Kato (1965) and Morris (1967) have reported correlations between stationary Rod-and-frame Tests (RFT; Witkin, Lewis, Hertzman, Machover, Meissner, & Wapner, 1954) and portable versions of their own design of .77 and .74, respectively. However, Vaught (1969) reports a correlation between a commercially available version and a stationary RFT of .44 for men, .41 for women, and .46 over-all.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
IrvingD.The field dependence hypothesis in cross-cultural perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rice Univer., 1970.
2.
KatoN.The validity and reliability of new rod frame test. Jap. psychol. Res., 1965, 7, 120–125.
3.
LesterG.The rod-and-frame rest; some comments in methodology. Percept. mot. Skills, 1968, 26, 1307–1314.
4.
MorrisJ. B.The rod-and-frame box: A portable version of the rod-and-frame test. Percept. mot. Skills, 1967, 25, 152.
5.
VaughtG. M.Correlations between scores for a portable RFT and a stationary RFT. Percept. mot. Skills, 1969, 29, 474.
6.
WitkinH. A.LewisH. B.HertzmanM.MachoverK.MeissnerP. B.WapnerS.Personality through perception. New York: Harper, 1954.
