Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:37:05.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the Ability of Transitive Reasoning, using Product and Strategy Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Samantha Bouwmeester  and
Klaas Sijtsma
Samantha Bouwmeester*
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
Klaas Sijtsma
Affiliation:
Tilburg University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Samantha Bouwmeester, Department of Methodology and Statistics FSW, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands, Phone: 31134663270, Fax: 31134663002, Email: s.bouwmeester@uvt.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cognitive theories disagree about the processes and the number of abilities involved in transitive reasoning. This led to controversies about the influence of task characteristics on individuals' performance and the development of transitive reasoning. In this study, a computer test was constructed containing 16 transitive reasoning tasks having different characteristics with respect to presentation form, task format, and task content. Both product and strategy information were analyzed to measure the performance of 6- to 13-year-old children. Three methods (MSP, DETECT, and Improved DIMTEST) were used to determine the number of abilities involved and to test the assumptions imposed on the data by item response models. Nonparametric IRT models were used to construct a scale for transitive reasoning. Multiple regression was used to determine the influence of task characteristics on the difficulty level of the tasks. It was concluded that: (1) the qualitatively distinct abilities predicted by Piaget's theory could not be distinguished by means of different dimensions in the data structure; (2) transitive reasoning could be described by one ability, and some task characteristics influenced the difficulty of a task; and (3) strategy information provided a stronger scale than product information.

Keywords

cognitive abilitycognitive strategiesdimensionality of test dataIRT modelstransitive reasoningtransitive reasoning scale
Type
Application Reviews And Case Studies
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 2004 , pp. 123 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bouwmeester, S., Aalbers, T. (2002). Tranred. Tilburg: Tilburg UniversityGoogle Scholar
Bouwmeester, S., Sijtsma, K., Vermunt, J.K. (2004). Latent class regression analysis to describe cognitive developmental phenomena: an application to transitive reasoning. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1, 67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M.D.S. (1959). The onthogeny of certain logical operations: Piaget's formulation examined by nonverbal methods. Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 27, 41–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J. (1977). Response criteria in concept development research. Child Development, 48, 360–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., Kingma, J. (1984). Do children have to remember to reason? A fuzzy-trace theory of transitivity development. Developmental Review, 4, 311–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., Kingma, J. (1985). On the independence of short-term memory and working memory in cognitive development. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 210–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainerd, C.J., Reyna, V.F. (1992). The memory independence effect: What do the data show? What do the theories claim?. Developmental Review, 12, 164–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, P.E., Trabasso, T. (1971). Transitive inferences and memory in young children. Nature, 232, 456–458CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, M., Lindenberger, U. (1988). Functions, operations, and decalage in the development of transitivity. Developmental Psychology, 24, 542–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, M., Lindenberger, U. (1992). Transitivity judgments, memory for premises, and models of children's reasoning. Developmental Review, 12, 124–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 387–404Google Scholar
DeSoto, C.B., London, M., Handel, S. (1965). Social reasoning and spatial paralogic. Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 513–521Google Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, G.H. (1995). The linear logistic test model. In Fischer, G.H., Molenaar, I.W. (Eds.), Rasch Models, Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications (pp. 131–155). New York: Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Grayson, D.A. (1988). Two-group classification in latent trait theory: Scores with monotone likelihood ratio. Psychometrika, 53, 383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, K.E., Smith, R.M. (1987). A comparison of two methods of decomposing item difficulties. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatti, J., Krakowski, K., Rogers, H.J., Swaminathan, H. (1996). An assessment of Stout's index of essential unidimmensionality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W. (1995). Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 337–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemker, B.T., Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W., Junker, B.W. (1997). Stochastic ordering using the latent trait and the sumscore in polytomous IRT models. Psychometrika, 62, 331–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosenfield, B., Van der Maas, H. L.J., van den Boom, D.C. (1997). Detecting bimodality in the analogical reasoning performance of elementary schoolchildren. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20, 529–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. (1968). Constructing spatial images. Psychological Review, 75, 550–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Higgens, E.T. (1971). Adjectives, comparatives and syllogisms. Psychological Review, 78, 487–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, B.W. (1993). Conditional association, essential independence, and monotone unidimensional item response models. The Annals of Statistics, 21, 1359–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelderman, H., Rijkes, C. P.M. (1994). Loglinear multidimensional IRT models for polytomously scores items. Psychometrika, 59, 149–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, R.P. (1985). Linear versus nonlinear models in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 379–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokken, R.J. (1971). A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. The Hague: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mokken, R.J., Lewis, C., Sijtsma, K. (1986). Rejoinder to “the Mokken scale: A critical discussion.”. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 279–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, I.W., Sijtsma, K. (2000). User's manual MSP5 for Windows. A program for Mokken Scale analysis for Polytomous items [software manual]. Groningen, The Netherlands: iecProGammaGoogle Scholar
Murray, J.P., Youniss, J. (1968). Achievement of inferential transitivity and its relation to serial ordering. Child Development, 39, 1259–1268CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandakumar, R., Stout, W. (1993). Refinements of Stout's procedure for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 41–68Google Scholar
Nandakumar, R., Yu, F., Li, H.H., Stout, W. (1998). Assessing unidimensionality of polytomous data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 22, 99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1961). Les Méchanicismes Perceptives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B. (1941). Le Développement des Quantités Chez l'Enfant. Neuchatel: Delachaux et NiestléGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., Szeminska, A. (1948). La Géométric Spontanée de l'Enfant. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J., Szeminska, A. (1941). La Genèse du Nombre Chez l'Enfant. Neuchatel: Delachaux et NiestléGoogle Scholar
Quinton, G., Fellows, B. (1975). “Perceptual” strategies in the solving of three-term series problems. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reckase, M.A. (1997). A linear logistic multidimensional model for dichotomous item response data. In van der Linden, W.J., Hambleton, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory (pp. 271–286). New York: Springer-VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyna, V.F., Brainerd, C.J. (1990). Fuzzy processing in transitivity development. Annals of Operations Research, 23, 37–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roussos, L.A., Stout, W., Marden, J. (1998). Using new proximity measures with hierarchical cluster analysis to detect multidimensionality. Journal of Educational Measurement, 35, 1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiblechner, H. (1972).Das lernen un lösen complexer Denkaufgaben (Learning and solving complex thought problems). Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Psychologie, 19, 481–520Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R.R. (1992). A method for investigating the intersection of item response functions in Mokken's nonparametric IRT model. Applied Psychological Measurement, 16, 149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sijtsma, K., Molenaar, I.W. (2002). Introduction to Nonparametric Item Response Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smedslund, J. (1963). Development of concrete transitivity of length in children. Child Development, 34, 389–405Google ScholarPubMed
Smedslund, J. (1969). Psychological diagnostics. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 237–248CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sternberg, R.J. (1980). Representation and process in linear syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 109, 119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R.J. (1980). The development of linear syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 29, 340–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R.J., Weil, E.M. (1980). An aptitude × strategy interaction in linear syllogistic reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 226–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. (1993). DIMTEST. Urbana-Champaign, IL: The William Stout Institute for MeasurementGoogle Scholar
Stout, W. (1996). DETECT. Urbana-Champaign, IL: The William Stout Institute for MeasurementGoogle Scholar
Stout, W., Froelich, A.G., Gao, F. (2001). Using resampling methods to produce an improved DIMTEST procedure. In Boomsma, A., van Duijn, M.A.J., Snijders, T.A.B. (Eds.), Essays on Item Response Theory (pp. 357–375). New York: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stout, W., Habing, B., Douglas, J., Kim, H.R., Roussos, L.A., Zhang, J. (1996). Conditional covariance-based non-parametric multidimensionality assessment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, H., Lohaus, A., Kessler, T. (1999). Stability and change in longitudinal water-level task performance. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1024–1037CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trabasso, T. (1977). The role of memory as a system in making transitive inferences. In Kail, R.V., Hagen, J.W., Belmont, J.M. (Eds.), Perspectives on the Development of Memory and Cognition (pp. 333–366). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Trabasso, T., Riley, C.A., Wilson, E.G. (1975). The representation of linear order and spatial strategies in reasoning: a developmental study. In Falmagne, R.J. (Eds.), Reasoning: Representation and Process in Children and Adults (pp. 201–229). Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Van Abswoude, A. A.H., Van der Ark, L.A., Sijtsma, K. (2004). A comparative study on test dimensionality assessment procedures under nonparametric IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verweij, A.C. (1999). Scaling transitive inference in 7–12 years old children. the Netherlands: Vrÿe Universiteit AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
Verweij, A.C., Sijtsma, K., Koops, W. (1999). An ordinal scale for transitive reasoning by means of a deductive strategy. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 23, 241–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B.C. (2001). Reconceptualizing the transitive inference ability: A framework for existing and future research. Developmental Review, 21, 375–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Stout, W. (1999). Conditional covariance structure of generalized compensatory multidimensional items. Psychometrika, 64, 129–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Stout, W. (1999). The theoretical DETECT index of dimensionality and its application to approximate simple structure. Psychometrika, 64, 213–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar