Changes in factor structure of a complex psychomotor test as a function of practice

Fleishman, Edwin A.; Hempel, Walter E.

doi:10.1007/bf02289188

Cited by 217 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We think the capacity demands of the interpolated task Crowder (1967a) used were quite different from those used both in the present experiments and in others investigating decay in short-term memory (especially the detection tasks of Reitman and Shiffrin). It may well be that with Crowder's more complex interpolated task it cannot be assumed that the task is strictly nonverbal, especially at low levels of practice (Fleishman & Hemple, 1954). Under conditions of low stimulus-response compatibility and practice, it is quite likely that subjects used verbal rules to mediate performance ("third light from the left goes with second key from the right," and so forth).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferring decay in short-term memory: The issue of capacity

1977

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments examining the issue of decay in short-term memory have assumed a single undifferentiated source of processing capacity which cannot be devoted to rehearsal when consumed in the processing of a nonverbal interpolated task. Three experiments reported here call this logic into question, since variations in difficulty in the nonverbal interpolated task failed to affect recall. Slight forgetting produced by a nonverbal interpolated task, relative to a no interpolated task control, was attributed to qualitative differences from performing two tasks simultaneously rather than only one. Results from the third experiment indicated that retrieval after a period of nonverbal interpolated activity is from primary rather than secondary memory.The idea that forgetting is at least partly attributable to autonomous decay of the memory trace has suffered several reversals of fortune during this century. The most prevalent theory of forgetting early in the century was that "the machinery developed in the process of learning is subject to the wasting effects of time" (Woodworth, 1929, p.93). McGeoch (1932) mounted so effective an attack on decay theory that evidently no one seriously considered it as an appropriate account of forgetting for 25 years. Brown (1958) resurrected decay theory to account for forgetting over short retention intervals for small amounts of material when subjects were distracted during the interval by performing another task, such as number shadowing. Decay was plausible, since Brown's (1958) experiments seemed to show that proactive and retroactive inhibition were relatively unimportant in this situation. However, later research has clearly demonstrated that proactive and retroactive inhibition are powerful factors determining forgetting in the Brown-Peterson distractor task (Brown, 1958;Peterson & Peterson, 1959). In fact, on the first trial (i.e., without proactive interference) in experiments with this technique, there is little, if any, forgetting (Keppel & Underwood, 1962).Recently the issue of decay in immediate memory has been reopened in an important series of studies by Reitman (1971), Shiffrin (1973), and Watkins, Watkins, Craik, and Mazuryk (1974. The purpose of the present paper is to consider critically the logic used in these investigations to draw inferences about decay. These investigations capitalize on the similarity Order of authors was randomly determined. The present research was supported by NIMH Grant MH26302 to Barry H. Kantowitz. We thank Fred Hoehler for testing subjects in Experiment 3 and Robert G. Crowder for commenting on the manuscript. Requests for reprints should be sent to any author at the Department of Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. of the Brown-Peterson short-term memory task to procedures used in the study of divided attention, a similarity first noted by Crowder (1967a, b). During the retention interval in short-term memory experiments, there is competition between tendencies to rehearse the memory stimuli and to execute an i...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inferring decay in short-term memory: The issue of capacity

1977

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The labels for psychomotor constructs in Table I are derived from the classic work of Fleishman and his colleagues (e.g., Fleishman, 1954;Fleishman & Ellison, 1962;Fleishman & Hempel, 1954a, 1954b, 1956), Imhoff andLevine (1981), andMcHenry (1987). The more recent works have focused on hierarchical models of psychomotor abilities--models that are compatible with Fleishman's taxonomy.…”

Section: Psychomotormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During World War II, the Army Air Force (AAF) studies made great strides toward defining and measuring psychomotor abilities (Guilford & Lacey, 1947). Fleishman and his colleagues continued psychomotor abilities research in the 1950s and early 1960s (e.g., Fleishman, 1967Fleishman, , 1972Fleishman & Hempel, 1954a, 1954b, 1956). Fleishman performed a series of factor analytic studies with military airmen and airmen trainees to identify the basic structure of the psychomotor domain (Fleishman, 1954;Fleishman & Ellison, 1962;Fleishman & Hempel, 1954a, 1956).…”

Section: Psychomotor Attributes Psychomotor Attribute Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building a Joint-Service Classification Research Roadmap: Individual Differences Measurement

Russell¹,

Reynolds²,

Campbell³

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Seashore (1951) has indicated that the initial rate of progress in motor skills is significantly and positively correlated with the ultimate performance level. The justification for the assessment of skill acquisition rate is further substantiated by the change in factor structure of complex psychomotor tasks as function of practice (Fleishman & Hempel, 1953) and evidence that measures of the initial performance on complex psychomotor tasks are not valid predictors of final performance or performance on a criterion task (Adams, 1953;Smith & Gold, 1956;Parker & Fleishman, 1960). Fleishman and Rich (1963) stated that individuals who have superior sensitivity to kinesthetic cues should be superior to others at the advanced stages of leasrning of a complex motor task, but they may not excel during the initial stages.…”

Section: Critical Behavioral Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%