Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Applied Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McGarvey, B.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Scoring Field Dependence: A Methodological Analysis of Five Rod-and-Frame Scoring Systems

Bill McGarvey

University of Southern California

Geoffrey Maruyama

University of Southern California

Norman Miller

University of Southern California

The most consistently used scoring system for the rod-and-frame task has been the total (or average) number of degrees in error from the true vertical, regardless of the initial or final directions of the rod and frame. Since a logical case can be made for at least four alternative scoring systems, a thorough comparison of all five systems seemed appropriate. Comparisons consisted of: (1) an inter nal consistency/reliability analysis, with split-half and test-retest reliabilities and a multitrait-multi- method matrix analysis of each scoring system, chair, frame, and man position; (2) a repeated mea ures ANOVA, with ethnic group, sex, and grade as between factors and chair, frame, and man posi tions as within factors; and (3) correlations of each scoring system with a selected set of external cri teria. Results suggest strong support for use of the natural logarithm of the sum of absolute errors as the preferred scoring system, that concern with the confounding of field dependence and the E effect is largely unwarranted, and that all but one of the scoring systems perform adequately.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 1, No. 3, 433-446 (1977)
DOI: 10.1177/014662167700100312
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?