185 undergraduate students in business completed the Group Embedded-figures Test. Distribution characteristics, sex differences, reliability, internal consistency, and differences across independent samples were examined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BenbasatI.DexterA. S.Value and events approaches to accounting: an experimental evaluation. The Accounting Review, 1979, 54, 735–749.
2.
BenbasatI.DexterA. S.Individual differences in the use of decision support aids. Management Information Systems Research Center Working Paper Series, No. 80-05, University of Minnesota, January, 1980.
3.
BenbasatI.DexterA. S.MauslisP. S.An experimental study of the human/computer interface. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 1981, 11, 752–762.
4.
CarterH.LooR.Group Embedded-figures Test: psychometric data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1980, 50, 32–34.
5.
DoktorR.HamiltonW.Cognitive style and the acceptance of management science recommendations. Management Science, 1973, 19, 884–894.
6.
LuskE. J.Cognitive aspects of annual reports: field independence/dependence. Journal of Accounting Research, 1973(Suppl.), 11, 191–201.
RennaM.ZenhausernR.The Group Embedded-figures Test: normative data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 43, 1176–1178.
9.
VasarhelyiM. A.Man-machine planning systems: a cognitive style examination of interactive decision-making, Journal of Accounting Research, 1977, 15, 138–153.
10.
WitkinH. A.OltmanP. K.RaskinE.KarpS. A.A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1971.
11.
ZmudR. W.Perceptions of cognitive styles: acquisition, exhibition and implications for information system design. Journal of Management, 1979. 5, 7–20.
