Russel F. Green

A factor-analytic study of reasoning abilities

A battery of 32 tests was administered to a sample including 144 Air Force Officer Candidates and 139 Air Cadets. The factor analysis, using Thurstones complete centroid method and Zimmermans graphic method of orthogonal rotations, revealed 12 interpretable factors. The non-reasoning factors were interpreted asverbal comprehension, numerical facility, perceptual speed, visualization, andspatial orientation. The factors derived from reasoning tests were identified asgeneral reasoning, logical reasoning, education of perceptual relations, education of conceptual relations, education of conceptual patterns, education of correlates, andsymbol substitution. The logical-reasoning factor corresponds to what has been called deduction, but eduction of correlates is perhaps closer to an ability actually to make deductions. The area called induction appears to resolve into three eduction-of-relations factors. Reasoning factors do not appear always to transcend the type of test material used.

A Factor-Analytic Study of Navy Reasoning Tests With the Air Force Aircrew Classification Battery

(a) to gain further information as to the nature of reasoning abilities studied in a previous reasoning analysis (to be known hereafter as the analysis of Battery A) done at this laboratory (3~ 5, 6) ~ (b) to determine the reasoning content of the 1947 Aircrew Classification Battery (9); and (c) to link the reasoning studies of this laboratory with a similar effort at the University of North Carolina (i). To meet these ends, a battery of 54 tests was assembled, composed as follows: (a) 27 tests either identical with or adapted

EFFECT OF TORQUE CHANGES UPON A TWO-HAND COORDINATION TASK

The results of a recent series of studies ( 1, 2, 3 ) indicated that speed of rotation of a single crank control primarily depended upon present rather than past work loadings of the task. It would be desirable to know if there are, similarly, only slight transfer effects when work load shifts are made in more complex perceptual-motor situations. The present study was initiated to determine whether performance on a tracking task is influenced by loading demands during earlier training periods. METHOD Groups.-26 Ss selected from a military population were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Group I was required to overcome 2 Ib. of coulomb friction on each control crank during original practice (OP) and 14 lb. of friction during the transfer phase. The sequence of force conditions was reversed for Group 11. Apparatus.-The task consisted of tracking a slowly moving dot on the face of a cathode ray oscilloscope. S governed movement of a target follower, a circle, by means of two 2-in. control cranks. An electromagnetic brake coupled to the shaft of each crank determined the amount of force necessary to produce rotation. A detailed description of the apparatus has been provided i n previous articles (4, 5 ) . Procedure.-During OP each S was given 8 practice series. A I-min. rest was given between each series except for a M-hr. rest benveen [he fourth and fifth series. Each series consisted of 8 tracking trials during which the target moved for 139 mlrnin. and was off the display for 363 mlmin. During OP, cherefore, each S had 64 training trials which totalled about 9 min. of actual work. The remmnder of the 1-hr. period of OP was used as rest time. After the last practice series, each S had another 30-min. rest and then feturned to the task with the changed torque condition without any additional instructlons. He was given 4 series during the transfer period. RESULTS A time-on-target score was recorded during each trial. The 16 means of each group, 1 from each of the 8 trial series, were computed and used to analyze and depict performance changes. The results are illusuated in Fig. 1. A Type I mixed design analysis of variance (7) was used to evaluate differences in performance during OP. From previous studies and general understanding of the task, it was anticipated that during OP the only meaningful difference wouldbe for Group I to obtain higher scores than Group 11. A one-tailed test was used. The null hypothesis could be rejected at the 5 % level (F = 3.15, df 1/24; or t = 1.78, df = 24) and it was concluded that Group I performed at a higher level of proficiency on this task than Group I1 during OP. Also, as might be expected, the Series (learning) effect was reliable (F = 27.97,