Spatial Abilities for Architecture: Cross Sectional and Longitudinal Assessment With Novel and Existing Spatial Ability Tests

Abstract

This study examined individual differences in spatial abilities of architecture students. Students at different educational levels were assessed on spatial ability tests that varied in their domain-specificity to architecture, with the hypothesis that larger differences between beginner and advanced students will emerge on more domain-specific tests. We also investigated gender differences in test performance and controlled for general reasoning ability across analyses. In a cross sectional study, master students (N = 91) outperformed beginners (N = 502) on two novel tests involving perspective taking and object composition, as well as on a standardized visualization of cross-sections test, but not on a standardized mental rotations test. Longitudinally (N = 117), spatial performance improved after the first bachelor year on visualization of cross-sections, object composition and mental rotation. Although both genders showed higher spatial test performance with increased experience, male students outperformed females across tests and levels of education. The results overall confirmed improvements in spatial performance during architecture studies, with partial support for the domain-specificity hypothesis. A gender gap among advanced students calls for further examining architecture-specific spatial thinking.

The Architecture and Interior Design Domain–Specific Spatial Ability Test (AISAT): Its Validity and Reliability

“…The first example, 3D Ability Test (3DAT), developed by Sutton and Williams (2010), comprises subconstructs of SV. The second examples are the Urban Layout Test, Indoor Perspective Test, and Packing Test, developed by Berkowitz et al (2021), intended to measure subconstructs of spatial orientation. Although the aforementioned tools were informed through some components of validity and reliability, limitations exist.…”

“…Although the aforementioned tools were informed through some components of validity and reliability, limitations exist. The new tools were less domain‐specific (Berkowitz et al, 2021) perhaps because the figures used were insufficient as environmental information pertinent to the spatial design domain. Moreover, the two studies did not examine concurrent validity between DSA and design performance.…”

A Study Protocol for Randomized Trials on Visual ERP for multiclass discrimination in CAAD applications

“…The age/gender sub-sample below 30 years of age will be extended further with students sample of equal gender ratio (58/42, male/female) from initial bachelor studies to doctorate. We also assume that the digital/visual literacy supposed to emulate performances during experiments [2] should not only apply to architects but also practitioners with intensive education on that matter (eg. visual arts).…”

“…This study is assessed to be of risk category A according to the Swiss Ordinance on Human Research with exception of clinical trials [2] . Given the participants' selection criteria, the non-invasive types of data acquisition, the non-clinical purpose of the research and the anonymization of recorded data, risks are reduced to their expected minimum.…”

“…Beyond the before mentioned, the health insurance and the accident insurance (e.g., the commute to or from the study location) is participants entire responsibility. [2] https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2013/642/en…”