Klauer et al. (2004). Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Primary data.

Bibliographic Information

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

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.

Codebook

Codebook_krkl98in08_klauer_0004_kb1
PositionNameLabelValid_valuesMissing_values
18CPM22Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 15-21 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
19CPM2Raven-Matrizen-Test; Gesamttest; Posttest 110-43 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
16CFT2Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Gesamttest (Addition von CFT12 und CFT22); Posttest 132-72 "ganze zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
17CPM12Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 15-22 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
14CFT12Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 115-36 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
15CFT22Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 114-36 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
12WST22Wortschatztest; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 15-17 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
13WST2Wortschatztest; Gesamttest (Addition von WST12 und WST22); Posttest 114-35 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
10CPM1Raven-Matrizen-Test; Gesamttest (Addition von CPM11 und CPM21); Prätest7-35 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
11WST12Wortschatztest; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Posttest 15-18 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
7CFT1Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Gesamttest (Addition von CFT11 und CFT21); Prätest18-58 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
8CPM11Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest5-18 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
9CPM21Raven-Matrizen-Test; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest2-17 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
5CFT11Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest10-30 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
6CFT21Grundintellingenztest CFT 1 Skala 1; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest7-29 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
3WST21Wortschatztest; Teil 2 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest5-17 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
4WST1Wortschatztest; Gesamttest (Addition von WST11 und WST21); Prätest9-34 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
1TRAININGZugehörigkeit zur Trainings- oder Experimentalgruppe0 "Kontrollgruppe"
1 "Trainingsgruppe"
9 "fehlender Wert"
2WST11Wortschatztest; Teil 1 (bei Zufallsaufteilung des Tests); Prätest4-17 "ganze Zahlen"99 "fehlender Wert"
Codebook_krkl98in08_klauer_0004_kb2
PositionNameLabelValid_valuesMissing_values
9CFT2Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST2_1_2 und St2_3_5); Posttest 132,00-71,00 "ganze Zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
10CFT3Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST3_1_2 und St3_3_5); Posttest 229,00-72,00 "ganze Zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
7ST3_3_5Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Posttest 211,00-48,00 "ganze zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
8CFT1Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; Gesamttest (Addition von ST1_1_2 und St1_3_5); Prätest18,00-58,00 "ganze Zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
5ST2_3_5Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Posttest 111,00-47,00 "ganze zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
6ST3_1_2Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Posttest 212,00-24,00 "ganze Zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
3ST1_3_5Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; induktive Subtests 3-5; Prätest5,00-35,00 "ganze Zahlen"99 "Fehlender Wert"
4ST2_1_2Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Posttest 111,00-24,00 "ganze zahlen"9 "Fehlender Wert"
1GRUPPEZugehörigkeit zur Trainings- oder Experimentalgruppe0 "Kontrollgruppe"
1 "Trainingsgruppe"
9 "Fehlender Wert"
2ST1_1_2Grundintelligenztest CFT 1 Skala1; nicht-induktive Subtests 1-2; Prätest5,00-24,00 "ganze zahlen"99 "Fehlender Wert"

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/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.

Literature

Publications Directly Related to the Dataset
Publications Directly Related to the Dataset
Klauer, K. J., Willmes, K. & Phye, G. D. (2002). Inducing inductive reasoning: Does it transfer to fluid intelligence? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 1-25.Datensatz 0156732
Utilized Test Methods
Utilized Test Methods
Kamratowski, J. & Kamratowski, J. (1969). Wortschatztest für Schulanfänger WSS 1. Weinheim: Beltz.Datensatz 9000567
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
Further Reading
Klauer, K. J. (2001). Training des induktiven Denkens. In K. J. Klauer (Hrsg.), Handbuch Kognitives Training (S. 165-209). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Datensatz 0144283
Print as PDF