Tangible reinforcement and feedback effects on the IQ scores of college students

Willis, Jerry; Ehrlick, Steven P.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197507)31:3<463::aid-jclp2270310321>3.0.co;2-t

Cited by 2 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of Clingman and Fowler (1975) suggested a reinforcement effect when pre-to posttest score changes were reviewed. The findings of Willis and Shibata (1978), however, were not as impressive when gains for all treatment groups were considered. Review of the differential outcomes reported also indicated that a reinforcement effect may not be straightforward - Moran (1979) showed that controls outperformed a reinforced group supporting a detrimental influence of rewards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Reinforcement-in-testing research has attempted to follow test manual procedures, but it has not been possible to establish adequately a standard approach. For example, Goh and Lund (1977), Willis and Shibata (1978), and Moran (1979) all administered the WPPSI and followed the instructions in the manual. Goh and Lund noted that no particular verbal reinforcement was given, but in the Willis and Shibata study, praise for effort was given after each subtest and encouraging statements given between tests.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Elementary school subjects of high ability who were rewarded scored lower than control subjects on algorithmic tests (Information, Arithmetic, and Coding). Willis and Shibata (1978) investigated the effects of pegs placed in a grid (KOR) for correct responses and KOR + rewards. KOR + reward, which were given after completion of four tests, resulted in positive effects.…”

Section: Review Of Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Test manual + Experimental Treatment Witmer et al (1971), Willis & Shibata (1978), Moran (1979), McCarthy (1982, Yeager (1984), Bradley-Johnson et al (1984), Bradley-Johnson et al (1986, Galbraith et al (1986) Test Manual Control Compared to Experimental Treatment Klugman (1944), Tiber & Kennedy (1964), Edlund (1972), Clingman & Fowler (1975), Goh & Lund (1977), Piersel et al (1977), Terrell et al (1978), Kiefer & Goh (1981) Nonstandard Treatment Bergan et al (1971), Wienges (1972), Lyle & Johnson (1973), Fish (1984) Notes. SEm -standard error of measurement, con = contingent, noncon = noncontingent.…”

Section: Table 3 Research Design Of Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SEm -standard error of measurement, con = contingent, noncon = noncontingent. The cutoff scores in IQ points for 1 -and 2 -SEm are as follows: Standford-Binet, 5 and 10 points (Clingman & Fowler, 1975); WPPSI, 3 and 6 points (Willis & Shibata, 1978). Willis and Shibata data based on unadjusted full-scale IQ scores.…”

Section: Table 3 Research Design Of Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Reinforcement in testing: Research with children and adolescents.

Fish¹

1988

Professional School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from reinforcement-in-testing research conducted with children and adolescents was compiled and reviewed in an attempt to isolate consistent trends. The findings do not support a reinforcement effect, although there is evidence that reinforcers enhance the performance of some examinees. This article includes an analysis of theoretical issues related to a standard test approach, validity and reliability of test scores, and the role of reinforcement. Various methodological problems are discussed and recommendations presented to expand the reinforcement-in-testing model. A discussion of the implication of this research for school psychologists is presented.In an early article on the measurement of intelligence, Thorndike (1924) stated that the testing context presupposed that an individual's motivational set was optimum. He also suggested that in scientific testing it was theoretically possible to "arrange a system of incentives such that each person put forth approximately his maximum effort . . ." (p. 228), noting, however, that in actual practice it was difficult to know if a person had shown as much effort as possible. Klugman (1944) first attempted to apply this concept by administering a reward to influence children's performance on an individually administered intelligence test.This review compiles the reinforcement-in-testing literature, provides a framework for analysis of results, and isolates consistent findings that can be applied. This area of research is viewed as one aspect of a larger literature that focuses on conditions of test administration, including rapport and examiner-examinee relationships.An assumption of reinforcement-in-testing researchers is that a subject's performance can be changed by enhancing motivation. A distinction is thus drawn between performance and competence, which leads to questions about the accuracy of test scores and ultimately points to a motivational component as an important aspect of the testing process. This latter issue has been discussed in general by Wechsler (1950Wechsler ( , 1975, but more directly by Zigler and Butter field (1968) and Scarr (1981), who emphasized that an individual's motivational history is an important aspect of testing and should be considered.The issue of using extrinsic sources of motivation as part of the testing process is important, because one goal during the examination process is to maintain an examinee's motivation to perform. It is necessary to know that performance represents ability, so attained scores, which are needed for various purposes in schools, are accurate. The notion of using rewards during testing also challenges what is considered Requests for reprints should be sent to Joseph Fish,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Table 3 Research Design Of Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Table 3 Research Design Of Studies Reviewedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reinforcement in testing: Research with children and adolescents.

Fish¹

1988

Professional School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Accuracy of Feelings of Correctness on the WAIS and Binet

Rust

Oster

1977

Psychol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Students learning to use assessment procedures are warned against offering feedback to clients. Research shows conflicting influences of knowledge of such results and has largely ignored the client's feelings of correctness. Data were collected to determine whether WAIS and Binet examinees were aware of the accuracy of their responses. Subjects were administered the tests and were asked to indicate whether they thought each of their answers was correct. Generally subjects knew whether their responses were correct. There was a significant correlation between the accuracy of such feelings of correctness and IQ but not between the self-knowledge and either age or sex.

show abstract

Tangible reinforcement and feedback effects on the IQ scores of college students

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Reinforcement in testing: Research with children and adolescents.

Reinforcement in testing: Research with children and adolescents.

Accuracy of Feelings of Correctness on the WAIS and Binet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About