Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Primary data.

Cognitive Psychology

Authors(s) / Creator(s)

Klauer, Karl Josef
Willmes, Klaus
Phye, Gary D.

Abstract

K. J. Klauer developed a theory of inductive reasoning, which specifies the processes by which inductive problems can be solved. This theory thus defines the tasks or problems that are of an inductive nature. It can be shown that many intelligence tests, particularly those that capture fluid intelligence, involve inductive tasks.
In the presented study the aim was to examine whether the training of inductive reasoning skills promotes the intellectual competence rather than just the performance. The issue of convergent and discriminant validity of the training were also considered, that is, determining whether the training not only affected fluid but also crystallized intelligence sensu Cattell.
The database should be sufficiently large and suitable enough to represent the expected differential causal influence using a structural equation model (LISREL). It was experimentally confirmed that changes are due to the training. However, with use of the LISREL, it should also be clarified whether the paths turn out as expected.

Persistent Identifier

https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krkl98in08

Year of Publication

2004

Funding

Institute’s financial resources

Citation

Klauer, K. J., Willmes, K. & Phye, G. D. (2004). Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Primary data. (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Research Data Center at ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krkl98in08

Study Description

Research Questions/Hypotheses:

A specific training of inductive reasoning only improves inductive reasoning, but has no impact on the performance in tests that contain other cognitive processes. A specific training of inductive reasoning not only improves performance immediately after training, but also has positive longterm effects on inductive competence.

Research Design:

Quasi-experimental design, mixed design, field experiment; repeated measurements

Measurement Instruments/Apparatus:

The study involved 6 primary schools that had exactly 2 1st grade classes. Within these schools, one class each was chosen randomly to be the training class while the other class served as the control class. The pretests were conducted a week before the start of training. Measures included an intelligence test (Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala 1, Weiss and Osterland; 1980), the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM, Schmidtke, Schaller and Becker; 1980), and a vocabulary test for 1st graders (Kamratowski and Kamratowski; 1969).
The intervention phase lasted 5 weeks. While the control groups had normal class lesson, the experimental groups were trained twice a week for 1 hour. Conducted in a separate room, the training took place in small groups of 3-5 children. 2 experienced psychologists (institute staff) conducted the training.
The Posttest 1 was conducted within 2 weeks posttraining (basic intelligence test, CPM, vocabulary test for 1st-graders), the Posttest 2 was conducted 6 months later (basic intelligence test). All tests were conducted in class.
Classes were randomly assigned to either the experimental or the control group.

Data Collection Method:

Data collection in the presence of an experimenter

  • Group Administration
  • Paper and Pencil

Population:

Elementary school children

Survey Time Period:

Review of a longitudinal intervention:
Pretest: September 1997
Training: Semptember 1997-November 1997
Posttest 1: November 1997
Posttest 2: April 1998

Sample:

The study involved 6 primary schools that had exactly 2 1st grade classes and were willing to participate in the project. Within these schools, one class each was randomly chosen to be the training class while the other class served as the control class.

Gender Distribution:

49,0% female subjects
51,0% male subjects


Age Distribution: 7 years, 1 month (median)

Spatial Coverage (Country/Region/City): Germany/North Rhine-Westphalia/Greater Aachen

Subject Recruitment:

The study involved 6 primary schools that had exactly 2 1st grade classes and were willing to participate in the project. All students were included in the survey.

Sample Size:

279 individuals

Return/Drop Out:

The data involve 279 subjects who participated in the Pre- and Posttest 1. For Posttest 2, which was collected 6 months following graduation to the next grade level, only 219 children were retested.

krkl98in08_readme.txt
Text file - 3 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Description of the files

krkl98in08_pd1.txt
Text file - 16 KB
MD5: 41da91047a69967722141d8788166146
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Primary data file of the vocabulary test, the culture fair intelligence test CFT 1 Scale 1, and Raven’s Progressive Matrices test (each as a total score and a randomly distributed test) for the pre- and posttest 1 of both the experimental and the control group

krkl98in08_pd2.txt
Text file - 7 KB
MD5: 650715df59a353a2ff8f684348d0f45e
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: Primary data file of the culture fair intelligence test CFT 1 Scale 1 (total score and results when divided into inductive and noninductive subtests) for both the experimental and control groups at pretest, posttest 1, and posttest 2

krkl98in08_kb1.txt
Text file - 3 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: German codebook of primary data file krkl98in08_pd1.txt

krkl98im08_kb2.txt
Text file - 2 KB
Sharing Level 1 (Scientific Use)
Description: German codebook of primary data file krkl98in08_pd2.txt

Position Name Label Valid Values Missing Values
1 TRAINING Zugehörigkeit zur Trainings- oder Experimentalgruppe 0 "Kontrollgruppe" 1 "Trainingsgruppe" 9 "fehlender Wert"
2 WST11 Wortschatztest; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 4-17 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
3 WST21 Wortschatztest; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 5-17 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
4 WST1 Wortschatztest; Gesamttest (Addition von WST11 und WST21); Prätest 9-34 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
5 CFT11 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 10-30 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
6 CFT21 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 7-29 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
7 CFT1 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Gesamttest (Addition von CFT11 und CFT21); Prätest 18-58 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
8 CPM11 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 5-18 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
9 CPM21 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest 2-17 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
10 CPM1 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Gesamttest (Addition von CPM11 und CPM21); Prätest 7-35 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
11 WST12 Wortschatztest; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 5-18 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
12 WST22 Wortschatztest; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 5-17 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
13 WST2 Wortschatztest; Gesamttest (Addition von WST12 und WST22); Posttest 1 14-35 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
14 CFT12 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 15-36 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
15 CFT22 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 14-36 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
16 CFT2 Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Gesamttest (Addition von CFT12 und CFT22); Posttest 1 32-72 "ganze zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
17 CPM12 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 5-22 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
18 CPM22 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 1 5-21 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
19 CPM2 Raven-Matrizen-Test; Gesamttest; Posttest 1 10-43 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "fehlender Wert"
Page 1 of 2
Items per page: 10 25 50
Position Name Label Valid Values Missing Values
1 GRUPPE Zugehörigkeit zur Trainings- oder Experimentalgruppe 0 "Kontrollgruppe" 1 "Trainingsgruppe" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
2 ST1_1_2 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Prätest 5,00-24,00 "ganze zahlen" 99 "Fehlender Wert"
3 ST1_3_5 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Prätest 5,00-35,00 "ganze Zahlen" 99 "Fehlender Wert"
4 ST2_1_2 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Posttest 1 11,00-24,00 "ganze zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
5 ST2_3_5 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Posttest 1 11,00-47,00 "ganze zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
6 ST3_1_2 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Posttest 2 12,00-24,00 "ganze Zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
7 ST3_3_5 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Posttest 2 11,00-48,00 "ganze zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
8 CFT1 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST1_1_2 und St1_3_5); Prätest 18,00-58,00 "ganze Zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
9 CFT2 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST2_1_2 und St2_3_5); Posttest 1 32,00-71,00 "ganze Zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
10 CFT3 Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST3_1_2 und St3_3_5); Posttest 2 29,00-72,00 "ganze Zahlen" 9 "Fehlender Wert"
Utilized Test Methods
Kamratowski, J. & Kamratowski, J. (1969). Wortschatztest für Schulanfänger WSS 1. Weinheim: Beltz. PSYNDEX
Schmidtke, A., Schaller, S. & Becker, P. (1980). CPM Raven-Matrizen-Test. Weinheim: Beltz.
Weiss, R. & Osterland, J. (1980). Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala 1. Braunschweig: Westermann.
Further Reading
Klauer, K. J. (2001). Training des induktiven Denkens. In K. J. Klauer (Hrsg.), Handbuch Kognitives Training (S. 165-209). Göttingen: Hogrefe. PSYNDEX