The utility of set-loss error scores in the general population.

Abstract

Although the measurement of cognitive performance usually relies on achievement sum scores, a growing body of research suggests that the analysis of errors made may have a predictive validity beyond that provided by the number of items correct. This study examined the validity related to one such kind of error scores--the set-loss errors--in the general population of 8- to 11-year-old children. Set-loss errors (also called rule violations) can be conceptualized as a breakdown in the adherence to task-specific rules, and in clinical populations, the propensity to make these errors has shown some specificity for identifying disorders connected with frontal lobes dysfunction. The results, however, indicate that set-loss errors derived from distinct tests could not be effectively explained by a single latent dimension; hence, they do not tap a single construct that could be called set loss or the ability to maintain set. At the same time, there were only few weak associations between various kinds of error scores as well as between the set-loss error scores and relevant constructs such as the ability to learn, attentional control, working memory, fluid and crystallized intelligence, and executive functions-related real-world behaviors, indicating an overrepresentation of construct-irrelevant variance in these kinds of scores. These indications were further accentuated by the analysis of sensitivity and specificity where any elevated number of set-loss error scores was unable to classify individuals on theoretically relevant constructs beyond chance levels. The evidence thus speaks against the use of set-loss error scores in the general population of 8- to 11-year-old children.

Explaining the Ability to Learn Analogies: The Role of Executive Functions and Fluid Intelligence

“…In older children, executive functioning can be expected to exhibit a rather modular character, where the EF are still related, but far more diverse (Friedman et al, 2006;Miyake et al, 2000), consequently affecting the role of single EF in explaining the ability to learn analogies. Second, as in most of the EF research, the inherently low loadings of EF measures, caused by the overrepresentation of construct-irrelevant variance (Rabbitt, 1997;Ropovik et al, 2015), are, from a psychometric point of view, a cause for concern. Even with multiple indicators varying in non-executive aspects as much as possible, it is difficult to provide clear-cut formal evidence regarding the exact identity of the measured latent construct and the interpretation of empirical evidence rests on inferential grounds to some extent.…”

Factual text comprehension tasks as a tool for stimulating executive functions in 9- to 10-year-old children

“…In the first (diagnostic) phase of the project, a comprehensive assessment battery for higher cognitive/executive functions-D-KEFS (Delis-Kaplan Executive Functions Scales) was selected and then standardised for the Slovak educational environment. The battery is based on the latest concepts from the field of executive functioning and represents a new diagnostic tool in Slovakia (Ferjenčík et al, 2014;Ropovik, Bobáková, Ferjenčík, Filičková, Kovalčíková, & Slavkovská, 2015). In the second (intervention) phase of the project, domain-specific units for stimulating executive functions were elaborated.…”