Related Experiment Videos
Reliability and validity of the Group Embedded Figures Test for a grade school sample.
Perceptual and Motor Skills
|April 1, 1979
Summary
This study assessed the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) reliability and validity in sixth graders. Results showed good reliability but inconclusive validity, with no significant sex differences observed in field dependence.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Educational Psychology
- Cognitive Psychology
Background:
- Assessing cognitive abilities like field dependence-independence is crucial in educational psychology.
- The Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) is a common tool for measuring this construct.
- Understanding the psychometric properties of the GEFT in specific age groups is essential for its accurate application.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) in a sample of sixth-grade students.
- To examine the test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the GEFT.
- To investigate the construct and concurrent validity of the GEFT, exploring potential sex differences.
Main Methods:
- A cohort of 22 sixth-grade students (9 boys, 13 girls) participated in the study.
- The GEFT was administered, followed by screening on the Portable Rod-and-Frame Test (PRFT) after 50 weeks.
- Retesting on the GEFT occurred two weeks after the PRFT screening to assess reliability and validity.
Main Results:
- Long-term stability coefficients for the GEFT were .80 for boys and .71 for girls.
- Internal consistency coefficients ranged from .83 to .98 across both sexes.
- Construct and concurrent validity coefficients were -.60 for boys and .00 for girls, with no typical sex differences in field dependence-independence.
Conclusions:
- The Group Embedded Figures Test demonstrates good long-term stability and internal consistency in sixth-grade students.
- The validity coefficients suggest a need for further investigation into the GEFT's construct and concurrent validity in this population.
- The study did not find expected sex differences in field dependence-independence, possibly due to small sample sizes.