The Effect of the Number and Types of Rules on Item Difficulty of Raven-type Test

본 연구는 Raven 누진행렬검사의 문항을 푸는데 사용되는 규칙의 유형과 수가 문항 난이도에 미치는 영향을 탐색하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 2개의 실험이 수행되었다. 실험 1에서는 규칙의 유형이 문항 난이도에 미치는 영향을 검토하였다. 실험 2는 규칙의 수와 유형(난이도)이 문항 난이도에 미치는 효과를 검증하기 위해 시도되었다. 총 33명의 피험자가 네 가지 규칙 조건을 모두 경험하게 한 실험 1의 결과는 보다 복잡한 처리규칙인 언어-분석적 규칙 중 행 내의 일관성 규칙이 보다 단순한 처리 규칙인 시공간적 규칙(회전, 반전)보다 더 느린 문제 풀이 시간을 보였다. 언어-분석적인 규칙 중 양적 변화 규칙은 반전 규칙보다는 문제를 푸는 시간이 더 오래 걸렸으나 회전 규칙과는 차이를 보이지 않아 가설 1은 부분적으로 지지되었다. 23명의 대학생이 참여한 실험 2의 결과 규칙의 수가 2개 일 때가 1개일 때 보다 문제 풀이 시간이 더 오래 걸리는 것으로 나타났다. 규칙의 수와 난이도의 상호작용 효과가 통계적으로 유의하게 나타났다. 규칙이 2개일 때는 쉬운 규칙과 어려운 규칙간 차이를 보이지 않았으나 규칙의 수가 1개일 때는 어려운 규칙의 문제 풀이 시간이 쉬운 규칙보다 더 느린 것으로 나타났다. 본 결과의 시사점이 논의되었다.

keywords: Raven's progressive test, item difficulty, type of rules, number of rules, Raven 누진행렬검사, RPM, 규칙의 수, 규칙의 유형, 문항 난이도

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the number and types of rules needed to solve the Raven's progressive Test on the degree of item difficulty. The effects of rule types and rule number were examined separately using two experiments. In Exp. 1, 33 participants experienced all 4 rules. These 4 rules were 2 Verbal-analytic rules (i.e., Row in constant rule and Quantitative progression rule) and 2 Visuo-spatial rules (i.e., Rotation and Reverse). The verbal-analytic rules were known as more complicated than the Visuo-spatial rules. The results showed that item difficulty of Row in constant rule was higher than visuo-spatial rules. In addition, we found that the item difficulties of the Quantitative progression rule and the Rotation rule were not significantly different. In Exp. 2, we manipulated number and type of rules (i.e., 1 easy rule vs. 1 difficult rule vs. 2 easy rules vs. 2 difficult rules) using 23 participants. The Exp. 2 showed the following results: 1) It took more time to solve problems which have 2 rules than 1 rule. 2) The interaction effect of number and type of rules was significant. That is, when only one rule was applied, it took more time to solve problems with difficult rule than easy rule, but no significant difference was found when two rules were applied. The implication of the results was discussed.

keywords: Raven's progressive test, item difficulty, type of rules, number of rules, Raven 누진행렬검사, RPM, 규칙의 수, 규칙의 유형, 문항 난이도

참고문헌

임호찬 (2003). 한국판 Raven 비언어성 지능검사에 관한 표준화 연구. 특수교육연구, 10(1), 87-103.

전덕임 (1995). Raven Progressive Matrices 검사의 한국판 개발을 위한 예비연구. 충북대학교 대학원 석사학위 청구논문.

하대현 (2005). R. Sternberg 지능 이론의 발달: 의의, 국내 연구 및 과제. 한국심리학회지: 사회문제, 11(1), 157-180.

Bethell-Fox, S. E., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. (1984). Adaptive reasoning: Componential and eye movement analysis of geometric analogy performance. Intelligence, 8, 205-238.

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431.

Deshon, R. P., Chan, D., & Weissbein, D. A. (1995). Verbal overshadowing effect on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for multidimensional performance determinants. Intelligence, 21, 135-155.

Dillon, R. F., Pohlman, J. T., & Lohman, D. F. (1981). A factor analysis of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices freed of difficulty factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1295-1302.

Dolke, A. M. (1976). Investigation into Certain psychometric properties of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices Test. Indian Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 225-236.

Evans, T. G. (1968). A program for the solution of geometric analogy intelligence test question. In M. Minsky (Ed), Sematic information processing (pp.271-353). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

10.

Green, K. E., & Kluever, R. C. (2001). Components of item difficulty of Raven's Matrices. The Journal of General Psychology, 119(2), 189-199.

11.

Guilford, J. P., (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.

12.

Hunt, E. (1974). Quote the Raven? Nevermore! In L. W. Gregg(Ed.), Knowledge and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Meo, M., Roberts, M. J., & Marucci, F. S. (2007). Element salience as a predictor of item difficulty for Raven's Progressive Matrices. Intelligence, 35(4), 359-368.

14.

Mulholland, T. M., Pellegrino, J. W., & Glaser, R. (1980). Components of geometric analogy sloution. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 252-284.

15.

Primi, R. (2002). Complexity of geometric inductive reasoning tasks, Contribution to the understanding of fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 41-70.

16.

Richardson, K. (1991). Reasoning with Raven - in and out of context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 129-138.

17.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

18.

Slater, P. (1948). Comments on “The comparative assessment of intellectual ability.” British Journal of Psychology, 39, 20-21.

19.

Sternberg, R. J. (1977). Intelligence, information processing and analogical reasoning: The componential analysis of human abilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

20.

Verguts, T., De Boeck, P., & Maris, E. (2000). Generation speed in Raven's progressive matrices test. Intelligence, 27(4), 329-345.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.27 No.2

규칙의 유형과 수가 Raven 방식 검사의 문항 난이도에 미치는 영향

The Effect of the Number and Types of Rules on Item Difficulty of Raven-type Test

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 일반