The reliability and validity of maze-measures for rats.

Abstract

Although group measures may be compared without high reliability coefficients, more reliable mazes than are at present available should be sought. The desirable criteria are high odd-vs.-even and high half-vs.-half correlation, since these insure not only similar ranking of individuals at various points, but also permanence in the function measured. The results of 14 experiments with various mazes are evaluated with reference to these criteria, and show the T-mazes superior to the right-and-left mazes; of the former, the 14-unit form is the best of those examined, giving a corrected coefficient of .90. Time, retracings, and perfect runs are found to be ambiguous or otherwise invalid measures of learning, leaving errors as the only desirable type of score.

The Relative Ability of Blind and Normal Rats in Maze Learning

“…In this comparison we took the trial at which each animal completed 3 consecutive runs in which the gross error score was 3, or less, for the 3 trials. Although this is a more lenient criterion than that usually accepted, it seems to be in keeping with the principle of basing comparisons for groups on the more reliable and more valid portions of the learning data (Tolman and Nyswander, 1927;Stone and Nyswander, 1927). Trials beyond this point appear to serve the end of steadying the performances of the animals from day to day rather than increasing their knowledge of the correct turns in the maze.…”

Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs) transplantation restored olfactory function in anosmic rats

“…All the rats were fed routinely before the test, and then underwent fasting, except for water, for three days. Each rat was evaluated every 20 minutes for one hour to find the food, using the standard Maze test (food-finding test) [16]. The average time taken to find the food was between 12 and 19 seconds for all rats.…”

The discrimination ability of albino rats measured by a triple-unit inclined plane discrimination apparatus.

“…Two of the methods of obtaining coefficients suggested in recent studies of the reliability of animal learning scores were con-sidered appropriate to the present investigation: namely, the correlation of segmental versus segmental scores, and the correlation between scores made on the odd versus the even trials. These methods have been described and interpreted by Tolman and Nyswander (6) and by Stone and Nyswander (4) and need not be discussed per se in this report.…”

“…Data are at hand for comparing directly the difficulty of discriminating between inclined planes differing by 10 degrees with the difficulty of distinguishing between a light and dark window. The median number of trials on a 5-unit Multiple Light Discrimination Box 6 and on the inclined plane apparatus necessary for the same degree of mastery has been calculated for the 10 degree group. The norm of mastery in both cases is the completion of 15 successive errorless choices; but owing to the different number of units in the two apparatuses the choices are spread over 5 trials (3 or 5 days) for the inclined plane apparatus, and 3 trials (2 days) for the light apparatus.…”