Abstract
This study examines the influence of processing strategies, and the associated metacomponents that determine when to apply them, on the construct validity of a verbal reasoning test. Three strategies for solving verbal analogy items were examined: a rule‐oriented strategy, an association strategy, and a partial rule strategy. Construct validity was studied in two separate stages: construct representation and nomothetic span. For construct representation, evidence was obtained that all three strategies, and their related metacomponents, are associated with performance on analogy items. For nomothetic span, the current study found that all three strategies contribute to individual differences in verbal reasoning and to the predictive validity of the test. The results of this study also point to the utility of metacomponents as constructs for describing and understanding test performance. Implications of the results for test development and theories of aptitude are elaborated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
