Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Small v large-scale Gv abilities: Implications for CHC taxonomy and measurement?

Yet another study suggesting that we who tend to worship at the later of the CHC taxonomy (McGrew, 2005; McGrew, 2009) need to head the warnings of  the primarily architects of the model (Horn, Carroll) who warned us (in their writings) that the taxonomy is incomplete and will evolve over time.  Evidence for the correctness of this admonition is yet another study investigating small scale Gv (e.g., SR, Vz) and large-scale Gv (e.g., environmental navigation).  Large-scale Gv is missing from the current consensus CHC taxonomy.  The study below, which found that training on small-scale Gv did not generalize to changes in large-scale Gv in children (while prior research has suggested that the two are linked in adults), is the third study I've posted that has made this small v large-scale Gv distinction.  See prior posts regarding my comments about CHC taxonomy and implications for potential test development (i.e., development of large-scale navigational abilities)

  • Jansen, P. (2009). THE DISSOCIATION OF SMALL- AND LARGE-SCALE SPATIAL ABILITIES IN SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109(2), 357-361.

This experiment with school-age children was designed to assess the extent to which training in a “small-scale space”—so-called manual rotation training—can improve performance in a “large-scale space.” In a preliminary test, 72 9- and 10-yr.-olds completed a direction estimation test. Half of the children then completed manual rotation training or played a nonspatial computer game. All of the children subsequently performed the direction estimation test again. Perfor-mance in direction estimation did not differ between the preliminary test and the posttest. Thus, in contrast to the parallel study with adults, the “small-scale spatial ability” was not associated with “large-scale ability.”

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No comments: