An Examination of How Visual Perception Abilities Influence Mathematics Achievement

AN EXAMINATION OF HOW VISUAL PERCEPTION ABILITIES INFLUENCE
MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT
by
TREENA EILEEN ROHDE, M.A.
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Experimental Psychology
Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lee Anne Thompson
Department of Psychology
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
January 2008
CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of
_____________________________________________________
candidate for the ______________________degree

Ph.D. *.
(signed)_______________________________________________
LEE ANNE THOMPSON, Ph.D.
(chair of the committee)
________________________________________________
DOUGLAS K. DETTERMAN, Ph.D.
________________________________________________
JOSEPH F. FAGAN, III, Ph.D.
________________________________________________
SUSAN KLEIN, M.D., Ph.D.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007

(date) _______________________
*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any
proprietary material contained therein.
ii
Wxw|vtàxw àÉ
`ç Ytà{xÜ? ]tÅxá cA eÉ{wx? fÜA
ã{É tÄãtçá xÇvÉâÜtzxw Åx tÇw àÉÄw Åx à{tà
\ vÉâÄw wÉ tÇçà{|Çz \ ãtÇàxw àÉ |y \
á|ÅÑÄç ãÉÜ~xw {tÜw xÇÉâz{
iii
1
Table of Contents
Title Page i
Committee Signature sheet (typed version) ii
Dedication iii
Table of Contents 1
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 9
Acknowledgements 11
Abstract 13
Introduction 15
Broad Visual Perception 22
Mathematical Ability 29
Study Aims 33
Method 35
Participants 35
Materials 35
Measures of visual perception. 36
Measures of academic achievement. 53
Measure of general intelligence. 55
Design and Procedures 56
Data Preparation and Analyses 57
Scoring procedures and guessing correction. 57

2
Statistical analyses. 58
Hypotheses and Overview of Analyses 58
Results 60
Participants 60
Sample Characteristics 60
Restriction of range. 60
Data preparation. 63
Data reduction 64
Exploratory factor analysis. 64
Predicting Achievement with Visual Perception 67
Multiple Regression Analyses. 67
SAT Combined scores. 70
SAT Critical Reading scores. 72
SAT Mathematics scores. 75
WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores. 78
WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores. 80
WCJ-III: Number Series scores. 83
WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores. 85
Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual Perception 88
Discussion 92
Major Findings—Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual
Perception 93
Dimensionality 96
3
Weaknesses of the Current Study 99
Factors of spatial ability. 99
Future Research 106
Appendix A: SPSS OUTPUT OF EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 109
Appendix B: Correlations Between General Intelligence, Academic Achievement,
and Factors of Visual Perception 116
References 117
4
List of Tables
Acknowledgements—Table 12
Funding for Doctoral Training and Research
Table 1 62
Restriction of Range – Distribution of SAT Scores
Table 2 64
Descriptive Statistics for the Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices
Table 3 66
Factor Loadings for an Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Battery
of Spatial Tests
Table 4a 71
Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and Speed of
Closure (Factor 3)
5
Table 4b 72
Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors
Visualization and Speed of Closure While Controlling for General
Intelligence
Table 5a 73
Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception
Factors: Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and
Speed of Closure (Factor 3)
Table 5b 75
Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception
Factors Visualization and Speed of Closure While Controlling for
General Intelligence
Table 6a 76
Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and Speed of
Closure (Factor 3)
6
Table 6b 77
Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors
Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure While
Controlling for General Intelligence
Table 7a 79
Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual
Perception Factors: Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization
(Factor 2), and Speed of Closure (Factor 3)
Table 7b 80
Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual
Perception Factors Perceptual Speed and Visualization While
Table 8a 81
Predicting WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores with Visual

7
Table 8b 83
Predicting WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores with Visual
Perception Factors Visualization and Speed of Closure While
Table 9a 84
Predicting WCJ-III: Number Series Scores with Visual Perception
Factors: Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and
Speed of Closure (Factor 3)
Table 9b 84
Predicting WCJ-III: Number Series Scores with General Intelligence
Table 10a 85
Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section Scores with Visual

8
Table 10b 87
Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Scores with Visual Perception
Factors Perceptual Speed and Visualization While Controlling for
General Intelligence
Table 10c 88
Repeat Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Scores with the Visual
Perception Factor Perceptual Speed While Controlling for General
Intelligence
Appendix B—Table 1 116
Correlations Between General Intelligence, Academic Achievement,
and Factors of Visual Perception

9
List of Figures
Figure 1. 37
Example of an item from the Finding A’s Test.
Figure 2. 38
Example of an item from the Number Comparison Test.
Figure 3. 39
Example of an item from the Identical Pictures Test.
Figure 4. 40
Example from the Gestalt Completion Test.
Figure 5. 41
An example from the Concealed Words Test.
Figure 6. 41
An example from the Snowy Pictures Test.
Figure 7. 43
An example from the Hidden Figures Test.
Figure 8. 44
An example from the Hidden Patterns Test.
Figure 9. 45
An example from the Copying Test.
Figure 10. 46
An example from the Form Board Test.

10
Figure 11. 47
An example from the Paper Folding Test.
Figure 12. 49
An example from the Surface Development.
Figure 13. 50
An example from the Flags test.
Figure 14. 51
An example from the Spatial Relations Test.
Figure 15. 52
An example from the Card Rotations Test.
Figure 16. 53
An example from the Cube Comparisons Test.
Figure 17. 56
An example from the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices–Set II.

11
Acknowledgements
As I complete the final stages of my doctoral training, I find myself thinking back
on my entire graduate experience in the Experimental Psychology Program at Case
Western Reserve University. Overall, I genuinely appreciate the unending
encouragement, kindness, and support I have received from all of the faculty members
throughout my training. The compassion of the faculty members is the main reason I
have been able to reach this point in my training. Above all, I am thankful for my
graduate advisor, Dr. Lee Anne Thompson, who has been immensely accommodating
and exceedingly tolerant over the course of my training. I have great admiration for Dr.
Thompson as both a magnificent teacher and a devoted advocate for all of her students –
whether they deserve it or not. I am sincerely honored to have had the privileged of
studying under such a brilliant researcher and a generous and dedicated educator.
The current study was made possible due to the involvement of many people.
First, I thank my committee members for allowing time in their busy schedules to assist
me in the planning and completion of my doctoral research. Likewise, I appreciate the
time invested by the many undergraduate students from Case Western Reserve University
who agreed to participate in this research. Additionally, I received a great deal of help
from several research assistants whose contributions led to the completion of my doctoral
research. Without this extraordinary amount of help, I would never have been able to
finish this research project. I am deeply thankful for everyone’s support.

12
In addition to the wonderful training I have received, I was abundantly blessed
with awards from a variety of funding agencies supporting my graduate training and
research. I would not have been financially able to go to graduate school without this
support. Below is a list of the sources of financial assistance I have received over the
course of my graduate training:
Funding for Doctoral Training and Research
R NIH: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, Office of
Mental Retardation [Grant # HD07176]
R NIH: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development, Predoctoral
Fellowship for Students with Disabilities [Grant # 5F31HD41926 – 04]
R Case Western Reserve University, School of Graduate Studies – Excellence
in Graduate Education
R Case Western Reserve University, Department of Psychology – Graduate
Alumni Fund
R Case Western Reserve University, Department of Psychology
R Bridges to Success in the Sciences Program [Grant # 2 R25 GM049010-04]

13
An Examination of How Visual Perception Abilities Influence
Mathematics Achievement
Abstract
by
The purpose of the present study was to determine if components of visual
perception could add to the prediction of three aspects of mathematics achievement
(solving applied mathematics problems, correctly identifying mathematics-concepts, and
applying basic number comprehension) after controlling for general intelligence. The
sample consisted of 204 young adults ( Males = 118 ) —18 to 27 years of age
(M = 19.25 and SD = 1.09 ) . The Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices and SAT
Combined scores represented general intelligence and overall academic achievement
respectfully. SAT Mathematics and WCJ-III: Applied Problems evaluated applied

14
mathematics. WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts and WRAT-3: Arithmetic evaluated
mathematics-concepts. WCJ-III: Number Series evaluated number comprehension. An
exploratory factor analysis of a battery of 16 measures of spatial ability identified three
factors of visual perception: Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure.
Visualization was a significant predictor across all achievement measures—with the
exception of WCJ-III: Numbers Series. After controlling for general intelligence,
Perceptual Speed accounted for unique variance when predicting SAT Mathematics and
WRAT-3: Arithmetic; Visualization accounted for unique variance when predicting SAT
Mathematics and WCJ-III: Applied Problems; and Speed of Closure accounted for
unique variance when predicting SAT Combined and SAT Critical Reading. Additional
research will be needed to gain a full understanding of the implications of these findings.
15
Introduction
Historically, measures of intelligence were predominantly used to diagnose
mental retardation and determine whether or not individuals would benefit from formal
education (Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000). Making use of the relationship between
general intelligence and academic achievement in this manner has proven to be a
beneficial practice for both educators and students. Today, measures of general
intelligence continue to be used in conjunction with measures of academic achievement
to identify and address the different educational needs of academic underachievers and
overachievers (McCall, Evahn, & Kratzer, 1992). Academic achievement scores for high
school students correlate between 0.5 and 0.7 with their IQ scores, and the average
correlation for the general population between academic achievement and measures of
general intelligence is 0.71 (Jensen, 1998; Walberg, 1984). Given their general tendency
to correspond with one another, measures of academic achievement can be used to
accurately estimate IQ scores (Frey & Detterman, 2004). However, despite the robust
association between general intelligence and academic achievement, between 51% and
75% of the variance in academic achievement cannot be accounted for by measures of
general intelligence alone. Since general intelligence alone cannot predict academic
achievement with complete accuracy, something beyond general intelligence must be
influencing academic achievement.

16
Currently, the intelligence literature demonstrates that general cognitive ability is
related to many qualities associated with both academic achievement and lifelong success
(Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Bundy, 2001). For example, measures of IQ significantly
correlate with the number of years of education an individual will complete, the ease with
which an individual can be trained for a job, as well as subsequent job performance, and
an individual’s ability to generate wealth (Gottfredson, 1997; Reynolds, Chastain,
Kaufman, & McLean, 1987; Sternberg et al., 2001). Some research has even identified
significant unique associations between general intelligence and personality traits such as
conscientiousness and openness to experience (Furnham, Moutafi, & Chamooro-
Premuzic, 2005). The fact that both general intelligence and academic achievement
influence numerous areas of human behavior is an indication of the complex nature of
these constructs. The purpose of the present study is to further an understanding of
academic achievement, or more specifically, academic achievement in the area of
mathematics. The predictive capacity of general intelligence and aspects of visual
perception will be explored in relation to mathematics achievement.
It has been established in the literature that both general intelligence and academic
achievement are constructs composed of a variety of cognitive components (Johnson &
Bouchard, 2005a; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005b; Luo, Thompson, & Detterman, 2006).
Research has demonstrated that specific cognitive abilities such as working memory,
processing speed, and spatial ability can significantly account for unique variance
associated with general intelligence and academic achievement (Baddeley & Logie,
17
1999; Carroll, 1993; Fry & Hale, 1996; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005a; Johnson &
Bouchard, 2005b; Logie, 1995; Luo, Thompson, & Detterman, 2003; Rohde &
Thompson, in press; Vernon, 1983a). There is also empirical evidence suggesting that
working memory and processing speed are important mediators between general
intelligence and academic achievement (Luo et al., 2003). When predicting academic
achievement scores with either specific cognitive abilities or general intelligence, specific
cognitive abilities are able to account for a greater amount of the variance in academic
achievement than general intelligence is alone (Luo et al., 2006). Furthermore, general
intelligence can be defined by using a combination of basic cognitive tasks and
traditional psychometric measures of general intelligence without altering the nature of
its relationship with academic achievement (Luo & Petrill, 1999). These findings
demonstrate the usefulness of specific cognitive abilities in explaining the connection
between general intelligence and academic achievement. The current study will
investigate the possible relationships between specific cognitive components of visual
perception, mathematics achievement, and general intelligence.
Previous research has identified a robust relationship between global spatial
ability and mathematics achievement in gifted populations (Shea, Lubinski, & Benbow,
2001). It is important to be aware of this association when interpreting discrepant
academic achievement scores indicating strong mathematical ability and weak verbal
ability (Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001). Because the SAT scores for both
the mathematics and critical reading sections are criteria commonly used to determine
18
acceptance into selective universities, the SAT is a very important measure of academic
achievement for college-bound high school seniors. Obtaining a high score on the SAT
Mathematics section and a low score on the SAT Critical Reading section could be a
misleading representation of one’s overall ability. In situations where equal importance is
placed on the scores for both sections of the SAT, gifted individuals with discrepant SAT
scores favoring high performance on the mathematics section could be put at a
disadvantage. For instance, discrepant SAT scores favoring mathematical ability may not
be the best predictors of how well gifted students will perform in a wide variety of high
school and college academic programs. Spatial ability adds incremental validity to the
SAT Mathematics and SAT Critical Reading sections when predicting the educational
choices and occupational outcomes of intellectually gifted individuals (Shea et al., 2001).
Using spatial ability measures in conjunction with SAT scores may be a useful approach
for academic counselors to use when assisting high school students with designing
appropriate academic paths and career planning. Universities interested in recruiting
gifted individuals should also recognize the importance of the relationships between
mathematics achievement and high spatial ability because this association appears to be
especially important for identifying individuals likely to excel in the following
occupations: dentistry, architecture, engineering, the physical sciences, and artistic
professions (Gray & Deem, 2002; Humphreys, Lubinski, & Yao, 1993).
A better understanding of discrepant academic achievement patterns promises to
provide useful information for educators of students at all ability levels. For example, an
19
observational study of teaching styles that catered to the unique needs of students with
high spatial ability and low verbal ability revealed that this type of learning environment
empowered students who had once been described as underachievers or slow learners to
achieve beyond expectations (Mann, 2006). When exposed to a learning environment
constructed to meet their needs, student with this unique combination of abilities excelled
in a wide range of academic areas that had been thought to be out of their reach.
Identifying the characteristics of mathematics disabilities may also help to further
the overall understanding of mathematics achievement. In general, the study of
mathematics disabilities has lagged behind the research exploring reading disabilities
(Fuchs, 2005; Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). For example, the literature on reading has
established that processing speed, phonological awareness, and orthographic coding are
three fundamental cognitive components underlying successful reading acquisition
(Konold, Juel, McKinnon, & Deffes, 2003). Conversely, less progress has been made in
identifying the essential cognitive components necessary for the development of
mathematics skills. Identifying the cognitive components for reading has allowed
educators to better address the unique needs of students with reading disabilities.
Similarly, research identifying the cognitive abilities necessary to perform different types
of mathematics operations could further an understanding of the educational needs of
students with mathematics disabilities.

20
The present study employed Carroll’s 1993 Three-Stratum Theory Model: The
Structure of Human Cognitive Abilities as a guide for exploring the relationships between
a variety of distinct cognitive abilities related to visual perception and mathematics
achievement. Carroll’s model of general intelligence is the product of the most
comprehensive factor analytic study the literature currently has to offer. Within his
hierarchical model of cognitive abilities, Carroll identified a global visual component he
labeled visual perception, and he described this factor in the following manner:
Spatial and other visual perceptual abilities have to do with individuals’ abilities
in searching the visual field, apprehending the forms, shapes, and positions of
objects as visually perceived, forming mental representations of those forms,
shapes and positions, and manipulating such representations “mentally.” (p. 304)
The visual perception factor has many subfactors which can be thought of as components
of spatial ability. The following five subfactors identified in Carroll’s (1993) analysis will
be examined in the proposed study: perceptual speed, flexibility of closure, speed of
closure, spatial relations, and visualization. The importance of general intelligence,
academic achievement, and mathematical ability in everyday life is commonly
acknowledged, but practical applications of the five visual perception subfactors listed
above may not be as obvious.

21
The five subfactors of visual perception examined in the present study are a part
of everyday visual perception. One aspect of perceptual speed is the rate which one can
make accurate comparisons between symbols or forms. This is employed in everyday
activities such as balancing a bank account by comparing the items on a monthly bank
statement with the written records in a bankbook. Flexibility of closure is the ability to
mentally capture an aspect of a visual form, so it can be located and isolated in other
visual settings. This ability is used when a person tries to visually locate a specific utensil
in a drawer full of many different utensils that might partially obscure the desired one.
Speed of closure allows one to fill in missing portions of a figure to construct a whole
unit. This ability might be useful when filling in the missing portions of a puzzle to make
out the complete picture. The essential aspect of spatial relations is the ability to mentally
rotate an object in space, and perceive the rotated object from one’s own perspective. For
example, mechanics might employ this ability to help mentally envision how the unseen
side of an object being worked on would appear to them if it were rotated to allow a
direct view. Visualization allows a person to mentally rearrange figures and designs into
alternative configurations. When assembling a piece of furniture or a child’s toy,
visualization would be used to mentally manipulate the individual pieces to determine
how they ultimately fit together. Before moving on, it should be noted that these
examples are merely extensions of the visual perception subfactors used only to allow the
reader a point of reference for how these abilities might function when performing
common tasks.
22
The activities above are relatively simple for most people to complete; however,
there is still a wide range of ability levels for each of the tasks. Some people will be
quicker than others when comparing the items on a bank statement to the corresponding
records in a bankbook. Other people are better at identifying the correct puzzle pieces
needed to fill in the missing portions of a puzzle. Individuals will differ in their flexibility
of closure ability. Not everyone will be adept at assembling a piece of furniture or a
child’s toy. The ability to observe and mentally rotate an object in space will vary quite a
bit from person to person. While the above examples are obvious instances where visual
perception abilities might come in handy, it is likely that these abilities are also used in
more subtly ways in a variety of cognitive tasks. Mathematics is one area where research
has suggested that global spatial ability is useful; however, it is not yet clear which visual
perception abilities actually influence mathematics achievement.
Broad Visual Perception
Carroll’s (1993) hierarchical model is a representation of the overall structure of
general intelligence. The model is based on Carroll’s Three-Stratum Theory—Stratum III
is the general intelligence factor, Stratum II is a series of broad cognitive ability factors,
and Stratum I is a series of the distinct subfactors composing each of the broad cognitive
abilities (Carroll, 1993, p 626). In Carroll’s model, processing speed influences both
broad cognitive abilities and many of the distinct subfactors. Previous intelligence
research has established a strong relationship between general intelligence and speed of
23
information processing (Jensen, 1993; Vernon, 1990). For example, as much as 25% of
the variance associated with general intelligence can be accounted for by inspection time
(Grudnik & Kranzler, 2001). Information processing theory suggests that overall mental
efficiency can account for the individual differences in general intelligence (Vernon,
1983b). Processing speed is a complex construct, and it is long-established that several
chronometric variables, specifically reaction time, movement time, and inspection time,
correlate significantly with general intelligence (Jensen, Larson, & Paul, 1988; Jensen &
Munro, 1979; Kranzler & Jensen, 1989; Nettlebeck, 1987; Reed & Jensen, 1993). In the
simplest terms, chronometric variables are used to represent processing speed, and the
assumption is that the faster a person can react correctly to stimuli, the faster that person
can process information. The faster information is correctly processed, the faster
problems can to be solved, and this is reflected in higher scores on measures of general
intelligence.
Specific aspects of reaction time are able to account for unique variance in
measures of general intelligence. Jensen (1992) found that the intraindividual median
(RTmd) and standard deviation (RTSD) for a measure of reaction time were each able to
account for unique variance in the Advanced Progressive Matrices even though these two
variables are highly correlated with each other. The estimated proportion of variance in
the Advanced Progressive Matrices accounted for by both reaction time variables is 0.400
(Jensen, 1992). Of the variance accounted for in the Advanced Progressive Matrices,
63.5% was common to both RTmd and RTSD. The remaining 36.5% of the variance was
24
specific to the individual reaction time variables–17.1% was specific to RTmd and 19.4%
was specific to RTSD. Jensen views RTmd and RTSD as representing similar yet
independent cognitive processes. While Jensen favors the use of reaction time variables
to account for large portions of differences in general intelligence, he agrees that it is
likely that additional cognitive processes are also involved in general intelligence.
Jenson’s (1992) stand on the structure of general intelligence is stated below:
The fact that RTmd and RTSD reflect different processes that are independently
correlated with psychometric g is in agreement with empirical findings by
Kranzler and Jensen (1991; … ) that g does not represent a unitary process but is a
composite effect of a number of uncorrelated elementary cognitive processes. We
would infer that these processes must involve some neurologically independent
mechanisms (p. 879).
As Jensen’s work demonstrates, processing speed may uniquely influence a variety of
similar, yet distinct, cognitive processes.
Several elements of broad visual perception are influenced by processing speed.
For example, the ability to extract and process visual information quickly is important
when making visual comparisons, identifying shapes, and mentally rearranging objects.
According to Carroll’s model of human cognitive abilities, the components of visual
perception are likely to involve similar yet distinct cognitive processes. Four of the five
25
subfactors examined in the present study were influenced by processing speed. Carroll
(1993) addresses the processing speed issue in the following statement:
Given that [spatial relations] SR, [speed of closure] CS, [flexibility of closure]
CF, and [perceptual speed] P are all concerned with speed of performance, it
appears that these factors have to do with speeds of different processes. SR
concerns speed in simple decisions concerning turning over and rotating spatial
forms; CS concerns speed in arriving at the apprehension of a single spatial form
that is disguised or obscured in a visual presentation; CF concerns speed in
disembedding a known form that is disguised by “geometrical camouflaging”; and
P concerns searching visual presentations for comparisons with a given form.
(p.315)
Beyond the shared influence of processing speed on the visual perception subfactors
above, each subfactor represents a distinct aspect of visual perception. However, when
making pairwise comparisons between the visual perception subfactors, some other
similarities are revealed and will be examined below.
Perceptual closure is the process of identifying whole objects from incomplete
renditions of abstract forms (Wasserstein, Barr, Zappulla, & Rock, 2004). Complete or
unified closure occurs when all of the elements in a perceptual field are perceived as a
whole (Ekstrom, French, Harman, & Dermen, 1976, p. 25). For the purpose of the present
26
study, a visual-perceptual field will encompass “all the domains where the …
[participants] perceive or work upon visually or spatially presented figures or structures
… in paper-and-pencil tests” (Werdelin, 1958, p. 68).The present study examined two
closure-based subfactors: speed of closure and flexibility of closure. Both of the closure-
based subfactors involve matching a mental image to an area within a visual-perceptual
field. In order to be able to make a clear distinction between the closure-based subfactors,
some subtle but important differences must be understood. First, speed of closure is
thought to use long-term visual memory whereas flexibility of closure is believed to rely
on short-term memory (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 25; Carroll, 1974). Speed of closure
involves scanning a visual-perceptual field to identify a familiar form from long-term
memory that has been degraded or camouflaged in some manner. Flexibility of closure
requires capturing a novel geometrical form in short-term memory, so it can be isolated
and extracted from within a complex visual-perceptual field. A speed of closure task does
not provide any information about what the degraded or camouflaged object is. In a
flexibility of closure task, a well defined novel form is presented that must then be
retained in short-term memory, so it can be identified within a complex visual-perceptual
field. In addition to the similarities between the closure-based subfactors, they each share
some similarities with perceptual speed.
Speed of closure and perceptual speed are similar in that they both involve
scanning a visual-perceptual field to make a match between a mental image and a visual
image. However, speed of closure relies on long-term memory and perceptual speed
27
employs short-term memory. Furthermore, speed of closure uses partial information
about the form to be matched in that it will be degraded in some manner. Perceptual
speed relies on short-term memory to make a direct comparison of two well defined
objects without any distracting information in the visual-perceptual field. For example,
one of the speed of closure tasks selected for the present study requires the identification
of an unknown form within a visual-perceptual field that has been degraded by snow-like
spatters; whereas, one of the perceptual speed tasks involves matching two pictures of
identical forms without being distracted by other information (e.g., snow-like spatters) in
the visual-perceptual field.
Flexibility of closure and perceptual speed are similar in that they both involve
scanning a visual-perceptual field to make visual matches between known mental and
visual images, and both rely on short-term memory to make the visual matches. These
two subfactors can be distinguished in that flexibility of closure involves isolating and
disconnecting a form from a complex visual-perceptual field while perceptual speed
involves identifying where matches occur within a plain visual-perceptual field. For
example, one of the flexibility of closure tasks selected for the present study involves
correctly positioning a well defined geometric form and copying it onto a distracting
visual-perceptual field (i.e., an array of dots). Conversely, one of the perceptual speed
tasks allows for direct comparisons to be made between a series of alphanumeric symbols
in order to locate matching pairs within a plan visual-perceptual field.

28
The two image-based subfactors, visualization and spatial relations, share several
similarities making them difficult to distinguish at first glance. Recognizing three
fundamental differences between these visual perceptual abilities will help to better
identify them. First, as visualization is defined, this subfactor is generally not influenced
by speed of performance in the same way that perceptual speed, speed of closure,
flexibility of closure, and spatial relations are. Tasks measuring these constructs are all
timed; however, the time-limits used for visualization tasks are much longer than those
used for measures of spatial relations. Second, while both visualization and spatial
relations tasks involve mental manipulation, visualization requires mentally rotating
many parts of a whole within the visual-perceptual field whereas spatial relations involve
the mental manipulation of a single object within a given space. Lastly, visualization
tasks require the mental manipulations to occur in a step-by-step fashion, but spatial
relations tasks do not involve any serial operations.
The hierarchical model from which the five visual perception abilities examined
by the current study were drawn, Carroll’s 1993 Three-Stratum Theory Model: The
Structure of Human Cognitive Abilities, spans from a general intelligence factor to an
organized and detailed structure of distinct cognitive abilities. The general intelligence
factor represents the general cognitive ability involved in all cognitive or intellectual
activities. The distinct cognitive abilities represent specific cognitive components or
abilities involved in specialized tasks. The visual perception subfactors outlined above
are distinct cognitive components captured in Carroll’s Broad Visual Perception factor.
29
For the purpose of the present study, these visual perception subfactors represent distinct
aspects of global spatial ability believed to influence performance of mathematics tasks.
Mathematical Ability
The Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms (1974) defines mathematics as the
“science of numbers and the operations performed on them,” and mathematics-concepts
as the “specific principles that are cognitively internalized or are able to be learned
concerning numbers, their relations, and mathematical operations performed on them”
(Walker, 1997). Practically speaking, everyday life requires some understanding of
mathematics-concepts and some familiarity with performing mathematics operations.
However, the degree to which an individual is able to apply knowledge of mathematics—
or mathematics skills—correctly will vary significantly from person to person. It should
also be noted that, though skill and ability are sometimes used interchangeably, this
author considers mathematics skill to be different from mathematical ability. Skill
represents a person’s basic capacity to perform learned tasks and is acquired by way of
training and/or experience. Mathematical ability is not simply a matter of applying
mathematics skills to solve numerical problems. Ability represents a person’s natural
predisposition to perform a given task. For example, while mathematics skills can
certainly be taught and learned, some individuals appear to possess an underlying
intrinsic capacity to solve mathematics problems with greater ease than others (Barakat,
30
1951; Fuchs, 2005). An individual’s mathematical ability is likely to influence the ease
with which he or she acquires mathematics skills.
Several types of mathematics are generally encountered over the course of formal
education—including arithmetic, algebra, geometry, statistics, calculus, and
trigonometry. While these different areas are all based on fundamental mathematics-
concepts, each area of study also possesses unique rules and is applied in different
situations. Mathematical ability is believed to span across all types of mathematics
operations, so research in this area has traditionally employed broad definitions of
mathematical ability. Werdelin’s 1958 definition of mathematical ability captures the
many categories of mathematics traditionally researched:
The mathematical ability is the ability to understand the nature of mathematical
(and similar) problems, symbols, methods and proofs; to learn them, to retain
them in the memory and to reproduce them; to combine them with other
problems, symbols, methods and proofs; and to use them when solving
mathematical (and similar) tasks. (p.13)
Werdelin’s (1958) definition will be employed by the present study to outline the range
of mathematics-concepts and mathematics operations that will be examined. As the above
definition makes clear, any examination of mathematical ability must recognize that the
performance of mathematics operations is likely to be influenced by several
psychological factors.
31
Empirical evidence demonstrates that factors such as education, motivation, use
of strategies, general intelligence, and specific cognitive abilities all play a role in
shaping mathematics achievement (Anastssi, A., 1948; Barakat, 1951; Dai, 2006; Spelke
& Grace, 2006; Werdelin, 1958). Throughout the mathematical ability literature, robust
associations between general intelligence, global spatial ability, and mathematical ability
have been consistently identified across studies using both a broad selection of cognitive
measures and participants with a wide range of ability and skill levels and a variety of
demographic characteristics (Humphreys et al., 1993; Lubinski, 2004; Mazzocco &
Myers, 2003; Werdelin, 1958).
Many early studies identified a global spatial ability as a cognitive component
associated with mathematical ability (Barakat, 1951; Estes, 1924; Fruchter, 1954;
Woodrow, 1939). Werdelin (1958) reviewed the early mathematical ability literature in
great detail in The Mathematical Ability: Experimental and Factorial Studies. He
presents a series of observational, psychometric, and factor analytic studies to illustrate
the multiple cognitive components associated with mathematical ability. While an
extensive literature investigates the associations between these constructs, the
relationship remains poorly defined. Even though factor analytic studies have implied a
non-unitary structure for both spatial and mathematical abilities, these constructs have
predominantly been studied as global constructs (Barakat, 1951; Carroll, 1993; Werdelin,
1958). It is difficult to hone in on the underpinnings of the relationship between spatial

32
and mathematical abilities without first identifying their basic elements—an approach
which has been neglected thus far.
While the association between mathematical ability and global spatial ability has
been extensively studied, there are still many unanswered questions when it comes to
defining this relationship. For example, do all aspects of global spatial ability influence
performance in all areas of mathematics equally, and do all types of mathematics
operations involve some form of spatial ability? The inability to answer such fundamental
questions is a clear indication that the relationship between mathematics ability and
global spatial ability is not a direct or superficial association. Therefore, the application
of spatial solution strategies when solving mathematics problems is not necessarily going
to improve one’s performance.
Individuals apply different types of solution strategies when performing
mathematics operations. Not all solution strategies are equally effective. This is also true
of solution strategies involving spatial skills. For example, two types of visual-spatial
imagery commonly employed when solving mathematics word problems—schematic
imagery and pictorial imagery—do not produce the same results. Both of these strategies
attempt to capture the spatial information needed to solve mathematics word problem.
Pictorial imagery involves mentally generating a detailed spatial representation of the
information presented in the word problem (Hegarty & Kozhevnikov, 1999). Schematic
imagery is a mental depiction of the spatial relationships between objects and

33
modifications presented in the word problem. Schematic imagery is more effective as a
solution strategy because it includes only the pertinent information. Conversely, the
detailed representations created with pictorial imagery include distracting information.
Hegarty & Kozhevnikov’s (1999) findings differentiate which spatial solution strategy
was most effective when solving mathematics word problems, but it is not clear as to
whether or not these findings can be applied to other types of mathematics from simple
arithmetic computations to more complex areas such as geometry or calculus.
Furthermore, while a distinction can be made between these two types of spatial imagery,
there is no definition as to what aspects of global spatial ability are employed when
applying these spatial strategies to solve mathematics problems.
Study Aims
The literature has identified a robust yet ambiguous association between global
spatial ability and mathematical ability. The purpose of the present study is to examine
how specific aspects of global spatial ability influence mathematics achievement. The
aspects of global spatial ability studied are the five components of visual perception
identified above. One of the goals of the present study will be to determine if information
about the specific visual perception abilities can expand the current understanding of
mathematics achievement. The aspects of global spatial ability will be assessed with
measures of the five visual perception abilities discussed above. Mathematical ability will
be assessed with a selection of mathematics achievement measures described below. The

34
basic elements of spatial ability are expected to differentially map onto the different
categories of mathematics achievement. The design of the present study is a necessary
first step towards identifying the underpinnings of the relationship between global spatial
ability and mathematical ability.

35
Method
Participants
Undergraduate student enrolled in Psychology 101 courses at Case Western
Reserve University (CASE), Cleveland, Ohio received course credit for participating in
the current study. The CASE Institutional Review Board required all participants to be at
least 18 years of age.
Based on a series of a priori power analyses, a minimum of 200 participants will
need to be recruited in order for the proposed analyses to attain sufficient power
(Buchner, Erdfelder, & Faul, 1997a; Buchner, Erdfelder, & Faul, 1997b; Borenstein,
Cohen, Rothstein, Schoenfeld, Berlin, & Lakatos, 2000).
Materials
Participants signed a general consent form and an informed release consent form.
All participants received a copy of both consent forms to keep for their records. The
informed release consent was required by the university’s Institutional Review Board and
the Office of Undergraduate Studies to allow the researcher to collect academic
information scores from the students’ official files. The participants’ age, racial and
ethnic history, and gender were also obtained.

36
The battery of cognitive tasks was administered in group sessions lasting
approximately 2–3 hr. Participants were debriefed upon completion of the battery of
cognitive tests. The debriefing statement contained a brief review of the general goals of
the study, and assured the participants that no deception was employed during the course
of the study. All participants received a copy of the debriefing statement to keep for their
records.
Measures of visual perception. The selection of the visual perception measures
administered in the current study was guided by Carroll’s 1993 survey of studies using
diverse cognitive measures. The following five subfactors identified in Carroll’s analysis
will be examined in the study: perceptual speed, speed of closure, flexibility of closure,
visualization, and spatial relations. These subfactors and their respective measures are
described below.
Perceptual speed is the pace “in comparing figures or symbols, scanning to find
figures or symbols, or carrying out other very simple tasks involving visual perception”
(Ekstrom et al., 1976, pp. 123-131). Perceptual Speed was assessed with the following
measures: Finding A’s Test, Number Comparison Test, and Identical Pictures Test.
The layout of the Finding A’s Test (see Figure 1) consists of a “column of 41
words, the task is to check the 5 words having the letter ‘a’” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p.
37
124). Five practice columns were administered to ensure that the object of the task was
clear to the participants. There are 820 words on this test, and participants were instructed
to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 1 min period.
Figure 1. Example of an item from the Finding A’s test.
Example from Ekstrom, R., French, J. Harman, H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor
referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.
To complete each item on the Number Comparison Test (see Figure 2), the
participant “… inspects pairs of multi-digit numbers and indicates whether the two
numbers in each pair are the same or different” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 124). A page of
38
detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object of the task was clear to
the participants. There are 48 items on this test, and participants were instructed to
complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 1 min period.
Figure 2. Example of an item from the Number Comparison Test.
To complete the items on the Identical Pictures Test (see Figure 3), the participant
“… is to check which one of five numbered geometric figures or pictures in a row is
identical to the given figure at the left end of the row” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 124).
Three detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object of the task was
39
clear to the participants. There are 48 items on this test, and participants were instructed
to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 1 min period.
Figure 3. Example of an item from the Identical Pictures Test.
Speed of closure is an “ability to unite an apparently disparate perceptual field
into a single concept” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, pp. 25-31). Speed of Closure was assessed
with the following measures: Gestalt Completion Test, Concealed Words Test, and
Snowy Pictures Test.
On the Gestalt Completion Test (see Figure 4), “Drawings are presented which
are composed of black blotches representing parts of the objects being portrayed. The
participant “… writes down the name of the object, being as specific about them as
possible” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 26). Two detailed practice items were administered to
ensure that the object of the task was clear to the participants. There are 10 items on this
test, and participants were instructed to complete as many items as possible, without
sacrificing accuracy, in a 1 min period.

40
FLAG HAMMER HEAD
Figure 4. Example from the Gestalt Completion Test.
On the Concealed Words Test (see Figure 5), “Words are presented with parts of
each letter missing … [and the participant] is to write out the full word in an adjacent
space” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 26). Three detailed practice items were administered to
sacrificing accuracy, in a 2 min period.

41
Figure 5. An example from the Concealed Words Test.
On the Snowy Pictures Test (see Figure 6), the participant “… is asked to identify
objects which are partly obliterated by snow-like spatters” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 26).
Two detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object of the task was
clear to the participants. There are 12 items on this test, and participants were instructed
to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 1.5 min period.
ANCHOR BOAT or ROWBOAT
Figure 6. An example from the Snowy Pictures Test.

42
Flexibility of closure is an “ability to hold a given visual percept or configuration
in mind so as to … [dissemble] it from other well defined perceptual material” (Ekstrom
et al., 1976, pp. 19-24). Flexibility of Closure was assessed by the following measures:
Hidden Figures Test, Hidden Patterns Test, and Copying Test.
To complete an item on The Hidden Figures Test (see Figure 7), one must
“decide which of 5 geometrical figures is embedded in a complex pattern” (Ekstrom et
al., 1976, p. 20). Four detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object
of the task was clear to the participants. There are 16 items on this test, and participants
were instructed to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a
6 min period.
43
Figure 7. An example from the Hidden Figures Test.
On the Hidden Patterns Test (see Figure 8), “Each item consists of a given
geometrical pattern in some of which a single given configuration is embedded. The task
is to mark, for each pattern, whether or not the configuration occurs” (Ekstrom et al.,
1976, p. 20). Ten detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object of
the task was clear to the participants. There are 200 items on this test, and participants
were instructed to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a
1.5 min period.

44
Figure 8. An example from the Hidden Patterns Test.
On the Copying Test (see Figure 9), “Each item consists of a four-line
geometrical configuration and a square matrix of dots. The task is to copy the figure onto
the dots” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 20). Five detailed practice items were administered to
sacrificing accuracy, in a 1.5 min period.

45
Figure 9. An example from the Copying Test.
Visualization is an “ability to manipulate or transform the image of spatial
patterns into other arrangements” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, pp. 173-179). Visualization was
assessed with the following measures: Form Board Test, Paper Folding Test, and Surface
Development Test).
Each item on the Form Board Test (see Figure 10) “presents 5 shaded drawings of
pieces, some or all of which can be put together to form a figure presented in outline
form. The task is to indicate which of the pieces, when fitted together, would form the
outline” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 174). Three series of detailed practice items were
administered to ensure that the object of the task was clear to the participants. There are
120 items on this test, and participants were instructed to complete as many items as
possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 4 min period.

46
Figure 10. An example from the Form Board Test.
Each item on the Paper Folding Test has (see Figure 11):
… successive drawings [to] illustrate two or three folds made in a square sheet of
paper. The final drawing of the folded paper shows where a hole is punched in it.
The subject selects one of the 5 drawings to show how the punched sheets would
appear when fully reopened. (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 174)

47
A detailed practice item was administered to ensure that the object of the task was clear
to the participants. There are 10 items on this test, and participants were instructed to
complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 1.5 min period.
Figure 11. An example from the Paper Folding Test.

48
Each item on the Surface Development Test (see Figure 12) presents figures:
… of solid forms that could be made with paper or sheet metal. With each
drawing there is a diagram showing how a piece of paper might be cut and folded
so as to make the solid form. Dotted lines show where the paper is folded. One
part of the diagram is marked to correspond to a marked surface in the drawing.
The subject is to indicate which lettered edges in the drawing correspond to
numbered edges or dotted lines in the diagram. (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 174)
A detailed practice figure was administered to ensure that the object of the task was clear
to the participants. This test has six figures with five edges each, and participants were
instructed to label as many edges a possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 3 min
period.
49
Figure 12. An example from the Surface Development Test.
Spatial relations involve the “ability to perceive spatial patterns or to maintain
orientation with respect to objects in space” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, 149-154). Spatial
relations will be assessed with the following measures: Space Thinking (Flags)
(Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1959), Spatial Relations Test–Colorado Battery (Plomin, Defries,
& Fulker, 1988), Card Rotations Test (Ekstrom et al., 1976, 149-154), and Cube
Comparisons Test (Ekstrom et al., 1976, 149-154).
The Space Thinking (Flags) test (see Figure 13):

50
… presents a flag at the left. At the right are six other flags which represent either
the same or the opposite sides of the flag given at the left. These six flags are all
in different positions. The subject must decide which side, the same or the
opposite, is represented by each of the six flags. He responds by crossing out
either “S” or “O” underneath each flag to indicate same or opposite side of the
flag at the left. (Thurstone & Jeffrey, 1959, p. 1)
Three detailed practice series with six flags each were administered to ensure that the
object of the task was clear to the participants. There are 126 items on this test, and
participants were instructed to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing
accuracy, in a 2.5 min period.
Figure 13. An example from the Flags test.
Example from Thurstone, L. L., & Jeffrey, T. E. (1959). Space Thinking (Flags): Interpretation and
Research Manual (Reid London House Product Numbers: 2101–1120 & 2101–1110). United States of
America: University of Chicago, Measurement Research Division Human Resources Center & University
of North Carolina: The Psychometric Laboratory.

51
Each item on the Spatial Relations Test–Colorado Battery (see Figure 14)
(DeFries, Plomin, Vandenberg, & Kuse, 1981) consists of a target figure representing a
portion of a square and four multiple choice figures. The participant must circle the
multiple choice figure that, when fitted together with the target figure, forms a complete
square. Four detailed practice items were administered to ensure that the object of the
task was clear to the participants. There are 27 items on this test, and participants were
instructed to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy, in a 2.5
min period.
Figure 14. An example from the Spatial Relations Test.
DeFries, J. C., Plomin, R., Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1981). Parent-offspring resemblance for
cognitive abilities in the Colorado Adoption Project: Biological, adoptive and control parents and one-year-
old children. Intelligence, 5, 247-277.
Each item on the Card Rotation Test (see Figure 15):

52
… gives a drawing of a card cut into an irregular shape. To its right are six other
drawings of the same card, sometimes merely rotated and sometimes turned over
to its other side. The … [participant] indicates whether or not the card has been
turned over. (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 150)
Three detailed practice series with eight cards each were administered to ensure that the
object of the task was clear to the participants. There are 80 items on this test, and
participants were instructed to complete as many items as possible, without sacrificing
accuracy, in a 1.5 min period.
Figure 15. An example from the Card Rotations Test.
Each item on the Cube Comparisons Test (see Figure 16) “presents two drawings
of a cube. Assuming no cube can have two faces alike, the … [participant] is to indicate
which items present drawings that can be of the same cube and which present drawings
that cannot be of the same cube” (Ekstrom et al., 1976, p. 150). Three detailed practice
items were administered to ensure that the object of the task was clear to the participants.
53
There are 21 items on this test, and participants were instructed to complete as many
items as possible, without sacrificing accuracy in a 1.5 min period.
Figure 16. An example from the Cube Comparisons Test.
Academic achievement measures. SAT scores for both the mathematics and
critical reading sections were collected as a comprehensive assessment of overall
academic achievement. Mathematics achievement was assessed using the following four
achievement measures: WRAT3–Arithmetic Section (Wilkinson, 1993), Woodcock-
Johnson III–Quantitative Concepts (Number Series Subtest) (Mather & Woodcock,
2001), Woodcock-Johnson III–Quantitative Concepts (Concepts Subtest) (Mather &
Woodcock, 2001), and Woodcock-Johnson III–Applied Problems (Mather & Woodcock,
2001).
The WRAT3–Arithmetic Section is a measure of one’s ability to perform number
computations. All participants received the tan series of testing forms. The WRAT3–
Arithmetic Section was administered untimed. The participants were directed to take as
54
much time as needed to provide an answer for all of the items. The WRAT3–Arithmetic
Section was scored in accordance with the 1993 edition of the test manual.
The three subtests from the Woodcock-Johnson Battery were used to assess skills
believed to be associated with mathematics achievement. In order to complete these tests,
one must have some knowledge of mathematics concepts, symbols, and vocabulary as
well as the ability to analyze and solve mathematics problems. Each item on the
Woodcock-Johnson III–Quantitative Concepts (Number Series Subtest) “requires the
person to look at a series of numbers, figure out the pattern, and then provide the missing
number in the series” (Mather & Woodcock, 2001, p. 15). The items on the Woodcock-
Johnson III–Quantitative Concepts (Concepts Subtest) “… require counting and
identifying numbers, shapes, and sequences … knowledge of mathematical terms and
formulas (Mather & Woodcock, 2001, p. 15). Completing a problem on the
Woodcock-Johnson III–Applied Problems subtest:
… requires the person to analyze and solve math problems. To solve the
problems, the person must … recognize the procedure to be followed, and then
perform relatively simple calculations. Because many of the problems include
extraneous information, the individual must decide not only the appropriate
mathematical operations to use but also which numbers to include in the
calculation. Item difficulty increases with complex calculations (Mather &
Woodcock, 2001, pp. 13-14).

55
The Woodcock-Johnson Battery subtests were all administered untimed, and participants
were directed to take as much time as needed to provide an answer for all of the items on
each subtest.
Measure of general intelligence. As an indicator of general intelligence, the 36
items on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices–Set II (Raven, Raven, & Court,
1998) were administered to all participants. Each item on the Raven’s Advanced
Progressive Matrices has a 3 x 3 matrix with a missing cell. For each item, the
participants were instructed to select from eight possible answers the option which
completed the given matrix. The participants were instructed to use the common features
in the rows, columns, and on the diagonals of the matrix to determine the correct
response for each item. Participants were informed that the problems increase in
difficulty and that there is only one correct solution for each item. The first item was
treated as a sample item. Participants worked through the first item with a detailed set of
instructions to ensure that the object of the task was clear before moving on to the more
difficult items. This test was administered untimed and scored according to the 1998
edition of the test manual. Participants were directed to take as much time as needed to
identify the correct solution for all 36 items.

56
Figure 17. An example from the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices–Set II.
Example from Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices
and Vocabulary Scales: Section 4 Advanced Progressive Matrices sets I & II (1998 ed.). Oxford, UK:
Oxford Psychologists Press Ltd.
Design and Procedures
A folder containing a brief description of the current study and a sign-up sheet
were placed outside the Psychology Department’s main office. Students enrolled in
57
Psychology 101 courses had the option to voluntarily participate in the study by signing
up to attend one of the scheduled testing sessions. Participants were tested in groups.
Testing sessions lasted approximately 2–3 hr. After completing the testing session,
students were debriefed.
Data Preparation and Analyses
Scoring procedures and guessing correction. Each measure was scored according
to the instructions provided in the respective manuals. Even though participants were
instructed to work through each problem set as swiftly as possible without sacrificing
accuracy, guessing may still have occur. For this reason, an adjustment for guessing was
applied to all of the visual perception tests–with the exception of the Finding A’s test.
The purpose of the correction was to reduce inflation of correct responses resulting from
chance when guessing. On the Finding A’s test, participants are not likely to make errors
indicative of guessing (i.e. circle words not containing the letter ‘a’), so no adjustment for
guessing was applied to the Finding A’s test.
The following formula was used to make the guessing correction:
⎡ ⎤
R − ⎢W ⎥ : where R is the number of correct responses, W is the number of
⎣ ( n − 1) ⎦
incorrect responses, and n is the number of response options for each item (Ekstrom et
al., 1976, p. 10).

58
Statistical analyses. An exploratory factor analysis was applied to the data to
determine if the five visual perception subfactors delineated in Carroll’s (1993) three-
stratum theory model of the structure of human cognitive abilities would hold up in the
sample data collected for the present study. Multiple regression analysis techniques were
used to assess the possible relationships between academic achievement and factors of
visual perception abilities. A series of 2-Step hierarchical multiple regressions models
were used to control for general intelligence while predicting the measures of
achievement with factors of visual perception.
Hypotheses and Overview of Analyses
As much as 49% of the variance associated with academic achievement is shared
with general intelligence–leaving over half of the variance in academic achievement
unaccounted for. The literature suggests that academic achievement may also be
influenced by specific cognitive abilities. For example, research has identified a
relationship between mathematics achievement and global measures of spatial ability.
Furthermore, spatial ability itself is a broad construct made up of several separable
components. A selection of five well defined visual perception abilities (perceptual
speed, speed of closure, flexibility of closure, visualization, and spatial relations) were
employed in the current study to explore their relationships with overall academic
59
achievement and more specifically mathematics achievement. The current study is based
on the hypothesis that collectively the five visual perception abilities will
differentially add to the prediction of academic achievement beyond general intelligence.
In order to demonstrate this, the current study explored the relationship between factors
of visual perception ability and mathematics achievement. Ultimately, the goal of the
study was to attempt to refine the current understanding of the extent to which academic
achievement, mathematics achievement, and visual perception abilities are related to one
another.
60
Results
Participants
A total of 266 individuals ( Males = 152 ) participated in the present study.
However, some participants did not have SAT scores, and some participants opted not to
complete all of the tests included in the test battery due to the lengthy time commitment.
Because these situations appear to have occurred randomly, all participants having any
missing data have been excluded from the main analyses presented below.
The following analyses involve the 204 participants ( Males = 118) with complete
sets of scores. These participants range in age from 18 to 27 years of age with a Mean
(M ) age of 19.25 and a Standard Deviation ( SD ) of 1.09 years. The participants
predominantly identified themselves as either Caucasian ( ~ 68.7% ) or Asian ( ~ 26.7% ) ,
and the majority of the participants selected English as their native language ( ~ 83.3% ) .
Sample Characteristics
Restriction of range. The SAT is a nationally normed standardized test such that
the distribution of the SAT Combined scores has an M = 1000 with an SD = 200 , and the
distributions of the SAT Critical Reading scores and SAT Mathematics scores each have
61
an M = 500 and an SD = 100 . In the current sample, the distributions for the SAT
Combined, SAT Critical Reading, and SAT Mathematics scores are all restricted in
range. When comparing the current sample to previous populations of college-bound
seniors, restriction of range is evident because each distribution has an elevated
M coupled with a reduced SD when compared to the expected norms (see Table 1).
62
Table 1
Restriction of Range – Distribution of SAT Scores
Group n M SD
SAT Combineda
2002 College-bound Seniorsc 1,327,831 1020 209
Study Sample 204 1315.54 120.35
SAT Critical Readingb
2006 College-bound Seniorsd 1,465,744 503 113
Study Sample 204 642.06 75.59
SAT Mathematicsb
2006 College-bound Seniorsd 1,465,744 518 115
Study Sample 204 672.01 74.43
Note. The sample Ms and SDs presented above were calculated using scores that were not corrected for age, age squared,
and gender.
a
The normed distribution of SAT Combined scores has an M of 1000 and an SD of 200.
b
The normed distributions of SAT Critical Reading scores and SAT Mathematics scores each have an M of 500 and a SD
of 100. cRetrieved April 2nd, 2007, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2002/2002_TOTAL_GROUP_REPORT.pdf
d
Retrieved April 2nd, 2007, from
http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2006/national-report.pdf.
63
The restriction of range in these measures of academic achievement suggest that the
current sample may perform better on the cognitive measures included in the test battery
than would be expected from a more heterogeneous sample of participants. Due to this
characteristic, attenuation may affect in the analyses presented below.
Data preparation. All variables were corrected for age, age squared, and sex. A
correction for guessing was also applied where appropriate. Each variable was
standardized to have an M = 0 and an SD = 1.
The current sample performed similarly to other college students enrolled in
selective universities on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices. For instance, a
sample of 300 University of California, Berkley, undergraduate students completed Set II
of the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices untimed, and the
resulting M = 27.03 and SD = 5.01 were comparable to the M and SD of the current
sample (see Table 2) (Paul, S. M., 1985).

64
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices
Sample n M SD
University of California, Berkley 300 27.3 5.01
Study Sample 204 24.9 5.90
Note: The Ms and SDs presented above were produced using raw scores uncorrected for age, age squared,
and gender.
Data reduction
Exploratory factor analysis. A diverse assortment of 16 paper-and-pencil tests
were used to assess Carroll’s five subfactors of visual perception: perceptual speed,
flexibility of closure, speed of closure, spatial relations, and visualization. These paper-
and-pencil tests were predominantly selected from a battery of cognitive tests developed
by the Educational Testing Services (see Methods section). Each test score was corrected
for age, age squared, and sex, and the standardized residuals were entered into an
exploratory factor analysis. A principal components extraction technique with Varimax
rotation was used. Eigenvalues greater than one was the criterion used to determine the
appropriate number of factors to be extracted. Additionally, an inspection of the scree
plot was done to determine the distinctness of the individual factors being extracted (see
Appendix A for the complete SPSS output of exploratory factor analysis). Carroll’s
(1993) three-stratum model presents perceptual speed, flexibility of closure, speed of

65
closure, spatial relations, and visualization as five separable visual perceptual constructs.
However, the exploratory factor analyses from the current study produced an alternative
composition with only three separable factors of visual perception (see Table 3). Based
on the theoretical foundations of the visual perceptual measures in the test battery used in
the current study, it appears that the three extracted factors represent Perceptual Speed,
Visualization, and Speed of Closure respectively. In order to highlight the separation of
the specific visual perception measures across the three factors, all factor loadings less
than .5 have been suppressed.
The paper-and-pencil measures loading on the Perceptual Speed factor are a
combination of all of the tests employed to assess perceptual speed, all of the tests used to
66
Table 3
Factor Loadings for an Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Battery of Spatial Tests
Measure and variable 1 2 3
Perceptual Speed
Finding A’sa .798
Number Comparisona .792
a
Identical Pictures .684
Flexibility of Closure
Hidden Figuresb .554
Hidden Patternsb .772
Copying Testb .725
Speed of Closure
Gestalt Completionc .648
Concealed Wordsc .690
Snowy Picturesc .617
Spatial Relations
Flagsd .694
Spatial Relationd .664
Card Rotationsd .792
Cube Comparisonsd .526 .541
Visualization
Form Boarde .609
Paper Foldinge .657
Surface Developmente .769
Note. The factor loadings presented above were calculated using scores corrected for age, age squared, and
gender. All variables were standardized to have an M of zero and an SD of one. All factor loadings with an
absolute value less than .50 were suppressed.
a
Measures of perceptual speed. bMeasures of flexibility of closure. cMeasures of speed of closure.
d
Measures of spatial relations. eMeasures of visualization.
n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
67
measure flexibility of closure, as well as two tests intended to evaluate spatial relations.
While the flexibility of closure and spatial relation tests were designed to measure unique
constructs of visual perception, these tests do share a time component which may help to
explain why they all loaded heaviest on the same factor as the tasks specifically designed
to assess perceptual speed.
The second factor appears to represent visualization. All of the tasks designed to
evaluate visualization are heavily loaded on this factor. Two of the measures designated
to assess spatial relations also load heavily on the Visualization factor. One possible
explanation for this may be that the two spatial relations tasks that load on the
Visualization factor are more complex in that they involve a step-by-step process that is
similar to what is needed to perform visualization tasks.
The third factor represents speed of closure and it is the most straightforward of
the three factors in that the only measures loading on it are all designed to evaluate speed
of closure.
Predicting Achievement with Visual Perception
Multiple Regression Analyses. In this sample of young adults, there is evidence
for three of the five components of visual perception considered by the present study.
Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure were the three visual perception
factors derived from the battery of spatial ability measures studied. Multiple regression
68
techniques were then applied to evaluate the predictive capacity of these factors of visual
perception in relation to various aspects of achievement.
In the current study, the scores for the following measures of achievement were
collected from each of the participants: SAT Combined scores, SAT Critical Reading
scores, SAT Mathematics scores, WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores, WCJ-III Applied
Problems scores, WCJ-III Quantitative Concepts scores, and WCJ-III Number Series
scores. These measures are commonly used to assess overall academic achievement as
well as verbal achievement and skills associated with mathematics achievement
respectively. In the regression models presented below, the dependent variables are the
standardized residuals of the scores for each achievement measure after statistically
correcting for age, age squared, and sex. The independent variables are the factor scores
for Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure. A matrix of the Pearson
correlation coefficients for the dependent and independent variables entered in the
following regression models can be found in Appendix B—Table 1.
Two types of regression models were used to predict each measure of
achievement. The results are presented below in pairs of tables, so easy comparisons can
be made across the two models. In each pair of tables, the first table reports the results
from a simple multiple regression model predicting one of the measures of achievement
with the independent variables: Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure.
These independent variables were simultaneously entered into a simple multiple

69
regression model to collectively predict performance on each measure of achievement.
This regression model was used to identify which, if any, of the visual perception factors
were valuable predictors of the given measure of achievement.
The second table in each pair reports the results from a two-step hierarchical
multiple regression model. Again, the dependent variables are the standardized residuals
of the scores obtained on the achievement measures after statistically correcting for age,
age squared, and sex. The independent variables entered in the two-step hierarchical
multiple regression models include the factor scores for the three visual perception
factors: Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure. In addition to the three
factors of visual perception, a measure of general intelligence was used as a control
variable. For the purpose of this study, scores from the Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices–Set II (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998) were employed to represent general
intelligence. The scores from the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices were also
corrected for age, age squared, and sex; and the standardized residuals were entered into
the hierarchical multiple regression models.
Essentially, the use of hierarchical multiple regression techniques allowed for
general intelligence to be statistically controlled for in step one. In the second step of the
model, the dependent variable is predicted by the visual perception factors identified as
significant predictors ( p < .05 ) in the corresponding simple multiple regression model.
70
The ΔR 2 for step two represents the amount of unique variance accounted for by the
predictors used in step two after controlling for the influence of general intelligence.
The purpose of comparing the initial regression models to their corresponding
two-step hierarchical multiple regression models was to determine if the significant
visual perception factors would continue to account for additional variance in the given
achievement measure after statistically controlling for general intelligence. Since overall
academic achievement and general intelligence tend to significantly correlate, comparing
the regression results in this manner offers a unique perspective on the relationships
which exist across general intelligence, aspects of achievement, and the three factors of
visual perception being investigated.
SAT Combined scores. For the purpose of the current study, SAT Combined
scores correspond to overall academic achievement. When predicting SAT Combined
scores with Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure; approximately
15.6% ( p < .01) of the variance could be accounted for (see Table 4a). In this regression
model, Perceptual Speed was not a significant predictor. Visualization ( β = .360, p < .01)
and Speed of Closure ( β = .194, p < .01) were both identified as valuable predictors of
overall academic achievement.

71
Table 4a
Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and Speed of Closure (Factor 3)
β ( p − value )
2
Dependent Variable R Adjusted R 2 Independent Variables
SAT Combined Scores
.168** .156**
Perceptual Speed .031 (.629)
Visualization .360** (.000)
Speed of Closure .194** (.003)
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Given the results for the simple multiple regression model presented in Table 4a,
a two-step hierarchical multiple regression model was used to determine if Visualization
and Speed of Closure would continue to be significant predictors ( p < .05 ) of overall
academic achievement after controlling for general intelligence. A total of approximately
17.5% ( p < .01) of the variance associated with SAT Combined scores could be
accounted for by this model (see Table 4b). After controlling for general
intelligence ( β = .279, p < .01) in step one of the model, Visualization
(β = .317, p < .01) and Speed of Closure (β = .168, p < .05) continued to be valuable
predictors of this measure. General intelligence accounted for 7.8% ( p < .01) of the total
72
variance, and Visualization and Speed of Closure accounted for an additional
9.7% ( p < .01) of the variance in overall academic achievement. The unique variance
accounted for by Visualization and Speed of Closure in step two of the model represents
approximately 55.4% of the total variance accounted for.
Table 4b
Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors Visualization and
Speed of Closure While Controlling for General Intelligence
Dependent Variable Independent Variable β ( p − value ) Total Variance
SAT Combined Scores
Step 1: R 2 = .078**
Raven’s .279** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .097**
Speed of Closure .168* (.013)
Total R 2 = .175**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
SAT Critical Reading scores. For the purpose of the current study, SAT Critical
Reading scores correspond to verbal achievement. When predicting SAT Critical

73
Reading scores with Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure;
approximately 8.7% ( p < .01) of the variance could be accounted for (see Table 5a). In
this multiple regression model, Perceptual Speed operated as a suppressor variable.
Visualization ( β = .231, p < .01) and Speed of Closure ( β = .197, p < .01) were both
identified as valuable predictors of verbal achievement.
Table 5a
Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
SAT Critical Reading Scores
.100** .087**
Perceptual Speed -.089 (.187)
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Given the results for the simple regression model presented in Table 5a, a two-
step hierarchical multiple regression model was used to determine if Visualization and
Speed of Closure would continue to be significant predictors of verbal achievement after

74
controlling for general intelligence. A total of approximately 9.3% ( p < .01) of the
variance associated with SAT Critical Reading scores could be accounted for by this
model (see Table 5b). After controlling for general intelligence ( β = .137, p = .05) in step
one of the model, Visualization ( β = .238, p < .01) and Speed of Closure
(β = .201, p < .01) continued to be valuable predictors of this measure. General
intelligence accounted for 1.9% ( p = .05) of total variance, and Visualization and Speed
of Closure accounted for an additional 7.4% ( p < .01) of the variance in verbal
achievement. The unique variance accounted for by Visualization and Speed of Closure
in step two of the model represents approximately 79.6% of the total variance accounted
for.
75
Table 5b
Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception Factors Visualization
and Speed of Closure While Controlling for General Intelligence
SAT Critical Reading Scores
Step 1: R 2 = .019*
Raven’s .137* (.050)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .074**
Total R 2 = .093**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
SAT Mathematics scores. For the purpose of the current study, SAT Mathematics
scores correspond to mathematics achievement. When predicting SAT Mathematics
scores with Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure; approximately
16.9% ( p < .01) of the variance could be accounted for (see Table 6a). In this multiple
regression model, all three visual perception factors were significant predictors of
mathematics achievement: Perceptual Speed ( β = .159, p < .05) , Visualization
(β = .372, p < .01) , and Speed of Closure (β = .132, p < .05) .

76
Table 6a
Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
SAT Mathematics Scores
.181** .169**
Perceptual Speed .159* (.014)
Speed of Closure .132* (.040)
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
a two-step hierarchical multiple regression model was used to determine if Perceptual
Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure would continue to be significant predictors of
mathematics achievement after controlling for general intelligence. A total of
approximately 20.4% ( p < .01) of the variance associated with SAT Mathematics scores
could be accounted for by this model (see Table 6b). After controlling for general
intelligence ( β = .327, p < .01) in step one of the model, Perceptual Speed
(β = .155, p < .05) and Visualization (β = .298, p < .01) continued to be valuable
predictors of this measure. General intelligence accounted for 10.7% ( p < .01) of total
77
variance, and the three factors of visual perception accounted for an additional
9.7% ( p < .01) of the variance in mathematics achievement. The unique variance
accounted for by the three factors of visual perception in step two of the model represents
approximately 47.5% of the total variance accounted for.
Table 6b
Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors Perceptual Speed,
Visualization, and Speed of Closure While Controlling for General Intelligence
SAT Mathematics Scores
Step 1: R 2 = .107**
Raven’s .327** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .097**
Speed of Closure .087 (.190)
Total R 2 = .204**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

78
WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores. For the purpose of the current study, WCJ-III:
Applied Problems scores correspond to the ability to identify relevant information and
apply appropriate mathematics operations to solve a variety of mathematics problems.
When predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores with Perceptual Speed,
Visualization, and Speed of Closure; approximately 9.2% ( p < .01) of the variance could
be accounted for (see Table 7a). In this regression model, Speed of Closure was not a
significant predictor. Perceptual Seed ( β = .121, p < .10 ) approached significance
suggesting that it may have some predictive value. Visualization ( β = .295, p < .01) was
the only factor of visual perception to actually reach statistical significance when
predicting these mathematics skills.

79
Table 7a
Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
WCJ-III Applied Problems Scores
.105** .092**
Perceptual Speed .121† (.073)
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Given the results for the simple multiple regression models presented in Table 7a,
Speed and Visualization would continue to be significant predictors of WCJ-III: Applied
Problems scores after controlling for general intelligence. A total of approximately
19.9% ( p < .01) of the variance associated with WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores could
be accounted for by this model (see Table 7b). After controlling for general intelligence
(β = .411, p < .01) in step one of the model, Visualization (β = .149, p < .05) continued to
be a valuable predictor of this measure, and Perceptual Speed ( β = .114, p < .10 ) again
approached significance. General intelligence accounted for 16.9% ( p < .01) of total
80
variance, and Perceptual Speed and Visualization accounted for an additional
3.1% ( p < .05) of the variance in WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores. The unique
variance accounted for by Perceptual Speed and Visualization in step two of the model
represents approximately 15.6% of the total variance accounted for.
Table 7b
Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual Perception Factors Perceptual
Speed and Visualization While Controlling for General Intelligence
WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores
Step 1: R 2 = .169**
Raven’s .411** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .031*
Perceptual Speed .114† (.073)
Visualization .149* (.035)
Total R 2 = .199**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores. For the purpose of the current study,
WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores correspond to the ability to work with numbers,
81
shapes, and sequences and to demonstrate knowledge of mathematics terminology. When
predicting WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores with Perceptual Speed, Visualization,
and Speed of Closure; approximately 8.1% ( p < .01) of the variance could be accounted
for (see Table 8a). In this simple multiple regression model, Perceptual Speed was not a
significant predictor. Visualization ( β = .233, p < .01) and Speed of Closure
(β = .199, p < .01) were both identified as valuable predictors of these mathematics
skills.
Table 8a
Predicting WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores
.095** .081**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

82
Given the results for the simple regression model presented in Table 8a, a two-
step hierarchical multiple regression model was used to determine if Visualization and
Speed of Closure would continue to be significant predictors of WCJ-III: Quantitative
Concepts scores after controlling for general intelligence. A total of approximately
18.2% ( p < .01) of the variance associated with WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores
could be accounted for by this model (see Table 8b). After controlling for general
intelligence ( β = .407, p < .01) in step one of the model, Visualization was not a
significant predictor of these mathematics skills. However, Speed of Closure
(β = .111, p < .10 ) did approach significance suggesting that this measure of visual
perception may hold some level of predictive potential in relation to these mathematics
skills. It should be noted that general intelligence accounted for 16.6% ( p < .01) of total
variance, but no unique variance was accounted for in step two of this model.
83
Table 8b
Predicting WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores with Visual Perception Factors
Visualization and Speed of Closure While Controlling for General Intelligence
WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts Scores
Step 1: R 2 = .166**
Raven’s .407** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .016
Visualization .089 (.212)
Speed of Closure .111† (.098)
Total R 2 = .182**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
WCJ-III: Number Series scores. For the purpose of the current study, WCJ-III:
Number Series scores correspond to the ability to identify a numeric pattern from a
specific sequence of numbers. The three factors of visual perception did not account for a
significant amount of variance (see Table 9a). However, when predicting this measure
with general intelligence ( β = .131, p < .01) alone, 36.8% ( p < .01) of the variance
could be accounted for (see Table 9b).

84
Table 9a
Predicting WCJ-III: Number Series Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
WCJ-III: Number Series Scores
.019 .005
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 9b
Predicting WCJ-III: Number Series Scores with General Intelligence
β ( p − value )
2
WCJ-III: Number Series Scores
.136** .131**
Raven’s .368** (.000)
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

85
WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores. For the purpose of the current study, WRAT-
3 Arithmetic Section scores correspond to the ability to perform a diverse collection of
complex number computations. When predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores
with Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure; approximately
5.9% ( p < .01) of the variance could be accounted for (see Table 10a). In this simple
multiple regression model, Speed of Closure was not a significant predictor. Perceptual
Speed ( β = .145, p < .05) and Visualization ( β = .206, p < .01) were both identified as
valuable predictors of these mathematics skills.
Table 10a
Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section Scores with Visual Perception Factors:
β ( p − value )
2
WRAT-3 Arithmetic Scores
.072** .059**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

86
Speed and Visualization would continue to be significant predictors of WRAT-3
Arithmetic Section scores after controlling for general intelligence. A total of
approximately 15.4% ( p < .01) of the variance associated with WRAT-3 Arithmetic
Section scores could be accounted for by this model (see Table 10b). After controlling for
general intelligence ( β = .362, p < .01) in step one of the model, Visualization was no
longer a significant predictor of WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores. Perceptual Speed
(β = .139, p < .05) continued to be a valuable predictor of this measure. General
intelligence ( β = .362, p < .01) accounted for 13.1% ( p < .01) of total variance; however,
no unique variance was accounted for by this model.

87
Table 10b
Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Scores with Visual Perception Factors Perceptual Speed
and Visualization While Controlling for General Intelligence
Step 1: R 2 = .131**
Raven’s .362** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .023†
Total R 2 = .154**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Perceptual Speed was a significant predictor of WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section
score in both Table 10a and Table 10b. An additional two-step hierarchical multiple
regression model was run to determine if predicting the scores for this measure with
Perceptual Speed alone could account for a significant amount of additional variance
after controlling for general intelligence (see Table 10c). In this hierarchical multiple
regression model, Perceptual Speed accounts for 1.9% ( p < .05) of unique variance
88
which is approximately 12.7% of the 15.0% ( p < .01) of total variance account for by
this model.
Table 10c
Repeat Predicting WRAT-3 Arithmetic Scores with the Visual Perception Factor
Perceptual Speed While Controlling for General Intelligence
Step 1: R 2 = .131**
Raven’s .362** (.000)
Step 2 : ΔR 2 = .019*
Total R 2 = .150**
Note. n = 204. †p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual Perception
In the current sample, Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure
emerged as separable components of visual perception. Each of these factors varies quite
a bit in terms of its capacity to predict the different measures of academic achievement
89
being studied. The results for the simple multiple regression models showed that
collectively; Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure accounted for
between 5.9% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores to
16.9% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in SAT Mathematics scores. Of the seven measures of
academic achievement being studied, there was only one case where these factors did not
account for a significant amount of variance—WCJ-III Number Series scores. The results
for the simple multiple regression models presented above indicate that: 1) Perceptual
Speed was a relatively weak predictor of academic achievement, 2) Speed of Closure is a
moderate and somewhat consistent predictor of academic achievement, and 3)
Visualization is the strongest and most consistent predictor of all of the measures of
academic achievement with the exception of the WCJ-III: Number Series scores.
The results for the hierarchical multiple regression models are more complicated
because one must consider the total variance accounted for by the model as well as the
variance controlled for in step one and the unique variance accounted for in step two. All
of the models accounted for a significant amount of total variance ranging between
9.3% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in SAT Critical Reading scores to 20.4% ( p < .00 ) of the
variance in SAT Mathematics scores. Controlling for the variance associated with general
intelligence in step one of the hierarchical multiple regression models accounted for
significant amounts of variance in all seven models ranging from 1.9% ( p < .05) of the
variance in SAT Critical Reading scores to 16.9% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in WCJ-III
90
Quantitative Concepts scores. After statistically controlling for general intelligence in
step one, the variance accounted for in step two is completely unique to the visual
perception factors predicting each measure of academic achievement.
The amount of unique variance accounted for, or the ΔR 2 , is the most valuable
piece of information gained from the hierarchical multiple regression models. The unique
variance accounted for is a direct indication of the predictive capacity the visual
perception factors have in relation to the specific measures of achievement. When
considering the amount of unique variance accounted for in step two of the hierarchical
multiple regression models presented above, one must take into account that there are
different independent variables used from one hierarchical multiple regression model to
the next. After controlling for general intelligence in step one of the hierarchical multiple
regression models, the independent variables entered in step two depended on the
predictive value of the three visual perception factors in relation to the specific measure
of academic achievement being predicted. With this in mind, it is important to recognize
that a significant amount of unique variance could be accounted for by some combination
of the factors of visual perception when predicting five out of seven of the measures of
achievement: 9.7% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in SAT Combined scores,
7.4% ( p < .00 ) of the variance in SAT Critical Reading scores, 9.7% ( p < .00 ) of the
variance in SAT Mathematics scores, 3.1% ( p < .05) of the variance in WCJ-III Applied
Problems scores, and 2.3% ( p < .10 ) of the variance in WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section
91
scores. No unique variance could be accounted for in the models predicting either the
WCJ-III Quantitative Concepts scores or the WCJ-III Number Series scores.
It is also interesting to note how much of the total variance is explained by the
unique variance. The unique variance accounted for in step two of the hierarchical
multiple regression models are as follows: 55.4% of the total variance in SAT Combined
scores, 79.6% of the total variance in SAT Critical Reading scores, 47.5% of the
variance total in SAT Mathematics scores, 15.6% of the total variance in WCJ-III
Applied Problems scores, and 14.9% of the total variance in WRAT-3 Arithmetic
Section scores.
Of the three visual perception factors, Visualization was the strongest and most
consistent predictor after controlling for general intelligence.

92
Discussion
The literature examining the overall relationship between spatial ability and
mathematics achievement often focuses on gifted populations (see Lubinski, 2001, Shea,
Lubinski, & Benbow, 2001). Studies investigating these broad constructs tend to use
global measures of spatial ability and comprehensive assessments of mathematics
achievement. The present study used a different approach and systematically studied the
relationships between a set of measures carefully selected to assess several distinct,
empirically derived, spatial ability constructs and mathematics achievement tests
composed of problems tapping specific components of mathematics. Collectively, this
battery was designed to assess which aspects of spatial ability are the most valuable
predictors of an individual’s performance on the different measures of mathematics
achievement. Additionally, the predictive capacity of the components of spatial ability
was considered in relation to measures of both verbal and mathematics achievement—
represented by the SAT Critical Reading scores and SAT Mathematics scores
respectively. Lastly, the influence of general intelligence on the connection between the
components of spatial ability and the measures of academic achievement was taken into
consideration in order to identify the essential elements of spatial ability implicated in
verbal achievement and mathematics achievement.

93
Major Findings—Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual Perception
The present study identified three separable factors of spatial ability: Perceptual
Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure (see Table 3). Once these specific
components of spatial ability were identified, multiple regression techniques were applied
to the data. Regression analyses were used to determine how informative these three
factors of spatial ability (Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure) were in
relation to the components of mathematics assessed: solving applied mathematics
problems (SAT Mathematics and WCJ-III: Applied Problems subtests), correctly
identifying or explaining mathematics-concepts, (WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts and
WRAT-3: Arithmetic section), and the application of basic number comprehension
(WCJ-III: Number Series subtest). General intelligence was controlled for in a series of
hierarchical multiple regression models. Two-step hierarchical multiple regression
models were assessed controlling for general intelligence in step 1 and predicting the
individual measures of academic achievement with components of spatial ability in step
2. Direct comparisons were then made between the series of simple multiple regression
models and the series of the hierarchical multiple regression models to gain a better
understanding of the relationships between general intelligence, spatial ability and
mathematics achievement.
Taken as a whole, the series of simple multiple regression models demonstrate
that Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure are indeed separable aspects
94
of spatial ability. Collectively, the three spatial ability factors could account for between
5.9% and 16.9% ( p < .01) of variance associated with the measures of mathematics
achievement used in the current study.
Perceptual Speed was a valuable predictor of both SAT Mathematics scores and
WRAT-3: Arithmetic section scores accounting for significant amounts of variance both
before and after controlling for general intelligence.
Visualization was the most consistent and strongest predictor of the three factors.
Outside of the WCJ-III: Number Series subtest scores; Visualization was a significant
predictor across all measures of mathematics achievement used in the current study. This
suggests that Visualization is an important component of both the ability to solve applied
mathematics problems as well as the ability to accurately identify and explain
mathematics-concepts. Conversely, the Visualization factor is not a valuable predictor of
how well an individual is able to utilize principles of basic number comprehension. After
controlling for general intelligence, Visualization continued to add incrementally to the
prediction of both measures of applied problems—SAT Mathematics and WCJ-III:
Applied Problems subtests. Additionally, Visualization was also a strong predictor of
verbal achievement both before and after controlling for general intelligence. Given these
findings, it is fair to say that Visualization is an aspect of spatial ability which may
influence overall academic achievement.

95
Speed of Closure does not consistently predict the mathematics achievement
measures. In the simple multiple regression models, Speed of Closure was a significant
predictor of SAT Critical Reading scores, SAT Mathematics scores, and WCJ-III:
Quantitative Concepts subtest scores. After controlling for general intelligence, the Speed
of Closure factor was no longer a significant predictor of either mathematics achievement
measure. However, Speed of Closure continued to account for significant amounts of
variance associated with SAT Critical Reading scores both before and after controlling
for general intelligence. This finding implies that the speed of closure construct is a better
indicator of verbal achievement than it is of mathematics achievement.
The results of the current study provide clear evidence of significant relationships
between specific aspects of spatial ability and academic achievement beyond the
influence of general intelligence. In addition to this, not all aspects of spatial ability are
equally informative across the various measures of academic achievement. Interestingly,
spatial ability measures seem to be best able to predict performance on mathematics
achievement measures designed to assess one’s performance of applied mathematics
problems such as the items seen on the SAT Mathematics subtest as well as those on the
WCJ-III: Applied Problems subtest. The mathematics achievement measures designed to
assess how well an individual correctly identifies or explains mathematics-concepts, such
as the items on the WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts subtest or problems requiring the
application of basic number comprehension in order to solve an incomplete numerical
pattern such as those found on the WCJ-III: Number Series subtest, are not as
96
consistently predicted by the Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure
factors. The fact that both Visualization and Speed of Closure are predictive of verbal
achievement scores is further evidence of a complex relationship between spatial ability
and academic achievement as a whole.
Dimensionality
The components of spatial ability investigated by the current study demonstrate
the fact that the ability to mentally manipulate spatial information differs across many
situations, types of objects being manipulated, physical constraints, and dimensionality
(Amorim, Isableu, & Jarraya 2006). The two-dimensional component of spatial relations
versus the three-dimensional component of visualization could be what makes the
Visualization factor stand out in this sample. The sample for the current study is
composed of undergraduate students attending a selective university. Based on the
elevated SAT scores reported by these participants, many of them can be characterized as
academically gifted favoring mathematics ability (see Table 1). Gifted individuals
favoring mathematics ability also tend to score high on measures of spatial ability
(Lubinski et al., 2001). The relationship between high mathematics ability and high
spatial ability could influence the methods or strategies used by these individuals when
completing mathematics and spatial operations. For example, it is believed that spatial
relation tasks involve simple two-dimensional or in-plane mental rotations, and
visualization tasks require a more complex approach requiring three-dimensional depth

97
mental rotations performed in a step-by-step fashion. Individuals high in mathematics and
spatial ability may be naturally inclined to employ the more complex strategy of mentally
rotating an image using three-dimensional or depth mental rotations when doing both
spatial relation and visualization tasks as opposed to simply rotating the images in-plane.
When predicting measures of mathematics achievement for the current sample, the most
valuable and consistent predictor was the Visualization factor of spatial ability. This
pattern indicates that one’s ability to perform three-dimensional or depth mental rotations
using a step-by-step process could be at the root of the relationship between spatial ability
and mathematics ability.
The operational definitions for these constructs describe the methods that should
be used or are expected to be used when completing the tasks, but it is possible for other
strategies to be employed when doing certain tasks, essentially altering what the
measures were intended to assess. For example, some of the spatial relations measures
loaded heaviest on the Visualization factor (Spatial Relations test & Cube Comparisons).
A possible reason for this finding may be the differences in the strategies or processes
participants opted to use while completing these tasks. Some individuals may be more
inclined to complete mental rotation tasks by mentally manipulating the target three
dimensionally as opposed to using in-plane rotations of the target. This is an issue that
should be taken up in future research by asking participants which process they tended to
employ when doing the different measures intended to assess spatial relations or
visualization.
98
Another process that may have changed from one participant to another involves
how the problem was approached—either as a single step operation or as a step-by-step
format. If the step-by-step series of comparisons were used when doing the Spatial
Relations test & Cube Comparisons, this could explain why these spatial relations tasks
loaded on the Visualization factor. On the spatial relations test, the targets could be
viewed as puzzle pieces and compared with each of the answer options individually as
opposed to simply selecting the correct option while viewing all of the possible options
simultaneously [See Carroll pp. 308 and 309 for references about this issue].On the Cube
Comparisons measure, participants could use a series of comparisons to construct the
sides of the cube needed to determine if the second cubes is the same as or different from
the target cube. Using a step-by-step process as opposed to a continuous or simultaneous
comparison when doing this task would fall more in line with the operational definition
of visualization rather than the spatial relations construct (see Carroll pp. 308 and 309 for
references about this issue).
In the case of SAT mathematics scores, the Perceptual Speed factor was also a
valuable predictor of mathematics achievement. In terms of dimensionality, previous
research has shown both in-plane mental rotations and depth mental rotations can be
performed with equal efficiency. Shepard & Metzler (1971) demonstrated that mental
rotations of line drawings of three-dimensional objects in a plane versus in a three-
dimensional space increases as the degrees of rotation increase at approximately the same
rate. In other words, mental rotations of a two-dimensional object occur at the same rate
99
as mental rotations of three-dimensional objects do, and the time it takes to mentally
rotate both types of images increases at the same rate across angles of rotation ranging
from 0° to 180°.
Weaknesses of the Current Study
Factors of spatial ability. According to Carroll’s (1993) Three Strata Model of
Human Cognitive Abilities, the following five constructs are consistently identified as
subfactors of Carroll’s broad Visual Perception factor: perceptual speed, flexibility of
closure, speed of closure, spatial relations, and visualization. The present study was
designed to measure these five constructs as separable aspects of spatial ability, and
Carroll, 1993, was used as a guide for selecting the appropriate tasks to assess the five
subfactors of visual perception. Unfortunately, the exploratory factor analysis for the
current sample did not categorize all of the spatial ability measures in agreement with the
constructs they were intended to measure. However, the operational definitions of
perceptual speed, visualization, and speed of closure put forth by Carroll (1993) can be
used to theoretically support the factorial composition derived from the present
exploratory factor analysis. For example, the Perceptual Speed factor is composed of
measures used to assess perceptual speed, flexibility of closure, and spatial relations. All
of the measures loading on the Perceptual Speed factor have a strong speed component;
therefore, it is understandable that these measures would all load on the same factor. The
Visualization factor is composed of a combination of visualization measures and spatial

100
relations measures. The spatial ability measures which loaded on the Visualization factor
involve a three dimensional, step-by-step process not unlike the mental manipulations
executed during visualization tasks. This aspect of some of the spatial relation tasks may
explain why they loaded on the same factor as the measures specifically designed to
assess visualization. The Speed of Closure factor is the cleanest of the three factors
because it is strictly composed of measures designed to assess one’s ability to fill in the
missing portions of visual stimuli to construct a whole unit.
The exploratory factor analysis across the battery of spatial ability measures used
in the present study only identified three factors of spatial ability: Perceptual Speed,
Visualization, and Speed of Closure (see Table 3). Characteristics of this study’s sample
may be partly responsible for why the exploratory factor analysis was unsuccessful at
pulling out all five of Carroll’s subfactors (Perceptual Speed, Flexibility of Closure,
Speed of Closure, Spatial Relations, and Visualization). One possible feature of the study
sample that could have inhibited the identification of all of Carroll’s subfactors is the fact
that a relatively small sample size was used in the current analyses. It should be noted
that the number of participants recruited for the current study was based on a priori
power analyses. The power analyses were specifically used to analyze how many
participants would be needed to attain power = .99 with p < .05 for a medium effect size
of ( f 2 = .15 ) for the proposed hierarchical multiple regression models. A minimum of
n = 184 participants would need to be recruited in order to meet this standard, and the
sample size of the current sample is n = 204 . Comparatively speaking, Carroll analyzed
101
multiple data sets which may have resulted in greater statistical power to tease apart the
distinct yet similar subfactors of visual perception included in his detailed model of
human cognitive abilities. The battery of cognitive measures used in the current study
often share moderate yet significant amounts of variance (see Appendix B—Table 1 for
correlation matrix). Therefore, the possibility exists that the number of participants may
have been insufficient to identify the subtle distinctions between the separable
components of visual perception reported by Carroll (1993).
In addition to sample size, the fact that this sample has a restricted range for
overall academic achievement, may also play a role in why fewer factors were identified
in the exploratory factor analysis applied to the current battery of cognitive measures.
The current sample is composed of undergraduate students at a selective university.
These participants have above average SAT Critical Reading scores and SAT
Mathematics scores (see Table 1). Their above average performance on the SAT suggests
that these participants may be expected to also score higher on the cognitive measures of
spatial ability used in the current study. Given that this is a homogenous sample
composed of individuals high in academic achievement, it is possible that the three
spatial ability factors (Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure) identified
for this sample are somewhat unique to this particular group of individuals.
Alternatively, a great deal of evidence for the consistent and robust nature of the
three factors reported in the current study—Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed
102
of Closure—can be found in Carroll’s 1993 Human Cognitive Abilities: A survey of
factor-analytic studies. A review of the studies reporting factor compositions of broad
visual perception selected by Carroll will clearly demonstrate this fact. Carroll selected
94 datasets to include in his analysis of human cognitive abilities. Each dataset included
was required to have yielded two or more factors matching the major classifications
associated with the broad visual perception domain—Perceptual Speed, Flexibility of
Closure, Speed of Closure, Spatial Relations, Visualization, and an all-inclusive Other
classification. Of the classifications assumed by Carroll, the current study considered the
first five.
Across the 94 datasets Carroll selected, examples of visualization, perceptual
speed, and speed of closure were the most consistently identified factors. Only 1 study
reported a factor composition including examples of all five of the factors considered by
the current study. When reviewing the 94 datasets used by Carroll, the first striking thing
to note is that only 1 dataset did not yield any of the factors of interest for the current
study, and this was also the only study that did not report at least one example of three
factors reported by the current study. In fact, examples of the three factors reported by the
current study were overwhelmingly yielded by the 94 datasets analyzed by Carroll—
visualization was reported in 66 of the datasets, perceptual speed was reported 65 times,
and speed of closure was reported in 31 of the studies.

103
The majority of the datasets (63 of the studies) studied by Carroll found examples
of only two of the five factors of interest. In 47 of these studies, the two factors reported
were some combination of the factors reported by the current study. Examples of
visualization and perceptual speed were paired together 36 times, visualization and speed
of closure were paired together in 6 of the studies, and speed of closure and perceptual
speed were paired together 5 times.
Examples of spatial relations and flexibility of closure were sparsely reported in
the 94 studies Carroll selected. Only 23 of the data sets reported an example of a spatial
relations factor, and only 13 of the datasets reported an example of a flexibility of closure
factor. Neither a spatial relations nor a flexibility of closure factor was derived from the
current factor analysis. The measures used to assess perceptual speed and flexibility of
closure appeared to have merged to create one Perceptual Speed factor in the current
study. In only 5 of the 94 datasets analyzed by Carroll, factors representing both
perceptual speed and flexibility of closure were reported together, suggesting that it is
often difficult to separate these two construct apart. In the current study, a similar result
occurred with the measures of spatial relations, in that they all loaded on either the
Perceptual Speed or the Visualization factors. Of the studies selected by Carroll, only 8
datasets had factors representing both visualization and spatial relations simultaneously—
again suggesting that these two factors are difficult to separate apart. This is not to
suggest that flexibility of closure and spatial relations are not separable factors, but rather
104
that these components of broad visual perception may involve subtle differences making
them more difficult to identify than the three factors reported by the current study.
Of the 94 datasets, 12 reported only one of the five factors of interest, and in
every case, the single factor was one of the factors reported in the current study.
Visualization was the single factor reported six times. Perceptual speed was the single
factor reported four times. Speed of closure was the single factor reported two times.
Of the 13 datasets which derived three factors, 3 datasets reported a factor
composition analogous to the one derived by the current study, and 9 found at least two
of the factors reported by the current study.
While Carroll was able to identify each of the five aspects of spatial ability looked
at in the current sample as separable components, there are still many similarities which
exist between these subfactors that could make it difficult to differentiate them without a
considerably larger sample size. The sample used in the current study may have simply
been too small to identify all five aspects of spatial ability as distinct components.
The fact that three factors of spatial ability added to the prediction of mathematics
achievement while controlling for general intelligence supports and extends the work of
Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, (2001) and Shea, Lubinski, & Benbow, (2001).
Lubinski and colleagues looked at a sample which consisted of precocious children

105
classified as the “top 1 in 10,000” in mathematical and verbal reasoning ability and the
top 0.5% in general intelligence (e.g., Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, 2001;
Shea, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2001). While the current sample is a selective sample, it is
not as highly selective as the sample studied by Lubinski and colleagues, and this
suggests that the relationships between mathematics achievement, general intelligence,
and spatial ability studied by Lubinski and colleagues are robust associations that can
extend to samples with a wider range of mathematical ability.
While the sample used for the current study has a wider distribution of academic
abilities than many others commonly studied in the literature, this sample is composed of
college undergraduates attending a selective university which resulted in a restricted
range of academic ability. This is a weakness of the current study because it could
attenuate the findings, and it should be addressed in future research. The findings from
the current study need to be replicated in an even more diverse sample to ensure that
these findings are not simply unique to this select group of participants. In addition to
replicating these findings in a more diverse sample, I also feel that these findings need to
be replicated in a mathematically gifted population. By looking at the full range of ability
levels, the current understanding of the relationship between components of spatial ability
and mathematics achievement will be greatly advanced. A study designed to collect data
on a larger sample could include an effort to recruit equal numbers of males and females,
and this would provide a more ideal pool of participants to investigate sex differences
which might exist in relation to spatial ability and mathematics achievement.

106
Future Research
The most significant limitation researchers studying spatial ability today must
face is the fact that the actual cognitive processes involved in performing spatial ability
tasks have not been identified. Although spatial ability as a global construct has received
a great deal of attention, a comprehensive definition of spatial ability has not yet been
agreed upon. For example, it is not clear the degree to which the cognitive components of
visual sensation, image perception, and language are involved when performing spatial
operations (Pylyshyn, 1973). The exact role spatial ability plays in everyday life has also
been difficult to pin down. Some researchers speculate that spatial ability has
evolutionary importance, but this has yet to be supported by basic research (Lawson,
1999). Another possibility is that global spatial ability is a separable component of
general intelligence. Several models of general intelligence suggest that global spatial
ability (Carroll, 1993), and more specifically mental rotations (Johnson & Bouchard,
2007), are vital components of intelligence, yet there is a great deal of disagreement as to
what level of importance spatial ability plays in terms of the structure of overall general
intelligence.
The literature has established the existence of relationships between general
intelligence, academic achievement, and spatial ability; however, the current
understanding of these relationships is a bit crude. The present study stemmed from
questions such as: Do different types of mathematics tasks require varying degrees of
107
spatial ability? Are any of the components of spatial ability more important to the certain
types of mathematics achievement than others? What role does general intelligence play
in the associations between academic achievement and spatial ability? Obviously, these
questions are very broad, and difficult to answer within the confines of a single study, but
some of the findings from the current study offer some interesting insights into the
association between components of spatial ability and mathematics achievement which
may help to guide future research.
The current study provides strong evidence for the existence of differential
relationships between components of spatial ability and specific measures of mathematics
achievement. While these findings extend the literature by specifying which components
of spatial ability are the most valuable predictors of mathematics achievement, the
associations between the components of spatial ability and mathematics achievement
need to be explored further. Ultimately, the linkage between spatial ability and
mathematics achievement should be studied in terms of the physiological mechanisms
involved. With imaging technology such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imagining
(fMRI), brain activity could be tracked while participants perform various spatial ability
tasks and solve an array of mathematics problems. This would allow for the identification
and mapping of areas in the brain important to components of spatial ability and
mathematical ability. A study design using fMRI would be able to address more in-depth
questions such as whether increasing the complexity of a mathematical tasks places
higher demands on the areas of the brain associated with individual components of spatial
108
ability. Imaging technology offers endless possibilities to investigate these relationships
in fine detail. For example, a longitudinal design could be used to study developmental
changes in brain areas associated with components of spatial ability in relation to the
acquisition of mathematics skills.

109
Appendix A—SPSS OUTPUT OF EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS
FACTOR
/VARIABLES Zfa_r Znc_s Zip_s Zhf_s Zhp_s Zct_r Zgc_r Zcw_r Zsp_r Zflag_s Zsr_s
Zcr_s Zcc_s Zfb_s_item Zpf_s Zsd_s_item
/MISSING LISTWISE /ANALYSIS Zfa_r Znc_s Zip_s Zhf_s Zhp_s Zct_r Zgc_r Zcw_r Zsp
_r Zflag_s Zsr_s Zcr_s Zcc_s Zfb_s_item Zpf_s
Zsd_s_item
/PRINT INITIAL EXTRACTION ROTATION
/PLOT EIGEN
/CRITERIA MINEIGEN(1) ITERATE(25)
/EXTRACTION PC
/CRITERIA ITERATE(25)
/ROTATION VARIMAX
/METHOD=CORRELATION.
110
Factor Analysis
Communalities
Initial Extraction
Zfa_r 1.000 .663
Znc_s 1.000 .629
Zip_s 1.000 .603
Zhf_s 1.000 .421
Zhp_s 1.000 .745
Zct_r 1.000 .723
Zgc_r 1.000 .441
Zcw_r 1.000 .519
Zsp_r 1.000 .471
Zflag_s 1.000 .701
Zsr_s 1.000 .609
Zcr_s 1.000 .756
Zcc_s 1.000 .571
Zfb_s_item 1.000 .496
Zpf_s 1.000 .583
Zsd_s_item 1.000 .601
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
111
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 6.577 41.107 41.107 6.577 41.107 41.107 4.798 29.985 29.985
2 1.801 11.255 52.362 1.801 11.255 52.362 2.827 17.670 47.655
3 1.154 7.212 59.574 1.154 7.212 59.574 1.907 11.919 59.574
4 .869 5.432 65.006
5 .816 5.099 70.105
6 .724 4.524 74.629
7 .638 3.985 78.614
8 .572 3.572 82.186
9 .543 3.397 85.582
10 .466 2.911 88.493
11 .437 2.730 91.223
12 .396 2.472 93.695
13 .334 2.087 95.782
14 .258 1.611 97.393
15 .233 1.456 98.849
16 .184 1.151 100.000
112
Scree Plot
5
Eigenvalue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Component Number
113
Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Zfa_r .597 -.541 .117
Znc_s .639 -.469 .004
Zip_s .729 -.187 .191
Zhf_s .641 -.080 .059
Zhp_s .845 -.171 .035
Zct_r .844 -.096 .039
Zgc_r .331 .321 .478
Zcw_r .420 .173 .559
Zsp_r .486 .273 .400
Zflag_s .789 -.097 -.264
Zsr_s .400 .670 -.004
Zcr_s .832 -.208 -.142
Zcc_s .676 .038 -.335
Zfb_s_item .596 .353 -.127
Zpf_s .646 .387 -.127
Zsd_s_item .464 .472 -.403
a. 3 components extracted.
114
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1 2 3
Zfa_r .798 -.134 .092
Znc_s .792 -.004 .040
Zip_s .684 .137 .341
Zhf_s .554 .236 .241
Zhp_s .772 .289 .255
Zct_r .725 .337 .288
Zgc_r .047 .137 .648
Zcw_r .205 .037 .690
Zsp_r .203 .222 .617
Zflag_s .694 .468 .011
Zsr_s -.091 .664 .400
Zcr_s .792 .349 .086
Zcc_s .526 .541 -.035
Zfb_s_item .262 .609 .238
Zpf_s .282 .657 .269
Zsd_s_item .097 .769 .005
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
115
Component Transformation Matrix
Component 1 2 3
1 .792 .502 .347
2 -.609 .688 .395
3 -.040 -.524 .851
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
116
Appendix B—Table 1
Correlations Between General Intelligence, Academic Achievement, and Factors of Visual Perception
Scores 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Raven’s — .279** .137† .327** .362** .411** .407** .368** .019 .424** .259**
2. SAT Combined — .850** .772** .438** .455** .360** .258** .031 .360** .194**
3. SAT Critical Reading — .363** .262** .267** .346** .194** -.089 .231** .197**
4. SAT Mathematics — .460** .481** .229** .196** .159* .372** .132†
5. WRAT III Arithmetic — .629** .320** .362** .145* .206** .095
6. WCJ Applied — .429** .423** .121† .295** .061
7. WCJ Concepts — .472** .024 .233** .199**
8. WCJ Number Series — .048 .110 .070
9. Perceptual Speed — .000 .000
10. Visualization — .000
11. Speed of Closure —
Note. The correlations presented above were calculated using scores corrected for age, age squared, and gender. All variables were standardized to have an M of zero and an SD of one.
n = 204.
†
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.
117
References
Anastasi, A. (1948). The nature of psychological ‘traits.’ Psychological Review. 55(3),
127-138.
Arburcke, James L. (2003). Amos 5 (Build 5138) [Computer software]. Chicago, Il:
SmallWaters Corp.
Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple components model.
Models of working memory. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working
memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. (pp. 28-61). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barakat, M. K. (1951). A factorial study of mathematical abilities. British Journal of
Psychology, 4, 137-156.
Borenstein, M., Cohen, J. Rothstein, H., Schoenfeld, D., Berlin, J., & Lakatos, E. (2000).
Power and Pecision (Version 2) [Computer Software]. Retrieved July 14, 2006, from
http://www.power-analysis.com/home.htm
Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Faul, F. (1997a). How to Use G*Power [Computer manual for
G*Power software]. Retrived July 14, 2006, from http://www.psycho.uni-
duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/how_to_use_gpower.html
Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Faul, F. (1997b). G*Power–a general power analysis program
[International MS–DOS version of G*Power (350 K, updated May 15, 1998)]
[Computer software]. Retrieved July 14, 2006, from http://www.psycho.uni-
duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower/
118
Carroll, J. B. (1974). Psychometric tests as cognitve tasks: a new ‘structure of intellect.”
Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Services, Research Bulletin, 74-16.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and
affective responses to impending reward and punishment the BIS/BAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333.
Dai, D. Y. (2006). There is more to aptitude than cognitive capacities: Comments. American
Psychologist, 61(7), 723-724.
DeFries, J. C., Plomin, R., Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1981). Parent-offspring
resemblance for cognitive abilities in the Colorado Adoption Project: Biological,
adoptive and control parents and one-year-old children. Intelligence, 5, 247-277.
Ekstrom, R., French, J. Harman, H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor
Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and
Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary interpretive approach. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship
between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological
Science, 15(6), 373-378.
Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (1996). Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence:
Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science, 7(4), 237-241.

119
Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Prevention research in mathematics: Improving outcomes, building
identification models, and understanding disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38(4), 350-325.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005). Personality and intelligence:
Gender, the Big Five, self-estimated and psychometric intelligence. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(1), 11-24.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr., W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-
Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence,
24(1), 79-132.
Gray, S. A., & Deem, L. P. (2002). Predicting student performance in preclinical technique
courses using the theory of ability determinants of skilled performance. Journal of
Dental Education, 66(6), 721-727
Grudnik, J. L., & Kranzler, J. H. (2001). Meta-analysis of the relationship between
intelligence and inspection time. Intelligence, 29(6), 523-535.
Hegarty, M., & Kozhevnikov, M. (1999). Types of visual-spatial representations and
mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 684-689.
Humphreys, L. G., Lubinski, D., & Yao, G. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership
and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or
artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 250-261.
Izard, C. E. (1972). Patterns of emotions: A new analysis of anxiety and depression.

120
Jensen, A. R. (1992). The importance of intraindividual variation in reaction time.
Personality & Individual Differences, 13(8), 869-881.
Jensen, A. R. (1993). Why is reaction time correlated with psychometric g?. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 2(2), 53-56.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Jensen, A. R., Larson, G. E., & Paul, S. M. (1988). Psychometric g and mental processing
speed on semantic verification tests. Personality and Individual Differences, 9(2),
243-255.
Jensen, A. R., & Munro, E. (1979). Reaction time, movement time, and intelligence.
Intelligence, 3, 121-126.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and
Theoretical Perspectives. United States of America: University of California at
Berkley, Department of Psychology.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2005a). Constructive replication of the visual-perceptual-
image rotation model in Thurstone’s (1941) battery of 60 tests of mental ability.
Intelligence, 33(4), 417-430.
Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2005b). The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal,
perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized. Intelligence, 33(4),
393-416.
Konold, T. R., Juel, C., McKinnon, M., & Deffes, R. (2003). A multivariate model of early
reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24(1), 89-112.

121
Kranzler, J. H., & Jensen, A. R. (1989). Inspection time and intelligence: A meta-analysis.
Intelligence, 13, 329-347.
Logie, R. H. (1995). Visuo-spatial working memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lubinski, D. (1904). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after
Spearman’s (1904) “’General Intelligence,’ Objectively Determined and Measuresd.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96-111.
Luo, D., & Petrill, S. A. (1999). Elementary cognitive tasks and their role in g estimates.
Intelligence, 27(2), 157-174.
Luo, D. Thompson, L. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2003). The causal factor underlying the
correlation between psychometric g and scholastic performance. Intelligence, 31(1),
67-83.
Luo, D., Thompson, L. A., & Detterman, D. K. (2006). The criterion validity of tasks of
basic cognitive processes. Intelligence, 34(1), 79-120.
Lubinski, D., Webb, R. M., Morelock, M.J., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-
year follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718-
729.
Mann, R. L. (2006). Effective teaching strategies for gifted/learning-disabled students with
spatial strengths. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 112-121.
Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

122
Mazzocco, Michele M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining
mathematics learning disabilities in the primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia,
53, 218-253.
McCall, R. B., Evahn, C., & Kratzer, L. (1992). High school underachievers: What do they
achieve as adults? Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III.
Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Nettlebeck, T. (1987). Inspection time and intellignce. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.), Speed of
information processing and intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Plomin, R., Defries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1988). Colorado Specific Cognitive Abilities
battery (CSCA). Colorado, United States of America: Institute for Behavior Genetics
& University of Colorado at Boulder.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales: Section 4 Advanced Progressive Matrices sets I & II (1998 ed.).
Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press Ltd.
Reed, T. E., & Jensen, A. R. (1993). Choice reaction time and visual pathway nerve
conduction velocity both correlate with intelligence but appear not to correlate with
each other: Implication for information processing. Intelligence, 17, 191-203.
Reynolds, C. R., Chastain, R. L., Kaufman, A. S., & McLean, J. E. (1987). Demographic
characteristics and IQ among adults: Analysis of the WAIS-R standardization sample
as a function of the stratification variables. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 323-
342.
123
Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive
ability. Intelligence, 35 (1), 83-92.
Shea, D. L., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in
intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(3), 604-614.
Spelke, E. S., & Grace, A. D. (2006). Abilities, motives, and personal styles: Reply.
American Psychologist, 61(7), 725-726.
SPSS Inc. (1999). SPSS Base 10.0 for Windows User’s Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL
SPSS Inc. (2001). SPSS for Windows (Standard version 11.0.1) [Computer software].
Chicago, IL: SPPS Inc.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Bundy, D. A. (2001). The predictive value of IQ.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1), 1-41.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of
Personality, 72(2), 271-322.
Thurstone, L. L., & Jeffrey, T. E. (1959). Space Thinking (Flags): Interpretation and
Research Manual (Reid London House Product Numbers: 2101–1120 & 2101–1110).
United States of America: University of Chicago, Measurement Research Division
Human Resources Center & University of North Carolina: The Psychometric
Laboratory.
Vernon, P. A. (1983a). Recent findings on the nature of g. Journal of Special Education,
17(4). 389-400.
124
Vernon, P. A. (1983b). Speed of information processing general intelligence. Intelligence,
7(1), 53-70.
Vernon, P. A. (1990). An overview of chronometric measures of intelligence. School
Psychology Review, 19(4), 399-410.
Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America’s schools. Educational
Leadership, 41(8), 19-27.
Walker, A. (Ed.). (1997). Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms, (8th ed.). American
Psychological Association.
Wasserstein, J., Barr, W. B., Zappulla, R., & Rock, D. (2004). Facial closure:
Interrelationship with facial discrimination, other closure tests, and subjective contour
illusions. Neuropsychologia, 42(2), 158-163.
Werdelin, I. (1958). The mathematical ability: Experimental and factorial studies. Lund, C.
W. K. Gleerup, Oxford, England.
Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). WRAT3 Wide Range Achievement Test: Administration Manual
(1993 ed.). Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of
Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

An Examination of How Visual Perception Abilities Influence Mathematics Achievement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Examination of How Visual Perception Abilities Influence Mathematics Achievement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AN EXAMINATION OF HOW VISUAL PERCEPTION ABILITIES INFLUENCE

TREENA EILEEN ROHDE, M.A.

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Experimental Psychology

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lee Anne Thompson

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

candidate for the ______________________degree

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2007

`ç Ytà{xÜ? ]tÅxá cA eÉ{wx? fÜA

ã{É tÄãtçá xÇvÉâÜtzxw Åx tÇw àÉÄw Åx à{tà

\ vÉâÄw wÉ tÇçà{|Çz \ ãtÇàxw àÉ |y \

á|ÅÑÄç ãÉÜ~xw {tÜw xÇÉâz{

Committee Signature sheet (typed version) ii

Broad Visual Perception 22

Measures of visual perception. 36

Measures of academic achievement. 53

Measure of general intelligence. 55

Design and Procedures 56

Data Preparation and Analyses 57

Scoring procedures and guessing correction. 57

Hypotheses and Overview of Analyses 58

Exploratory factor analysis. 64

Predicting Achievement with Visual Perception 67

Multiple Regression Analyses. 67

SAT Combined scores. 70

SAT Critical Reading scores. 72

SAT Mathematics scores. 75

WCJ-III: Applied Problems scores. 78

WCJ-III: Quantitative Concepts scores. 80

WCJ-III: Number Series scores. 83

WRAT-3 Arithmetic Section scores. 85

Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual Perception 88

Major Findings—Predictive Capacity of the Three Factors of Visual

Weaknesses of the Current Study 99

Factors of spatial ability. 99

Future Research 106

Appendix A: SPSS OUTPUT OF EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 109

Appendix B: Correlations Between General Intelligence, Academic Achievement,

and Factors of Visual Perception 116

Funding for Doctoral Training and Research

Restriction of Range – Distribution of SAT Scores

Descriptive Statistics for the Raven’s Advanced Progressive

Factor Loadings for an Exploratory Factor Analysis of the Battery

Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors:

Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and Speed of

Predicting SAT Combined Scores with Visual Perception Factors

Visualization and Speed of Closure While Controlling for General

Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception

Factors: Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and

Speed of Closure (Factor 3)

Predicting SAT Critical Reading Scores with Visual Perception

Factors Visualization and Speed of Closure While Controlling for

Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors:

Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization (Factor 2), and Speed of

Predicting SAT Mathematics Scores with Visual Perception Factors

Perceptual Speed, Visualization, and Speed of Closure While

Controlling for General Intelligence

Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual

Perception Factors: Perceptual Speed (Factor 1), Visualization

(Factor 2), and Speed of Closure (Factor 3)

Predicting WCJ-III: Applied Problems Scores with Visual