Does Memory Contaminate Test-Retest Reliability?

Abstract

The Wonderlic Personnel Test (1983) was administered twice over a 3-week period under conditions in which the activity of the second test was experimentally manipulated. Data from 302 undergraduates were analyzed. The standard test-retest reliability coefficient, .872, was not significantly different from the coefficients obtained from three other groups that, on the second test, were each given specific instructions: (a) to reason out the answers (pure reassess condition); (b) to use reasoning, memory of their initial responses, or both (reassess and memory); or (c) to take an alternate form of the test (parallel). However, the standard test-retest reliability coefficient was higher, p less than .10, than the coefficient obtained from a condition (pure memory) in which subjects were instructed to duplicate their previous responses, using only memory. Although the subjects in the test-retest and combined reassess and memory conditions reported recalling previous answers for 20-25% of the items on the second test, it was concluded that conscious repetition of specific responses did not seriously inflate the estimate of test-retest reliability.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.