Five studies are presented—all related to the de velopment and application of a self-report inventory for measuring individual differences in learning processes. Factor analysis of items derived by trans lating laboratory learning processes into the context of academic study yielded four scales: Synthesis- Analysis, Study Methods, Fact Retention, and Elab orative Processing. There were no sex differences, and the scales demonstrated acceptable reliabilities. The Synthesis-Analysis and Elaborative Processing scales both assess aspects of information processing (including depth of processing), but Synthesis- Analysis assesses organizational processes, while Elaborative Processing deals with active, elaborative approaches to encoding. These two scales were positively related to performance under incidental learning instructions in both a lecture-learning and traditional verbal-learning study. Study Methods assessed adherence to systematic, traditional study techniques. This scale was positively related to per formance in the intentional condition of the verbal learning study. The Fact Retention scale assessed the propensity to retain detailed, factual informa tion. It was positively related to performance in the incidental condition of the verbal-learning but not the lecture-learning study. Future research and ap plications are discussed.

Two correlational investigations are described which are aimed at establishing the construct validity of the dimensions assessed by the scales of the Inventory of Learning Processes. The Synthesis- Analysis scale is assumed to assess "deep" (e.g., semantic) information-processing habits. It was positively related to critical thinking ability, curiosity, and both independent and conforming achievement-striving behaviors but negatively related to anxiety. The Study Methods scale is assumed to assess the habits of promptly completing all assignments, attending all classes, and generally "studying" a lot. It was positively related to curiosity and conforming types of achievement striving and negatively related to critical thinking ability. The fact that critical thinking ability is related positively to Synthesis- Analysis and negatively to Study Methods suggests that students with low critical thinking ability but high achievement motivation might substitute conventional repetitive study for "deep processing" because they find it difficult to engage in "deep processing." The Fact Retention scale is assumed to assess attention to and proneness to retain detailed, factual information. It was positively related to conforming achievement behaviors and negatively related to anxiety. The Elaborative Processing scale is assumed to assess the habit of restating and reorganizing information so as to relate it to one's own experiences. It was positively related to mental imagery ability and curiosity.

Southern Illinois University a t CarbondaleConfirmatory factor analyses were erformed on the intercorreiations among the 12 tests of the WISC and WIS8R separately for age levels 7.5, 10.5, and 13.5 to test Wechsler's (1958) hypothesis that verbal and performance factors underlie these testa. At all three age levels, verbal and performance factors that accounted for a proximately 50.% of the total variance emer ed clearly. These results provife strong empirical support for Wechsler's %ypothesis.One of the most important clinical features of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) is the use of separate Verbal and Performance IQs based on the customary classification of the 12 WISC tests into Verbal and Performance Scales. According to Wechsler (1958), the basis for the verbal vs. performance dichotomy is "the hypothesis that either through habit, training or endowment some individuals are able to deal better with objects than with words [p. 1591." I n factor-analytic language, this hypothesis implies that verbal and performance are the two major factors that underlie the 12 WISC tests.Several investigators (e. g., Maxwell, 1959) criticized this a-priori classification of the WISC tests and indicated that such a classification should be established empirically by means of factor analyses. Subsequently, several factor analyses of the WISC tests were performed to discover the factor structure that underlies these tests. For example, Cohen (1959) factored the WISC test intercorrelations based on 1949 standardization data, using Thurstone's complete centroid method and oblique rotation to a criterion of simple structure and positive manifold, and found four interpretable factors. However, Maxwell (1959) factor analyzed the same intercorrelations by use of maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation and found only two factors. Silverstein (1969), who also analyzed the same data by principal factor method and maxplane rotation, reported results similar to those of Maxwell (1959). Recently, Kaufman (1974) reported three factors for the revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-R) on the basis of a factor analysis of the WISC-R test intercorrelations that used principal axis method and oblimax rotation.Wechsler (1974) recognized the fact that the WISC tests could be grouped meaningfully in a number of ways as indicated by various factor analyses, but he maintains that the verbal vs. performance dichotomy represents two principal modes by which human abilities express themselves. Wechsler's hypothesis about the verbal vs. performance dichotomy of ability tests never has been submitted to a direct empirical test. All of the previous factor-analytic studies were designed to discover the factor structure of the WISC tests. These studies employed exploratory factor analysis procedures that yield results specific to the particular factor extraction method, the criteria used to decide the number of factors, and the method of rotation.The present study tested directly Wechler's (1958) hypothes...

No abstract

No abstract