Generalizability, Validity, and Examinee Perceptions of a Computer‐Delivered Formulating‐Hypotheses Test

Abstract

The Formulating‐Hypotheses (F‐H) item presents a situation and asks examinees to generate as many explanations for it as possible. This study examined the generalizability, validity, and examinee perceptions of a computer‐delivered version of the task. Eight F‐H questions were administered to 192 graduate students. Half of the items restricted examinees to 7 words per explanation, and half allowed up to 15 words. Generalizability results showed high interrater agreement, with tests of between 2 and 4 items scored by one judge achieving coefficients in the .80s. Construct validity analyses found that F‐H was only marginally related to the GRE General Test, and more strongly related than the General Test to a measure of ideational fluency. Different response limits tapped somewhat different abilities, with the 15‐word constraint appearing more useful for graduate assessment. These items added significantly to conventional measures in explaining school performance and creative expression.

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 — 29 citations exist upstream.

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