The most consistently used scoring system for the
rod-and-frame task has been the total (or average)
number of degrees in error from the true vertical,
regardless of the initial or final directions of the
rod and frame. Since a logical case can be made
for at least four alternative scoring systems, a
thorough comparison of all five systems seemed
appropriate. Comparisons consisted of: (1) an internal
consistency/reliability analysis, with split-half
and test-retest reliabilities and a multitrait-multimethod
matrix analysis of each scoring system,
chair, frame, and man position; (2) a repeated measures
ANOVA, with ethnic group, sex, and grade as
between factors and chair, frame, and man positions
as within factors; and (3) correlations of each
scoring system with a selected set of external criteria.
Results suggest strong support for use of the
natural logarithm of the sum of absolute errors as
the preferred scoring system, that concern with the
confounding of field dependence and the E effect is
largely unwarranted, and that all but one of the
scoring systems perform adequately.
McGarvey, Bill, Maruyama, Geoffrey & Miller, Norman. (1977). Scoring field dependence: A methodological analysis of five rod-and-frame scoring systems. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 433-446. doi:10.1177/014662167700100312
McGarvey, Bill; Maruyama, Geoffrey; Miller, Norman.
Scoring field dependence: A methodological analysis of five rod-and-frame scoring systems.
Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
Content distributed via the University of Minnesota's Digital Conservancy may be subject to additional license and use restrictions applied by the depositor.