Measurement of Rod-and-Frame Test Performance

Abstract

Data from 50 male and 50 female adult volunteers were analyzed for reliability and validity of three alternative scoring systems for the Rod and Frame Test, an absolute scoring system and two alternative algebraic scoring systems. Subjects took the Rod and Frame Test, Portable Rod and Frame Test, and the Embedded Figures Test. Absolute and algebraic frame-effect scores were reliable and valid. Rod-effect algebraic scores were less reliable and valid. Correlations were higher for females and correlations with the Embedded Figures Test were so low that the interchangeability of these field articulation measures is questionable.

A 3D Virtual Environment Rod and Frame Test: The Reliability and Validity of Four Traditional Scoring Methods for Older Adults

“…This scoring method has been productive among studies attempting to identify the mechanisms involved in the rod and frame illusion (e.g., Spinelli, Antonucci, Daini, Fanzon, et al, 1995;. Evaluations of this scoring method with traditional 2D RFT apparatus have found it to have adequate split-half reliability with coefficients ranging from .94 (McGarvey, Maruyama, & Miller, 1977) to .96 (Allen, Garcia, & Bealessio, 1982).…”

“…Historically, evaluations of the concurrent validity of the RFT have been conducted by calculating the relationship of the RFT with other measures of field dependence, such as the Embedded Figures Test (e.g., Allen et al, 1982;Tinajero, Paramo, Quiroga, & Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 2000). However, the RFT has also been considered to be a test of spatial ability in which participants must perceive spatial relationships relative to their own bodies, ignoring distracting stimuli (Linn & Petersen, 1985; VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT ROD AND FRAME TEST 1171 Voyer et al, 1995).…”