The Structural Validity of the Culture Fair Test Under Consideration of the Item-Position Effect
Abstract
Abstract. Although all four subtests of Cattell’s Culture Fair Test (CFT) claim to measure inductive reasoning as a facet of fluid intelligence, previous studies indicated surprisingly weak correlations among them. In the present study, we applied a fixed-links modeling approach on CFT-20R data of 206 participants to control for the confounding influence of the item-position effect on test performance and to reevaluate the structural validity of the CFT-20R. Controlling for the item-position effect resulted in two latent variables representing inductive reasoning for CFT-20R subtests Series and Matrices and subtests Classifications and Topologies, respectively. Given the correlation of r = .61 between these two latent variables, the structural validity of the CFT-20R proved to be better than suggested by traditional correlations between test scores.
References
2016).
(Using factor analysis in test construction . In K. SchweizerC. DiStefanoEds., Principles and Methods of Test Construction (pp. 26–51). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.2000). Item sequencing effects on the measurement of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 28, 145–160.
(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
(1963). Culture fair intelligence test. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
(2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1–11.
(1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
(1997). Measurement characteristics of the IEA Reading Literacy Scales. Journal of Educational Measurement, 34, 233–251.
(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
(2008). Inductive reasoning: A training approach. Review of Educational Research, 78, 85–123.
(2013). Inductive reasoning, domain specific and complex problem solving: Relations and development. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 35–45.
(1998–2013). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
(2012). How does attention relate to reasoning measured by APM? Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 1–7.
(2015). The prediction of students’ academic performance with fluid intelligence in giving special consideration to the contribution of learning. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 11, 97–105.
(2014). A learning-based account of fluid intelligence from the perspective of the item-position effect. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 30–35.
(2008). Psychodiagnostik in der Praxis: State of the Art? Klinische Diagnostik und Evaluation, 1, 5–18.
(2011). Scaling variances of latent variables by standardizing loadings: Applications to working memory and the position effect. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 938–955.
(2012). The position-effect in reasoning items considered from the CFA perspective. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 11, 44–58.
(2013). A threshold-free approach to the study of the structure of binary data. International Journal of Statistics and Probability, 2, 67–75.
(2012). Validity improvement in two reasoning measures following the elimination of the position effect. Journal of Individual Differences, 33, 54–61.
(2011). On the special relationship between fluid and general intelligence: New evidence obtained by considering the position effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1249–1254.
(2011).
(Tests of intelligence . In R. J. SternbergS. B. KaufmanEds., The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 20–38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.1971). Grundintelligenztest Skala 3 (CFT3)
([The Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 3] . Braunschweig, Germany: Westermann.2006). CFT20-R – Grundintelligenztest Skala 2
([The Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 2] . Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.