Cited by 64Spatial Cognition and NavigationCognitive Abilities and TestingGeography Education and Pedagogy

Block Design as a Measure of Everyday Spatial Ability: A Study of Ecological Validity

Groth-Marnat, Gary, Teal, Mathew·2000·Perceptual and Motor Skills

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of the WAIS–R Block Design subtest to predict everyday spatial ability for 65 university undergraduates (15 men, 50 women) who were administered Block Design, the Standardized Road Map Test of Direction Sense, and the Everyday Spatial Activities Test. In addition, the verbally loaded National Adult Reading Test was administered to assess whether the more visuospatial Block Design subtest was a better predictor of spatial ability. Moderate support was found. When age and sex were accounted for, Block Design accounted for 36% of the variance in performance ( r = -.62) on the Road Map Test and 19% of the variance on the performance of the Everyday Spatial Activities Test ( r = .42). In contrast, the scores on the National Adult Reading Test did not predict performance on the Road Map Test or Everyday Spatial Abilities Test. This suggests that, with appropriate caution, Block Design could be used as a measure of everyday spatial abilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2466/pms.2000.90.2.522

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?

  • In contrast with Foulkes' study, no correlation between visuospatial abilities (measured through the Block Design Subset - WISC-IV) and the number of recalled dreams has been found, even when a possible moderating effect of age was controlled.

    “In contrast with Foulkes’ study,2–4 no correlation between visuospatial abilities (measured through the Block Design Subset – WISC-IV)76,77 and the number of recalled dreams has been found, even when a possible moderating effect of age was controlled.”

    From Spotlight on dream recall: the ages of dreams (2018) · cites this paper as [77]

  • The best predictor of dream recall in children was the Block Design Test, a reliable measure of visuospatial and organizational skills.

    “the best predictor of dream recall was the Block Design Test (subtest of the Weschsler Intelligence Scale for Children [WISC])76 which is known to be a reliable measure of visuospatial and organizational skills.76,77”

    From Spotlight on dream recall: the ages of dreams (2018) · cites this paper as [77]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Groth-Marnat, G., & Teal, M.
Affiliations
  • Curtin-University of Technology
  • Curtin University (AU)
Venue
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Published
2000-04
Volume
90
Issue
2
Pages
522-526
ISSN
  • 0031-5125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-688X
OpenAlex
W2069724379
Cited by
64
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Perceptual and Motor Skills (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Geography Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
Block Design subtest, WAIS-R, ecological validity, visuospatial ability, verbal ability, undergraduate students
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Orientation, Problem Solving, Psychometrics, Psychomotor Performance, Reading, Space Perception, Wechsler Scales, Reproducibility of Results

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