Convergent validity of group tests of cognitive development

Abstract

This study was designed to investigate the convergent validity of individual clinical task interviews as presented by Piaget and Inhelder paired with three widely used group tests of cognitive development. These tests are designed to assess the acquisition of cognitive abilities. The three group test raw scores paired with summed raw scores on four concrete‐formal task interviews yielded the following Pearson product‐moment correlations: Reasoning Test (Ankney and Joyce), 0.43; Logical Reasoning Test (Burney), 0.61; Classroom Test of Formal Operations (Lawson), 0.37. The raw data was then ranked into cognitive level groups and presented on contingency tables. The following contingency coefficients were determined: Logical Reasoning Test, 0.52; Logical Reasoning Test (adjusted), 0.61; Classroom Test of Formal Operations, 0.50. This study reflects that the Reasoning Test tends to indicate lower cognitive levels of subjects when paired with summed scores on the clinical task interviews, whereas the Logical Reasoning Test and the Classroom Test of Formal Operations tend to indicate higher cognitive levels of subjects when paired with summed scores on the clinical task interviews. In each case the correlations do not appear to be sufficiently strong to warrant selection or categorization of an individual student based on his/her test performance.

Validity evaluation of the Lawson classroom test of scientific reasoning

“…Stefanich et al [22] measured the correlation between outcomes of clinical interviews with the CTFR-78, and observed a weaker correlation (r ¼ 0.50) than that reported by Lawson. Interestingly, when compared to the clinical interviews, the researchers found that the test overestimated reasoning abilities rather than underestimated, but due to a small sample size (N ¼ 27) with no reported estimate of statistical significance, the study did little to challenge the earlier findings of Lawson.…”

“…Although several studies [21,22] investigated the validity of the CTFR-78, research on the validity of the LCTSR is limited. Nevertheless, the instrument has become a standard assessment tool in education research.…”

Analysis of Two-Tier Question Scoring Methods: A Case Study on the Lawson’s Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning

“…After comparing the test scores with students' response to interview tasks, Lawson found that the results from CTFR-78 and the clinical interviews had a good agreement, while CRFR-78 might have a tendency to underestimate students' scientific reasoning ability slightly. The validity of CTFR-78 was further established by other researchers (Pratt & Hacker, 1984;Stefanich et al, 1983), with item analysis and principle-components analysis.…”

Comparative investigation of the psychometric properties of three tests of logical thinking

“…Researchers, on the other hand, are faced with the problem of selecting a test, from the pool of available group tests, that suits their purposes, because each test falls short on one or more of the essential prerequisities of effective measuring instruments. Comparative and analytical studies of group tests are scarce in science education literature (Farmer, Farrell, Clark, and McDonald, 1982;Staver and Gabel, 1979;Stefanich, Unruh, Perry, and Phillips, 1983;Carlson and Streitberger, 1983;Blake, 1980). Blake (1980) cautions that science teachers and researchers should carefully examine the documentation establishing the concurrent or predictive validity of any paper-and-pencil test.…”