ArticleJournal of Intelligence2025
Assessing Comprehensive Spatial Ability and Specific Attributes Through Higher-Order LLM.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial reasoning ability plays a critical role in predicting academic outcomes, particularly in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education. According to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of human intelligence, spatial reasoning is a general ability including various specific attributes. However, most spatial assessments focus on testing one specific spatial attribute or a limited set (e.g., visualization, rotation, etc.), rather than general spatial ability. To address this limitation, we created a mixed spatial test that includes mental rotation, object assembly, and isometric perception subtests to evaluate both general spatial ability and specific attributes. To understand the complex relationship between general spatial ability and mastery of specific attributes, we used a higher-order linear logistic model (HO-LLM), which is designed to simultaneously estimate high-order ability and sub-attributes. Additionally, this study compares four spatial ability classification frameworks using each to construct Q-matrices that define the relationships between test items and spatial reasoning attributes within the HO-LLM framework. Our findings indicate that HO-LLMs improve model fit and show distinct patterns of attribute mastery, highlighting which spatial attributes contribute most to general spatial ability. The results suggest that higher-order LLMs can offer a deeper and more interpretable assessment of spatial ability and support tailored training by identifying areas of strength and weakness in individual learners.
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.