The Factorial Structure of Spatial Abilities in Russian and Chinese Students

Tools

Likhanov, Maxim V.; Ismatullina, Viсtoria I.; Fenin, Alexander Y.; Wei, Wei; Rimfeld, Kaili; Maslennikova, Ekaterina P.; Esipenko, Elena A.; Sharafeva, Ksenia R.; Feklicheva, Inna V.; Chipeeva, Nadezhda A.; Budakova, Anna V.; Soldatova, Elena L.; Zhou, Xinlin and Kovas, Yulia. 2018. The Factorial Structure of Spatial Abilities in Russian and Chinese Students. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 11(4), pp. 96-114. ISSN 2074-6857 [Article]

Preview

Text
psych_4_2018_7_likhanov.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.
Download (595kB) | Preview

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2018.0407

Abstract or Description

Background: Recent research suggested a unifactorial structure of spatial ability (SA). Research is needed to replicate this finding in different populations.

Objective: This study aims to explore the factorial structure of SA in samples of 921 Russian and 229 Chinese university students.

Design: A gamified spatial abilities battery was administered to all participants. The battery consists of 10 different domains of SA, including 2D and 3D visualization, mental rotation, spatial pattern assembly, spatial relations, spatial planning, mechanical reasoning, spatial orientation and spatial decision making speed and flexibility.

Results: The results of the factor analysis showed a somewhat different pattern for different samples. In the Russian sample, the unifactorial structure, shown previously in a large UK sample (Rimfeld et al., 2017), was replicated. A single factor explained 40% of the variance. In the Chinese sample two factors emerged: first factor explained 26% of the variance and the second factor, including only Mechanical reasoning and Cross-Sections tests, explained 14%. The results also showed that the Chinese sample significantly outperformed the Russian sample in 5 out of the 10 tests. Russian students showed better performance only in two of the tests. The effects of all group comparisons were small.

Conclusion: Overall, a similar amount of variance in the 10 tests was explained in the two samples, replicating results from the UK sample. Future research is needed to explain the observed differences in the structure of SA.

Item Type:

Article

Identification Number (DOI):

https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2018.0407