Two of four possible tasks requiring judgments of Same or Different and which previously were administered in a between-subjects design were presented in a balanced incomplete block design to 48 undergraduate women. The relative difficulty among the four tasks was similar; however, task orders, i.e., subjects being administered one RT task before or after another, produced dissimilar decision strategies by subjects for the four tasks. Results suggest differential effects of task order in computer tests.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BamberD. (1969) Reaction time and error rate for ‘Same-different’ judgments to multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 6, 169–174.
2.
CohenJ.CohenP. (1976) Applied multiple regression correlational analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3.
CzarnolewskiM. (1983) The employment of Same-Different judgment methodology toward understanding performance on the Portable Rod-and-Frame Test and the Group Embedded Figures TestDissertation Abstracts International, 45, 1045B.
4.
CzarnolewskiM. (1987) A comparison of the Army's Project A cognitive and psychomotor tests to analogous Air Force and Navy tests. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. (Research Note 87–73)
5.
CzarnolewskiM. (1996) An empirical validation for the natural log transformation of reaction time. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, PA.
6.
HuntE.PellegrinoJ. (1985) Using interactive computing to expand intelligence testing: critique and prospective. Intelligence, 9, 207–236.
7.
JensenA. R.MunroE. (1979) Reaction time, movement time, and intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 121–126.
8.
KerenG. (1993) Between- or within-subjects design: a methodological dilemma. In KerenG.LewisC. (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: methodological issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 258–272.
9.
KruegerL. E. (1978) Theory of perceptual matching. Psychological Review, 85, 278–304.
10.
KyllonenP. (1991) Principles for creating a computerized test battery. Intelligence, 15, 1–15.
11.
LarsonG. E.AldertonD. L. (1992) Test/retest results for the Enhanced Computer-administered Test (ECAT). Paper presented at American Psychological Association convention in Washington, D.C.
12.
LongstrethL. E. (1984) Jensen's reaction time investigations of intelligence. Intelligence, 8, 139–160.
13.
MarteniukR. G. (1976) Information processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
14.
McNemarQ. (1969) Psychological statistics. New York: Wiley.
15.
NorušisM. J. (1990) SPSS/PC+ Advanced Statistics Release 4.0 for IBM/XT/AT and PS/2. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
16.
RatcliffR. (1993) Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.
17.
ReevesD.ThorneR.WinterS.HeggeF. (1989) The Unified Tri-service Cognitive Performance Assessment Battery (UTC-PAB). U.S. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory and Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Report No. 89–1.
18.
SnodgrassJ. G.TownsendJ. T. (1980) Comparing parallel and serial models: theory and implementation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 6, 330–354.
19.
SternbergS. (1975) Memory-scanning: new findings and current controversies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 1–32.
20.
StevensJ. (1992) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
SwetsJ. A. (1986) Form of empirical ROCS in discrimination and diagnostic tasks: implications for the theory and measurement of performance. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 181–198.
22.
TaylorD. A. (1976) Stage analysis of reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 161–191.
23.
TombaughT. N.SchmidtJ. P. (1992) The Learning and Memory Battery (LAMB): development and standardization. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 193–206.
24.
TownsendJ. T.AshbyF. G. (1983) Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press.
25.
UlrichR.MillerJ. (1984) Effects of truncation on reaction time analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123, 34–80.
