -0 5 01 11 -0 9 11 - 10 17 15 -01 . 00 -01
3. A r tis t ic I n te rp reta tio n s 16 00 -06 12 10 16 15 01 -01 '05 - 3 3 09 14 16 -15 -0 3 10 06 - 0 9 07 08 00 17
4. B e s t F ig u r a l C la s s 55 03 01 12 15 05 -10 09 01 02 - 0 4 04 -1 7 -0 9 01 18 -0 7 - 10 04 -18 -2 5 18 11
5. B e s t F ig u r a l C la s s S ep a ra tio n 35 18 15 06 -09 08 -0 4 05 15 -14 -02 -21 10 01 02 07 -01 04 23 -09 - 10 09 05
6 . B est F ig u r e P a i r s 55 16 12 -01 01 00 -01 07 12 -1 7 17 -1 4 -0 7 01 -03 -05 -0 3 - 1 1 - 0 3 01 -0 7 14 08
7. B est Map P la c e m e n t 44 03 -21 03 -1 7 - 2 3 04 r 07 -16 -10 -0 8 -11 00 01 -05 00 13 -0 4 - 0 5 -20 02 -20 -02
8 . B est M ove S e le c tio n 40 06 19 01 04 -01 -01 10 -0 5 04 -1 6 -10 -16 06 05 06 -27 - 14 09 10 -0 3 -02 -02
9. B lo c k R otation 60 20 08 01 -01 -0 7 16 32 13 1 1 22 01 22 -2 4 -01 - 0 4 -06 12 05 -04 09 - 1 1 13
10. B lo ck V is u a liz a tio n 74 12 09 01 19 -11 04 -02 06 01 -02 -09 00 07 -01 00 10 -02 - 0 9 04 - 1 9 -03 06
11. B lo c k s 70 02 -0 7 -2 6 19 -12 -0 5 11 01 00 - 1 4 11 04 - 2 4 -0 7 -04 -06 -01 17 06 -0 5 04 05
12. C ir c le C ontinu ation s 38 -1 4 -26 - 0 6 09 -22 -2 4 -2 4 22 - 14 21 -09 07 04 -16 12 -02 -21 - 0 4 00 14 -0 9 14
13. C lo s e - u p s 45 -0 9 -46 07 -03 22 11 15 00 13 - 0 3 12 -09 08 02 09 09 -04 - 11 -01 -0 6 -05 06
14. C lo s e s t Spatial S e r ie s 32 16 -03 02 10 23 08 09 04 -10 - 1 3 -08 -04 - 0 5 -0 4 -02 22 -06 00 -07 10 19 -17
15. C om p e titiv e Plann in g 40 -01 1 1 - 0 7 20 07 15 05 - 1 4 -07 - 0 3 16 -04 03 -15 16 02 - 1 4 16 03 -01 -08 00
16. C o r r e c t F ig u r a l T ren d s 68 06 06 - 0 5 00 05 -21 03 00 02 03 -01 -23 02 -09 08 -0 5 -09 00 08 12 02 -07
17. D e c o r a tio n s 18 -41 14 -0 3 -12 -01 - 15 00 -2 5 05 06 -20 00 -02 -01 -18 - 11 04 -02 -04 -06 09 12
18. D e s ig n s 19 - 5 4 16 - 4 2 00 06 - 15 06 - 0 7 09 - 0 7 02 01 - 0 7 00 03 02 00 - 1 4 - 10 13 06 12
19. E s s e n t ia l M aze R outes 63 08 03 -22 14 - 0 9 -0 9 08 - 2 4 -10 - 10 05 03 09 -02 14 03 -06 12 -04 14 - 10 -09
20. F ig u r a l C la s s In clu sio n 49 15 10 - 0 3 -1 7 10
- H
13 09 04 -06 03 1 1 02 -16 -04 ■ 11 -02 07 05 05 11 01
21. F ig u r e A n a lo g ie s 70 10 -03 -0 5 -06 -01 11 02 - 0 4 02 1 1 07 -06 08 19 03 -oi 02 -0 9 03 -0 9 14 -04
22. F ig u r e C la s s if ic a tio n 51 08 13 07 -25 09 -06 - 0 8 19 - 0 3 -01 -1 3 -04 -0 8 -1 4 01 19 -06 -02 -06 06 16 -03
23. F ig u r e C o m p letio n 49 -12 -49 10 -09 02 03 11 07 07 12 01 -08 - 0 4 -21 02 08 10 -02 - 10 - 10 -03 05
24. F ig u r e M atching 38 - 0 9 - 1 4 15 14 31 14 09 -1 5 -22 07 -1 3 18 -0 9 03 09 -0 7 -0 8 03 -06 -10 -01 -09
25. F ig u r e M atrix 49 17 09 - 1 4 -23 01 03 10 11 06 -1 7 - 17 09 1 1 02 08 14 -02 09 02 04 - 1 9 00
26. F ig u r e P r o d u ctio n 31 -5 4 -14 19 -09 - 12 14 -0 7 -0 3 06 02 -16 00 18 04 -02 07 10 19 15 - 14 05 -11
27. F ig u r e S e r i e s 70 02 02 -01 00 -12 06 -0 4 02 -0 3 1 1 -11 -08 -02 02 08 -1 4 01 -0 9 20 02 -06 -08
28. Hidden F ig u r e s 51 -02 -10 -12 -20 17 -16 -0 9 07 - 10 02 -1 9 -11 07 03 -05 -1 3 13 -05 -23 -02 - 0 5 02
29. Hidden P rin t 41 01 -41 - 0 7 -16 08 13 -0 8 14 -01 -12 20 -2 9 -0 9 15 -21 05 14 05 -01 01 - 11 01
30. Ideation al F lu e n c y I 29 -4 4 19 20 08 00 -0 7 25 14 15 02 15 10 16 - 0 7 04 03 05 12 - 15 03 - 10 -06
31. Identical F ig u r a l R ela tio n s 41 11 08 10 -02 01 06 26 -26 07 09 13 00 1 1 18 06 02 13 07 08 05 11 12
32. Identical F o r m s 48 -0 5 -16 -08 -25 -02 - 15 14 -0 7 00 -11 12 19 - 11 - 1 9 19 - 1 3 12 -10 01 -11 -0 3 -19
33. Intern ally C o n s is te n t F ig u r e s 26 -0 8 -1 5 16 -21 46 08 -11 09 03 01 -02 -13 -22 19 28 - 12 02 03 06 03 - 0 8 16
34. Judging F ig u r a l B a lan ce 59 06 - 14 21 13 -0 4 -16 -02 00 - 1 9 -11 -22 06 06 22 -01 - 0 7 09 03 - 10 -01 01 03
35. Judging F ig u r a l C om b in ation s 44 -1 1 00 -01 -31 -26 - 1 3 22 05 -0 5 05 14 -08 03 15 11 05 -1 3 -02 15 09 05 -03
36. Judging F ig u r a l E la b o ra tio n s 57 - 0 4 09 03 -02 14 16 00 -25 - 2 3 03 -0 3 -01 09 06 -08 -0 5 05 - 0 9 -0 9 19 09 -09
37. Judging R e a r r a n g e m e n t s 64 04 - 10 00 - 0 9 - 0 7 - 14 00 13 03 01 05 -05 -06 04 -04 03 - 0 7 - 14 -0 4 10 08 -07
38. Judging S p e c ifie d F ig u r e s 51 12 -20 -3 0 17 17 -4 0 -0 4 00 - 1 7 -01 17 13 01 09 - 14 - 0 6 -0 7 -11 07 - 14 -0 4 02
39. Judgm ent o f S iz e 04 - 1 7 -1 4 12 - 1 9 - 3 7 * 15 00 - 0 9 - 0 7 -41 - 1 5 - 15 - 2 3 -1 6 01 -20 -12 -02 07 02 08 06
40. L ea st M ovem en t 34 04 -22 21 01 - 0 7 09 - 0 4 -14 29 21 -11 07 -05 08 -03 -0 4 -11 00 01 24 12 14
41. Line C ontinu ation s 31 -1 7 -20 -09 24 -2 3 -08 -20 10 -06 -01 07 05 01 12 01 13 -0 7 21 01 08 04 12
42. Make A F ig u r e T est 21 - 4 7 10 - 2 7 -0 5 12 -16 10 06 12 -06 06 01 02 05 10 12 - 0 5 02 -06 -06 15 -01
43. M atch P r o b l e m s II 56 02 14 -0 4 00 - 1 3 10 21 04 -10 15 -05 19 -22 -0 8 -13 03 12 12 10 00 07 1 •
44. M o n ogram R e c a ll 40 12 -01 - 15 -2 8 21 13 - 15 -20 -10 1 05 10 01 05 -21 04 -20 09 03 06 -01 - 1:
45. M on ogram s 16 -61 -02 -3 5 -01 -02 08 -06 02 03 00 -16 14 -0 3 07 05 -08 15 -02 00 12 07 - 0<
46. M ost E ffe c tiv e P ath 62 02 - 0 8 -22 07 09 05 06 10 - 1 - 12 -0 4 13 10 -0 8 00 -1 8 10 -02 06 05 -0 9 - 0-
'47. M utilated W ords 29 - 1 - 3 8 11 -05 - 1 3 00 -01 25 01 06 19 1 12 -10 - 13 -0 6 - 0 4 05 -02 -03 13 - 0*
|48. N e a r e s t F ig u r a l R e la tio n s 37 07 15 00 - 1 7 -02 09 09 14 I S 15 03 -08 -20 06 -05 -0 5 -0 5 -01 01 00 01 - 1'
j49. N e c e s s a r y F a c ts 65 00 17 15 19 03 07 01 19 02 -0 5 -09 -09 11 14 00 01 - 6 00 -02 03 -0 8 - 0*
[50. O rien ta tio n M e m o r y 35 03 03 -20 -2 8 00 26 - 2 4 - 19 10 00 13 13 -0 3 -12 -07 -10 -12 07 -08 - 16 05 Of
151. P a p e r Folding 77 15 02 -04 -1 3 - 16- 01 00 - 10 -01 - 0 9 -0 9 05 07 13 -03 08 oS 01 09 -0 9 -14 0)
:52. P a tter n A r r a n g e m e n t 54 10 05 -0 8 12 - 1 9 10 15 -06 -0 9 19 -02 -18 05 -06 - 14 08 08 06 -15 -07 -04 - O '
|53. P e n e tr a tio n of C a m o u fla ge 37 -1 9 -3 6 16 -1 7 04 05 1 -22 -26 13 03 04 06 -05 13 13 04 -0 7 14 08 01 01
154. P e r c e p t u a l R e la tio n Ju dgm ent 28 11 12 01 03 -1 5 02 -21 00 -0 7 28 10 -2 8 13 -21 07 -15 5 08 00 08 -05 - O '
•55. Plann in g A ir M a n eu v er s 42 -02 02 -46 21 19 09 00 -03 10 05 - 15 -2 7 13 - 1 -09 06 15 -03 04 -02 01 1'
|56. Plann in g E la b o ra tio n II 24 -5 2 25 06 03 00 04 -01 -01 05 02 16 -1 3 00 -08 -04 -0 6 05 08 - 12 04 -06 0
j57. P lot T itle s ( c le v e r ) 23 -25 00 18 10 17 -22 - 14 - 10 -0 5 10 01 -04 - 2 9 -0 7 -18 08 -0 9 02 14 - 14 -13 -0
58. P lo t T itle s (flu en cy) 08 -61 20 -18 05 -0 8 12 13 02 -1 1 07 20 -07 00 16 06 -0 7 -04 - 13 00 -05 -05 0
59. P o s s ib le Jobs 32 -4 8 21 22 03 05 06 -06 00 00 -0 5 -01 05 -20 13 -08 08 - 16 08 -15 06 -20 0
60. P o s t e r Ju dgm ent 47 07 -01 -0 8 02 17 11 -0 9 14 10 -11 08 09 -0 6 -0 4 - 15 - 12 06 05 08 06 -0 4 - 1
61. P r e s c r ib e d R e la tio n s 54 07 03 12 -20 - 0 3 -06 -0 8 04 28 -1 4 05 - U 07 06 04 01 04 06 -02 00 00 -0
62, P r o b le m S olving 60 15 52 17 08 -0 4 19 -1 4 06 -2 4 -1 3 21 -05 -0 9 02 04 18 09 - 14 14 -0 5 04 0
6 3. R e m e m b e r in g Object O rien ta tio n 26 09 12 -0 9 -1 3 11 -0 3 -4 2 20 - 12 06 15 16 02 13 15 -05 16 13 00 05 03 0
64. S im ila r O r ien tation s 51 13 08 -05 13 02 14 -1 3 00 03 -11 -01 -0 5 -20 -0 9 03 04 03 -11 -08 13 03 - 0
65. S k e tch es - 17 -7 0 -01 -02 00 -0 4 17 -12 14 -06 -03 -0 8 00 04 -0 9 -03 11 -01 -0 8 15 -0 8 00 0
66 . Space P o s itio n in g 64 15 -02 08 24 -2 7 -0 7 -2 6 - 15 26 02 01 23 -0 9 15 16 06 11 -1 9 -10 - 10 03 -1
67. Spatial C o m p r e h e n sio n 44 03 14 -0 3 -08 -01 19 07 20 15 -02 -10 16 26 10 -17 -1 3 -2 3 -1 8 02 -0 7 -03 0
6 8 . Spatial O rien ta tio n 53 07 05 07 15 1 1 -12 - 17 -12 27 - 10 -21 00 04 -1 8 06 00 07 08 09 04 -01 -c
69. Spatial V is u a liz a tio n 76 26 -0 3 -01 15 - 1 1 02 -15 -0 8 18 01 02 -06 -0 9 03 -08 07 03 - 1 1 -02 02 -0 3 c
70. S y s te m -S h a p e R eco g n itio n 29 16 10 -0 9 -3 3 -12 11 -28 -1 7 -0 4 -04 20 03 14 -05 04 01 - 1 1 07 -17 -0 7 03 1
71. V erb al C o m p r e h e n sio n 48 - 16 23 40 - 15 06 -3 4 -0 4 * -0 4 01 -02 08 04 08 -06 -09 -08 11 -01 07 -01 -02 c
72, W ord C o m p letio n 50 - 1 4 22 42 04 12 -21 00 -0 8 -0 3 -02 17 04 09 - 15 - 14 - 10 00 -1 4 -03 08 -01 c
73, Sex 24 -01 -22 08 35 20 30 -0 4 03 10 11 09 08 09 - 11 09 - 15 -1 3 02 -01 01 04 .(
74. Y ear in S ch o o l 16 -1 4 - 3 2 15 23 -16 02 01 01 - 12 -26 12 -0 4 01 16 -19 -1 4 08 1 1 -06 09
14 -c
E ig e n r o o ts 15. 65 4. 00 2. 38 1.92 1. 69 1. 51 1. 44 1. 34 1. 15 1. 09 1. 07 1. 04 .9 9 .91 . 87 . 78 . 75 . 71 . 67 . 62 . 60 . 56
Table 5 126
Rotated Factor Matrix ____ _________________________
C FU C F C C F R C F S C F T C F I CM U CMS M FS D F U D F S D F T D F I D M U DM T D M I N F T E F U E F C E F R E F S E F T E F I SEX 1
1. A lte rn a te Signs 08 05 05 16 -08 10 02 14 08 25 18 05 31 18 31 19 14 01 00 -03 06 00
"0l.
IB
2. Angle E s t i m a t io n 08 -08 -0 6 03 09 0B -03 -16 02 16 09 -07 13 -12 18 -01 -03 -05 12 31 -04 19 12‘ -15
_
3. A r tis tic I n te r p r e t a ti o n s 21 10 -12 06 06 -07 14 22 -01 11 -06 -07 TO -05 -13 -0 3 03 -08 -08 -17 -02 28 25 04
_
4. B est F ig u r a l C la s s
13 04 -04 22 10 10 02 18 -01 07 -07 12 05 09 -10 16 11 13 51 25 17 12
09 -03
5. B est F ig u r a l C la s s S e p a r a tio n -12 29 13 01 18 08 04 03 11 04 -08 03 14 -03 -12 -01 12 -05 32
07
19 -12 10 00
6. B e st F ig u r e P a i r s -04 07 28 -04 24 11 13 14 10 06 00 27 03 -08 -01 02 04 10 37
13 18 11 04 09
.
7. B e st M ap P la c e m e n t 20 06 14 06 17 19 -03 -03 12 -15 -06 10 19 09 00 11 12 20 -07 02 32 10 18 -17 .
8. B est M ove S e le c tio n -16 -08 21 07 09 -03 02 12 -04 13 -08 03 09 -09 -13 18 01 18 22 20 02 11 31 01
_
9. Block R o ta tio n
01 22 17 00 66 04 04 -06 02 -07 -04 26 -03 20 -04 10 12 08 14
13 03 17 16 13
10. Block V is u a liz a tio n
15 03 26 27 41 20 10 29 04 10 -0 2 20 15 -01 03 02 -04 06 27
13 17 06 17 02 -
11. Blocks 16 13 -04 13 37 33 -06 04 04 17 08 25 -01 02 06 08 -04 23 26
18 04 11 41 -09
IE. C ir c le C o n tin u a tio n s 11 05 16 10 01 71 15 -07 03 10 02 07 -05 00 07 09 17 07 04
02 06 12 -05 08
.
13. C lo s e - u p s
63 03 10 04 12 01 -04 04 -06 -02 13 -06 07 08 03 01 22 06 17
16 05 14 14 08
.
14. C lo s e s t S p a tia l S e r i e s
06 19 02 -04 07 -11 -07 15 03 12 02 07 -07 -09 . 0b -0 4 -02 -04 17
04 40 23 17 08
,
15. C o m p e titiv e P la n n in g
04 05 -07 05 08 17 -06 22 08 03 -04 11 03 15 05 06 00 00 18 17 -03 02 43 11
.
16. C o r r e c t F ig u r a l T r e n d s
07 14 21 11 14 19 17 12 -01 11 15 12 -03 -0 7 05 06 09 19 21 46 15 07 26 02
.
17. D e c o ra tio n s
-13 03 02 12 -14 01 17 -13 02 06 20 20 37 09 14 17 11 07 08
03 -11 10 04 -21
18. D esigns
-03 05 -05 12 -05 07 05 -03 -01 24 63 13 01 21 04 18 02 12 05
-06 -14 04 10 -14
_
19. E s s e n tia l M az e R o u te s
-02 -04 05 12 23 28 00 05 13 08 11 08 05 10 -0 2 -0 2 -01 14 11 24 24 10 51 -04 .
20. F ig u r a l C la s s In c lu sio n 04 36 09 -02 25 02 17 01 13 19 00 05 03 -02 -05 - 0 6 -01 12 18
09 17 17 -05 .
21. F ig u r e A n a lo g ie s 17 -05 31 13 26 03 -01 18 22 09 06 17 09 10 01 -0 8 12 12 25 30 13 19 14 01
2Z. F ig u r e C la s s if ic a tio n 04 52 19 08 09 10 11 18 17 06 06 10 04 -06 07 05 12 07 15
20 20 05 -01 -04 -
23. F ig u r e C o m p le tio n 56 10 02 04 16 11 04 -13 -02 07 -05 20 13 07 05 09 26 17 09
13 18 12 00 12 -
24. F ig u r e M atching 11 01 0b 05 08 -02 00 -01 03 -10 03 -03 13 n 28 02 24 -03 39
-08 20 03 29 22
25. F ig u r e M a trix 03 27 31 03 36 05 -05 04 11 14 02 -04 11 -05 -15 03 08 06 02 08 13 00 26 -12 -
26. F ig u r e P r o d u c tio n 19 -05 15 04 -0 4 05 -01 02 01 33 03 -02 59 15 20 15 09 09 -0 6 05 06 -01 -02 15
27. F ig u r e S e r ie s 03 00 38 17 27 21 06 17 04 09 01 19 09 -01 13 02 19 23 10 26 09 07 22 11
28. Hidden F ig u r e s 15 03 27 09 08 03 20 -12 19 14 16 17 02 -11 -07 14 31 05 18 11 28 -03 11 -11
29. Hidden P r i n t 56 -0 6 10 -1 6 20 01 -0 6 09 16 09 10 07 -05 -1 6 04 16 17 08 -06 20 15 01 09 -11
30. Ide ational F lu e n c y I 08 10 01 03 11 -01 27 00 -14 25 09 . -09 19 48 -03 28 -08 -01 05 11 03 -02 09 13 -1
31. Ide n tic al F ig u r a l R e la tio n s 00 -06 01 -04 29 -09 05 11 04 -08 06 04 24 18 -10 -17 09 04 15 34 02 20 19 00
3E. Ide ntic al F o r m s 19 15 05 20 17 00 11 -17 12 17 -03 01 -02 17 05 -09 21 48 07 06 10 03 25 -04
33. In te r n a lly C o n s is te n t F ig u r e s 13 08 04 -01 05 -11 -09 10 05 07 04 -18 -06 -09 07 20 63 -02 19
15 -07 08 04 06
34. Judging F ig u r a l B alan c e 05 -07 18 15 11 23 18 05 -01 05 -05 -02 22 -04 -01 03 22 00 25 07 43 15 19 -09
33. Judging F ig u r a l C o m b in a tio n s 06 06 27 -18 18 17 04 10 04 08 16 -09 11 20 -01 -02 02 43 06 29 05 08 -02 -07
.(
36. Judging F ig u r a l E la b o r a tio n s 02 02 19 02 07 -03 18 19 23 -13 25 16 15 10 13 -01 15 02 12 14 26 13 36 10
37. Judging R e a r r a n g e m e n t s 14 08 24 09 22 15 12 05 12 21 01 11 -08 03 04 09 10 22 10 23 26 36 05 -08
38. Judging S p e c ifie d F ig u r e s 24 -18 09 06 25 24 26 -11 14 20 16 02 -23 -13 15 -16 -01 08 40 05 09 09 26 -20 -(
39. J u d g m e n t of Size Q4 03 -02 00 -08 04 -10 12 -07 -12 03 -02 24 -22 -07 27 -02 60 -11 -18 06 02 03 07
40. L ea st M o v e m e n t 08 01 09 13 19 11 -03 -10 03 -17 04 00 19 -05 05 09 11 -01 00 23 02 47 -06 21
41. Line C o n tin u a tio n s 16 -11 -05 02 18 49 -05 08 08 16 19 -07 12 -01 04 08 -09 -01 06 05 12 02 -01 08
42. M ake A F ig u r e T e s t 04 05 00 04 -05 -04 -03 -05 03 46 38 -03 06 23 05 12 -04 12 17 03 -01 04 00 -07 . ;
43. M a tc h P r o b l e m s II -06 21 07 -08 52 12 09 05 07 04 06 31
18. 10 11 00 02 16 20 04 04 06 13 11
44. M o n o g ra m R e c a ll 07 10 23 -12 10 -03 -02 -05 50 -05 06 03 04 -09 25 00 03 -01 10 15 04 14 27 -03 -(
45. M o n o g ra m s -01 -04 12 13 -05 08 -10 -13 04 34 52 10 16 19 13 12 12 09 -10 -18 -03 -05 08 11
46. M ost E ffectiv e P a th 14 05 25 10 23 15 11 00 08 27 03 19 -02 01 -05 -01 17 08 11 -02 11 12 48 04
47. M u tila te d W ords 41 06 12 -04 00 21 12 -12 11 18 -15 01 04 12 00 01 -05 13 02 04 09 19 -05 14
48. N e a r e s t F ig u r a l R e la tio n s -03 21 26 06 18 -08 -08 03 08 06 -09 16 -10 13 IE 15 04 11 04 29 -02 12 02 -05
49. N e c e s s a r y F a c ts 03 06 35 13 22 15 09 32 -04 15 -04 02 07 08 02 25 01 -09 22 21 20 17 23 04
50. O r ie n ta tio n M e m o ry 12 09 07 16 08 -02 -09 00 56 -01 -02 15 12 -02 02 12 01 15 07 03 -19 09 17 01 -(
51. P a p e r F o ld in g IT 04 29 14 49 16 07 16 19 04 01 09 27 -03 -01 -02 12 16 1 20 15 06 27 -1 8 -(
52. P a t t e r n A r r a n g e m e n t 09 -04 15 01 26 11 03 07 08 -02 -04 44 11 14 02 07 -10 ~ 04 11 25 28 -01 17 00 -(
53. P e n e t r a t io n of C a m o u fla g e 26 -02 01 -18 03 15 07 03 06 -01 01 03 27 16 20 -1 7 39 19 02 05 14 23 12 07 -:
54. P e r c e p t u a l R e la tio n J u d g m e n t -06 -12 08 05 01 16 18 11 17 05 -11 29 -05 -02 -05 04 07 06 -11 36 08 -15 05 25 -(
55, P la n n in g A ir M a n e u v e rs 15 -02 09 13 08 08 -07 09 -02 26 24 53 03 -15 -07 -01 09 -21 '10 16 -05 08 29 -0 8 - ;
56. P la n n in g E l a b o r a tio n II 00 -0 6 -08 00 -02 -03 21 13 04 23 21 10 16 28 05 43 02 06 -tH 10 -07 -02 06 09 -(
57. P lot T itle s (c le v e r) 06 -01 -11 04 06 05 21 02 -04 10 -01 00 06 -07 55 22 07 04 17 09 -01 -01 01 -0 6 -(
58. P lot T itle s (fluency) -02 -17 09 -06 -15 07 -03 19 -05 19 27 12 04 50 13 19 05 10 02 -08 -22 -04 06 -10
59. P o s s ib le J o b s -07 03 02 02 11 03 09 15 05 14 10 -11 18 26 28 56 08 -03 05 -04 08 13 07 -03
60. P o s te r J u d g m e n t 19 20 17 13 21 02 07 06 14 13 03 06 -09 -07 10 07 03 -03 04 13 -02 04 34 05
6 1. P r e s c r i b e d R e la tio n s 21 26 19 26 16 06 06 14 1 02 02 -08 15 01 -08 09 07 08 03 43 04 01 3 -13
62. P r o b l e m Solving -15 11 07 08 36 -02 21 74 22 11 -0 9 14 -02 09 11 01 02 09 12 11 14 03 17 01
63. R e m e m b e r i n g O bject O rie n ta tio n -08 04 05 07 17 16 11 12 45 23 04 -10 -1 2 -05 -07 -05 25 -10 03 07 00 -11 -02 08
64, S im ila r O r ie n ta tio n s 05 17 02 25 23 09 00 27 1 -04 11 19 -10 -07 06 11 07 05 05 11 17 12 23 06
65. Sketche s 18 08 10 04 -19 17 02 21 -06 34 19 12 31 21 26 21 12 04 -08 -22 -1 6 00 -03 05
66. Space P o s itio n in g 06 -08 09 69 41 21 01 13 15 00 -03 01 05 13 13 -08 01 08 05 21 23 20 06 -03
67. S p atial C o m p r e h e n s i o n 14 14 58 14 19 01 11 12 09
-02 07 01 10 06
-09 09 -14 -03 18 -03 -11 12 13 03
68. S p atial O r ie n ta tio n 03 10 03 39 24 03 15 02 -01 17 08 00 18 -26 06 08 03 02 09 26 13 07 24 18 -]
69. S p atial V is u a liz a tio n 17 -0 6 14 31 51 13 09 19 17 02 04 19 00 -16 05 09 -01 09 11 29 22 25 14 04 -(
70. S y s te m - S h a p e R e c o g n itio n 05 01 03 06 07 07 04 13 60 -07 -04 01 10 -02
-19 06 00 15 03 10 -01 03 05 -04 -]
71. V e rb a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n -04 13 06 10 11 01 58 10 04 14 - 0 6 -11 24
09 11 12 15 12 11 27 04 08 07 -10
72. W ord C o m p le tio n 06 10 02 11 09 00 64 21 01
-04 03 -05 13 14 12 16 05 07 17 20 06 16 17 06
73. Sex 27 -10 03 14 02 05 -05 04 00 00 -05 03 -05 05 04 06 01 -15 19 01 -02 17 21 47
74. Y e ar in S chool 27 -12 -08 -01 -08 20 04 06 -09
-04 05 -05 13 03 -01 06 -08 05 01 02 21 09 18 -03
127
particularly when divergent-production tests are included
in the battery. Most of the negative factor loadings can
be directly related to the negative correlational pattern
of the test in question.
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS
The Interpretation of the Factors
In most cases the factors were interpreted on the
basis of the hypothesized factor content of the tests which
loaded significantly (traditionally taken as a loading
equal to or greater than .30) on the factor. In a few
cases, where a factor was defined by tests that were not
hypothesized to do so, interpretation was made from the
common features of the tests which did load significantly.
The 25 factors are discussed in the order in which
they appear in Table 5. For each factor, the significant
test loadings are indicated. Each test is preceded by
its number in the various Tables and is proceeded by the
trigram which specifies its originally hypothesized factor
content. In those cases where the test proved to be
factorially complex, the additional significant factor
loadings are indicated in parentheses to the right of the
test name.
128
129
The Ability Factors
CFU - Cognition of figural units
13. Close-ups (CFU) .63
23. Figure Completion (CFU) .56
29. Hidden Print (CFU) .56
47. Mutilated Words (CFU) ‘ .41
All four tests designed to measure CFU loaded
univocally on the factor. Of interest is the strong, univ
ocal loading of the test Hidden Print. Hidden Print was
the one test designed for CFU that represented the ability
to form closure against unorganized distraction. The find
ing that Hidden Print is a pure measure of CFU and not NFT
allows the definition of CFU to be broadened somewhat.
CFU can now be described as the ability to form closure
from unorganized presentations and against unorganized
distraction.
Mutilated Words also loaded quite well on factor
!
CFU despite its use of symbolic stimuli. However, no real i
j
conclusion can be made about this test for in the present I
!
I
study, as in that by O'Sullivan, et al. (1965), no likely
I
competing symbolic factors were included in the battery.
i
Therefore, it is impossible either to confirm or reject !
i
the finding of Green, et al. (1953), that Mutilated Words
split its variance between a figural-closure factor and a
130
word-fluency factor. Judging from the test loadings in
the Green, et al., study, the factor called word fluency
was probably either CSU or CST.
CFC - Cognition of figural classes
22. Figure Classification .52
20. Figural Class Inclusion .36
CFC was first isolated in the study by Kettner,
et al. (1959), and was strongly confirmed in the study by
Dunham, et al. (1966). The same two tests utilized here
served as univocal measures of CFC in the Dunham, et al.,
study. CFC is seen as the ability to recognize the common
class properties of items of information.
One interesting fact should be mentioned. The test
Best Figural Class Separation, designed to measure EFC, had
a near significant loading (.29) on CFC. Best Figural
Class Separation requires the examinee to select the pair
of figural properties that can best sort nine figures into
two distinct groups. Since the possible common properties
are given to the examinee, cognition variance was not
expected. It is true that the examinee does have to recog
nize the properties in the actual figures, but this part
of the test was not exceedingly difficult for the figures
were fairly simple. Additionally, the same recognition
process is required in the other EFC tests which did not
tend to load on CFC.
131
Two hypotheses are tentatively advanced here to
explain the CFC loading of Best Figural Class Separation.
One is that the test is more complex than the other EFC
tests, for it does require the comparison of figures on a
greater number of common properties. Perhaps the complex
ity of the test and time limitations forced a cognitive
strategy on the examinee. In other words, the examinee
might have judged it more efficient to cognize the most
frequent common properties rather than compare all of the
figures to each given pair of figural properties.
The second hypothesis concerns the possibility
that Best Figural Class Separation actually best represents
the factor NFC, the convergent production of figural
classes. In discussing the hypothesized measures, it was
I
|mentioned that the test was utilized in an attempt to force
|the comparison aspect involved in a convergent-production
!task. NFC was defined in the Dunham, et al. (1966), study
!
i as the ability to sort figures on the hasis of class prop-
i
I erties in accordance with certain restrictions such as the
i
!production of mutually exclusive groups. Since NFC was j
! !
not included in the present battery, no definite statement
|
| can be made concerning the possible NFC variance in the
|
| test Best Figural Class Separation. However, it is inter
esting to note that the test did split its variance between
the two available classes factors (.29 on CFC and .32 on
132
EFC), a finding which would not be unexpected if its true
factorial content were NFC.
CFR - Cognition of figural relations
67. Spatial Comprehension (CFS)
27. Figure Series (CFR)
49. Necessary Facts (CMS)
21. Figure Analogies (CFR)
25. Figure Matrix (CFR)
.35 (.32 CMS)
.31 (.30 EFR)
.31 (.36 CFT)
.58
.38
Although the three tests designed for CFR do load
on this factor, the leading test, Spatial Comprehension,
was designed for factor CFS. Spatial Comprehension asks
the examinee to place certain landmarks on a diagram from
a verbal description of their locations. It was thought
that the examinee would have to orient himself within the
verbally described scene in order to place correctly the
landmarks, and therefore a CFS ability would be involved.
However, the verbal descriptions are quite complex; relat
ing many landmarks in various ways. A different strategy
might have been required due to the complex interrelation
ships. That is, instead of the examinee's orienting him
self within the scene, he would be forced to work step by
step; no"TTng the relationships between a pair of landmarks,
correctly placing them on the diagram, and then going back
to the verbal description, either working next on incorpo
rating a third landmark or taking an additional pair of
133
landmarks and correctly relating them to each other. This
sort of strategy would emphasize the cognition of spatial
relationships. Granted the relationships would eventually
build up into a system, however, it is possible that the
examinee would not have to comprehend the entire system,
only the various interrelated parts of that system. If
this logic concerning Spatial Comprehension is correct,
factor CFR in this study could be seen as the ability to
comprehend the relations within the parts of a spatial sys
tem as well as the ability to comprehend the relations or
changes between figures.
The view of CFR as involving both spatial and fig
ural relations would also explain the loading of the CMS
test, Necessary Facts. Necessary Facts requires the exam
inee to supply the information that is lacking, but needed
to solve given problems. Many of the problems are geometric
in nature, dealing with such concepts as area, the Pythag
orean theorem, and congruent triangles. It is true that
the examinees do not have to solve the problems, but some
comprehension of the concepts is probably necessary in
order to be able to state what information is lacking. As
Q
pointed out in Chapter I, Werdelin (1959) found a signif
icant relationship between the space abilities and geomet
ric problem solving. Under these circumstances, the load
ing of Necessary Facts on a factor that emphasized the
comprehension of figural or spatial relationships would
134
not be unexpected. In addition, it should be noted that
this is not the first time tests for CFR and tests for CMS
have shared variance on the same factor. Previous studies
have reported the same finding (Green, et al., 1953;
Hertzka, et al., 1954; O'Sullivan, et al., 1965).
The .29 loading of Paper Folding, a CFT test, on
factor CFR, can also be explained by viewing the present
factor as including the comprehension of spatial relations.
Paper Folding requires the examinee to identify what a
piece of paper, that is folded and cut in a pictured man
ner, looks like when it is unfolded. Paper Folding's major
loading was on its hypothesized CFT factor, because the
task obviously requires a visualization process. However,
the task does allow the examinee to note and take into
account the relationships of the cut-out pieces, and this
has been seen as the major cause of its general-reasoning
variance in the past (Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Green, et
al., 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954; Wilson, et al., 1954;
Hertzka, et al., 1954). Therefore, the small loading of
Paper Folding on a CFR factor that included the ability to
comprehend various interrelated parts would not be
unexpected.
One advantage that would come from considering CFR
as including the comprehension of relations within a spa
tial system, is that it would avoid the problem of having
to measure CFR strictly by tasks emphasizing figural
135
changes. In Chapter III, the possible confounding of CFR
and CFT tests due to the common use of figural changes was
discussed in length. It should be noted that the three
hypothesized CFR tests in this study do have some loadings
on the CFT factor; Figure Matrix loads .36 on CFT while
Figure Analogies and Figure Series have loadings in the
high .20's.
The real question that has to be asked, however, is
whether the present factor with the strong loading of
Spatial Comprehension and the weaker loadings of the
hypothesized CFR tests can truly be aligned with the CFR
factor found in previous studies. A CFR factor defined by
tests emphasizing the recognition of figural changes had
appeared in four previous studies at the ARP at U. S. C.
(Green, et al., 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954; Kettner, et
al., 1959; O'Sullivan, et al., 1965). Whenever CFT was
also included in the battery of tests, there was some con
fusion between the CFR and CFT factors, but it was evident
that each factor had its unique component. The fault,
therefore, would seem to lie in the construction of the
tests. Some suggestions for future test development can
be made by examining the tests designed for factors EFR
and EFT which separated surprisingly well in the present
study. One EFT test, Judging Rearrangements, was purposely
designed to investigate the possibility of two-dimensional,
non-spatial or rotational changes representing the
136
figural-transformation product. The distinguishing feature
of the test is that the entire figure is changed, requiring
the redefinition of one gestalt into another gestalt. The
EFR tests, on the other hand, utilize figural changes that
involve only parts of the figure and not the entire ge
stalt. Careful examination of the items of the three CFR
tests shows that many of them utilize figural changes which
involve the entire gestalt. In this case, emphasis is
placed on recognizing a redefinition of a gestalt and this
undoubtedly caused transformation variance.
The CFR factor found in the present study can best
be described as the ability to recognize, discover, or
comprehend the relations or changes within the parts of
figures or within the parts of a spatial system. The inclu
sion of spatial relations in the measurement of a CFR fac
tor is entirely logical. However, the test Spatial Com
prehension is quite difficult and complex, requiring the
organization of many spatial relations. The test actually
appears more akin to the type of test that measured the
reasoning II and reasoning III factors in the AAF studies
(Guilford § Lacey, 1947), from which CFR was finally
separated (Green, et al., 1953; Guilford, et al., 1954).
No final conclusion about the nature of CFR can be made
from the results of the present study. The question of
whether the unique component of CFR is best represented by
tests of spatial interrelationships, by tests which
137
emphasize the recognition of changes between the parts of
figures, or by both types of tests must await further
research.
CFS - Cognition of figural systems
66. Space Positioning (CFS) .69 (.41 CFT)
68. Spatial Orientation (CFS) .39
69. Spatial Visualization (CFT) .31 (.51 CFT)
Two of the four tests designed for factor CFS do
serve to define that factor. Spatial Comprehension loaded
on factor CFR and the possible reasons were discussed under
the CFR factor. Blocks was the other test designed for
CFS. The failure of Blocks to load significantly on CFS
is disappointing, for it was the one test in which system
variance was judged to be supplied by the figure itself
and not by the larger spatial system. Blocks, however,
proved to be factorially complex, sharing its variance
with three factors: CFT, CFI, and EFI.
It is not too difficult to explain the complexity
of Blocks. The test requires the examinee to determine
the number of blocks each lettered block touches. Each
item consists of a pile of blocks specified to be of the
same size and shape. The pile of blocks is situated in
such a way that not all of the blocks are fully visible to
the examinee. Apparently the comprehension of the system
of blocks is not essential. What does appear to be
138
essential is the recognition and evaluation of the fact
that all of the blocks are of the same size and shape, for
it is this fact that the examinee must take into account
when determining the probable extension of a block that is
partially hidden from view by the adjoining blocks (CFI,
EFI). Additionally, it is quite conceivable that the
examinee tried to visualize what the pile of blocks looked
like from other perspectives. That is, he probably visu
ally rotated the pile to get a better idea of the position
of the partially hidden blocks, and this would naturally
lead to CFT variance.
Of the two hypothesized CFS tests which do help to
define the present factor, only one, Spatial Orientation,
is univocal; the other, Space Positioning, has a signifi
cant side loading on the CFT factor. The loading of Space
Positioning on CFT can be related to the historical con
fusion between the CFS and CFT factors discussed in detail
in Chapter II. To review, CFS was described as the ability
to comprehend the arrangements and positions of objects in
space where the human body is considered the central refer
ence point in the comprehension process. CFT, on the other
hand, was seen as requiring the comprehension of the
spatial manipulation of an object apart from the body
(Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et al., 1951; Guilford
§ Hoepfner, 1966b).
139
The test Space Positioning apparently did not
entirely ensure a CFS strategy. In Space Positioning, the
examinee is to identify at which point on a circle he would
have to be to get various views of an arrangement of balls.
The examinees were instructed that the balls had not moved,
only their own position relative to them, in hopes that
the human body would be utilized as the main frame of
reference. However, the examinees apparently still pre
ferred to solve some of the items by rotating the arrange
ment of balls apart from! their own body, hence the CFT
variance.
It is interesting to note that Spatial Orientation
was once again a univocal measure of CFS (Michael, et al.,
1950; Michael, et al., 1951). Spatial Orientation appar
ently succeeds in forcing a CFS strategy on the examinee.
The distinguishing feature of Spatial Orientation is that
the examinee is presented with only sections of a scene in
which he immediately tries to locate himself. It is very
difficult to view the scenes without considering one's own
position, and more difficult to see the scene as rotating
apart from one's own body rotation. This feature of the
test is partly due to the fact that not all of the scene
is presented. One has the distinct feeling that if actu
ally present at the scene he could see more to his left or
right or even behind him than is actually represented by
the given pictures. In Space Positioning, on the other
140
hand, the entire arrangement of balls can be seen and even
if the examinee were actually at the scene he could see no
more than that presented in the pictured item. Granted,
he would see different views of the balls if he walked
around them, and this is the strategy the test was trying
to ensure, but he could achieve these same views by rotat
ing the table or surface upon which the balls appear to be
located. It would seem that any additional tests of CFS
should be constructed by utilizing the format feature of
Spatial Orientation that seems to force the examinee to use
his own body as the reference point for rotations.
The small loading of Spatial Visualization, a CFT
test, on the CFS factor, can also be explained on the basis
of the historical confusion of the two factors. However,
it is also likely that some of the system variance in Spa
tial Visualization is due to the fact that a sequence of
rotations must be followed; the sequence being classified
as a systematic order.
The CFS factor in the present study is very close
to the spatial-relations factor found by Michael, et al.
(1950), both in its interpretation and in the nature of
the test loadings, which confirms its correct placement in
the Structure-of-Intellect model. However, it still seems
reasonable to assume that CFS should be defined by both
tests which derive their system variance by using the
larger spatial system and those in which the system
141
variance is supplied by the figure itself. As noted, the
test Blocks, which employed figure-supplied systems, did
not load on the present CFS factor. The confirmation of
the above assumption, therefore, must await further
research.
CFT - Cognition of figural transformations
9. Block Rotation (CFT) .66
43. Match Problems II (DFT) .52 (.31 DFT)
69. Spatial Visualization (CFT) .51 (.31 CFS)
51. Paper Folding (CFT) .49
10. Block Visualization (CFT) .41
66. Space Positioning (CFS) .41 (.69 CFS)
11. Blocks (CFS) .37 (.33 CFI,
.41 EFI)
62. Problem Solving (CMS) .36 (.74 CMS)
25. Figure Matrix (CFR) .36 (.31 CFR)
The list of tests for the CFT factor is by far the
largest found in this study. All four tests designed to
measure CFT had their major loadings on this factor. The
leading test, Block Rotation, was clearly a univocal mea
sure of CFT. The side loading of Spatial Visualization on
CFS and the small loading of Paper Folding on CFR have
already been discussed under the CFS and CFR factors,
respectively. The fourth hypothesized CFT test, Block
Visualization, had a near significant loading (.29) on the
142
CMS or general-reasoning factor. Block Visualization
✓
requires the examinee to solve problems by visualizing how
a block of wood is painted and cut into parts from a verbal
description of the process. As noted in Chapter III, the
use of verbal descriptions in visualization tests was quite
common in the AAF research, and typically such tests did
show some confounding with general reasoning (Guilford §
Lacey, 1947). The small loading of Block Visualization on
CMS, therefore, is not new; in fact, it speaks well for the
test that it was so minor.
The CFT factor has five tests loading on it that
were not hypothesized to do so. The loadings of three
tests, Figure Matrix, Space Positioning, and Blocks, have
already been discussed under the factors CFR and CFS.
The test Problem Solving, a marker for CMS, had
only secondary variance on CFT. Problem Solving had served
as a measure for CMS, general reasoning, many times, but
it has loaded on a CFT or visualization factor (Green, et
al., 1953). The test requires the examinee to solve ver
bally stated arithmetic problems in which the numerical
calculations have been minimized. At first it seems dif
ficult to understand why an arithmetic-reasoning "type of
test would have visualization variance. In the Green, et
al. (1953) study, it was suggested that visualization could
be used as an aid to semantic-reasoning tasks. With this
in mind, it was decided to review the literature to see if
the confounding of visualization and general reasoning had
any generality. In the process, an interesting tendency
was noted; if the sample consisted of pilots, air cadets,
or engineers, figurally oriented people, some general-
reasoning tests often loaded on a visualization factor
(Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Green, et al., 1953; Guilford, et
al. , 1954; Wilson, et al., 1954; Hertzka, et al., 1954),
c \ -
but if the sample was more heterogeneous and less definite
ly figurally inclined, such as a high-school sample, some
of the visualization tests tended to load on the general-
reasoning factor (Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et al.,
1951; Fruchter, 1948). It is reasonable to hypothesize
that those people who are accustomed to thinking in figural
terms would attempt to use visualization in the solution
of general-reasoning tasks, while those accustomed to
thinking and solving problems semantically would attempt to
solve visualization tasks by means of general reasoning.
Of course, no definite statement can be made about the
above hypothesis, for cause and effect relationships cannot
be determined from factor loadings, just as they cannot be
determined from correlation coefficients. However, it
* f
does appear to be a reasonable explanation for the loading
of the test Problem Solving on the CFT factor with the
present sample of architectural students.
The test Match Problems II had its major loading
on CFT and only a side loading on its hypothesized factor,
DFT. Match Problems II had served as a measure for adap
tive flexibility, or DFT, in four previous studies at the
ARP at U. S. C. (Berger, et al., 1957; Frick, et al., 1959
Guilford, et al., 1961; Guilford 6 Hoepfner, 1966a), but
it was a univocal measure in only one (Frick, et al.). In
the Berger, et al., study, a visualization factor similar
to CFT, but defined primarily by the test Mechanical Prin
ciples, was present in the battery. Match Problems II did
not load significantly on the visualization factor in that
study. However, in a study by Wand (1958), Match Problems
II tended to be related to such cognitive spatial tests as
Cards and Spatial Orientation, rather than to the other
tests designed to measure flexibility. The Wand study did
not employ factor-analytic techniques. Instead, briefly,
it was assumed that if two tests depended on one common
factor, a plot of their correlations with the other tests
in the battery would show proportionality (linear depen
dence). The plots were evaluated according to a signifi
cance test suggested by M. S. Bartlett in his work on
external factor analysis. The Wand study is important
because it represents one other study in which Match Prob
lems II tended not to measure a flexibility factor.
Match Problems II requires the examinee to remove
a specified number of matches (sides) from a pattern of
squares or triangles and leave a specified number of
squares or triangles. The examinee is to indicate
145
different solutions to each problem and it is this feature
of the test that caused it to be seen as a measure of DFT
or adaptive flexibility. However, it is possible that the
essential feature of Match Problems II involves the recog
nition of the possible transformations or redefinitions
that can be effected by removing matches according to the
specifications. That is, the examinee might not have to
actually change his approach or set, but rather, simply
recognize the various redefinitions possible.
If Match Problems II is actually a measure of CFT,
which future studies must either confirm or reject, a
broader interpretation of the CFT factor is possible. As
noted in Chapter III, CFT has typically been defined by
tests that require the recognition or discovery of spatial
or rotational changes. Match Problems II, however,
requires two-dimensional, non-rotational figural changes.
In line with the discussion of the tests under factor CFR,
it should be noted that the figural changes in Match Prob
lems II do involve the entire figure pattern, that is, it
is the new pattern of required squares that must be recog
nized. CFT, in the present study, can still be described
as the ability to visualize figural changes, but the
emphasis on three-dimensional rotational changes is
decreased. Perhaps CFT is more accurately seen as the
ability to recognize redefinitions of figural material,
146
with rotational changes simply being one specific type of
figural redefinition.
CFI - Cognition of figural implications
12. Circle Continuations (CFI) .71
41. Line Continuations (CFI) .49
11. Blocks (CFS) .33 (.37 CFT,
.41 EFI)
Two of the tests hypothesized to measure CFI loaded
univocally on this factor. However, the other two hypothe
sized measures, Pattern Arrangement and Competitive Plan
ning, helped define the DFT and EFI factors, respectively.
The loading of the test Blocks on CFI has been discussed
under CFS. Its implication variance apparently stems from
the examinee seeing the implied blocks that are partially
hidden from view.
The leading test for the CFI factor, Circle Contin
uations, asks the examinee to determine which of five dots
would lie directly on the extension of the partially pre
sented circle. In each item of Line Continuations, the
second successful measure of CFI, the examinee must deter
mine which alternative line is the continuation of a given
line. The given line is interrupted by a pair of either
straight or curved parallel lines.
Both tests obviously exhibit the "gap" in informa
tion that was believed to be necessary in order to have
147
the examinee actually discover or recognize the implica
tion. In Line Continuations, the "gap" caused by the
interruption of the given line purposely introduces an
illusion which the examinee must resist. In Circle Con
tinuations, on the other hand, the creation of an illusory
effect was not intended and does not seem to be present.
The loadings of Circle Continuations and Blocks argue
against interpreting the CFI factor as simply the illusion
factor found by Thurstone (1944). In the present study,
the CFI factor does seem to be somewhat restricted to those
tests that require the examinee to discover the implication
of lines. In all three tests that load on this factor, the
examinee must extrapolate further information about figural
lines from only a certain given portion of them. Further
research must determine whether or not CFI also includes
the discovery of other types of figural implications.
CMU - Cognition of semantic units
72. Word Completion (CMU) .64
71. Verbal Comprehension (CMU) .58
The reference factor of CMU emerged with its usual
clarity. Its separation from the figural tests in this
battery is not very surprising. Its separation from the
semantic divergent-production tests once again shows that
the latter abilities are not dependent on general vocabu
lary level to any great extent.
148
CMS - Cognition of semantic systems
61. Problem Solving (CMS) .74 (.36 CFT)
49. Necessary Facts (CMS) .32 (.35 CFR)
The general-reasoning factor is clearly defined by
the two reference tests included for its measurement. The
significant side loading for each test has already been
discussed under the appropriate factor.
CMS was included in the battery because it was felt
that some of the experimental figural tests might, due to .
their complexity, have general-reasoning variance. The
results show, however, that the only figural test to have
any near significant loading (.29) on CMS was Block Visu
alization. The possible reasons for the loading of Block
Visualization on CMS were discussed under factor CFT.
MFS - Memory for figural systems
70. System-Shape Recognition (MFS) .60
50. Orientation Memory (MFS) .56
44. Monogram Recall (MFS) .50
63. Remembering Object Orientation (MFS) .45
The four tests designed to measure MFS load univo-
cally on this factor. The tests were of an experimental
nature in that they had never before been included in a
major analysis. Since this was the only memory factor
included in the battery, final proof of the separation of
149
MFS from similar memory factors cannot be offered. How
ever, it is gratifying to find that the other experimental
figural tests do not share any variance with the figural-
memory factor found in this study.
It is interesting to note that the MFS factor is
quite broad. Unlike CFS, but like EFS, it includes tests
which require the memory for spatial direction, Remember
ing Object Orientation, and tests for the memory of figure-
supplied systems, Monogram Recall. Also adding breadth
to the MFS factor is the fact that both recognition and
recall tests load together successfully.
DFU - Divergent production of figural units
42. Make A Figure Test (DFU) .46 (.38 DFS)
65. Sketches (DFU) .34 (.31 DFI)
45. Monograms (DFS) .34 (.52 DFS)
26. Figure Production (DFI) .33 (.59 DFI)
The two tests placed into the battery as marker
tests for DFU have their major loadings on this factor,
but each has significant side loadings. The confusion
between the DFU and DFS factors, represented by Make A
Figure Test's side loading on DFS and Monograms' side
loading on DFU, has been found in two previous analyses
(Gershon, et al., 1963; Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966a).
Apparently, at times, the examinees treat the simple
elements given in the Make A Figure Test as parts they
150
must organize into a system. The figures produced in
Make A Figure Test actually have no gestalt, they can be
seen as combinations, and therefore perhaps systems, of
given figural elements. One explanation for the DFU vari
ance in the test Monograms is that, due to the frequent
use of monograms in our society, the examinee tends to
view them as separate and distinct units of information,
and, in fact, they do appear to have a "thing" quality.
However, one memory test used monograms as stimuli and was
a successful measure of MFS, but then MFU was not in the
battery to test against any possible shared variance.
The small loading of Sketches on DFU is somewhat
surprising, for in the past two studies (Gershon, et al.,
1963; Guilford 6 Hoepfner, 1966a) it was the one strong
univocal test for DFU. In this sample, a strong relation
ship between Sketches, a DFU test, and Figure Production,
a DFI test, appeared, and each shared variance with the
other's hypothesized factor. Both tests require the
examinee to add to given lines to produce a recognizable
figure. Figure Production, the DFI test, is scored on the
amount of elaboration produced, while Sketches is scored
on the number of recognizable objects produced from the
same given figural element. In scoring the two tests, it
was noted that the examinees in this sample tended to
respond to the two tests somewhat in the same manner, for
in both they attempted to produce clever or unusual
151
responses, and perhaps this caused the shared variance of
the two tests.
DFS - Divergent production of figural systems
18. Designs (DFS)
45. Monograms (DFS)
42. Make A Figure Test (DFU)
.63
.52 (.34 DFU)
.38 (.46 DFU)
The two marker tests for DFS have their major
loadings on this factor. This is the first time that
Designs has had a strong univocal loading on DFS. In the
past two studies (Gershon, et al., 1963; Guilford §
Hoepfner, 1966a) Designs shared its variance with DFU.
Apparently the revision of the scoring guide for Designs
did aid in emphasizing its system variance, although the
same cannot be said for the test Monograms. The confusion
of DFS with DFU, shown in the test loadings of Monograms
and Make A Figure Test, has already been described under
factor DFU.
DFT - Divergent production of figural transformations
55. Planning Air Maneuvers (DFT) .53
52. Pattern Arrangement (CFI) .44
43. Match Problems II (DFT) .31 (.52 CFT)
Although the two marker tests for DFT do load on
this factor, it seems to be a different type of factor
than that found in the past. In the past, DFT has usually
been led by a variety of match-problems-type tests. How
ever, in the present study Match Problems II has its
major loading on CFT and Pattern Arrangement, a CFI test,
loads strongly on the present DFT with Planning Air Maneu
vers.
Planning Air Maneuvers requires the examinee to
indicate, actually produce, the most efficient method of
’’skywriting," given pairs of letters. In some items, the
same letter pairs are used, but the start and end positions
are different, therefore requiring new patterns to be pro
duced. The required production of new patterns or solu
tions to the same letter combination was given as the major
explanation for Planning Air Maneuvers' DFT, adaptive-
flexibility, variance in the Berger, et al., study (1957).
However, in the form of the test that has been used in the
present study and in the Guilford and Hoepfner study
(1966a), only two out of the twelve items contain the same
letter combination.
Pattern Arrangement asks the examinee to combine
various black and white pieces into one pattern in the
most efficient manner by overlapping squares of the same
colors and joining triangles to form new squares to be
used in further overlapping. The task obviously requires
the examination of many possible solutions or methods of
overlapping the pieces so that the most efficient method
can be chosen.
153
The essential feature of both tests is the require
ment that the most efficient solution be chosen from
amongst many possible solutions. In other words, the exam
inee must come as close to a criterion solution of maximum
efficiency as he can, by taking into account the figural
implications of the letters or pieces. This task, how
ever, would seem to fit the definition of NFI, convergent
production of figural implications, in the Structure of
Intellect rather than DFT. The factor of NFI has never
been investigated, but from its trigram definition it
should involve the ability to produce a unique or conven
tionally accepted best outcome by taking into account the
figural implications of the given information. Some indi
cation of implication variance in the test Planning Air
Maneuvers can be found in its .29 loading on the EFI factor
in this study.
Despite the above logic, the factor was identified
here as DFT, for Planning Air Maneuvers had helped to de
fine that factor in five previous studies (Berger, et al.,
1957; Frick, et al., 1959; Marks, et al., 1959; Guilford,
et al., 1961; Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966a). In fact, the
test was a univocal measure of DFT in the last three
studies. On the other hand, no other test which emphasizes
the most efficient solution was present in any of the
previous batteries, and it should also be noted that Plan
ning Air Maneuvers was originally designed as a measure
154
for planning ability and not flexibility (Guilford § Lacey,
1947).
Match Problems II, the other marker test for DFT,
had its major loading on factor CFT. The possible reasons
for this were cited under the discussion of the CFT factor.
Match Problems II had also helped define the DFT factor in
four previous studies (Berger, et al., 1957; Frick, et al.,
1959; Guilford, et al., 1961; Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966a).
It should be noted that Match Problems II was the one, of
several match-problem-type tests classified as DFT mea
sures, that consistently had either specific or significant
common-factor side loadings. It is conceivable that future
studies will find that the other match-problems tests still
define an adaptive-flexibility or DFT factor and that the
test Planning Air Maneuvers along with Pattern Arrangement
will split off to define a new factor, perhaps NFI.
DFI - Divergent production of figural implications
26. Figure Production (DFI) .59 (.33 DFU)
and Decorations, serve to define this factor, the latter
test being univocal. The factor represents the ability to
elaborate upon given figural information. The ^ide loading
17. Decorations (DFI)
1. Alternate Signs (DMT)
65. Sketches (DFU)
.37
.31 (.31 DMT) I
.31 (.34 DFU) |
The two marker tests for DFI, Figure Production
155
of Figure Production on DFU and its relationship to
Sketches were discussed under the interpretation of the
DFU factor.
This is the first time that the test Alternate
Signs, designed for DMT, has had a significant side load
ing on DFI. In two previous studies (Guilford, et al.,
1961; Guilford § Hoepfner, 1966a), the test was complex,
but its side loadings were not on DFI. Actually, the DFI
loading of Alternate Signs is quite reasonable. The test
asks the examinee to draw many different figures or symbols
to represent the meaning of a given word. The task was
seen as requiring redefinitions of the meaning of the
given word and so a measure of DMT. However, since it is
figural material that is to represent a semantic word, the
implications that various figures have in terms of expres
sion of meaning might be taken into account. In addition,
if an examinee is able to elaborate upon figural informa
tion and thereby, perhaps, add new meaning to the repre
sentation, he would receive credit in terms of the scoring
guide for Alternate Signs.
DMU - Divergent production of semantic units
58. Plot Titles (DMU) .50
30. Ideational Fluency I (DMU) .48
The only two tests loading on this factor are the
marker tests for DMU. The factor is described as the
ability to produce many elementary ideas that meet certain
given requirements. DMU is clearly separated from CMU,
the verbal-comprehension factor.
It is gratifying to find that the new form of
Ideational Fluency performs in the manner expected. Also,
it should be noted that the new scoring system for Plot
Titles (DMU), which emphasized fluency instead of non-
cleverness, was quite successful.
DMT - Divergent production of semantic transformations
57. Plot Titles (DMT) .50
1. Alternate Signs (DMT) .31 (.31 DFI)
The two tests which load on this factor are marker
tests for DMT, seen as the ability to produce many clever,
novel, or redefinition types of responses to given informa
tion. Plot Titles is once again a strong, univocal measure
of DMT (Guilford, et al., 1961; Guilford § Hoepfner,
1966a). The side loading of Alternate Signs has been dis
cussed under factor DFI.
DMI - Divergent production of semantic implications
59. Possible Jobs (DMI) .56
56. Planning Elaboration (DMI) .43
The DMI factor, represented by the two marker
tests, is described as the ability to produce many ante
cedents, concurrents, and consequents of given information.
157
The factor emerges quite clearly and univocally in this
study as opposed to that by Guilford and Hoepfner (1966a),
in which the two tests, Possible Jobs and Planning Elabo
ration II, had significant side loadings on factors CMI
and DMU, respectively, in a ninth-grade population.
NFT - Convergent production of figural transformations
33. Internally Consistent Figures (EFS) .63
53. Penetration of Camouflage (NFT) .39
28. Hidden Figures (NFT) .31
The two marker tests for NFT or flexibility of
closure, Penetration of Camouflage and Hidden Figures, do
load on this factor and it is clearly separated from the
other closure factor CFU. However, the leading test on
this factor is Internally Consistent Figures, a test
designed originally for factor EFS.
Internally Consistent Figures asks the examinee to
determine whether given figures are internally consistent,
that is, if they could exist in reality. In essence, the
examinee must determine whether the given figures actually
could consist entirely of connected rectangular planes.
The strategic adjustment of perspective effects permits
some figures to appear to consist of connected rectangular
planes, while, in reality, the planes could never be con
nected in such a manner. It was thought that the examinee
would have to inspect each figure, which is seen as a
158 I
|
system due to its complexity, to see whether it is con
sistent with the assumption that the figures are made from j
i
connected rectangular planes. This task would seemingly
involve an EFS ability. The examinees, however, apparently!
did not utilize this strategy.
In examining the test further, it was realized
that the examinee could solve the task in another, more
efficient manner. The figures are actually three-
dimensional, but they are, of course, drawn on two-
dimensional paper. It is this fact that permits the use
of strategic adjustments of perspective in drawing Mimpos- I
sible" or non-existent figures. If the examinee can break !
down the idea of a two-dimensional figure and produce the
figure in its true three-dimensional form, the task is
easily solved. This process is akin to the traditional
process which defines NFT, that of breaking down one ge
stalt or configuration to form another (Guilford §
Hoepfner, 1966a).
Additionally, many of the figures in Internally
Consistent Figures are what is termed "reversible” (such
as the Necker cube). Although there is no one-to-one cor
respondence between the "reversible" figures and the
"impossible" figures, it is perhaps easier to detect a
figure's consistency or inconsistency with one particular
view of the figure. The examinee, then, must maintain
that particular view of the configuration while trying to
jdetect its consistency. The process of retaining a con
figuration or gestalt despite the distraction of another
gestalt has also been seen as NFT or flexibility of clo
sure in the past (Botzum, 1951; Thurstone, 1944).
From the results of this study, it would appear
that NFT is the ability to produce a new gestalt by break
ing down or effectively ignoring another conflicting ge
stalt. However, NFT should not be confused with the abili
ty to form closure or a gestalt against unorganized dis
traction which is to be seen as a CFU ability. The impor
tant feature of tasks measuring NFT is that the distrac
tion is in the form of another gestalt having a "thing"
quality of its own.
EFU - Evaluation of figural units
39. Judgment of Size (EFU) .60
32. Identical Forms (EFU) .48
35. Judging Figural Combinations (EFU) .43
Three of the four tests hypothesized to measure
EFU load strongly and univocally on the EFU factor. The
term perceptual speed had often been applied to the EFU
factor, because typically it was measured solely by tests,
such as Identical Forms, that are highly speeded and
require the rapid comparison of figures on the basis of
shape and detail.
The loadings of the tests Judgment of Size and
Judging Figural Combinations allows a broader interpreta
tion of the EFU factor. The hypothesis that EFU involves
comparison of figures on various unit properties is con
firmed. The tests now representative of EFU require com
parison of size as well as shape and detail. In addition,
EFU can no longer be seen as a "speed" factor, for Judgment
of Size is definitely a power test and Judging Figural
Combinations is only moderately speeded. At this time,
the term "perceptual accuracy" seems more descriptive of
the EFU ability than does the term perceptual speed.
One test, Judging Specified Figures, that was
designed to measure EFU failed to load on the EFU factor.
Judging Specified Figures asks the examinee to identify
figures that have both specified figural properties. It
was stated in the hypothesis section that Judging Specified
Figures might have EFC variance and, in fact, its only sig
nificant loading (.40) is on the EFC factor. The failure
of Judging Specified Figures to load on EFU, therefore, is
not surprising. As mentioned before, it was entered as an
EFU measure because of its similarity to the test Double
Descriptions which served as a measure of EMU in the seman
tic study (Nihira, et al., 1964). However, it is now
obvious that in the figural test, the examinees view the
stated figural properties as a class, and so the task
becomes one of correctly identifying members of a specified
class, an EFC ability.
EFC - Evaluation of figural classes
4. Best Figural Class (EFC)
38. Judging Specified Figures (EFU)
24. Figure Matching (EFC)
6. Best Figure Pairs (EFC)
5. Best Figural Class Separation (EFC)
The EFC factor is defined by all four tests de
signed to measure it. The only other test loading on EFC
is Judging Specified Figures whose classes variance was
expected and has been explained under the discussion of
the EFU factor. The common feature of the EFC tests and
Judging Specified Figures is the matching of figures into
given classes correctly, or in such a manner that a stated
criterion is met.
The weakest measure of EFC is Best Figural Class
Separation, the same test which had a .29 loading on CFC.
Although the task of Best Figural Class Separation involves
the common feature of EFC tests, it also seems to require
other abilities which were examined in detail under the
discussion of factor CFC.
The real surprise is in the loading of Figure
Matching on EFC. Figure Matching was designed for EFC
but not in accordance with the definition of evaluation
.51
.40
.39
.37
.32
162
utilized in this study. Instead, it was seen as a
subjective-judgment or personal-preference test included in
the battery for control purposes, and therefore was not
hypothesized to help define the EFC factor. It should be
noted that Figure Matching was the only one of three
subjective-judgment tests that did load on its appropriate
factor. Figure Matching asks the examinee to choose the
one of five alternative figures that best belongs in the
same class as a given figure. The test does differ from
the other subjective-judgment tests in that one weak
specification of the comparison process was given: the
examinees were told to choose the figure that had the
"most properties in common" with the given figure. How
ever, it was not felt that this one specification would
eliminate subjective judgment, for the examinee was still
free to weight the properties according to his own prefer
ence. One possible explanation for the loading of Figure
Matching exists. As mentioned before, two extensive item
analyses were performed on the test. It is conceivable
that these analyses led to the removal of those items in
which the examinee was forced to use a weighting system,
leaving those items in which the correct answer could
easily be determined by the criterion of "most common
properties." That is, no other alternative came so close
to the keyed response that the examinee had to weight the
properties according to their importance.
163
EFR - Evaluation of figural relations
16. Correct Figural Trends (EFR) .46
61. Prescribed Relations (EFR) .43
54. Perceptual Relations Judgment (EFR) .36
31. Identical Figural Relations (EFR) .34
2. Angle Estimation (EFR) .31
21. Figure Analogies (CFR) .30
All of the tests which were developed for EFR in
accordance with the definition of evaluation utilized in
this study have their significant loadings on the EFR fac
tor. The subjective-judgment test developed for EFR,
Nearest Figural Relations, has its highest loading on this
factor, but it was not significant (.29) as was expected.
The small loading of Figure Analogies, a CFR test,
is quite reasonable. Figure Analogies requires the exam
inee to complete a second pair of figures, by choosing one
of five alternatives, in such a way that the relationship
between the second pair of figures is the same as the
relationship between a given pair of figures. The require
ment of completing a second pair is one way to see whether
an examinee has recognized or comprehended the relation
between the given pair, so cognition variance was believed
to be present. However, if the alternatives, from which
the examinee must choose, are at all competing, a com
parison process or an evaluation ability most likely
becomes involved. Proof comes from the fact that the test
Verbal Analogies I, which is a semantic test parallel in
format to Figure Analogies, serves as a measure for CMR,
while the test Verbal Analogies III serves as a measure
for EMR. The only difference between the two semantic
tests is that in the latter evaluation test the emphasis
is on the choice between difficult alternatives. Figure
Analogies does have alternatives that are difficult to
choose from, so it is natural that some evaluational vari
ance exists.
The EFR factor emerged quite well. Although some
of the test loadings are not strong, the factor is well
defined by tests of a varying nature. Three of the EFR
tests were developed on the basis that figural changes were
to be considered figural relations. In the hypothesis sec
tion it was mentioned that the CFR tests have typically
involved figural changes. In the three EFR tests, Correct
Figural Trends, Prescribed Relations, and Identical Figural
Relations, the majority of the figural changes involve only
part of the figure, that is, the change does not involve
the entire gestalt and it is this fact that allows for the
separation of figural relations and transformations.
The second type of test that loaded on the EFR fac
tor emphasized more perceptual relations such as distance
or proportionality of size. Angle Estimation asks the
examinee to select the alternative angle that is closest
165
in size to a given angle. It was believed that the lines
of an angle bear a relationship of distance or rate of
divergence from each other and that the test Angle Estima
tion would require the examinee to compare relationships
of distance in accordance with their identity or near iden
tity. The loading of the test on EFR, even though slight,
supports this belief. The other perceptual-type test,
Perceptual Relation Judgment, requires the examinee to
determine whether or not steps in a given trend, such a.s a
line decreasing in length, are proportional or equivalent.
The interpretation of EFR can be quite broad. Both
perceptual-type relations such as distance and proportion
ality and changes within the parts of figures are involved.
From this study EFR can be seen as the ability to compare
or match figural relations, either perceptual or in terms
of figural changes, in accordance with logical criteria
such as identity.
EFS - Evaluation of figural systems
34. Judging Figural Balance (EFS) .43
14. Closest Spatial Series (EFS) .40
7. Best Map Placement (EFS) .32
Only three of the five tests designed to measure
EFS actually help define that factor. Of the two tests
which failed to load on EFS, one, Internally Consistent
Figures, leads on the NFT factor and has already been
166
discussed under that factor. The other, Similar Orienta
tions, had no significant loadings on any of the factors
in this study.
Of the three tests that do define EFS, two, Judg
ing Figural Balance and Best Map Placement, are figure-
supplied systems tests, while the other, Closest Spatial
Series, was designed as a spatially-supplied system test.
At first glance it would appear that the hypothesis that
the two types of systems tests would load on one systems
factor was confirmed. However, the failure of Similar
Orientations to load on any factor causes some doubt to be
raised as to whether Closest Spatial Series was truly seen
by the examinees as involving the larger spatial system.
Closest Spatial Series presents the examinee with
four different views of a scene, such as he might see when
walking in front of or around the scene. The task of the
examinee is to compare the movement between the first and
second view with that between the third and fourth, and to
determine which represents the greatest amount of move
ment. It is just possible that the examinee attempted
to solve the items by carefully trying to overlap the
common elements in the adjacent pictures, rather than by
comparing the spatial movement. This overlapping process
would cause Closest Spatial Series to become a figure-
supplied system test.
167
The test Similar Orientations requires the examinee!
to compare various spatial movements in order to determine j
whether they are identical, that is, in the same direction j
and cover the same distance. There doesn't seem to be any j
non-spatial way in which the problems can be solved. The |
examinees almost have to match, or compare as to identity,
imagined kinesthetic movements.
One explanation for the failure of Similar Orien-
i
tations to load on EFS would seem to be that, in fact, two
factors are needed to account for the tasks required by
spatially-supplied versus figure-supplied systems tests.
This explanation assumes that the examinees did in fact
attempt to solve Closest Spatial Series by overlapping the
common elements in adjacent pictures as suggested above.
However, to solve the items in Closest Spatial Series by a
process of careful overlapping is most inefficient and,
therefore, unlikely. Perhaps a second and better explana
tion, for the failure of Similar Orientations would be that
the task involves a separate and distinct kinesthetic
ability, rather than a visual ability. Unfortunately,
no definite conclusion can be reached on the basis of this
study alone. Further research will be needed to determine
whether one or two factors are needed to account for
figure-supplied and spatially-supplied systems tasks.
168
EFT - Evaluation of figural transformations
40. Least Movement (EFT) .47
37. Judging Rearrangements (EFT) .36
Both of the tests which were hypothesized to mea
sure EFT and which were developed in accordance with the
present definition of evaluation load on the EFT factor.
The subjective-judgment test designed for EFT, Artistic
Interpretations, also has its highest loading on this fac
tor, but it is not significant (.28).
Although only two tests load on the EFT factor,
their varying nature argues against any claim of specific
ity. The leading test, Least Movement, requires compari
sons of three-dimensional movements or rotations in space.
Judging Rearrangements, on the other hand, requires com
parisons of two-dimensional transformations of a gestalt.
Therefore, the hypothesis that the transformations product
involves both three- and two-dimensional redefinitions is
confirmed in the evaluation area.
Additionally, Least Movement can be seen as an
estimation-type test (Hoepfner, et al., 1964). The exam
inee must make reltrti've judgments as to which alternative
represents the least amount of rotation of an electric iron
from its given position. Judging Rearrangements, however,
is a sensitivity test requiring yes-no judgments. The
examinee must determine whether alternative figures are in
169
fact made by rearranging the parts of the given figure.
The results indicate that EFT represents the ability to
compare figural redefinitions, both three- and two-
dimensional, in accordance with logical criteria.
EFI - Evaluation of figural implications
19. Essential Maze Routes (EFI) .51
46. Most Effective Path (EFI .48
15. Competitive Planning (CFI) .43
11. Blocks (CFS) .41 (.37 CFT,
.33 CFI)
36. Judging Figural Elaborations (EFI) .36
60. Poster Judgment (EFI) .34
8 . Best Move Selection (EFI) .31
Although all five of the tests hypothesized to
measure EFI load on EFI, the factor did not, in general,
appear in the manner that was expected from the special
pretesting undertaken with the CFI and EFI tests. The
factor does seem to involve the comparisons of various
figural implications, as hypothesized, but the three new
tests (Judging Figural Elaborations, Poster Judgment, and
Best Move Selection), which were especially designed in
accordance with the present definition of evaluation, did
not emerge as strong measures of EFI. Instead, the factor
is led by the three tests Essential Maze Routes, Most
Effective Path, and Competitive Planning, which were
classified as measures of the perceptual-foresight factor
i
in the past (Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Berger, et al. , 1957; j
i
Marks, et al., 1959). j
i
While Essential Maze Routes and Most Effective Pathj
i
were hypothesized as measures of EFI in this study, Compet-j
itive Planning was believed to be a measure of CFI. Com
petitive Planning requires the examinee to determine the j
result of a game between two contestants, the objective of j
which is to complete as many squares as possible. However,!
the examinee is instructed that the two contestants always |
make the best possible moves for themselves, and this
requires the examinee to determine carefully the implica
tions of each move, often rejecting immediate gains for
future rewards. It was felt that the essential feature or
task in Competitive Planning would be the discovery of the
implications of various moves. However, it is possible
that the discovery of the implications was not as difficult
as expected, and that the variance in the test arose from
the comparison process. That is, the essential feature of
Competitive Planning might be the comparison of the impli
cations of the various moves and the selection of those
moves that met the criterion of "best," i.e., the ones
that eventually allowed each contestant the maximum number
of squares possible. Under these circumstances, Competi
tive Planning could be seen as a measure of EFI.
171
At the start of this study it was hypothesized that
the old perceptual-foresight factor, placed in the CFI cell
of the Structure of Intellect, was actually a confounding
of CFI and EFI. However, the results of the study show
that perceptual foresight was indeed one factor, but its
proper location in the Structure of Intellect would seem to
be the cell of EFI and not CFI, for two reasons. One rea
son is that the new tests designed for EFI, according to
its definition, load on the same factor as the three former
measures of perceptual foresight. The second reason stems
from the fact that the new tests especially designed for
CFI, that emphasized the discovery of a figural implication
by presenting a "gap" in information, do define a factor
which is clearly separated from the three former measures
of perceptual foresight. The new CFI factor lays better
claim, on a logical basis, to the CFI cell.
From the results of this stuy, the EFI factor can
I
be seen as involving the ability to compare various figuralj
i
i
implications to a desired or standard implication on the j
basis of logical criteria. This interpretation accounts |
for all the EFI test loadings, including the test Blocks
discussed under factor CFS. j
i
The Two Control Factors
Sex
73. Sex .47 |
172
Year in School
74. Year in School .48
The two control variables were analyzed with the
ability tests to determine and to account for any possible
common differences in test scores on the basis of sex or
year in school. The results show that the common sex and
schooling differences were not important. In reporting
no sex differences with figural material, it must be
remembered that the present study utilized a select sample
consisting of students enrolled in the Architectural
Department of the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle.
It was, therefore, expected that all of the examinees,
both male and female, would most likely be self-selected
on proficiency in working with figural material. In other
words, the girls in this study were most likely in the
upper part of the population distribution of girls in
figural ability which, of course, limited the possibility
of finding significant sex differences.
CHAPTER VII
DISCUSSION
In general, the findings of the present study speak
well for the fruitfulness of the Structure-of-Intellect
model. Twenty-three factors, 18 of which were in the
figural-content area, were identified, in accordance with
predictions from the model. The advantage of the organi
zation that the Structure of Intellect has provided in the
area of figural-spatial abilities cannot be underestimated.
In particular, the present study has confirmed two useful
functions of the model; first, in adding structure and
clarity of definition to the various figural factors found
in the past (the cognition area), and second, in providing
the means by which undiscovered, but differentiable factors
can be deduced (the evaluation area). In the discussion
that follows, the general findings of the study are
reviewed and the significant findings concerning the
Structure of Intellect are noted.
173
_Ihe Evaluation Factors
The major purpose of the study was to demonstrate
the separate existence of the six figural-evaluation fac
tors, five of which had never before been identified, but
were hypothesized by the Structure of Intellect. The
results offer strong support for the major hypothesis.
All six evaluation factors were identified. Of the 24
tests developed in accordance with the present definition
of evaluation, 21 loaded univocally on their appropriate
factors. Only one test, Best Figural Class Separation
(EFC), had a near significant loading (.29) on the corre
sponding cognition factor (CFC). Three tests failed to
load significantly on their hypothesized factors. One,
Judging Specified Figures (EFU), had a univocal loading
on EFC, and this had been suspected and mentioned in the
hypothesis section. Another, Internally Consistent Fig
ures (EFS), led the NFT factor. The third test, Similar
Orientations, failed to load significantly on any factor
present in the study.
The clarity of the evaluation factors is evidenced,
not only by the fact that the tests designed to measure
them loaded on them univocally, but also by the fact that
the evaluation factors had little in common with the other
factors included in the study. Only three tests designed
for non-evaluation factors had significant loadings on the
evaluation factors. Figure Analogies (CFR) had a small
loading (.30) on EFR, and Competitive Planning (CFI) and
Blocks (CFS) had significant loadings on factor EFI.
The evaluation factors, therefore, were defined
for the most part solely and univocally by the tests
especially designed to measure them. With such clarity,
one often wonders if the factors have not capitalized on
specific variance between tests. However, the results
would seem to indicate that this is not the case, and in
fact, most of the evaluation factors are defined by tests
of a varying nature. That is, the tests for an evaluation
factor employed different methods or ways of measuring the
same ability. In fact, in many cases the evaluation fac
tors are broader in terms of the type of test used to mea
sure them, than are the corresponding cognition factors.
EFU is one of the factors that is defined by tests
of a varying nature. EFU has been found many times in the
past and had been labeled perceptual speed because it had
been typically defined by tests of a speeded nature that
required the rapid perception of shape and detail. The
results of the present study indicate that the term "per
ceptual accuracy" is a more appropriate description of EFU.
EFU now involves the ability to compare figures on the
basis of size as well as shape and detail, under both
speeded and non-speeded conditions.
The factor EFC also emerged clearly. The loading
of Judging Specified Figures (EFU) is quite reasonable
176
and, in fact, adds some depth to the factor. EFC can be
seen as the ability both to recognize figures having given
properties and to compare and match them correctly with an
arbitrary ranking system. The low loading of Best Figural
Class Separation, which was discussed in detail in Chapter
VI, is disappointing, for this test required the direct
comparison of various methods of sorting figures into
classes, and a stronger loading would have broadened the
EFC factor.
The EFR factor is well defined by both tests empha
sizing changes in the parts of figures and by tests empha
sizing such perceptual relations as distance and propor
tionality judgments. Much has been said about the problem
of figural relations often being represented by figural
changes. It does appear that separation between relations
and transformations, which also involve figural changes,
can be effected by restricting the former to changes within
parts of the figure and the latter to changes involving the
entire gestalt. However, there is the possibility that the
various figural relations factors in the Structure of Intel
lect might also be measured by tests involving spatial
relations as was discussed under the CFR findings. Tests
i
for spatial relations, in an evaluational format, should j
also be tried. J
Unfortunately, no firm conclusion concerning the j
t
possible broadening of the EFS factor to include both __|
177
figure-supplied and spatially-supplied systems can be made
at this time. It has been pointed out that the test
Closest Spatial Series, which loaded on EFS, even though
designed as a spatially-supplied systems test, might have
been solved in such a manner, by overlapping common ele-
ments in adjacent pictures, that it became a figure-
supplied systems test. The failure of Similar Orienta
tions, the other spatially-supplied systems test, could
then be seen as due to its unique spatial nature. On the
other hand, it seems more efficient to solve the items of
Closest Spatial Series by utilizing the larger spatial
system. In this case, the EFS factor would be defined by
the two types of tests. Similar Orientations can then be
seen as failing due to its large kinesthetic component.
The final determination, however, must wait for further
research.
The EFT factor represents the ability to compare
various figural transformations in accordance with set
specifications utilizing logical criteria. EFT is defined
both by tests which utilize three-dimensional or rotational
transformations and two-dimensional redefinitions of a
i
gestalt. The finding that both types of tests load on one |
factor confirms the original hypothesis about the EFT
factor mentioned in Chapter III.
The EFI factor can be aligned with the old
perceptual-foresight factor found in previous studies
178
(Guilford 8 Lacey, 1947; Berger, et al., 1957; Marks, et
al., 1959). Perceptual foresight was formerly placed in
the CFI cell of the Structure of Intellect, for it was
thought that the tests measuring perceptual foresight re
quired the discovery of implications. The results of the
present study, however, indicate that the essential feature
of the tests is the comparison of easily determined impli
cations. The three tests for perceptual foresight, Essen
tially Maze Routes (Route Planning), Most Effective Path
(Planning a Circuit), and Competitive Planning, loaded on
the EFI factor along with the new tests designed to force
comparisons of implications, and not on the CFI factor
which was defined by new tests designed to measure the dis
covery of an implication by extrapolating or bridging a
’ ’ gap" in the information. Further evidence for the align
ment of perceptual foresight and EFI comes from the fact
that the CFI factor was somewhat specific to the discovery
of the implications of lines, and yet Essential Maze Routes
and Most Effective Path, both line maze tests, separated
from CFI and loaded on EFI.
The Cognition Factors
The cognition factors did not, for the most part,
emerge as clearly as would be expected from their long
history. In essence, the obtained factor structure in the
figural-cognition area points out the need for further test
179
development and confirms the suspicion, mentioned in
Chapter I, that the classification of the cognitive factors
as known was very optimistic. The Structure of Intellect
has added much to the organization of factors in the
figural area; however, it appears that in placing the
known or historical factors within the Structure of Intel
lect, several complex tests were included for their measure
ment.
Twenty-one tests were included in the present
study to measure the six figural-cognition factors. Of
these 2 1 , 16 had their major loading on their hypothesized
factors. In general, two cognition factors, CFU and CFC,
emerged very clearly; one, CFI, emerged clearly but was
fairly narrow in nature, and three, CFR, CFS, and CFT,
evidenced some confusion.
The factor CFU was defined strongly and univocally
by the four tests designed to measure it. The present
study showed that CFU involves both the ability to form
closure from an unorganized presentation and to form
closure against unorganized distraction. In the past,
only the former ability was recognized as representing the
factor CFU.
The two marker tests for factor CFC served to
define in a univocal manner the CFC factor. CFC represents
the ability to recognize the common properties of figures
just as in the Dunham, et al., study (1966).
180
The confusion between the factors CFR and CFT and
between CFS and CFT has been discussed in some detail in
the section on results. The general conclusion would seem
to be that further test development is necessary and should
be directed along the following lines. First, the CFR
factor should undergo extensive analysis to see if tests
that require the comprehension of relations within the
parts of a spatial system are truly measures of CFR, or if
the strong loading of this type of test (Spatial Comprehen
sion) was simply an artifact of the present study. The
test Spatial Comprehension does seem closer to the idea of
abstraction typically found in relational tests in the
semantic area. Perhaps the use of spatial relations repre
sents another method of measuring relations without relying
on figural changes.
Second, tests should be developed for the CFS
factor that acquire their system variance from the figure
itself as well as tests that acquire their system variance
from utilizing the larger spatial system. In the latter
type of test, care must be taken to ensure that a CFS
strategy is used. One suggested way to ensure a CFS
strategy is to design tests, like Spatial Orientation,
which do not present the examinee with the entire view of
the scene or spatial arrangement in question. Hopefully
in this way the examinee will find it extremely difficult
to rotate the scene or object apart from his own body.
181
The last suggested line of research concerns fac
tor CFT. As mentioned before, the loading of Match Prob
lems II (DFT) on CFT provides some indication that the
factor involves non-rotational transformations as well as
the three-dimensional spatial transformations which have
typically defined CFT in the past. However, it remains to
be seen if Match Problems II truly helps to define CFT or
whether its loading in this study was due to the fact that
DFT, its hypothesized factor, was not really represented
by the tests Planning Air Maneuvers and Pattern Arrange
ment. In either case, additional tests for CFT which
require non-rotational transformations should be developed,
for both non-rotational and rotational tests do help to
define the EFT factor.
The CFI factor is clearly separated from the other
cognition factors, but it was defined by only two of the
four tests hypothesized to measure it. Both of the suc
cessful tests require the examinee to discover the impli
cations of given lines. They are somewhat different in
that in one, Line Continuations, an illusory effect must
be resisted, while in the other, Circle Continuations,
no illusion is thought to be present. Still, in order
to broaden the nature of CFI and confirm its existence
as a common rather than specific factor, tests requiring
the discovery of other than simple line implications must
be developed. _____
182
The Divergent-Production and
Other Reference Factors
Three of the figural divergent-production factors,
DFU, DFS, and DFI, emerged in much the same manner as they
had in the past (Guilford, et al., 1961; Guilford §
Hoepfner, 1966a). The present study found the same con
fusion between DFU and DFS tests as had the previous
studies. Although the revised scoring guide for the test
Designs did seem to aid its systems variance (it loaded
univocally on DFS), the same cannot be said for the test
Monograms which remained complex. The confusion between
the factors DFU and DFI is most likely an artifact of the
present study, arising from the tendency of the examinees
to respond to the DFU test, Sketches, and the DFI test,
Figure Production, in a similar manner.
All three of the divergent-production semantic
factors, JDMU, DMT, and DMI, were identified, clearly sepa
rated from each other and from the other factors in the
study. The new form of Ideational Fluency I (DFU) worked
well and the new scoring system for Plot Titles (DMU) also
appeared expedient.
The reference factor CMU or verbal comprehension
was clearly isolated from the divergent-production semantic
factors and the figural factors, indicating that vocabu
lary level was not an important determinant in any test
other than those designed for CMU. It also appears that __
183
the experimental and reference figural tests had no sig
nificant memory for figural-systems variance. The MFS fac
tor, despite its experimental nature, emerged strongly and
univocally in the present study.
The reference factor CMS, or general reasoning, was
defined by its two marker tests, Problem Solving and Neces
sary Facts. However, both tests had significant side load
ings, the former on factor CFT and the latter on CFR. A
loading of Problem Solving on CFT had been found in the
past (Green, et al., 1953). There appears to be a tendency
for figurally oriented examinees to utilize a visualization
ability as an aid to solving some verbally stated reasoning
problems. An explanation for the loading of Necessary
Facts on CFR would appear to be related to the use of geo
metric concepts in the items of the test Necessary Facts.
As noted before, Werdelin (1959) has shown that spatial
ability is an important determinant of success in solving
geometric problems, and it must be remembered that the
nature of CFR in this study did involve complex spatial
interrelationships.
Two of the reference factors, DFT and NFT, under
went some re-interpretation in this study. NFT was led
by the test Internally Consistent Figures, which was
originally designed to measure factor EFS. The reasons for
Internally Consistent Figures' loading on NFT have been
184
discussed in detail under the interpretation of NFT in the
results section. Suffice it to say here that it now
appears that the essential feature of Internally Consistent
Figures is for the examinee to be able to break down a
two-dimensional figure that appears consistent because of
the strategic use of perspective effects, and to form a
three-dimensional figure in order to tell whether it is
truly consistent in reality. The task is therefore seen
as requiring the production of a figural transformation.
The significant loading of Internally Consistent Figures
along with the loadings of the two marker tests for NFT
permits a broader interpretation of the NFT factor than has
been made in the past. NFT can now be seen as the ability
to produce a new gestalt by either breaking down or effec
tively ignoring other conflicting gestalts and this ability
involves the transition from two- to three-dimensional
figures as well as the perception of figures hidden within
another meaningful gestalt.
The factor DFT was defined best by the tests Plan
ning Air Maneuvers and Pattern Arrangement. The former
test had served as a measure of DFT in the past, while the
latter is a new test originally designed for factor CFI.
The common feature of the two tests seems to be that both
require the production of the most efficient solution.
Both tests contain items in which several solutions are
possible, the task of the examinee being to select the
185
most efficient one by taking into account the implications
of each step made toward the final solution. The common
feature of the tests seems more descriptive of the as yet
undiscovered factor NFI. It is questionable whether the
requirement of flexibility typical of DFT tests actually
exists in Pattern Arrangement and Planning Air Maneuvers.
Any final conclusion about whether DFT or NFI was identi
fied in this study must await further research. It is
possible that the other Match Problems tests, which have
always been better measures of DFT than the test Match
Problems II included in this study, will still define DFT,
with other good DFT tests in the analysis, and free Plan
ning Air Maneuvers and Pattern Arrangement to become mea
sures of NFI.
The Relative Confusion between Operations,
Products, and Contents
In the terms of the Structure of Intellect, the
present study evidenced little confusion between the five |
|
operations or the two content areas included. Separation j
on the basis of content has always been fairly easy and
one would expect little confusion between the figural and
semantic areas, the two content areas included in the j
|
study. The only confusion that was found can be seen in
the significant side loadings of the two marker tests for
CMS. While these side loadings might be due to the
186
inclusion of geometric concepts in the tests, they might
also be indicative of a general strategy employed by
figurally oriented people. The suggestion has been made
that visualization might act as an aid, to those accus
tomed to its use, in solving verbal-reasoning problems.
All five kinds of operations were included in the
present study, but only three, divergent production, cog
nition, and evaluation, were represented by any number of
factors. There is practically no confusion between the
operations. This finding is particularly significant
between the operations of cognition and evaluation, for the
two previous studies of evaluation (Nihira, et al., 1964;
Hoepfner, et al., 1964) found considerable confusion. In
the present study, none of the tests designed for evalua
tion load on any cognition factor and only two tests that
help define the cognition factors, Blocks and Figure Anal
ogies, have significant loadings on any of the evaluation
factors.
!
i
It is believed that the lack of confusion between |
the operations of evaluation and cognition can be attrib
uted to the refined definition of evaluation utilized.
However, the possibility that the sample itself contributed
to the separation must be recognized. As mentioned in
Chapter III, most evaluation tests require cognition of
the items of information to be compared. The typical
method of controlling cognition variance is to make the
187
cognition so easy that no examinee would fail the item
because of a lack of a cognitive ability. A similar con
trol can be achieved by selecting a sample in which all the
examinees have high ability in the relevant cognitive
areas. It is true that the sample of architectural stu
dents utilized in this study probably had greater figural
abilities than the average population. In examining the
cognitive tests1 means, however, they were not found to be
strikingly higher than those obtained in previous studies
or during the pretesting with undergraduate psychology
students. The tests designed to measure CFT had somewhat
higher means than those evidenced in pretesting, but scores
on tests for the other factors seem to be quite in line
with previous results and do not seem to be so high as to
attribute the clarity between the operations solely to the
selected sample.
The evaluation factors are also free from confusion
between the various product categories. Only one test,
Judging Specified Figures, designed for EFU, loaded instead
on another product factor, EFC, and this loading was sus
pected from the very beginning. The cognition and
divergent-production factors, however, are not free from
confusion within their respective areas. The main con
fusion in the cognition area occurs between CFR, CFS, and
CFT, while in the divergent-production area factors DFU and
DFS are confounded. Previous research has reported this
188
same confusion in the cognition area (Green, et al., 1953;
Guilford § Lacey, 1947; Michael, et al., 1950; Michael, et
al., 1951) and in the divergent-production area (Guilford,
et al., 1961; Gershon, et al., 1963; Guilford 8 Hoepfner,
1966a). Various recommendations have already been made for
future test development in these areas. It should be noted
that the confusion evidenced betweeh the product catego
ries, while annoying, does not in general affect the find
ing of distinctness between the factors, for at least one
test is a univocal measure for each of the factors in
question.
The Evaluation Factors in Relation to
those in the Previous Studies
The hypothesized figural-evaluation factors emerged
with remarkable clarity. Of particular significance is the
lack of confusion between the evaluation factors and the
corresponding cognitive factors. In both the semantic and
symbolic studies of evaluation (Nihira, et al-. , 1964;
Hoepfner, et al., 1964), considerable confusion existed
between the two operations. As mentioned earlier, part of j
the clarity might be due to the examinees' general level
of proficiency in the figural area, but a large part can
be attributed to the refined definition of evaluation
utilized. In one sense it is not very surprising that the
factors emerged with such clarity, for the present study
189
had the advantage of examining the results of three pre
vious studies on the operation of evaluation. Careful
inspection of the previous attempts to define evaluation
and preliminary testing in the figural area led to the
definition of evaluation as the process of comparing infor
mation, in terms of known specifications, with a given
standard of information on the basis of logical criteria
such as identity and consistency.
The present definition was quite successful in
enabling univocal tests to be developed for the six figural-
evaluation factors. One of the important features of the
definition is that it requires the aspects of the compari
son process to be known. This requirement was discussed
in length in Chapter III. In most cases, in the figural !
area the aspects were stated, for it was felt that there
was no universal weighting system or concrete reason for
selecting a "best" exemplar of a class or a most "similar"
figure. i
As a double check on the definition of evaluation j
utilized, three subjective-judgment tests, typical of many j
tests developed in the symbolic and semantic areas, were j
included in the battery. The subjective-judgment tests !
were not developed in accordance with the present defini
tion for they did not ensure that the aspects of the com- j
I
parison process would be known, and therefore it was felt j
that they would not help define their respective factors. !
190
The results, in general, prove the unfruitfulness
of the subjective-judgment test. Two of the tests, Nearest
Figural Relations (EFR) and Artistic Interpretations (EFT),
failed to load significantly on any factor but did have
their highest loading, .29 and .28, respectively, on their
appropriate factors. However, the third test, Figure
Matching (EFC), did help to define its factor. Figure
Matching was slightly different from the other two tests
for it'did state one weak specification, the examinee was
to choose the alternative figure that had the greatest
number of common properties with a given figure. The sug
gestion has been made that, due to two extensive item
analyses performed to raise Figure Matching's reliability,
the items that would have required a close decision by the
examinee were removed from the test. That is, it appears
that in the items remaining the examinee can make a clear
choice on the number of common properties without ever
encountering a situation where he would be forced to weight
the various properties as to their importance.
In conclusion, then, it would seem correct to
utilize the present definition of evaluation. The impor
tant parts of the definition were discussed in Chapter III
and have not been changed. Briefly, they are that the
aspects of the comparison process be known by the examinee;
that the standard or desired information used in the com-
parison process be fully stated or pictured; and that
191
logical criteria such as identity or consistency be used
as the basis for comparison.
Tests Recommended for the Figural-
Evaluation Factors
The following lists the tests recommended to mea
sure each of the six figural-evaluation factors investiga
ted in the study. The tests were selected on the basis of
their univocality and their factor saturation. Since this
was the first time the tests had been utilized in a major
study, the following recommendations are not to be consid
ered final. Rather, the tests should be considered as the
best measures available at the present time.
EFU 29. Judgment of Size
32. Identical Forms
EFC 4. Best Figural Class
38. Judging Specified Figures
6. Best Figure Pairs
EFR 16. Correct Figural Trends
61. Prescribed Relations
EFS 34. Judging Figural Balance
14. Closest Spatial Series
EFT 40. Least Movement
37. Judging Rearrangements
EFI 46. Most Effective Path
19. Essential Maze Routes
36. Judging Figural Elaborations
CHAPTER VIII
SUMMARY
The major purpose of the study was to demonstrate
the existence of the six figural-evaluation abilities, five
of which had never before been identified. The existence
of the abilities was predicted from the Structure-of-
Intellect model. A secondary purpose was to conduct a com
prehensive review of the figural abilities presently seen
as representing various factors in the model. Particular
attention was paid to the figural-cognition area, for all
six cognition factors had not been investigated in the same
study since their placement in the Structure-of-Intellect
model.
Seventy-two tests were included for the measurement
i
of 23 expected factors. Twenty-seven tests were especially
designed or adapted for the measurement of the six figural-
evaluation factors, while twenty-one tests were selected, |
I
adapted, or designed for the six corresponding figural-
cognition factors. The twenty-four remaining tests served
to measure eleven reference factors, six of which were also
192
193
figural in nature, and which included factors representing
the operations of divergent production, convergent pro
duction, and memory.
All of the tests were administered to 188 students
enrolled in the Department of Architecture at the Univer
sity of Illinois at Chicago Circle. The correlation matrix
of the 72 tests and two control variables, sex and year in
school, was factor analyzed and 25 principal axes factors
were rotated analytically to an orthogonal, simple-
structure, target matrix. A few graphic rotations were
performed before the final solution was reached.
Twenty-three of the factors were identified as the
hypothesized ability factors. The two remaining factors
were singlets representing the control variables of sex
and year in school.
The predicted evaluation factors emerged with
remarkable clarity and were defined almost entirely by the
tests designed to measure them. The figural-evaluation
factors were clearly differentiated from each other and
the other figural and semantic factors included in the
battery. In general, there was very little confusion be- j
tween the various operation categories, but some confusion
did exist between the product categories in the cognition
and divergent-production areas. Specifically, confusion
was found among the three cognition factors, CFR, CFS, and
CFT, and among the three divergent-production factors, DFU,
194
DFS, and DFI. The confusion was not serious, but did indi
cate that further test development is needed in these areas
in order to develop a greater number of univocal tests.
In general, it appears that the definition of evalu
ation utilized in the study was a successful aid in devel
oping univocal tests for the evaluation processes. At this
point, evaluation can be seen as the process of comparing
information, in terms of known specifications, to a given
standard of information in accordance with logical criteria
such as identity or consistency.
The results of the study prove once again that the
Structure of Intellect is avuseful model for predicting
differentiable intellectual abilities. In addition, the
model permits a much needed organizational system for those
figural factors found frequently in the past. In many
cases the application of the model permits a broader inter-
I
pretation of the previously found factors and contributes j
i
to their emergence with greater univocality. j
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Alexander, W. P. Intelligence, concrete and abstract.
British Journal of Psychology, 1935 (Monogr. Suppl.
No. 29).
Arnheim, R. Visual thinking. In G. Kepps (Ed.), Education
of Vision. New York: George Braziller, 1965, pp.
1-14.
Attneave, F., § Arnoult, M. D. The quantitative study of
shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulle
tin, 53, 1956, 452-472.
Barratt, E. S. An analysis of verbal reports of spatial
problem-solving. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. Uni
versity of Texas, 1952.
Bechtoldt, H. P. Factorial investigation of the perceptual
speed factor. American Psychologist, 1947, 2,
304-305 (Abstract).
Berger, R. M., Guilford, J. P., § Christensen, P. R. A
factor-analytic study of planning abilities.
Psychological Monographs, 1957, 71 (6 , Whole No.
435) .
196
197
Botzum, W. A. A factorial study of the reasoning and clo
sure factors. Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 361-386.
Carroll, J. B. The nature of the data, or how to choose a
correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 1961, 26,
347-372.
Cliff, N. Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psychomet
rika, 1966, 31, 33-42.
Coombs, C. H. A factorial study of number ability.
Psychometrika, 1941, 6 , 161-189.
Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing. (2nd
ed.). New York: Harper, 1960.
Dewey, J. How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1910.
Dixon, W. J. Biomedical computer programs. Los Angeles:
Health Science Computing Facility, U.C.L.A., 1965.
Dunham, J. L., Guilford, J. P., § Hoepfner, R. Abilities
pertaining to classes and the learning of concepts.
Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 39.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California,
1966.
El Koussy, A. H. The visual perception of space. British
Journal of Psychology, 1935 (Monogr. Suppl.
No. 20).
French, J. W. The description of aptitude and achievement
tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometric
Monographs, 1951, No. 5.
198
Frick, J. W., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., §
Merrifield, P. R. A factor-analytic study of
flexibility in thinking. Educational and Psycho
logical Measurement, 1959, 19, 469-496.
Fridjhon, S. H. The PATCO test, Symmetry and intelligence.
Journal of the National Institute for Personnel
Research, 1961, 8 , 180-188.
Fruchter, B. The nature of verbal fluency. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8 , 33-47.
Gershon, A., Guilford, J. P., 6 Merrifield, P. R. Figural
and symbolic divergent-production abilities in
adolescent and adult populations. Reports from the
Psychological Laboratory, No. 29. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, 1963.
Green, R. F., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., 6
Comrey, A. L. A factor-analytic study of reasoning
abilities. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 135-160.
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods, (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill, L954.
Guilford, J. P. A revised structure of intellect. Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 19. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California, 1957.
Guilford, J. P. New frontiers of testing in the discovery i
and development of human talent. In Seventh Annual
Western Regional Conference on Testing Problems.
Los Angeles: Educational Testing Service, 1958,
199
pp. 20-32.
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and
education. (4th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.
Guilford, J. P. Basic problems in teaching for creativity.
In C. W. Taylor and F. E. Wilhams (Eds.), Instruc
tional Media and Creativity. New York: Wiley,
1966.
Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Kettner, N. W., Green,
R. F., 6 Hertzka, A. F. A factor-analytic study
of Navy reasoning tests with the Air Force Aircrew
Classification Battery. Educational and Psycho
logical Measurement, 1954, 14, 301-325.
Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., § Zimmerman, W. S. Factor
analysis of the Army Air Force Sheppard Field bat
tery of experimental aptitude tests. Psychomet
rika, 1952, 17, 45-68.
Guilford, J. P., § Hoepfner, R. Sixteen divergent-
production abilities at the ninth-grade level.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1966, 1,
43-66. (a)
Guilford, J. P., 6 Hoepfner, R. Structure-of-Intellect
factors and their tests. Reports from the Psycho
logical Laboratory, No. 36. Los Angeles: Univer
sity of Southern California, 1966. (b)
200
Guilford, J. P., Hoepfner, R., § Petersen, H. Predicting
achievement in ninth-grade mathematics from mea
sures of intellectual aptitude factors. Educa
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25,
659-682.
Guilford, J. P., § Lacey, J. I. (Eds.) Printed classifi
cation tests. Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology
Research Program Reports, No. 5. Washington, D.C.:
GPO 1947.
Guilford, J. P., § Merrifield, P. R. The structure of
intellect model: Its uses and implications.
Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 24.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California,
1960.
Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., 8 Cox, A. B. Creative
thinking in children at the junior high school
levels. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory,
No. 26. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1961.
Guilford, J. P., § Perry, N. C. Estimation of other coef
ficients of correlation from the phi coefficient.
Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 335-346.
Hector, H. A new Pattern Completion test. Journal of the
National Institute for Personnel Research, 1958,
7, 132-134.
201
Hertzka, A. F. , Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R. , §
Berger, R. M. A factor-analytic study of evalua
tive abilities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1954, 14, 581-597.
Hills, J. R. The relationship between certain factor-
analyzed abilities and success in college mathe
matics. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory,
No. 15. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1955.
Hoepfner, R. , Guilford, J. P., § Merrifield, P. R. A fac
tor analysis of the symbolic-evaluation abilities.
Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 33.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1964-
Hoepfner, R., Nihira, K., 8 Guilford, J. P. Intellectual
abilities of symbolic and semantic judgment.
Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (Whole No. 624).
Kelley, T. L. Crossroads in the mind of man: A study of
differentiable mental abilities. Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press, 1928.
Kettner, N. W., Guilford, J. P., § Christensen, P. R. A
factor-analytic study across the domains of reason
ing, creativity, and evaluation. Psychological
Monographs, 1959, 73 (9, Whole No. 479).
La Berge, D. L., § Lawrence, D. H. A method of generating
visual forms of graded similarity. American
Psychologist, 1955, 10, 401 (Abstract).
202
Lecznar, W. B. Survey of tests used in airman classifica
tion. Technical Documentary Report PRL-TDR-62-5.
Lackland Air Force Base: Aerospace Medical Divi
sion, 1963.
Marks, A., Guilford, J. P., § Merrifield, P. R. A study
of military leadership in relationship to selected
intellectual factors. Reports from the Psychologi
cal Laboratory, No. 21. Los Angeles: University
of Southern California, 1959.
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., §
Frick, J. W. The role of intellectual factors in
problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 1962,
76 (10, Whole No. 529).
Michael, W. B. A suggested research approach to the iden-
]
tification of psychological processes associated
with spatial-visualization factors. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 1954, 14, 401-406.
Michael, W. B., Guilford, J. P., Fruchter, B., § Zimmerman,
W. S. The description of spatial-visualization
i
abilities. Educational and Psychological Measure
ment, 1957, 17, 185-199.
Michael, W. B., Zimmerman, W. S., 8 Guilford, J. P. An
investigation of two hypotheses regarding the
nature of the spatial-relations and visualization
factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement,'
_______ 1950, 1 0 , 187-213.
203
Michael, W. B., Zimmerman, W. S., § Guilford, J. P. An
investigation of the nature of the spatial-relations
and visualization factors in two high school sam
ples. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
1951, 11, 561-577.
Myers, C. T. The effects of training in mechanical drawing
on spatial relations test scores as predictors of
engineering drawing grades. Research and Develop
ment Reports, RB-58-4. Princeton: Educational
Testing Service, 1958. (a)
Myers, C. T. Some observations of problem solving in spa
tial relations tests. Research Bulletin RB-58-16.
Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1958. (b)
Nihira, K., Guilford, J. P., Hoepfner, R. , 8 Merrifield,
P. R. A factor analysis of the semantic-evaluation
abilities. Reports from the Psychological Labora
tory , No. 32. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1964.
O'Sullivan, M., Guilford, J. P., 8 deMille, R. The mea
surement of social intelligence. Reports from the
Psychological Laboratory, No. 34. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, 1965.
Pemberton, C. The closure factors related to other cogni
tive processes. Psychometrika, 1952, 17, 267-288.
Price, E. J. J. The nature of the practical factor.
British Journal of Psychology, 1940, 30, 341-351.
204
Roff, N. A factorial study of tests in the perceptual
area. Psychometric Monographs, 1952, No. 8 .
Sherman, J. A. Problem of sex differences in space percep
tion and aspects of intellectual functioning.
Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 290-299.
Skager, R. W., Schultz, C. B., 8 Klein, S. P. Points of
view about preference as tools in the analysis of
creative products. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1966, 22, 83-94.
Smith, G. M. Group factors in mental tests similar in
material and in structure. Archives of Psychology,
1933, 24 (156), 5-56.
Smith, I. M. Spatial ability. San Diego: Robert R.
Knapp, 1964.
Smith, 0. W., § Smith, P. C. Some stimuli and aptitudes
determining apparent parallelism. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 813-829.
Spearman, C. Abilities of man. New York: Macmillan,
1927.
Thomas, R. M. A rationale for measurement in the visual
arts. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
1965, 25, 163-189.
Thurstone, L. L. Primary mental abilities. Psychometric
Monographs, 1938, No. 1. (a)
Thurstone, L. L. The perceptual factor. Psychometrika,
1938, 3, 1-17. (b)
205
Thurstone, L. L. A factorial study of perception. Psycho
metric Monographs, - 1944, No. 4.
Thurstone, L. L. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: Uni
versity of Chicago Press, 1947.
Thurstone, L. L. Some primary abilities in visual think
ing. The Psychometric Laboratory, Report No. 59.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1950.
Thurstone, L. L. An analysis of mechanical aptitude. The
Psychometric Laboratory, Report No. 62. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1951.
Wand, B. Flexibility in intellectual performance. Unpub
lished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Toronto,
1958.
Werdelin, I. Geometrical ability and the space factors.
University of Lund, Lund, Sweden, 1959.
Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., §
Lewis, D. J. A factor-analytic study of creative-
thinking abilities. Psychometrika, 1954, 19,
297-310.
Woodrow, H. The relation between abilities and improvement
with practice. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1938, 29, 215-230.
Woodrow, H. The common factors in fifty-two mental tests.
Psychometrika, 1939, 4, 99-108.
Zachert, V. Factor analysis of the Army, Navy, and Air
Force Classification Batteries. Research Bulletin
52-12. Lackland Air Force Base, 1952.
Zimmerman, W.S. A revised orthogonal rotational solution
for Thurstone's original primary mental abilities
test battery. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 77-93.
Zimmerman, W. S. Hypotheses concerning the nature of the
spatial factors. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1954, 14, 396-400.
APPENDIX
208
A P P E N D I X
D E S C R IP T IO N O F T E S T S
P o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s
I. A lt e r n a te S ig n s - P M T 0 2 B * . D r a w d if fe r e n t s y m b o l s o r s i g n s to e x p r e s s th e m e a n in g o f a g iv e n w o r d .
G IV E N : H E A V Y S c o r e : O ne p oin t for e a c h d iffe r e n t
d r a w in g th at c o n v e y s the m e a n in g of
th e g iv e n w o r d .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 3; w o r k in g
t i m e : 6 m in u t e s .
Z. A n g le E s t i m a t i o n - E F R 0 6 A . S e le c t f r o m fo u r a lte r n a tiv e a n g le s th e one that i s c l o s e s t in s i z e to th e g i v e n a n g l a
A 8 C D
S a m p l e I te m :
GIVEN
A n s w e r : B
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - t h ir d
n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 1; it e m s p er p a rt: 1 2 ;w o r k in g
t i m e : 2 l / 2 m in u t e s .
3. A r t i s t i c I n t e r p r e ta t io n s - E F T 0 1 A . G iv e n a p ic t u r e o f a n o b je c t th at is s a id to r e p r e s e n t its r e a lit y , s e l e c t f r o m
fo u r a lt e r n a t iv e a r t i s t i c in t e r p r e t a t io n s o f th e o b j e c t the o n e th a t is th e l e a s t d is t o r t e d f r o m r e a lit y .
S a m p le I tem :
GIVEN---
s
d i
k >
V
s
1 .
KJ
D
a
A n s w e r : C
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s
o n e - t h i r d n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2 ; i t e m s p e r p a r t :
12; w o r k in g t im e : 5 m i n
u t e s .
4. B e s t F i g u r a l C l a s s - E F C 0 1 A . J u d ge in to w h i c h c l a s s a fig u r e fits s o a s to r e c e i v e th e m o s t p o s s i b l e p o in ts .T h e
c l a s s e s an d th e ir p o in ts a r e : T A N G E N T S - 4; P A R A L L E L S -3; I N T E R S E C T IO N S - 2; C U R V E S - 1.
S a m p le I tem : A n s w e r : C l a s s of IN T E R S E C T IO N S S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s o n e - t h i r d n u m b e r
w r o n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 12; w o r k in g t i m e : 4
m in u t e s .
5. B e s t F i g u r a l C l a s s S e p a r a t io n - E F C 0 4 A . S e l e c t the p a ir o f fig u r a l p r o p e r t i e s th a t c o m e s c l o s e s t to s o r t in g a ll
n in e fig u r e s o f a g iv e n g r o u p in to tw o d is t in c t and s e p a r a t e c l a s s e s .
S a m p le I t e m :
‘ G
1 x
S
* 0
S r > ’ 0
A S tra ig h t lin e s
B R ight a n g le s
L_
C P a r a lle l lin e s
C u r v e d lin e s
rJ
Sh ading
C u r v e d lin e s
r1
A n s w e r : P a i r C
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e -
h a lf n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2: it e m s p e r p a rt: 8 (7
it e m s in P a r t l a n d 8 it e m s in P a r t
II w e r e s c o r e d ) ; w o r k in g t im e : 9
m in u t e s.
The c o d e i m m e d i a t e l y f o llo w in g e a c h t e s t n a m e in d ic a t e s th e h y p o t h e s iz e d f a c to r c o n te n t o f the t e s t at th e s t a g e o f
t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n . A d d itio n a l c o d e s a r e a s fo llo w s : S P S - c o p y r i g h t b y S h e r id a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s , Inc. ,B ev e rly
H ills , C a lif o r n ia , a d a p te d w ith p e r m i s s i o n ; L L T - b a s e d upon a t e s t by L. L. T h u r s to n e ; R B C - b a s e d u pon a t e s t by
R . B. C a t te ll; A F T - b a s e d u p o n a t e s t d e v e lo p e d b y the U n ited S ta t e s A ir F o r c e ; WH - b a s e d upon a n id ea by Mr. Wm.
H illc o u r t.
209
6. B e s t F i g u r e P a i r s - E F C 0 2 A . C h o o s e th e one o f t h r e e p a i r s o f f i g u r e s th at m a k e s t h e b e s t c l a s s . In o r d e r , f r o m
b e s t to w o r s t , the c l a s s e s a r e : R IG H T A N G L E S , P A R A L L E L L IN E S , I D E N T I C A L S H A P E S A N D O P E N F IG U R E S.
A n s w e r : C (R IG H T A N G L E S )
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - h a l f n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 12; w o rk in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
S a m p le I te m :
A. A A
» . □ Z
c . 1 __ T
7. B e s t Map P l a c e m e n t - E F S 0 1 A . G iv e n a m a p w ith c e r t a in p o r tio n s cu t out, d e c id e w h ic h o f s e v e r a l a lt e r n a t iv e
i n s e t s b e s t f it s in to e a c h c u t - o u t p o rtio n .
S a m p le I tem :
M
m
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f c o r r e c t
p l a c e m e n t s .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a rt: 2;
w o r k in g tim e : 6 m in u te s .
8. B e s t M o v e S e le c t io n - E F I 0 2 A . D e c i d e w h ic h o f fo u r g a m e p i e c e s , e a c h w ith its own c h a r a c t e r i s t i c m o v e , c a n
c o v e r a l l the s q u a r e s in a p a tte r n in the f e w e s t p o s s i b l e m o v e s . T h e g a m e p ie c e s and th e ir m o v e s a r e : P i e c e A c a n
m o v e h o r iz o n t a l ly , v e r t i c a l l y o r d ia g o n a lly , but o n ly o n e s q u a r e p e r m o v e ; P i e c e B c a n m o v e o n ly d ia g o n a lly , but an y
n u m b e r o f s q u a r e s p er m o v e ; P i e c e C c a n m o v e o n ly h o r iz o n t a lly o r v e r t i c a ll y , but any n u m b e r of s q u a r e s p e r m o v e ;
P i e c e D ca n m o v e on ly in a n "L" s h a p e , in a n y d ir e c t io n , w ith e i t h e r t a il o f the ML" h avin g tw o s q u a r e s , w h ile the
o th e r h a s one s q u a r e .
S a m p le I tem :
A n s w e r : P I E C E D
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - t h ir d n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 12; w o rk in g t im e : 6 l / 2
m in u te s.
9. B lo c k R o ta tio n - C F T 0 6 A . S e le c t f r o m fiv e a lt e r n a t iv e b lo c k s the one that is a r o ta tio n o f the g iv e n b lo ck .
S a m p le Item :
t < ^
A n s w e r : E
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p a rt: 8; w o rk in g t im e : 9 m in u t e s .
210
10. B lo c k V is u a l iz a t i o n - C F T 0 5 A . G iven a v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f how a b lo c k o f w o o d i s p a in ted an d cut in to p a r ts ,
s o lv e p r o b le m s by v is u a liz in g how the b lo ck lo o k s b e f o r e and a f te r it is cu t.
S a m p le I t e m s : The e n d s o f a b lo ck 1 in ch b y 1 in c h by 3 in c h e s a r e p a in te d b la c k ,
and th e b lo c k is then cu t in to th r e e 1 in c h c u b e s .
1. H ow m a n y c u b e s have o n e s id e p a in ted b la c k ? Z
2. H ow m a n y c u b e s have n o p a in ted s i d e s ? 2________
S c o r e : N u m b e r of p r o b le m s c o r r e c t l y so lv e d . P a r t s : 2] it e m s p er p a rt: 15; w o r k in g t im e : 14 m in u tes.
11. B lo c k s - C F S 0 5 A (LJLT). D e t e r m i n e the n u m b e r o f b lo c k s e a c h l e t t e r e d b lo c k t o u c h e s .
S a m p le I te m :
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t.
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a r t: 10; w o r k in g t i m e : 10 m in u tes.
12. C i r c l e C o n tin u a tio n s - C F I 0 4 A . G iven a p o r t io n of a c i r c l e , s e l e c t f r o m fiv e d o ts the one th at w o u ld lie^ d ir e c t ly
on the c i r c l e if it w e r e c o m p le t e d .
S a m p le Item :
*•
A n s w e r : D ot B
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p art: 12; w o r k in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
13. C l o s e - u p s - C F U 0 7 A (WH). Identify the o b j e c t s in c l o s e - u p p h o to g r a p h s.
S a m p le I t e m s :
S c o r e : N u m b e r of o b j e c t s c o r r e c t l y
id en tified .
P a r ts : 2; i t e m s p e r p art: 12; w o r k
ing tim e : 6 m in u t e s .
/OtXtsiL
14. C l o s e s t S p a tial S e r i e s - E FSG 2A . G iv en fo u r d ifferen t v ie w s o f a s c e n e , s e l e c t th e e n d v ie w th at i s fa r th e r aw ay
fr o m its a d ja c e n t v ie w .
S am ple Item :
A n s w e r : E n d v ie w A
is fa r th e r a w a y .
S co re : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r w ron g . P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a rt: 9; w o rk in g t im e : 7 m in u t e s .
15. C o m p e t it iv e P la n n in g - C F I 0 1 A (A FT ). F o llo w in g c e r t a in r u l e s , d e t e r m i n e the r e s u l t o f a g a m e w h e r e tw o c o n
te s ta n ts (B la c k and W h ite) tak e tu r n s fillin g in th e s id e s of u n c o m p l e t e d s q u a r e s , e a c h c o n t e s t a n t a lw a y s m a k in g the
b e s t p o s s ib l e m o v e s for h i m s e l f .
S a m p le I t e m : T 7 A n s w e r : B la c k g e t s 2 s q u a r e s ; W h ite g e t s 2 s q u a r e s .
O 0 O S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g .
I I P a r t s ; 3; it e m s p er p art: 1 0 ;w o rk in g t im e : 13 l / 2 m in u t e s .
211
16. C o r r e c t F i g u r a l T r e n d s - E F R O IA . D e t e r m i n e w h e th e r o r not fig u r a l s e r i e s fo llo w a s ta te d f ig u r a l tren d .
S a m p le I t e m s : S ta te d T r e n d - E a c h t im e , the o r ig in a lly c l o s e d f ig u r e s b e c o m e
m o r e o p e n an d the o r i g in a lly Open fig u r e s b e c o m e m o r e c l o s e d .
© © © ©
o E © © c ° lf
A n s w e r s : 1 fo llo w s the tren d ; 2 d o e s not
fo llo w the tren d .
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r wrong.
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 30; w o rk in g t im e :
1 2 m i n u t e s .
17. D e c o r a t i o n s - D F I 0 2 B (SPS). D e c o r a t e tw o id e n t ic a l o u tlin e d r a w in g s d iffe r e n tly . The d e c o r a t io n s w ith in a d r a w
ing a r e a l s o to be d iffe r e n t.
O u tline D r a w in g :
S a m p le D e c o r a t e d D r a w in g s :
HP
S c o r e : D e c o r a t i o n s p r o d u c e d a r e r a te d f r o m one to four p oin ts a c c o r d in g to the a m o u n t of d e ta il and c o m p le x it y they
p o s s e s s . P r o d u c t i o n of m e a n in g f u l o b je c ts r e c e i v e a p en a lty . P a r t s : 4; it e m s p er p a r t : 1 (e a c h ite m h a s tw o id e n t ic a l
d r a w in g s ) ; w o r k in g t im e : 8 m in u s e s .
18. D e s i g n s - D F S 0 1 B . C o m b in e an y or a ll o f a g i v e n s e t of s im p le fig u r a l e l e m e n t s into m a n y d iffe r e n t p a tt e r n s ,
A __________ P o s s i b l e >•' A » A' A * _________
G i v e n :
A
D e s i g n s :
2.
S c o r e : o n e point fo r e a c h d e s ig n that is ju d g e d to h a ve b e e n
p r o d u c e d f r o m d iffe r e n t p r in c i p l e s of o r g a n iz a tio n .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 1; w o rk in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
19. E s s e n t i a l M a z e R o u te s - E F I0 4 A (A F T ). D e t e r m i n e th ro u g h w h ic h le t te r one m u s t p a s s in goin g f r o m e a c h s t a r t
ing point to the g oa l.
S a m p le I tem :
A n s w e r : 1 -D ;2 -B ;3 -G ;4 -D
S c o r e : N u m b e r right.
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a rt: 4 (e a c h it e m h a s four s ta r tin g
p o in ts); w o r k in g tim e : 12 m in u te s .
20. F i g u r a l C l a s s I n c lu s io n - C F C 0 4 A . G iv e n tw o f ig u r e s that h a v e a c o m m o n fig u r a l p r o p e r ty , s e le c t f r o m five a l
t e r n a t i v e s th e one fig u r e that c o n ta in s the s a m e p r o p e r ty .
G IV E N FIG U R E S
A n s w e r s :
S a m p l e :
1.
© isi
A L T E R N A T I V E S
1 - D; 2 - E
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e -f o u r th n u m b e r w ro n g . P a r t s : 2; it e m s per p art: 12; w o rk in g tim e : 7 m in u te s .
212
21. F i g u r e A n a l o g ie s - C F R 0 1 A (A F T ). G iv e n a f ir s t p a ir of f i g u r e s that a r e r e la t e d , c o m p le t e a s e c o n d p air of f i g
u r e s , b y c h o o s in g o n e o f fiv e a lt e r n a t iv e f ig u r e s , s o th at th eir r e l a t i o n s h i p is the s a m e a s that in th e g iv e n p a ir o f
f ig u r e s . A B C D E
S a m p le Item :
O © A n s w e r : A
S c o r e : N u m b e r righ t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 15; w o r k in g t im e : 10 m in u te s .
>: GIVEN C LA SSES:
1 . f K B
A.
2.
* □
A L T E R N A T I V E S
A. B . c .
D.
E .
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a r t: 10; w o r k in g t im e : 7 m in u t e s . A n s w e r s : 1 - C; 2 - A
23. F ig u r e C o m p le t io n - C F U 0 6 A . Identify p ic t u r e s of o b je c t s that h a v e b e e n p a r t ia lly e r a s e d .
S a m p le Item :
S c o r e : N u m b e r of p ic t u r e s c o r r e c t l y id e n tifie d .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p art: 20; w o rk in g tim e : 8 m in u te s .
24. F i g u r e M a tc h in g - E F C 0 3 A . D e t e r m in e w h ic h o f f iv e a lt e r n a t iv e f i g u r e s b e s t b e lo n g s in the s a m e c l a s s a s a
g iv e n f i g u r e .
A n s w e r : C
S a m p le I t e m ;
G IV E N A B C D E S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h
n u m b e r w ron g.
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 10; w o r k in g
t im e : 6 m in u te s .
A A 1 1
O
o
1 - ) (
25. F i g u r e M a tr ix - C F R 0 2 B . R e c o g n iz e the f ig u r a l tr e n d s in the r o w s a n d c o l u m n s of a 3 x 3 m a t r i x o f f ig u r e s , and
th e n s e l e c t th e a lt e r n a t iv e fig u r e that ca n r e p l a c e the q u e s t io n m a r k .
ABODE
A n s w e r : E
S a m p le I tem :
O o o
o
o o
© # #
♦ • •
9
•
Oil
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w rong.
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p a rt: 12; w o rk in g t im e : 8 m in u t e s .
26. F ig u r e P r o d u c t i o n - D F I 0 3 A . Add to g iv e n l i n e s in o r d e r to p r o d u c e a m e a n in g f u l fig u re .
P o s s i b l e M ea n in g fu l f ig u r e s :
S a m p le I te m :
G iv en lin e s:
ESI
S c o r e : E a c h i t e m is r a te d fr o m one to fiv e , on the a m o u n t of m e a n in g f u l d e t a il p ro d u c ed .
P a r t s : 3; it e m s p er p art: 4; w o rk in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
213
27. F i g u r e S e r i e s - C F R 0 3 A (R B C ). G iv e n a s e r i e s o f t h r e e f i g u r e s , c h o o s e th e a lt e r n a t iv e f ig u r e th at g o e s n e x t in
the s e r i e s .
S a m p le I te m :
1 / 1 \
A n s w e r : A
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s o n e -
fou rth n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a r t; 10;
w o r k in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
28. H id d en F i g u r e s - N F T 0 4 B . D e t e r m i n e w h ic h on e o f fiv e b a s i c f ig u r e s is h id d e n in e a c h fig u r a l it e m .
S a m p le I t e m : B a s i c f ig u r e s
\ /I
A B C D E A ns
w e r : B a s i c f ig u r e A
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w ro n g . P a r t s : I; it e m s p e r p a rt: 15; w o r k in g t im e : 3 m in u t e s .
29. H idd en P r in t - C F U 0 8 A (L L T ). Id en tify the cap ita l le t te r o r n u m b e r h id d en in a sq u a r e of d o ts.
S a m p le I tem :
A n s w e r : The l e t t e r J
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f s y m b o l s c o r r e c t l y id e n tifie d .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a r t: 15; w o r k in g tim e : 4 m in u te s .
t
30. I d e a tio n a l F lu e n c y I - D M U 0 1 D (SPS). L ist th in g s that b e lo n g to a b r o a d ly d e fin e d c l a s s.
S a m p le I te m : N a m e F L U ID S that w ill B U R N P o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s : J '
S c o r e : N u m b e r of d iffe r e n t th in g s l i s t e d that b elo n g to
the s p e c if i e d c l a s s .
P a r t s : 4; it e m s p e r p a rt; 1; w o r k in g t im e ; 12 m in u t e s .
3 l . I d e n tic a l F i g u r a l R e la t i o n s - E F R 0 2 A . D e t e r m i n e w h e th e r o r not fig u r e s in p a ir s a r e r e la t e d in t h e s a m e w a y as
f ig u r e s in a g iv e n p a ir . _
* GIVEN
S a m p le I te m s :
A n s w e r s : P a i r s 1 a n d 3 h ave i 2 3
the s a m e r e la t io n a s the
g iv e n p a ir; p a ir 2 d o e s not.
□ n
A A
L I L I
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r w ro n g . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a r t: 18; w o r k in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
I t e m s :
© © © © ©
e a ES a B 9 H n
/
# o * *
3
cSS <53 <53dS
+
•
2
Hi
AD Hi m Hi
5
S c o r e : N u m b e r righ t.
P a r t s : 1; it e m s p er p art: 60; w o r k in g tim e :
3 m in u t e s .
214
33 I n t e r n a lly C o n s i s t e n t F i g u r e s - E F S 0 4 A . D e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r not f i g u r e s m a d e f r o m c o n n e c t e d r e c t a n g u l a r
p la n e s a r e i n t e r n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , that i s , w h e t h e r th ey c o u ld a c t u a ll y e x i s t in r e a lit y .
S a m p le I t e m s :
A n s w e r s : I is n o t in t e r n a l ly c o n s i s t e n t ,
II i s c o n s i s t e n t .
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a r t: 12; w o r k in g t im e :
5 m in u t e s .
n
3 4 . J u d g in g F i g u r a l B a la n c e - E F S 0 3 A . F o r e a c h g iv e n p a tte r n , d e t e r m i n e w h ic h on e o f th r e e d e fin e d t y p e s of b a l-
a n c e it b e s t r e p r e s e n t s .
T y p e s o f b a la n c e
A .
i i H i
One c e r t a in lin e th r o u g h the c e n t e r o f the
p a t t e r n y ie ld s tw o h a lv e s c o n ta in in g the
s a m e e l e m e n t s in the s a m e c o r r e s p o n d in g
p o s itio n .
S a m p le I t e m s :
tail
r
m m i
2.
A
B .
1
S o m e but not a l l li n e s th r o u g h the c e n t e r
of the p a tte r n y i e l d tw o h a lv e s w h ic h c o n ta in
the s a m e e l e m e n t s , but not in the s a m e
c o r r e s p o n d in g p o s it io n .
A n s w e r s : 1 - b e s t r e p r e s e n t s typ e C; 2
r e p r e s e n t s typ e A.
be st
c .
A ny lin e th r o u g h the c e n t e r o f the p a t t e r n
y i e l d s tw o h a lv e s w ith the s a m e e l e m e n t s ,
not n e c e s s a r i l y in the s a m e c o r r e s p o n d in g
p o s itio n .
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - h a l f n u m b er
w r o n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 12; w o r k in g t im e :
6 m in u t e s .
35, J u d g in g F i g u r a l C o m b in a t io n s - E F U 0 3 A . D e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r not a ll o f the f ig u r e s in an ite m b ox a r e c o n
t a in e d in the k e y b o x . T h e f ig u r e s in the it e m b ox m u s t b e th e e x a c t s a m e s i z e and s h a p e a s t h o s e in th e k e y box.
S a m p le I t e m s :
K E Y BO X
A
□
A n s w e r s : I t e m s 4 a n d 5 c o n ta in f i g u r e s in th e k e y box; 1, 2 and 3 c o n t a in f i g u r e s d if fe r e n t f r o m t h o s e in the k e y box
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s n u m b e r w ro n g . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a r t: 20; w o r k in g t im e : 5 m in u t e s .
36. J u d g in g F i g u r a l E la b o r a t i o n s - E F I0 1 A . G iv e n fiv e k e y f i g u r e s , d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r c o d e d in c o m p le t e fig u r e s
c o u ld b e o n e an d o n ly one o f the k e y f ig u r e s ; co u ld be m o r e th an one k e y f ig u r e ; or c o u ld not b e a n y k ey fig u r e .
K E Y F I G U R E S : r I k. A / --------- V / ------------------7 S a m p le Item :
A n s w e r : C o u ld b e m o r e th a n one k e y fig u r e
( p a r a l l e l o g r a m o r e q u ila t e r a l t r ia n g le ) .
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - h a lf n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 12; w o r k in g tim e : 6 m in u t e s .
C O D E BOX
• m e a n s a p o in t at w h ic h tw o s id e s m e e t.
— > m e a n s a s id e ru n s in th e d ir e c tio n in d ic a te d .
X m e a n s th e m id p o in t o f a s id e .
215
37. Ju d gin g R e a r r a n e e m e nts - E F T 0 3 A . D e t e r m i n e w h e th e r o r not f ig u r e s a r e r e a r r a n g e m e n t s o f the p a n s of a
g iv e n fig u r e .
2. 3.
A n s w e r s : I te m 3 is a r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f the g iv e n f ig u r e , i t e m s 1 and 2 a r e not.
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p art: 30; w o r k in g tim e : 7 m in u t e s .
38. Judging S p e c if i e d F i g u r e s - E F U 0 5 A . Identify f ig u r e s that h a v e both o f tw o g iv e n fig u r a l p r o p e r t i e s .
S a m p le I te m s :
G IV E N : At l e a s t One D o tted Line a n d O n e S q u a re .
1
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : Z; i t e m s p e r p a r t: 30; w o r k in g t im e : 4 m in u te s .
o
A n s w e r s : I t e m s 1 and 3 h ave b oth
p r o p e r t i e s ; it e m 2 d o e s not.
39. J u d g m e n t o f S iz e - E F U 0 4 A . D e t e r m i n e w h ich of four a lt e r n a t iv e f ig u r e s is e x a c tly th e s a m e s i z e a s the k e y
fig u r e . The k e y fig u r e is a lw a y s in the m id d le of the it e m b o x.
S a m p le
A n s w e r : A
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in is o n e - t h ir d n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p art: 18; w o rk in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
4 0 . L e a s t M o v e m e n t - E F T 0 4 A . S e l e c t the a lt e r n a t iv e p ic tu r e in w h ich the ir o n h a s b e e n r o ta te d the le a s t f r o m i t s
g iv e n p o sitio n ,
A n s w e r : C. S a m p le Item :
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s
o n e - h a lf n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p a rt: 12;
w o rk in g t im e : 6 l / 2 m in u tes.
GIVEN
i
41. L in e C o n tin u a tio n s - C F I 0 5 A . D e t e r m i n e w h ich o f fou r a lt e r n a t iv e li n e s is the c o n tin u a tio n of a g iv e n line.
J u d g m e n ts a r e to be m a d e v is u a lly .
S a m p le I tem :
A n s w e r : B
S c o r e : N u m b e r righ t rrinus o n e - t h ir d n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a r t: 12; w o rk in g t im e : 3 m in u te s
216
42. M ake a F ig u r e T e s t - D F U 0 2 B . U s e a ll a n d on ly the g iv e n li n e s to d ra w m a n y d if f e r e n t f ig u r e s in a s e r i e s of
b la n k s q u a r e s . ^ 2 3
S a m p le I te m : G iv e n th e s e l i n e s :
l (
F i g u r e 3 is not a c c e p t a b l e b e c a u s e o n e o f the g iv e n lin e s
i s u s e d t w ic e . „T .. A
N o t A c c e p ta b le
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f a c c e p t a b l e r e s p o n s e s . R e s p o n s e s w e r e ju d g e d d if fe r e n t b y c r i t e r i a of o r ie n t a tio n , co n tig u ity ,
o v e r la p p i n g , an d p a tte r n . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 1; w o rk in g t im e : 4 m in u t e s .
4 3. M a tc h P r o b l e m s II - D F T 0 2 C (S P S ). R e m o v e a s p e c if i e d n u m b e r o f m a t c h e s ( s i d e s ) f r o m a g iv e n p a tt e r n of
s q u a r e s o r t r i a n g l e s and le a v e a s p e c if i e d n u m b e r o f s q u a r e s o r t r i a n g l e s . S e v e r a l d if fe r e n t s o lu t io n s a r e to b e in d i
c a t e d fo r e a c h g iv e n p r o b le m .
S a m p le I t e m : T a k e a w a y 3 m a t c h e s le a v in g 4 s q u a r e s .
G iv e n : | j j | S o lu tio n : ^ 1 |”
rnn did urn P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 5; w o r k in g t im e : 14 m in u tes.
m I | I S c o r e : N u m b e r o f d if f e r e n t s o lu t io n s that s a t i s f y a ll
I r e q u i r e m e n t s .
44. M o n o g r a m R e c a l l - M F S 0 1 A . S k e tc h m o n o g r a m s p r e s e n t e d on a p r e v i o u s ly s t u d ie d p a g e.
S a m p le s tu d y p a g e:
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f m o n o g r a m s c o r r e c t l y r e c a lle d .
P a r t s : 4; it e m s p e r p a rt: 5; w o r k in g tim e : 6 m in u t e s .
IB )
45. M o n o g r a m s - D F S 0 3 B . C o m b in e th r e e in it ia l l e t t e r s in v a r i o u s c o m p le x in t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s to f o r m d iffe r e n t
m o n o g r a m s .
S a m p l e I t e m : G iv e n the i n i t i a l s A V L, m a k e m a n y d iffe r e n t m o n o g r a m d e s ig n s .
S c o r e : N u m b e r of m o n o g r a m s that a r e ju d g e d d iffe r e n t
f r o m o t h e r s in that p a rt, o n th e b a s i s o f p o s itio n , o r i e n t a
tion , a n d s h a r e d li n e s .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 1; w o r k in g t im e : 4 m in u t e s .
46. M o s t E f f e c t i v e P a th - E F I 0 3 A (A F T ). G iv e n c e r ta in r u le s fo r fo llo w in g in t e r c o n n e c t in g li n e s , d e t e r m i n e w h ic h
o f fiv e c o n t e s t a n t s c a n r e a c h a r o o m a n d r e tu r n w ithout r e t r a c in g a n y lin e .
A n s w e r : C
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 12; w o r k in g tim e : 10 m in u t e s .
47. M u tila te d W o rd s - C F U 0 3 A ( L L T ). Id en tify w o r d s in w h ic h p a r t s of e a c h le t t e r a r e m i s s i n g .
S a m p le I t e m : ^ f f S c o r e : One point for e a c h w o r d c o r r e c t l y id en tified .
a X / L S / A f y P a r t s : 1; it e m s p e r p a rt: 26; w o rk in g t im e : 3 m in u t e s .
llv> -----
48. N e a r e s t F i g u r a l R e la t i o n s - E F R 0 4 A . C h o o s e th e a lt e r n a t iv e p a ir o f f ig u r e s that h a s a r e la t io n s h i p m o s t like
that o f a g iv e n p a ir o f f i g u r e s .
S a m p le I t e m :
A n s w e r : P a i r B
i I I I I f t ■ C_______________ B
O o|o 0
0 0
Qo
□ O
P o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e s :
|A/- o
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - t h i r d n u m b e r w ro n g . F h r ts : 2; i t e m s p e r p art: 10; w o r k in g t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
217
49. N e c e s s a r y F a c t s - C M S 0 4 A . D e t e r m i n e w hat in f o r m a t io n is n e e d e d to a tta in s o lu t io n s fo r g iv e n a r i t h m e ti c
p r o b le m s .
S a m p le Item : A r e c t a n g u l a r tank is b ein g b u ilt to h old w a t e r . It is to be 5 fe e t h ig h and 9 fe e t lon g . How m a n y c u b ic
fe e t o f w a te r w ill it h o ld ?
A n s w e r : The w idth o f th e tank ( n e e d e d fact).
S c o r e : One p oin t for e a c h c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e . P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a rt: 8; w o r k in g t im e : 8 m in u te s .
50. O r ien ta tio n M e m o r y - M F S 0 3 A . P l a c e b u ild in g s in a n e tw o r k of s t r e e t s s o that they a r e in the s a m e p o s i t i o n as
th ey w e r e on a p r e v i o u s ly s tu d ie d p a g e . „ _
y * y K 5 S a m p le T e s t P a g e :
S a m p le Study P a g e :
I D I D d 3 |
S c o r e : One point for e a c h b u ild in g c o r r e c t l y p la c e d .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 10;w o rk in g tim e : 5 m in u t e s .
51. P a p e r F o ld in g - C F T 0 7 A . S e le c t the a lt e r n a t iv e that sh o w s w hat a fo ld ed and cut p ie c e o f p aper w ould lo o k like
w h en it is u nfold ed .
S a m p le Item :
A n s w e r : C
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 3; it e m s p er p art: 10; w o rk in g tim e : 15 m in u t e s .
52. P a t t e r n A r r a n g e m e n t - C F I 0 6 A . A r r a n g e b la c k and w hite p i e c e s into a s in g le m o s t e f f i c ie n t p a ttern , fo llo w in g
c e r t a in r u le s for o v e r la p p in g the p i e c e s .
S a m p le Item : G iv e n P i e c e s :
1- W 2-^1 3 .
P o s s i b l e S o lu tio n s:
P 2. ^ 3. Hi « ■
S o lu tio n A is m o r e e f f i c ie n t
s in c e it u s e s fe w e r s q u a r e s ,
a n d s o i t r e c e i v e s m o r e p oin t s
than s o lu tio n B.
S c o r e : 83 m in u s the to ta l n u m b e r o f s q u a r e s u s e d to a r r a n g e the p ie c e s into a s in g le p a ttern fo r a ll i t e m s in a p a r t.
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p er p art: 5; w o r k in g t im e : 20 m in u t e s .
53. P e n e t r a tio n o f C a m o u f la g e - N F T 0 2 B (A F T ). C i r c l e the h u m a n f a c e s c a m o u f la g e d in the lin e s of a r e a l i s t i c
d raw in g.
S c o r e : One point for e a c h c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 2; w o rk in g t im e :
6 m in u t e s .
218
54. P e r c e p t u a l R e la t io n J u d g m e n t - E F R 0 5 A . G iven a s e r i e s of f ig u r e s that f o llo w a s t a t e d tren d ; d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r
s e l e c t e d p a ir s of t h e s e f ig u r e s r e p r e s e n t e q u iv a le n t a b s o l u t e s t e p s in the tren d .
G iv e n T re n d : The lin e d e c r e a s e s in len g th . S a m p le I t e m s :
1. A : B = C : D A : B = D : E 3. B: C =D : E
A n s w e r s : The p a ir s in it e m s 1 and 3 r e p r e s e n t e q u iv a le n t s te p s
in the tren d ; the p a ir s in i t e m 2 do n ot.
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r w r o n g .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p art: 15; w o r k in g t im e : 7 m in u te s .
55. P la n n in g A ir M a n e u v e r s - D F T 0 1 C . In d ica te the m o s t e fficien t path in " s k y w r itin g " le t t e r c o m b in a t io n s .
S a m p l e I t e m : F o llo w in g the r u l e s , w r ite L Z m o s t effic ie n tly .
M o s t e fficien t so lu tio n :
S c o r e : E v e r y p o s s i b l e s o lu tio n h a s a s c o r e v a lu e a s s i g n e d a c c o r d in g
to i t s r e la t iv e e f f i c ie n c y . S c o r e s r a n g e f r o m one to fiv e for e a c h it e m .
(N o te : th is is a d if f e r e n t s c o r i n g s y s t e m th a n that u s e d in p r e v io u s
s t u d i e s . ) P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a r t : 6; w o r k in g t im e : 12 m in u t e s .
Start
56. P la n n in g E la b o r a t io n II - D M I01 B . F i l l in a s m a n y d e t a il s a s n e c e s s a r y to m a k e a b r i e f l y o u t lin e d a c t i v it y w ork .
S a m p le I te m : Y our c lu b is p r e s e n t in g a p la y . T h e r e w ill be th r e e p e r f o r m a n c e s - F r id a y e v e n in g , S a tu r d a y m a t in e e ,
a n d S atu r d a y e v e n in g . T h e p la y i s to be p r e s e n t e d in the s c h o o l a u d it o r iu m . R e h e r s a l s a r e n ow in p r o g r e s s . P r o f i t s
w i l l go to the clu b t r e a s u r y . Y ou h a v e b e e n c h o s e n a s m a n a g e r fo r the p r o d u c tio n , w h ic h m e a n s you h a v e to plan
c a r e f u l l y to m a k e the p la y a s u c c e s s . W rite out the d e t a il s you w o u ld in clu d e a s p a r t s of yo u r plan .
P o s s i b l e d e t a il s :
'Ay k
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f d iff e r e n t r e le v a n t d e t a il s
liste d .
P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 1; w o r k in g t im e :
8 m in u t e s .
57 . P lo t T it l e s - D M T 0 1 G ( c l e v e r ) - D M T (SPS). W rite a s m a n y t it l e s as you c a n for a s h o r t s t o r y p lot. T i t l e s m a y
b e c l e v e r or not; the o n ly r e q u ir e m e n t i s that th ey m u s t b e c l e a r l y r e la t e d to the plot.
S c o r e : N u m b e r of t it l e s that a r e e s p e c i a l l y s u c c in c t , r e m o t e ly but c l e v e r l y r e la t e d to the p lot, o r in d ic a tiv e of a
r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the p lo t by a n e w e m p h a s i s . Fferts: 1 (N o te: O n ly the f ir s t p art of th is t e s t w a s u s e d in o b ta in in g
a D M T s c o r e ) ; it e m s p e r p a r t: 1; w o r k in g tim e : 3 m in u t e s .
58. P lo t T i t l e s - D M T 0 1 G (flu e n c y ) - D M U (SPS). S a m e a s for t e s t 57.
S c o r e : N u m b e r of t i t l e s l i s t e d that a r e c l e a r l y r e la t e d to th e p lot. P a r t s : 1 (N ote: o n ly the s e c o n d part o f t h is test
w a s u s e d in o b ta in in g a D M U s c o r e ) ; i t e m s p er p art: 1; w o rk in g t im e : 3 m in u t e s .
5 9. P o s s i b l e J o b s - D M I0 3B (SPS). W rite a s m a n y a s s ix d if f e r e n t jo b s that m ig h t b e in d ic a t e d by a p ic tu r e d e m b le m .
S a m p le E m b le m : P o s s i b l e J o b s :
/OiMaui^diiuU^)
S c o r e : N u m b e r o f r e le v a n t j o b s liste d .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 3; w o rk in g t im e : 10
m in u t e s .
219
6 0 . P o s t e r J u d g m e n t - E F I 0 5 A . D e t e r m i n e w h ic h of s e v e r a l d iffe r e n t t y p e s of p rin tin g e n a b le one to fit a g iv e n
p h r a s e on a s p e c if i e d s ig n .
T y p e s of P r in t :
1
2
I G A 1A.
IGA M
I S A If 4 7 %
Sign: P h r a s e s :
A . R O A D WORK
1,3-
B . F A L L I N G
R O C K S -
JuJL
S c o r e : N u m b e r of c o r r e c t r e s
p o n s e s m in u s n u m b e r of w ron g
r e s p o n s e s .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p a rt: 16;
w o rk in g t im e : 11 m in u t e s .
6 1 . P r e s c r i b e d R e la t i o n s - E F R 0 3 A . D e t e r m i n e w h ic h o f fi\e a lt e r n a t iv e f ig u r e s s h o w s the r e s u lt of a ll the s p e c if i e d
c h a n g e s to be m a d e o n a g iv e n fig u r e .
S a m p le I t e m :
C i r c l e c h a n g e s to s q u a r e
C r o s s i s a d d e d to in s id e
A n s w e r : C
A B C D E
S c o r e : N u m b e r right m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er part: 10; w o r k in g tim e : 6 m in u t e s .
62. P r o b l e m S o lv in g - C M S 0 5 A . S o lv e v e r b a l l y s t a te d a r i t h m e t i c p r o b le m s w h e r e the n u m e r ic a l c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e
m in im i z e d .
S a m p le I te m : A sh ip c a n c r u i s e f r o m L to S b e f o r e its fu el su p p ly i s e x h a u ste d .
To what point c o u ld it c r u i s e a n d r e t u r n w ith the s a m e a m o u n t of
fu e l?
L M N O P 9 R S
A n s w e r : C
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 1; it e m s p e r p a r t: 10; w o r k in g t im e : 8 m in u t e s .
A . B e t w e e n N and O
B. To e x a c t l y O
C. B e t w e e n O and P
D. T o e x a c t l y P
E . B e t w e e n P and Q
63 . R e m e m b e r i n g O b je c t O r ie n ta t io n - M F S 0 2 A . G iv en p a ir s of o b j e c t s , s e l e c t the a r r o w that in d ic a t e s what the
d ir e c tio n w a s fr o m th e f ir s t o b j e c t to the s e c o n d on a p r e v i o u s l y s tu d ie d page.
S a m p le Study P a g e :
S a m p le T e s t P a g e :
1
T e s t P a g e A lt e r n a t i v e s :
A n s w e r s : 1 - a r r o w D; 2 - a r r o w G
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t.
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 16; w o r k in g tim e : 8 m in u te s .
220
64. S im il a r O r ie n ta t io n s - E F S 0 5 A . D e t e r m i n e w h e th e r o r not the ch a n g e in p o s it io n b e t w e e n a p a ir o f p ic t u r e s
(u pp er to lo w e r ) is th e s a m e a s the c h a n g e r e p r e s e n t e d in a g iv e n p a ir o f p ic t u r e s .
S a m p le I t e m s :
G I V E N
A n s w e r s : P a i r s 1 a n d 2 do not u n d e r g o the s a m e ch a n g e in p o s i t io n a s the g iv e n p air; P a i r 3 d o e s .
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; it e m s p er p art: 18; w o rk in g t im e : 8 m in u t e s .
65. S k e t c h e s - D F U 0 1 B (SPS). A dd fig u r a l d etails to s e v e r a l r e p l ic a t i o n s of the s a m e b a s i c d e s ig n to p r o d u c e
v a r i e t y of r e c o g n iz a b le o b j e c t s .
S a m p le I tem :
G iv e n th is
b la n k fig u re :
P o s s ib le
r e s p o n s e s :
S c o r e : N u m b e r of d iffe r e n t r e c o g n iz a b le o b j e c t s p r o d u c e d . P a r t s : 4; it e m s p er p art: 12; w o rk in g t im e ; 8 m i n u t e s .
66. S p a c e P o s it i o n i n g - C F S 0 6 A . I n d ica te at w h ic h p oin t on the c i r c l e you w ould have to b e to g e t v a r io u s v ie w s o f
a n a r r a n g e m e n t of b a lls .
G iv e n A r r a n g e m e n t V ie w s
S a m p le Item :
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t:
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt:
15; w o rk in g tim e : 7 m in u te s .
67 . S p atia l C o m p r e h e n s i o n - C F S 0 7 A . G iv e n a v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n of c e r t a in p la c e s , c o r r e c t l y lo c a te the p o sitio n s
o f v a r io u s la n d m a r k s on a d ia g r a m .
S a m p le I te m - D e s c r ip t io n :
A s yo u e n te r the g e n e r a l 1 s li b r a r y f r o m the h a l l , yo u a r e m e t b y a la r g e sta tu e of N a p o le o n . The lg ft hand of the sta tu e
p o in ts d ow n and b a c k w a r d to th e g e n e r a l ' s d e s k , f r o m w h ich you c a n s e e th e gun c o l le c t i o n b eh in d the d oor you e n t e r e d
D ia g o n a lly a c r o s s the r o o m f r o m the d e s k i s a d is p la y o f a ll the m e d a l s and h o n o r s o f th is g r e a t m a n .
D ia g r a m : )(
f
m i
L a n d m a r k s :
A. S tatue
B. D e s k
C. Gun C o lle c t io n
D. M e d a ls
S c o r e : N u m b e r of la n d m a r k s c o r r e c t l y p la ce d .
P a r t s : 2; it e m s p e r p a rt: 1; w o rk in g t im e : 18 m in u tes.
221
68 . S p a tia l O r ie n t a t io n - C F S 0 4 A (S P S ). I n d ic a te h ow th e p o s i t io n o f a b oa t h a s c h a n g e d f r o m on e p ic t u r e to an other.
S a m p le I te m :
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w ro n g .
P a r t s : 3; i t e m s p e r p a r t : 12; w o r k in g t im e : 9 m in u t e s .
6 9 . S p a tia l V i s u a l i z a t i o n - C F T 0 1 A (S P S ). S e le c t the a lt e r n a t iv e that d e p ic t s the w a y a c l o c k w o u l d lo o k a ft e r s p e c i
f ie d r o t a t i o n s . R o t a t io n s m u s t be done in th e o r d e r g iv e n .
S a m p le I te m :
A B O D E
A n s w e r : A
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g .
P a r t s : 3; i t e m s p e r p a r t: 10; w o r k in g t im e : 9 m in u t e s .
70. S y s t e m - S h a p e R e c o g n it i o n - M F S 0 4 A . In d ica te w h e th e r g r o u p s o f s h a p e s h a v e the s a m e p o s i t io n and o r ie n t a tio n
to e a c h o th e r a s th e y h ad o n a p r e v i o u s ly s t u d ie d p a g e.
S a m p le S tud y P a g e : S a m p le T e s t P a g e :
A n s w e r s : G ro u p 1 h a s the s h a p e s in th e s a m e
p o s i t io n s a s the stu d y p a g e , G rou p 2 d o e s not.
S c o r e : N u m b e r r ig h t m in u s n u m b e r w r o n g . P a r t s : 2; i t e m s p e r p a rt: 15; w o rk in g
t im e : 6 m in u t e s .
71. V e r b a l C o m p r e h e n s i o n - C M U 0 2 D (S P S ). S e le c t f r o m fiv e a l t e r n a t i v e s a w o r d that h a s ab out the s a m e m e a n in g
a s a g iv e n w o rd .
S a m p le I te m : X O R E A P
A. to f la t t e r
B. to h a r v e s t
C. to r e f e r
D. to r e l e a se
E. to r e p o s e
A n s w e r : B
S c o r e : N u m b e r rig h t m in u s o n e - f o u r t h n u m b e r w r o n g .
P a r t s : 1; it e m s p er p a rt: 24; w o r k in g tim e : 4 m in u t e s .
72. W o rd C o m p l e t io n - CMTJ01B. W rite a c c e p t a b l e m e a n in g s fo r g iv e n w o r d s .
S a m p le I te m :
C O U R A G E O U S /+ £ . _______________
S c o r e : O n e p o in t fo r e a c h w o r d a c c e p t a b l y d efin ed .
P a r t s : 1; it e m s p e r p a r t: 20; w o r k in g tim e : 6 l / 2
m in u t e s .
73. S e x M e m b e r s h i p . S c o r e : M a l e s w e r e g iv e n a s c o r e o f 2; f e m a l e s a s c o r e o f 1.
74. Y e a r in S c h o o l. S c o r e : 0 - t h o s e s tu d e n ts ju s t e n t e r in g c o l l e g e ; 1 - f r e s h m a n ; 2 - s o p h o m o r e s ; 3 - ju n io r; 4 -
s e n io r .

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Symbolic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

A Factor Analysis Of The Semantic-Evaluation Abilities

PDF

Behavioral (Social) Intelligence: A Factor Analysis

PDF

Semantic-Memory And Creative (Divergent-Production) Abilities Of Senior-High-School Students

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

A Factor-Analytic Study Of Problem-Solving Abilities

PDF

Development Of A Mid Primary Screening Battery For Schools Of A High Socioeconomic Community

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

The influence of social intelligence and social teaching methods upon academic achievement

PDF

A Factor Analytic Study Of Tests Designed To Measure Reading Ability

PDF

A factor-analytic study of symbolic-memory abilities

PDF

A Preliminary Study Of The Dimensions Of Future Time Perspective

PDF

Creativity In Children: A Study Of The Relationship Between Temperament Factors And Aptitude Factors Involved In The Creative Ability Of Seventh Grade Children With Suggestions For A Theory Of C...

PDF

The Role Of Intellectual Abilities In Concept Learning

PDF

A Multidimensional Scaling Of Mood Expressions

PDF

A Study Of The Relationships Between Factors Found In Cattell'S Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire And Factors Found In The Guilford Personality Inventories

PDF

Intellect After Lobotomy In Schizophrenia: A Factor-Analytic Study

PDF

Figural And Symbolic Divergent-Production Abilities In Adults And Adolescents

PDF

A Paradigm For The Implementation Of Accountability Measures In Bilingualeducation

PDF

Measures Of Pilot Performance: Comparative Analysis Of Day And Night Carrier Recoveries

Asset Metadata

Creator Ingebretsen, Kaaeren Elizabeth (author)

Core Title A Factor Analysis Of The Figural-Evaluation Abilities

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Guilford, Joy P. (committee chair), Hoepfner, Ralph (committee member), Metfessel, Newton S. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-670201

Unique identifier UC11361159

Identifier 6913065.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-670201 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6913065.pdf

Dmrecord 670201

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ingebretsen, Kaaeren Elizabeth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA