ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
Using Cognitive Diagnostic Models to Evaluate the Two-Process Theory of Matrix Reasoning.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Log File Times as Indicators of Structured Figural Matrix Processing.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Figural matrices are widely used to measure reasoning ability. According to the two-process model of figural matrix reasoning, task performance relies on correspondence finding (linked to induction ability) and goal management (linked to working memory). Cognitive theory suggests that item characteristics (i.e., change rules and design principles of figural elements) are related to the two solution processes and impact item difficulties in a multiplicative, interactive manner. This study tested the multiplicative effect hypothesis by comparing two cognitive diagnostic models using additive and multiplicative effect estimations. A 26-item figural matrix test was administered to 633 high-ability individuals across paper-and-pencil and computer formats. The linear logistic test model (LLTM) and least square distance method (LSDM) were applied to Rasch and 2PL item parameters. Contrary to the multiplicative effect hypothesis, the additive LLTM model showed better item parameter reconstruction than the LSDM that includes multiplicative effects. These results suggest that change rules and design principles may independently contribute to the difficulty of figural matrices. Correspondence-finding demands may primarily arise from design principles, while change rules may primarily contribute to difficulty through goal management demands based on their number and complexity. The findings highlight the need to consider item components related to the phenomenological representation of figural elements when explaining solution processes of figural matrices. Implications for cognitive theory and item construction are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.