A technique that measures the impact of command selection on task time and errors is described. Users were timed while performing a drawing task, then while performing the same task with interpolated command selections. The difference between these times, consisting of both the time to select the command and to resume drawing, is the time cost of command selection. Several interface configurations were evaluated with this method including selected combinations of single mouse, two mice, voice and touch.Touch and voice input resulted in faster command selection times (approximately 1 set) than any of the mouse conditions (approximately 3 set).

The study presents a factor analysis of the 1962 revision of the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM). The analysis was conducted such that substantive factor structure interpretations were freed of the effects of differences in item difficulty. The APM test was given to 237 examinees, 16–18 years old. The data were subjected to a Guttman scale analysis to determine whether the APM could be interpreted as a one factor instrument. Then the phi/phi max inter-item correlation matrix was factored. A principal components analysis, followed by a series of varimax rotations of the principal components, was performed. The Guttman coefficients of scalability were too small to support a one factor theory of the APM. The 2-factor solution provided the most interpretable factor structure. Factor I was composed of items in which the solution was obtained by adding or subtracting patterns. Factor II was composed of items in which the solution was based on the ability to perceive the progression of a pattern. Results are discussed in terms of representative cognitive tests and tasks believed to embody the logical operations responsible for successful performance on items loading on each factor. The possibility of forming subtests of items to enhance the predictive validity of the matrices also is discussed.

The Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices and a Piagetian battery were administered to 120 hearing-impaired children, ages 6-11 years, under one of two nonelaborative conditions—(1) standard, or (2) simple feedback—or under one of four elaborative conditions—(3) child's "verbalization" after problem solution, (4) verbalization during and after solution, (5) differential feedback, and (6) verbalization during and after solution coupled with differential feedback. The study was designed to (a) establish the differential effects of method of test administration, (b) examine the criterion-related validity of the tests by taking method of test administration into account, and (c) explore the robustness of the paradigm with respect to changes in instruments and populations. Analysis indicated enhanced performance under partially elaborative conditions (3 and 4) as compared to that found for nonelaborative conditions (1 and 2), as well as augmented performance for fully elaborative conditions (5 and 6) as compared to partially elaborative (3 and 4) procedures. All analyses yielded similar findings for both dependent measures. The findings of this investigation may be used as an aid in the development of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, which would in turn enable classroom learning to be maximal. The research findings may also be useful in gaining maximum validity in prediction of school achievement and ability to profit from particular types of instruction.

No abstract

One hundred eighty-five college undergraduates were given the Advanced Progressive Matrices un der one of five conditions of testing: standard, simple feedback, examinee verbalization during problem solution, elaborated feedback, and full elaboration. The Group Embedded Figures Test, Paragraph Completion Test, and Zelniker and Jeff rey's revision of the Matching Familiar Figures Test were also administered. The study was designed (1) to investigate the differential effects of method of test administration on performance for college stu dents and (2) to examine the relationship of individ ual differences dimensions and varying conditions of testing. Analysis of variance coupled with or thogonal comparisons revealed higher levels of per formance under the more elaborative testing condi tions. The cognitive style variables were differential ly related to performance in the different testing conditions. The processing dimensions were related to performance to a higher degree under partially elaborative conditions than under either nonelabor ative procedures or full elaboration. Results are dis cussed in terms of an activation model.