The Factorial Structure of Spatial Abilities in Russian and Chinese Students

Abstract

Background. Recent research has suggested a unifactorial structure of spatial ability (SA). However, further studies are needed to replicate this finding in different populations. Objective. This study aims to explore the factorial structure of SA in samples of 921 Russian and 229 Chinese university students. Design. A gamified spatial abilities battery was administered to all participants. The battery consists of 10 different domains of SA, including 2D and 3D visualization, mental rotation, spatial pattern assembly, spatial relations, spatial planning, mechanical reasoning, spatial orientation, and spatial decision-making speed and flexibility. Results. The results of the factor analysis showed a somewhat different pattern for different samples. In the Russian sample, the unifactorial structure, shown previously in a large UK sample (Rimfeld et al., 2017), was replicated. A single factor explained 40% of the variance. In the Chinese sample two factors emerged: the first factor explained 26% of the variance and the second factor, including only mechanical reasoning and cross-sections tests, explained 14%. The results also showed that the Chinese sample significantly outperformed the Russian sample in five out of the 10 tests. Russian students showed better performance in only two of the tests. The effects of all group comparisons were small. The Factorial Structure of Spatial Abilities in Russian and Chinese Students 97 Conclusion. Overall, a similar amount of variance in the 10 tests was explained in the two samples, replicating results from the UK sample. Future research is needed to explain the observed differences in the structure of SA.

Measuring Spatial Ability for Talent Identification, Educational Assessment, and Support: Evidence from Adolescents with High Achievement in Science, Arts, and Sports

“…Cross-track di erences also emerged in the structure of SA. Results from the factor analysis for the whole sample on the Science and Sports tracks replicated the previous ndings of the unifactorial structure of the spatial ability (Esipenko et al, 2018;Likhanov et al, 2018;Rimfeld et al, 2017). However, for the Arts track, a two-factorial structure emerged (Elithorn mazes and Mazes tests formed the second factor).…”

“…For example, the Science track showed the highest results in all four tests. We also compared the results of the Science track with previous results and found higher average performance in the Science track than that of unselected university students from China and Russia (Esipenko et al, 2018;Likhanov et al, 2018) and of an unselected population of young adults from UK (Rimfeld et al, 2017). Our result was also consistent with repeatedly found correlations between math and spatial ability (.43;Tosto et al, 2014), and between intelligence and academic achievement (.60 -.96;Bouchard & Fox, 1984;Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandes, 2007;Kemp, 1955;Wiseman, Meade, & Parks, 1966).…”

“…As described in the Method section, gender distribution across tracks was uneven. Previous studies that employed the same SA battery showed moderate gender di erences in a British sample of young adults (Toivainen et al, 2018) and samples of Russian (Esipenko et al, 2018) and Chinese students (Likhanov et al, 2018). We examined gender e ects in 11 one-way ANOVAs (10 tests and the total score) that showed male advantage for three tests, as well as a total SA score, and female advantage for two tests.…”

“…It is also possible that the battery used in this study did not tap into the ability of athletes to process visuo-spatial information in a natural environment, such as attentional processes or long-term working memory, which was shown in some studies to be highly developed in professional athletes, including hockey players (Belling et al 2015;Mann et al, 2007;Voss et al, 2010). e tests in this study measured mostly small-scale SA, i.e., the ability to mentally represent and transform two-and threedimensional images that can typically be apprehended from a single vantage point (Likhanov et al, 2018;Wang and Carr, 2014). Further research is needed that includes both small-and large-scale spatial ability tests.…”

“…However, several recent studies (Esipenko et al, 2018;Likhanov et al, 2018;Malanchini et al, 2019;Rimfeld et al, 2017) showed that spatial ability might have a unifactorial rather than multidimensional structure. For example, research has shown that the 10 spatial ability tests which form a King's Challenge test battery (Rimfeld et al, 2017), constitute a single factor in British and Russian samples, explaining 42 and 40 percent of overall variance in spatial ability measures, respectively (Likhanov et al, 2018;Rimfeld et al, 2017). Interestingly, in a Chinese sample assessed with the same battery, a two-factorial structure of spatial ability emerged (explaining 40% of the total variance), with Cross-sections and Mechanical Reasoning forming a separate factor.…”