Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T16:27:54.535Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Difficulty of a Test and its Factor Composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

J. P. Guilford
J. P. Guilford*
Affiliation:
University of Southern California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A factor analysis of the ten sub-tests of the Seashore test of pitch discrimination revealed that more than one ability is involved. One factor, which accounted for the greater share of the variances, had loadings that decreased systematically with increasing difficulty. A second factor had strongest loadings among the more difficult items, particularly those with frequency differences of 2 to 5 cycles per second. A third had strongest loadings at differences of 5 to 12 cycles per second. No explanation for the three factors is apparent, but the hypothesis is accepted that they represent distinct abilities. In tests so homogeneous as to content and form, where a single common factor might well have been expected, the appearance of additional common factors emphasizes the importance of considering the difficulty level of test items, both in the attempt to interpret new factors and in the practice of testing. The same kind of item may measure different abilities according as it is easy or difficult for the individuals to whom it is applied.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1941 , pp. 67 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © 1941 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Chesire, L., Saffir, M., and Thurstone, L. L. Computing diagrams for the tetrachoric correlation coefficient, Chicago: Univ. Chicago Book Store, 1933.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. The psychophysics of mental test difficulty. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 121–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. Human abilities. Psychol. Rev., 1940, 47, 367–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertzman, M. The effects of the relative difficulty of mental tests on patterns of mental organization. Arch. Psychol., 1936, No. 197.Google Scholar
Woodrow, H. The effect of practice on test intercorrelations. J. educ. Psychol., 1938, 29, 561–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar