Abstract
A distribution of Rod-and-Frame Test scores for college students is presented as a replication of the Pressey-Vaught data. A discussion follows in which three common procedural problems are related to comparison difficulties.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
ADEVAI, G., SILVERMAN, A. J., & McGOUGH, W. E. Perceptual correlates of the rod-and-frame test. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 1055–1064.
LESTER, G. The rod-and-frame test: Some comments on methodology. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1968, 26, 1307–1314.
NEVILLE, C. W., WORKMAN, S. N., & JOHNSON, D. T. Expected scores in the rod-and-frame test: Field dependence is where you find it. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 15, 321–322.
PRESSEY, A. W. A reply to comments on “Figurai aftereffects, illusions, and the dimension of field dependence.” Psychonomic Science, 1968, 11, 364.
VAUGHT, G. M. Expected scores in the rod-and-frame test: Fuel for the Immergluck-Pressey fire. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 248.
WITKIN, H. A. Psychological differentiation and forms of pathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 317–336.
WITKIN, H. A., DYK, R. B., FATERSON, H., GOODENOUGH, D. R., & KARP, S. A. Psychological differentiation, New York: Wiley, 1962.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vaught, G.M. Expected scores in the rod-and-frame test revisited. Psychon Sci 18, 111 (1970). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335722
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335722