Test–retest reliability and differential patterns of score change on the Group Embedded Figures Test.

Abstract

Retest reliability of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) was examined under three different intervals between test and retest, all with an interpolated cognitive task. Despite a significant increase in the group mean score from test to retest in all three experiments, retest reliability coefficients were high, .78-.92. There was also a suggestion that reliability increased with duration of delay. Examination of individual patterns of test-retest score change revealed four patterns: consistent field dependent (FD), consistent field independent (FI), unclassifiable (UNCL), and latent field independent (FIL), whose retest scores took them from the FD range to the FI range. The latter two patterns accounted for the significant retest improvement. Relative frequencies of subjects in each pattern were relatively constant over the three experiments. Subjects in the pattern categories also differed with respect to score on number series completion tests, suggesting that the four patterns reflect more general individual differences in analytic ability. It was concluded that the GEFT is a reliable test, but suggestions for a more error-free classification procedure based on a test-retest score pattern is proposed. Implications of the findings for intervention studies of cognitive style are also noted.

A suspended act: increased reflectivity and gender-dependent electrophysiological change following Quadrato Motor Training

“…No difference in performance between the male and female participants was found either at baseline, or following training, for either measure (Figures 5B,C). As can be seen from Figure 5, on average there is an increase in the detection of one more figure following QMT, and the test-retest correlation found here of 0.57 ( n = 37, p < 0.0001) is relatively high, though is lower than the.78-.92 range found for the GEFT (Kepner and Neimark, 1984). This correlation is comparable to the correlation that we have computed between the two sets derived from the HFT of a previous study (Glicksohn and Kinberg, 2009), which is.67 ( n = 80, p < 0.0001).…”

“…It should be considered, however, that participants tend to generally perform better on embedded figures tests after practice (Witkin et al, 1971a,b; Stericker and LeVesconte, 1982; Woodfield, 1984; Ludwig and Lachnit, 2004), hence such an improvement does not necessarily indicate an increase in reflectivity. However, within such improvement, four patterns may be discerned (Kepner and Neimark, 1984): (1) stable FI, namely high scores (number of figures detected) at both test and retest; (2) stable FD, namely low scores at both times; (3) improvement from test to retest, including (but not necessarily) a move from FD to FI; and (4) a decline in performance. Hereafter, we consider pattern 3 to operationalize an increase in reflectivity.…”

State of The Art of Learning Styles-Based Adaptive Educational Hypermedia Systems (Ls-Baehss)

“…Users who are depending on external cues and have difficulty to distinguish an embedded figures will be classified as field dependent (FD), whereas, users who depend on internal cause and are able to distinguish an embedded figure from an organising field will be classified as field independent (FI). Panek, Funk and Nelson [75] and Kepner and Neimark [76] confirmed the validity and reliability of this test. In adaptation process, it has been used by Triantafillou et al [77] in order to deliver adaptive resources as well as adapting navigation support in AES-CS system.…”

Exploring the influence of basic cognitive skills on the relation between math performance and math anxiety

“…(Ekstrom, French, & Harman, 1976) participants are asked to identify which of five simple geometric figures is embedded within a complex figure. Test-retest reliability is high (0.78 to 0.92; Kepner & Neimark, 1984) in a group-administered version of the task. Participants were guided through Douglas & LeFevre 649 two practice questions.…”