Graph Mapping: A novel and simple test to validly assess fluid reasoning.
Fluid intelligence
Gf
Intelligence test
Reasoning
Working memory
Journal
Behavior research methods
ISSN: 1554-3528
Titre abrégé: Behav Res Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101244316
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2023
01 2023
Historique:
accepted:
21
03
2022
pubmed:
21
4
2022
medline:
15
2
2023
entrez:
20
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We present Graph Mapping - a simple and effective computerized test of fluid intelligence (reasoning ability). The test requires structure mapping - a key component of the reasoning process. Participants are asked to map a pair of corresponding nodes across two mathematically isomorphic but visually different graphs. The test difficulty can be easily manipulated - the more complex structurally and dissimilar visually the graphs, the higher response error rate. Graph Mapping offers high flexibility in item generation, ranging from trivial to extremally difficult items, supporting progressive item sequences suitable for correlational studies. It also allows multiple item instances (clones) at a fixed difficulty level as well as full item randomization, both particularly suitable for within-subject experimental designs, longitudinal studies, and adaptive testing. The test has short administration times and is unfamiliar to participants, yielding practical advantages. Graph Mapping has excellent psychometric properties: Its convergent validity and reliability is comparable to the three leading traditional fluid reasoning tests. The convenient software allows a researcher to design the optimal test variant for a given study and sample. Graph Mapping can be downloaded from: https://osf.io/wh7zv/.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35441361
doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01846-z
pii: 10.3758/s13428-022-01846-z
pmc: PMC9918571
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
448-460Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Arendasy, M., Hergovich, A., & Sommer, M. (2008). Investigating the ‘g’ saturation of various stratum-two factors using automatic item generation. Intelligence, 36, 574–583.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2007.11.005
Arendasy, M., & Sommer, M. (2012). Using automatic item generation to meet the increasing item demands of high-stakes assessment. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 112–117.
doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.005
Arendasy, M. E., & Sommer, M. (2013). Reducing response elimination strategies enhances the construct validity of figural matrices. Intelligence, 41(4), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.006
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.006
Arthur, W., & Day, V. D. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices test. Education and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394–403.
doi: 10.1177/0013164494054002013
Arthur, W., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Sanchez-Ku, M. L. (1999). College-Sample Psychometric and Normative Data on a Short Form of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17(4), 354–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299901700405
doi: 10.1177/073428299901700405
Barbey, A. K. (2018). Network Neuroscience Theory of Human Intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.10.001
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.10.001
pubmed: 29167088
Basten, U., Hilger, K., & Fiebach, C. J. (2015). Where smart brains are different: A quantitative meta-analysis of functional and structural brain imaging studies on intelligence. Intelligence, 51, 10–27.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.04.009
Bateman, J. E., Thompson, K. A., & Birney, D. P. (2019). Validating the relation-monitoring task as a measure of relational integration and predictor of fluid intelligence. Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00952-2
Becker, N., Schmitz, F., Falk, A. M., Feldbrügge, J., Recktenwald, D. R., et al. (2016). Preventing response elimination strategies improves the convergent validity of figural matrices. Journal of Intelligence, 4, 2.
doi: 10.3390/jintelligence4010002
Birney, & Bowman. (2009). An experimental-differential investigation of cognitive complexity. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51(4), 449–469 Retrieved from http://p16277.typo3server.info/fileadmin/download/PschologyScience/4-2009/psq_4_2009_449-469.pdf
Bors, D. A., & Forrin, B. (1995). Age, speed of information processing, recall, and fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 20(3), 229–248.
doi: 10.1016/0160-2896(95)90009-8
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404
pubmed: 2381998
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1961). Culture free intelligence test, scale 3. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046743
Cho, S., Holyoak, K. J., & Cannon, T. D. (2007). Analogical reasoning in working memory: Resources shared among relational integration, interference resolution, and maintenance. Memory and Cognition, 35, 1445–1455.
doi: 10.3758/BF03193614
pubmed: 18035640
Chuderski, A. (2013). When are fluid intelligence and working memory isomorphic and when are they not? Intelligence, 41, 244–262.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.003
Chuderski, A. (2014). The relational integration task explains fluid reasoning above and beyond other working memory tasks. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 448–463. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0366-x
doi: 10.3758/s13421-013-0366-x
Chuderski, A. (2015). Why people fail on the fluid intelligence tests. Journal of Individual Differences, 36, 138–149.
doi: 10.1027/1614-0001/a000164
Chuderski, A. (2019). Even a single trivial binding of information is critical for fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 77, 101396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2019.101396
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101396
Chuderski, A., & Necka, E. (2012). The contribution of working memory to fluid reasoning: capacity, control, or both? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1689–1710. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028465
doi: 10.1037/a0028465
pubmed: 22612170
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353
pubmed: 21943169
Ekstrom, R., French, J., Harman, H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Educational Testing Service.
Eliasmith, C., & Thagard, P. (2001). Integrating structure and meaning: A distributed model of analogical mapping. Cognitive Science, 25, 245–286.
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2502_3
Embretson, S. E. (1995). The role of working memory capacity and general control processes in intelligence. Intelligence, 20, 169–189.
doi: 10.1016/0160-2896(95)90031-4
Gągol, A., Magnuski, M., Kroczek, B., Kałamała, P., Ociepka, M., Santarnecchi, E., & Chuderski, A. (2018). Delta-gamma coupling as a potential neurophysiological mechanism of fluid intelligence. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.11.003
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0702_3
Gignac, G. E. (2015). Raven’s is not a pure measure of general intelligence: Implications for g factor theory and the brief measurement of g. Intelligence, 52, 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.006
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2015.07.006
Goldstone, R. L. (1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 178–200.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.123.2.178
pubmed: 8014612
Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(84)90008-4
Halford, G. S., Baker, R., McCredden, J. E., & Bain, J. D. (2005). How many variables can humans process? Psychological Science, 16(1), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00782.x
doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00782.x
pubmed: 15660854
Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., Andrews, G., & Phillips, S. (2014). Categorizing Cognition: Toward Conceptual Coherence in the Foundations of Psychology. MIT Press.
doi: 10.7551/mitpress/10054.001.0001
Holyoak, K. J. (2012). Analogy and Relational Reasoning. In: The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0013
Hossiep, R., Turck, D., & Hasella, M. (1999). Bochumer Matrizentest: BOMAT advanced. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hummel, J. E., Holyoak, K., & J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220–264.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.220
pubmed: 12747523
Jani, N. G., & Levine, D. S. (2000). A neural network theory of proportional analogy-making. Neural Networks, 13, 149–183.
doi: 10.1016/S0893-6080(99)00106-9
pubmed: 10935759
Jarosz, A. F., Raden, M. J., & Wiley, J. (2019). Working memory capacity and strategy use on the RAPM. Intelligence, 77, 101387.
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.101387
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2012). Why does working memory capacity predict RAPM performance? A possible role of distraction. Intelligence, 40(5), 427–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.06.001
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2012.06.001
Jastrzębski, J., Ociepka, M., & Chuderski, A. (2020). Fluid reasoning is equivalent to relation processing. Intelligence, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101489
Keane, M. T., Ledgeway, T., & Duff, S. (1994). Constraints on analogical mapping: A comparison of three models. Cognitive Science, 18, 387–438.
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1803_2
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162
pubmed: 11271753
Kunda, M., McGreggor, K., & Goel, A. K. (2013). A computational model for solving problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test using iconic visual representations. Cognitive Systems Research, 22–23, 47–66.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2012.08.001
Larkey, L., & Love, B. (2003). CAB: Connectionist analogy builder. Cognitive Science, 27, 781–794.
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2705_5
Larson, G. E., Merritt, C. R., & Williams, S. E. (1988). Information processing and intelligence: Some implications of task complexity. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2896(88)90012-8
Little, D. R., Lewandowsky, S., and Griffiths, T. L. (2012). A Bayesian model of Raven's progressive matrices, in Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (Sapporo), 1918–1923.
Loesche, P., Wiley, J., & Hasselhorn, M. (2015). How knowing the rules affects solving the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Intelligence, 48, 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.004
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.004
Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2017). Modeling visual problem solving as analogical reasoning. Psychological review, 124(1), 60.
doi: 10.1037/rev0000039
pubmed: 28004959
Lovett, A., Gentner, D., Forbus, K., & Sagi, E. (2009). Using analogical mapping to simulate time-course phenomena in perceptual similarity. Cognitive Systems Research 10(3): Special Issue on Analogies - Integrating Cognitive Abilities, 216–228.
Matzen, L. E., Benz, Z. O., Dixon, K. R., Posey, J., Kroger, J. K., & Speed, A. E. (2010). Recreating Raven's software for systematically generating large numbers of Raven-like matrix problems with normed properties. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 525–541.
doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.2.525
pubmed: 20479184
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
McLoughlin, S., Tyndall, I., & Pereira, A. (2020). Convergence of multiple fields on a relational reasoning approach to cognition. Intelligence, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101491
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related: A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 621–640.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621
pubmed: 11757872
Oberauer, K., Süβ, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittmann, W. W. (2008). Which working memory functions predict intelligence? Intelligence, 36(6), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.007
doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.007
Oberauer, K., Wilhelm, O., Schulze, R., & Süß, H. M. (2005). Working memory and intelligence -Their correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.61
Pahor, A., Stavropoulos, T., Jaeggi, S., & Seitz, A. (2019). Validation of a matrix reasoning task for mobile devices. Behavior research methods, 51(5), 2256–2267.
doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1152-2
pubmed: 30367386
pmcid: 6486467
Primi, R. (2002). Complexity of geometric inductive reasoning tasks: Contribution to the understanding of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 41–70.
doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00067-8
Rasmussen, D., & Eliasmith, C. (2014). A spiking neural model applied to the study of human performance and cognitive decline on Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.10.003
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735
Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., Souza, A. S., von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2019). Is executive control related to working memory capacity and fluid intelligence? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1335–1372. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000593
doi: 10.1037/xge0000593
pubmed: 30958017
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
Schneider, B., Becker, N., Krieger, F., Spinath, F. M., & Sparfeldt, J. R. (2020). Teaching the underlying rules of figural matrices in a short video increases test scores. Intelligence, 82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101473
Snow, R., Kyllonen, P., & Marshalek, B. (1984). The topography of ability and learning correlations. Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, 2, 47–103.
Unsworth, N., Fukuda, K., Awh, E., & Vogel, E. K. (2014). Working memory and fluid intelligence: Capacity, attention control, and secondary memory retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 71C, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.01.003
Veale, T. & Keane, M. (1997). The Competence of Sub-Optimal Structure Mapping on Hard Analogies. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Joint Conference on AI. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kauffman.
Vodegel Matzen, L. B. L., van der Molen, M. W., & Dudink, A. C. M. (1994). Error analysis of Raven test performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 433–445.
doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(94)90070-1