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

Abstract

Scores obtained at eight different stages of practice on the Complex Coordination Test together with scores on 18 reference tests were subjected to a Thurstone Centroid Factor Analysis. Nine meaningful factors were identified in the experimental battery. The results indlea~ed considerable, but systematic, changes in the factor structure of the Complex Coordination Test as practice on the task was continued. The test became less complex (faetorially) as practice was continued. Moreover, there was a change in the nature of the factors contributing variance at early and later stages of practice. Implications of the findings are related to certain problems of learning theory, psychomotor test development, and criterion analysis.

Motor Learning and Retention: Influence of Practice and Remoteness on Individual Differences

“…This is consistent with the hypolhesis of Reynolds (16,17) and later Bilodeau (3, 4) and Fleishman (7,8 ) that the nature of the task changes as learning progresses, as well as the simpler hypothesis that the correlation drops with increased remoteness.…”

Abilities and skill acquisition: A latent growth curve approach

“…The theory integrates the results of prior empirical research (Fleishman, 1955;Fleishman & Hempel, 1954) along with existing skill acquisition theories (Anderson, 1982;Fitts & Posner, 1967). Based on three qualitatively different levels of skill acquisition as originally proposed by Fitts (1964) and Fitts and Posner (1967), Ackerman linked this general model of skill acquisition with representations of abilities, such as the radex model (Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow, 1983).…”

The Effect of Factor Analytic Method on the Interpretation of the Changing Abilities Requirements Model: An Example of the Tools-to-Theory Hypothesis

“…The results from their factor analyses have been widely reproduced, particularly in the form of a graphic representation showing that cognitive factors were more important in the early trials of the complex coordination task, whereas a task-specific factor and motor factors became more important later on. This representation of the factor analyses (Fleishman & Hempel, 1954, 1955 still appears in the literature almost 40 years after it was published (Adams, 1989). It is not uncommon to find these pictures in industrial/organizational psychology textbooks (e.g., Blum & Naylor, 1968;Cronbach, 1984;Goldstein, 1989;Landy, 1985Landy, , 1986Mankin, Ames, & Grodsky, 1980;Siege1 & Lane, 1982).…”