Creator: Klauer, Karl Josef
Contributor: Klauer, Karl Josef; Willems, Klaus; Phye, Gary D.
Funding: Institute’s financial resources
Title: Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Primary data.
Year of Publication: 2004
Citation: Klauer, K.J., Willmes, K., & Phye, G.D. (2004). Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Primary data. [Translated Title] (Version 1.0.0) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krkl98in08
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.
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
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.
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/DropOut: 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.