Cited by 53Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The reliability and validity of the Danish draft board cognitive ability test: Børge Prien’s Prøve

TEASDALE, THOMAS W., HARTMANN, PETER V.W., PEDERSEN, CHRISTOFFER H., BERTELSEN, METTE·2011·Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

Abstract

Teasdale, T.W., Hartmann, P.V.W., Pedersen, C.H. & Bertelsen, M. (2011). The reliability and validity of the Danish Draft Board Cognitive Ability Test: Børge Prien’s Prøve. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 52, 126–130. The Danish Draft Board has used the same test for assessing general cognitive ability, the Børge Prien’s Prøve (BPP), for over 50 years during which time all men on reaching the age of 18 become liable for conscription. Data from the test has, over the decades, been used in numerous and wide‐ranging research studies. Nonetheless, owing to the special circumstances of its administration, some psychometric properties, which are generally assessed for psychological tests, have not previously been investigated for the BPP. First, since the test is only used at the assessment phase, retesting with the BPP occurs only rarely and under exceptional circumstances. Therefore, its Test‐Retest reliability has hitherto not been documented. Second, questions have often been raised as to whether the validity of the BPP is undermined by either a lack of motivation and under‐performing among some of the men taking the test, being, as they are, compelled to do so, and/or by gradual obsolescence of the test over the decades of its use. We here present findings from three new studies to show that (a) the BPP has a satisfactory Test‐Retest reliability, r = 0.77, (b) BPP test scores are not positively associated with expressed attitude to being called upon to serve conscription and (c) the correlation between the BPP and a measure of educational level has remained stable (at about 0.5) through the last two decades. Taken together these three findings further support the continuing value of the BPP in research relating to cognitive ability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00862.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
TEASDALE, T. W., HARTMANN, P. V. W., PEDERSEN, C. H., & BERTELSEN, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • Royal Danish Defence College (DK)
Corresponding author
TEASDALE, THOMAS W.
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-12-30
Volume
52
Issue
2
Pages
126-130
ISSN
  • 0036-5564 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9450
OpenAlex
W1580713549
Cited by
53
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
1.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
cognitive ability tests, test-retest reliability, validity, conscription, test-taking motivation, educational attainment
MeSH terms
Aptitude, Cognition, Humans, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review