Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:13:42.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Internal Structure and Partial Invariance across Gender in the Spanish Version of the Reasoning Test Battery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2015

Paula Elosua  and
Josu Mujika
Paula Elosua*
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
Josu Mujika
Affiliation:
Universidad del País Vasco (Spain)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paula Elosua. Universidad del País Vasco. Avda. Tolosa, 70. San Sebastian, Guipuzcoa (Spain). 20018. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Reasoning Test Battery (BPR) is an instrument built on theories of the hierarchical organization of cognitive abilities and therefore consists of different tasks related with abstract, numerical, verbal, practical, spatial and mechanical reasoning. It was originally created in Belgium and later adapted to Portuguese. There are three forms of the battery consisting of different items and scales which cover an age range from 9 to 22. This paper focuses on the adaptation of the BPR to Spanish, and analyzes different aspects of its internal structure: (a) exploratory item factor analysis was applied to assess the presence of a dominant factor for each partial scale; (b) the general underlined model was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis, and (c) factorial invariance across gender was studied. The sample consisted of 2624 Spanish students. The results concluded the presence of a general factor beyond the scales, with equivalent values for men and women, and gender differences in the factorial structure which affect the numerical reasoning, abstract reasoning and mechanical reasoning scales.

Keywords

reasoning testsfactorial structureadaptationgender invariance
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E74
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

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

Almeida, L. S., Guisande, M. A., Primi, R., & Lemos, G. (2008). Contribuciones del factor general y de los factores específicos en la relación entre inteligencia y rendimiento escolar.[Contribution of general factor and specific factors into the relation between intelligence and scholar achivement] European Journal of Education and ychology, 1, 5–16.Google Scholar
Almeida, L. S., & Lemos, G. (2006). Batería de Provas de Raciocínio: Manual Técnico. Braga, Portugal: Universidade do Minho, Centro de Investigação em Psicologia.Google Scholar
Amaral, A. O., Almeida, L. S., & Morais, M. J. (2014). Raciocínio e rendimento escolar: Estudo com adolescentes moçambicanos da 8ª à 10ª classe. [Reasoning and scholar achievement. Study with mozambican students in grades 8–10]. In Atas do 1° Congresso “Cognição, Aprendizagem & Rendimento”. Braga, Portugal: Universidad de Minho. Centro de Investigación en Educación.Google Scholar
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
Baumgarti, V. O., & Primi, R. (2006). Evidências de validade da Bateria de Provas de Raciocínio (BPR-5) para seleção de pessoal. [Validity evidences of the Reasoning Test Battery for recruitment] Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 19, 246–251.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about 10 brad factors. In Nyborg, H. (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–21). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54. 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0046743 Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Irwing, P., Der, G., & Bates, T. C. (2007). Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979. Intelligence, 35, 451–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11, 201–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elosua, P., Mujika, J., Almeida, L., & Hermosilla, D. (2014). Procedimientos analítico-racionales en la adaptación de tests. Adaptación al español de la Batería de Pruebas de Razonamiento [Judgmental-analytical procedures for adapting tests: Adaptation to Spanish of the Reasoning Tests Battery]. Revista Iatinoamericana de Psicología, 46, 117–126.Google Scholar
Elosua, P., & Zumbo, B. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada. Psicothema, 20, 896–901.Google Scholar
Finch, W. H., & French, B. F. (2012). The impact of factor noninvariance on observed composite score variances. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences, 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F., Benbow, C. P., Geary, D. C., Gur, R. C., Hyde, J. S., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (2007). The science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8, 1–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2007.00032.x Google Scholar
Horn, J., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In Flanagan, D. P., Genshaft, J. L., & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581 Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Johnson, W., Carothers, A., & Deary, I. J. (2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518–531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in Models with Small Degrees of Freedom. Sociological Methods Research, 44, 486–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236 Google Scholar
Lemos, G. C., Abad, F. J., Almeida, L. S., & Colom, R. (2013). Sex differences on g and non-g intellectual performance reveal potential sources of STEM discrepancies. Intelligence, 41, 11–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.10.009 Google Scholar
Lohman, D. F., & Lakin, J. (2009). Consistencies in sex differences on the cognitive abilities test across countries, grades, test forms, and cohorts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 389–407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709908X354609 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuris, G. (1969). Tests de raisonnement différentiel. Brussels, Belgium: Editest.Google Scholar
Muñiz, J., Elosua, P., & Hambleton, R. K. (2013). Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: Segunda edición Guidelines for test translation and adaptation: Second edition]. Psicothema, 25, 149–155.Google Scholar
Primi, R., & Almeida, L. S. (2000). Estudo de Validação da Bateria de Provas de Raciocínio (BPR-5). [Validation of the Reasoning Test Battery]. Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, 16, 165–173.Google Scholar
Primi, R., Rocha da Silva, M. C., Rodrigues, P., Muniz, M., & Almeida, L. S. (2013). The use of the bi-factor model to test the uni-dimensionality of a battery of reasoning tests. Psicothema, 25, 115–122.Google Scholar
Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science? A critical review. American Psychologist, 60, 950–958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.9.950 Google Scholar
Vernon, E. (1961). The structure of human abilities. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
Voyer, D., Voyer, S., & Bryden, M. P. (1995). Magnitude of sex differences in spatial abilities: A meta-analysis and consideration of critical variables. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 250–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.250 Google Scholar