Applications of Cognitive Design Systems to Test Development

  • Susan Embretson
Part of the Perspectives on Individual Differences book series (PIDF)


Until recent times, cognitive testing had been a stagnant field. Carroll and Maxwell (1979), in their Annual Review of Psychology paper on testing, pointed out that little had changed since the first author had reviewed the field 25 years earlier. Carroll and Maxwell (1979) pointed out, however, that cognitive psychology was a new force that could substantially change testing. Since their chapter appeared, an extensive foundation of research has been assembled which covers many types of items that appear on cognitive tests (e.g., Bejar, Chaffin & Embretson, 1990; Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990; Embretson, 1985; Pellegrino, 1985; Sternberg, 1985).


Cognitive Model Spatial Ability Item Difficulty Construct Representation Item Response Theory Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Assessment Systems Corporation (1989). User’s manual for the MICROCAT Testing System. Assessment Systems Corporation: St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
  2. Bechtoldt, H. (1959). Construct validity: A critique. American Psychologist, 14, 619–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bejar, I. (1990). A generative analysis of a three dimensional spatial task. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bejar, I., Chaffin, R., & Embretson, S. E. (1990). Cognitive and psychometric analysis of analogical problem solving. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, P., Just, M., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of processing in the Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test. Psychological Review, 97, 404–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. B., & Maxwell, S. (1979). Individual differences in ability. Annual Review of Psychology, 603–640.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H. (1987). Manual for the Kit of Factor-Referenced Tests. Research Report NR-150–329. Educational Testing Service: Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  10. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Embretson, S. (1984). A general latent trait model for response processes. Psychometrika, 49, 175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Embretson, S. E. (1985). Test design: Developments in psychology and psychometrics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Embretson, S. E. (1992a). A conceptual and procedural framework for designing tests by information-processing theory. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  14. Embretson, S. E. (1992b). Measuring and validity cognitive modifiability as an ability: A study in the spatial domain. Journal of Educational Measurement, 29, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Embretson, S. E. (1992c). Technical manual for the Spatial Learning Ability Test Technical Report 9201.Google Scholar
  16. Lawrence, KS: Department of Psychology, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  17. Embretson, S. E. (1992d). The construct validity of a spatial ability test: The impact of item design and test context. Paper under review. Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.Google Scholar
  18. Embretson, S. E. (in press). Development toward a cognitive design system for psychological tests. In R. Dawis and D. Lupinsky (Eds.), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts and findings University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  19. Embretson, S. E., & Waxman, M. (1989). Models for processing and individual differences in spatial folding. Unpublished manuscript. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  20. Fischer, G. (1973). Linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hornke, L. F., & Habon, M. W. (1986). Rule-based item bank construction and evaluation within the linear logistic framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10, 364–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1985). Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychological Review, 92, 137–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mislevy, R., & Verhelst, N. (1990). Modeling item responses when different subjects employ different solution strategies. Psychometrika, 55, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pellegrino, J. W., & Lyon, D. W. (1979). The components of a cmponential analysis. Intelligence, 3, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pellegrino, J. W. (1985). Inductive reasoning ability. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Human abilities: An information processing approach, (pp. 195–225 ). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  26. Shepard, R. N., & Feng, C. (1971). A chronometric study of mental paper folding. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 228–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Whitely, S. E. (1980). Multicomponent latent trait models for ability tests. Psychometrika, 45, 479–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Embretson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations