Complex Problem Solving Research Research Articles

Quo Vadis CPS? Brief answers to big questions

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

Heigh-Ho: CPS and the seven questions – some thoughts on contemporary Complex Problem Solving research

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

Complex problem solving in search for complexity

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

A flashlight on attainments and prospects of research into complex problem solving

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

A new orientation for research on problem solving and competencies in any domain

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

Complex problem solving: A gem to study expertise, strategic flexibility, culture, and so much more; and especially to advance psychological theory

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

The future of problem solving research is not complexity, but dynamic uncertainty

Research on complex problem solving (CPS) has reached a stage where certain standards have been achieved, whereas the future development is quite ambiguous. In this situation, the editors of the Journal of Dynamic Decision Making asked a number of representative authors to share their point of view with respect to seven questions about the relevance of (complex) problem solving as a research area, about the contribution of laboratory-based CPS research to solving real life problems, about the roles of knowledge, strategies, and intuition in CPS, and about the existence of expertise in CPS.

Impact of Cognitive Abilities and Prior Knowledge on Complex Problem Solving Performance - Empirical Results and a Plea for Ecologically Valid Microworlds.

The original aim of complex problem solving (CPS) research was to bring the cognitive demands of complex real-life problems into the lab in order to investigate problem solving behavior and performance under controlled conditions. Up until now, the validity of psychometric intelligence constructs has been scrutinized with regard to its importance for CPS performance. At the same time, different CPS measurement approaches competing for the title of the best way to assess CPS have been developed. In the first part of the paper, we investigate the predictability of CPS performance on the basis of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model and Cattell’s investment theory as well as an elaborated knowledge taxonomy. In the first study, 137 students managed a simulated shirt factory (Tailorshop; i.e., a complex real life-oriented system) twice, while in the second study, 152 students completed a forestry scenario (FSYS; i.e., a complex artificial world system). The results indicate that reasoning – specifically numerical reasoning (Studies 1 and 2) and figural reasoning (Study 2) – are the only relevant predictors among the intelligence constructs. We discuss the results with reference to the Brunswik symmetry principle. Path models suggest that reasoning and prior knowledge influence problem solving performance in the Tailorshop scenario mainly indirectly. In addition, different types of system-specific knowledge independently contribute to predicting CPS performance. The results of Study 2 indicate that working memory capacity, assessed as an additional predictor, has no incremental validity beyond reasoning. We conclude that (1) cognitive abilities and prior knowledge are substantial predictors of CPS performance, and (2) in contrast to former and recent interpretations, there is insufficient evidence to consider CPS a unique ability construct. In the second part of the paper, we discuss our results in light of recent CPS research, which predominantly utilizes the minimally complex systems (MCS) measurement approach. We suggest ecologically valid microworlds as an indispensable tool for future CPS research and applications.

Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015).

In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter to the claims made in the original study—the specific study design was not suitable for deriving conclusions about the validity of different complex problem-solving (CPS) measurement approaches. Furthermore, a more elaborate consideration of previous CPS research was found to challenge Greiff et al.’s conclusions even further. Therefore, I argue that researchers should be aware of the differences between several kinds of CPS assessment tools and conceptualizations when the validity of CPS assessment tools is examined in future research.

Construct validity of complex problem solving: A comprehensive view on different facets of intelligence and school grades

Although complex problem solving (CPS) has attracted increasing amounts of attention in recent years (e.g., in the PISA study), the role of CPS in the nomological network of intelligence is controversial. The question of whether CPS is a distinct construct is as old as CPS research itself, but previous studies have had specific shortcomings when addressing the question of whether CPS is a separable or independent construct. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to combine the advantages of previous studies to facilitate a less biased view of the relation between CPS and established intelligence constructs. A sample of 227 German university students worked on a comprehensive measure of intelligence (Berlin Intelligence Structure test) and two CPS assessment tools (MicroDYN and MicroFIN). Furthermore, final school grades (GPA) served as an external criterion. We applied confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modeling to investigate the relation between CPS and established intelligence constructs on the basis of different psychometric approaches (i.e., first-order model, nested factor model). Moreover, we examined the incremental validity of CPS in explaining GPA beyond established intelligence constructs. Results indicate that CPS represents unique variance that is not accounted for by established intelligence constructs. The incremental validity of CPS was found only when a commonly used narrow operationalization of intelligence was applied (i.e., figural reasoning) but not when a broad operationalization was applied.

Exploring the Relation between Time on Task and Ability in Complex Problem Solving

Complex problem solving (CPS) as an individual skill has gained importance in educational and psychological research, since it requires skills beyond routine reasoning, assessed by computer-based means. However, most of the CPS research has been concerned with the validity of CPS assessments based on students’ responses (i.e., their CPS ability) rather than their response times (i.e., CPS time on task). Therefore, the present investigation was aimed at examining the empirical relation between CPS time on task and CPS ability. On the basis of the data obtained from a representative sample of N =2,000 Finnish ninth graders, we specified Bayesian response time and structural equation models in order to study the relations between CPS time on task, CPS ability, cognitive and motivational constructs as well as school achievement. Our results suggest that (a) Long time on task in CPS and CPS ability are positively related (ρ=.40); (b) reasoning and students’ performance and mastery orientations have differential effects on CPS time on task (βREASON=.25, βPER-GOALS=−.06, βMAST-GOALS=.13) and CPS ability (βREASON=.54, βPER-GOALS=.03, βMAST-GOALS=.03); and (c) CPS time on task predicts school achievement (β=.12–.22), but does not explain variance beyond CPS ability. We conclude that CPS time on task provides a more differentiated perspective on CPS performance, yielding implications for research on and the assessment of CPS.