Development and Validation of a Cognitive Assessment Test Using Nonlinear Factor Analysis on Students

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD student in Measurement and Assessment, Department of Psychology, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Ashtian Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ashtian, Iran.

3 Associate Professor Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: In order to improve the psychological and academic status of students, having an authentic tool for their cognitive evaluation seems to be one of the essential factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a cognitive assessment test for junior high school students in Tehran.
Method: The research was conducted using a descriptive-survey design and an instrument validation method. The research population consisted of all junior high school students in Tehran. The research sample consisted of 300 randomly selected junior high school students who completed the researcher-made test and the Stanford-Binet test. Linear factor analysis, internal consistency, criterion validity, and Pearson correlation were used to analyze the data.
Findings: The findings obtained from the nonlinear factor analysis using the NOHARM software showed that the cognitive components were formed by five factors: knowledge, fluid reasoning, working memory, visuospatial processing, and quantitative memory. The results of KR20 confirmed the overall internal consistency in the three age groups 13 to 15. To assess the test's validity, a concurrent criterion validity method was used, employing the Pearson correlation coefficient, which showed a correlation coefficient above 0.58 in each age group (p<0.01). Content validity was assessed using the judgment of experts, yielding a value of 0.79. The overall reliability coefficient of the test ranged from 0.73 to 0.80 in all three age groups.
Conclusion: Based on the research findings, it can be concluded that the researcher-made cognitive assessment questionnaire has acceptable psychometric properties among junior high school students.

Keywords

References

  1. Hwang GJ, Sung HY, Chang SC, Huang XC. A fuzzy expert system-based adaptive learning approach to improving students’ learning performances by considering affective and cognitive factors. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2020 Jan 1;1:100003.
  2. Fernández Cruz M, Álvarez Rodríguez J, Ávalos Ruiz I, Cuevas López M, de Barros Camargo C, Díaz Rosas F, González Castellón E, González González D, Hernández Fernández A, Ibáñez Cubillas P, Lizarte Simón EJ. Evaluation of the emotional and cognitive regulation of young people in a lockdown situation due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Frontiers in psychology. 2020 Oct 23;11:565503.
  3. Schweizer K, Moosbrugger H. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence. 2004 Jul 1;32(4):329-47.
  4. Brook I, Wexler HM, Goldstein EJ. Antianaerobic antimicrobials: spectrum and susceptibility testing. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 2013 Jul;26(3):526-46.
  5. Rustamova NR. Training of students of cognitive processes based on vitagen educational situations. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology. 2020;29(8):869-72.
  6. Nejati, V., kamari, S., Jafari, S. Construction and Examine the Psychometric Characteristics of Student Social Cognition Questionnaire (SHAD). Social Cognition, 2018; 7(2): 123-144. doi: 10.30473/sc.2018.29262.1931
  7. Tan X. Stories behind the scenes: L2 students’ cognitive processes of multimodal composing and traditional writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2023 Mar 1;59:100958.
  8. Rushton JP, Jensen AR. The rise and fall of the Flynn effect as a reason to expect a narrowing of the Black–White IQ gap. Intelligence. 2010 Mar 1;38(2):213-9.
  9. Oliseenko VD, Abramov MV. Predicting the results of the 16-factor R. Cattell test based on the analysis of text posts of social network users. Journal Scientific and Technical Of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics. 2023 Apr 11;148(2):279.
  10. Ackerman PL. Intelligence‑as‑process, personality, interests, and intelligence‑as‑knowledge: A framework for adult intellectual development.
  11. Colom R, Flores-Mendoza C, Rebollo I. Working memory and intelligence. Personality and Individual differences. 2003 Jan 1;34(1):33-9.
  12. Fry AF, Hale S. Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biological psychology. 2000 Oct 1;54(1-3):1-34.
  13. Zimprich D, Martin M, Kliegel M, Dellenbach M, Rast P, Zeintl M. Cognitive abilities in old age: Results from the Zurich Longitudinal Study on Cognitive Aging. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2008 Sep;67(3):177-95.
  14. Klupp S, Möhring W, Lemola S, Grob A. Relations between fine motor skills and intelligence in typically developing children and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Research in developmental disabilities. 2021 Mar 1;110:103855.
  15. Pangelinan MM, Zhang G, VanMeter JW, Clark JE, Hatfield BD, Haufler AJ. Beyond age and gender: relationships between cortical and subcortical brain volume and cognitive-motor abilities in school-age children. Neuroimage. 2011 Feb 14;54(4):3093-100.
  16. Memisevic H, Sinanovic O. Executive functions as predictors of visual-motor integration in children with intellectual disability. Perceptual and motor skills. 2013 Dec;117(3):913-22.
  17. Roebers CM, Röthlisberger M, Neuenschwander R, Cimeli P, Michel E, Jäger K. The relation between cognitive and motor performance and their relevance for children’s transition to school: A latent variable approach. Human movement science. 2014 Feb 1;33:284-97.
  18. Gottfredson L, Saklofske DH. Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne. 2009 Aug;50(3):183.
  19. Sholahuddın A, Yuanıta L, Supardı ZI, Prahandı BK. Applying the cognitive style-based learning strategy in elementary schools to ımprove students’ science process skills. Journal of Turkish Science Education. 2020 Jun 21;17(2):289-301.
  20. Rushton JP. The Global Bell Curve: Race, IQ and Inequality Worldwide, R. Lynn. Washington Summit Publishers, Augusta, GA (2008). 378 pp., US $18.95 (PB), ISBN: 1-59368-028-7.
  21. Dickens WT, Flynn JR. Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychological review. 2001 Apr;108(2):346.
  22. Richerson LP, Watkins MW, Beaujean AA. Longitudinal invariance of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition in a referral sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2014 Oct;32(7):597-609.
  23. Mashburn CA, Tsukahara JS, Engle RW, Logie RH, Camos V, Cowan N. Individual differences in attention control. Working Memory: The state of the science. 2021 Jan 5:175-211.
  24. Finn AS, Kraft MA, West MR, Leonard JA, Bish CE, Martin RE, Sheridan MA, Gabrieli CF, Gabrieli JD. Cognitive skills, student achievement tests, and schools. Psychological science. 2014 Mar;25(3):736-44.
  25. Brannan JD, White A, Bezanson JL. Simulator effects on cognitive skills and confidence levels. Journal of Nursing Education. 2008;47(11):495-500.
  26. Kim YK, Lundberg CA. A structural model of the relationship between student–faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Education. 2016 May;57:288-309.
  27. Liu M. Enhancing learners' cognitive skills through multimedia design. Interactive Learning Environments. 2003 Jan 1;11(1):23-39.
  28. Essel HB, Vlachopoulos D, Essuman AB, Amankwa JO. ChatGPT effects on cognitive skills of undergraduate students: Receiving instant responses from AI-based conversational large language models (LLMs). Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence. 2024 Jun 1;6:100198.
Medical Journal of Mashhad university of Medical Sciences
Volume 67, Issue 3
May and June 2024
Pages 993-1005

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics