Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT): Individual Differences,Performance,and Learning Effects

Abstract

A laboratory study was conducted to investigate overall performance and learning effect differences with the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) administered to 48 finance specialists. The study examined these differences based on the effects of several demographic characteristics: age, sex, total time employed with the current employer, total time employed in the current position, level of education, type of position held in the organization, and amount of academic and applied finance experience. Results indicated that total time employed in the organization tended to affect GEFT performance with those employed for fewer years manifesting greater field independence. An overall learning effect, as measured by the average difference score obtained between Parts II and III of the GEFT, was observed for those examinees who had been employed in the organization longer than the average.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. (1979). Values and events approaches to accounting: An experimental evaluation. The Accounting Review, 54, 734-749.

Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. (1982). Individual differences in the use of decision support aids. Journal of Accounting Research, 20, 1-11.

Carter, H. and Loo, R. (1980). Group Embedded Figures Test: Psychometric data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 32-34.

Chalip, L. (1979). Learning on the Group Embedded Figures Test: Psychometric data for a sample of business students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 707-710.

DeSanctis, G. and Dunikoski, R. (1983). Group Embedded Figures Test: Psychometric data for a sample of business students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 707-710.

Doktor, R. and Hamilton, W. (1973). Cognitive style and the acceptance of management science recommendations. Management Science, 19, 884-894.

Dos Santos, B. and Bariff, M. (1988). A study of user interface aids for model-oriented decision support systems. Management Science, 34(4), 461-468.

Fallik, B. and Eliot, J. (1985). Intuition, cognitive style, and hemispheric processing. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 683-697.

Johnson, S. , Flinn, J. , and Tyzer, Z. (1979). Effect of practice and training in spatial skills on embedded figures scores of males and females. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48, 975-984.

10.

Lusk, E. (1973). Cognitive aspects of annual reports: Field independence/dependence (Supplement). Journal of Accounting Research, 11, 191-201.

11.

Lusk, E. and Kersnick, M. (1979). Effect of cognitive style and report format on task performance: The MIS design consequences. Management Science, 25, 787-798.

12.

Lusk, E. and Wright, H. (1981). Differences in sex and curricula on learning the Group Embedded Figures Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 53, 370.

13.

O'Leary, M. , Calsyn, D. , and Fauria, T. (1980). The Group Embedded Figures Test: A measure of cognitive style or cognitive impairment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 532-537.

14.

Pincus, K. (1984). Group Embedded Figures Test: Psychometric data for a sample of accountants compared with student norms. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 707-712.

15.

Renna, M. and Zenhausern, R. (1976). The Group Embedded Figures Test: Normative data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 1176-1178.

16.

Witkin, H. , Goodenough, D. , and Karp S. (1967). Stability of cognitive style from childhood to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3), Part 1, 291-300.

17.

Witkin, H. , Oltman, P. , Raskin, E. , and Karp, S. (1971). A manual for the Embedded Figures Test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.