Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Parallel and identical test–retest reliability of the Tower of London test – Freiburg version
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Parallel and identical test–retest reliability of the Tower of London test – Freiburg version
Do you wish to request the book?
Parallel and identical test–retest reliability of the Tower of London test – Freiburg version
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Parallel and identical test–retest reliability of the Tower of London test – Freiburg version
2023
Overview
The Tower of London - Freiburg version (TOL-F) was developed in three parallel-test versions (A, B, and C) that only differ in their physical appearance by interchanged ball colors, but not in their cognitive demands. We addressed the question whether the test-retest reliability of an identical problem set differs from the parallel test-retest reliability of a structurally identical problem set with a marginally different physical appearance.
Reliabilities were assessed in two samples of young adults over a 1-week interval: In the parallel test-retest sample (
= 93; 49 female), half of the participants accomplished version A at the first session and version B at the second session, while the other half started with version B in the first session and continued with A in the second session. In the identical test-retest sample (
= 86; 48 female), half of the participants performed on version A in both the first and the second session, while the other half went through the same procedure with version B.
For overall planning accuracy, intraclass correlation coefficients for absolute agreement were
= .501 for the parallel test-retest and
= .605 for the identical test-retest sample, with Pearson correlations of
= .559 and
= .708 respectively. Greatest lower bound estimates of reliability were adequate to high in the two samples (ranging between .765 and .854) confirming previous studies.
Although the TOL-F revealed only moderate intraclass correlations for absolute agreement, it showed some of the highest psychometric indices compared to repeated assessments with other TOL tests.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Subject
