Measuring Relational Reasoning

Autor/inn/en	Alexander, Patricia A.; Dumas, Denis; Grossnickle, Emily M.; List, Alexandra; Firetto, Carla M.
Titel	Measuring Relational Reasoning
Quelle	In: Journal of Experimental Education, 84 (2016) 1, S.119-151 (33 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0022-0973
DOI	10.1080/00220973.2014.963216
Schlagwörter	Cognitive Ability; Logical Thinking; Thinking Skills; Cognitive Processes; Test Construction; Test Reliability; Test Validity; Prediction; Achievement Tests; Standardized Tests; Academic Achievement; Factor Analysis; College Entrance Examinations; Evaluation Methods; Interviews; College Faculty; Test Items; Difficulty Level; College Students; Predictive Validity; SAT (College Admission Test) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Denkfähigkeit; Cognitive process; Kognitiver Prozess; Testaufbau; Testreliabilität; Testvalidität; Vorhersage; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Standadised tests; Standardisierter Test; Schulleistung; Faktorenanalyse; Aufnahmeprüfung; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Fakultät; Test content; Testaufgabe; Schwierigkeitsgrad; Collegestudent
Abstract	Relational reasoning is the foundational cognitive ability to discern meaningful patterns within an informational stream, but its reliable and valid measurement remains problematic. In this investigation, the measurement of relational reasoning unfolded in three stages. Stage 1 entailed the establishment of a research-based conceptualization of the construct and the development of a corresponding Test of Relational Reasoning (TORR). Stage 2 focused on the reliability and validity of data from the TORR. Analyses showed the data from the TORR to be reliable indicators of students' ability to reason relationally, and TORR performance predicted students' performance on SAT verbal and math problems. Stage 3 examined the underlying structure of the construct through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Of the three CFA models tested, models with dedicated factors for analogical, anomalous, antinomous, and antithetical reasoning were deemed the best fit for the data. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01