[From Pat Alfano]
July 21, 1992
I am not very happy with the data analysis I am doing on some recently
collected data. I was wondering if PCT might offer me a new way of
looking at the data.
Briefly, I used two neuropsychological tests of spatial orientation and
had subjects perform them under different conditions. Subjects were
timed and errors counted. After the test subjects were given a list of
strategies and asked to check off any of the strategies they may have
used to perform the test, and to note which strategies worked and which
did not work for them. I thought that strategies used may have had an
effect on time and errors. I did a multiple regression on the Stick Test
strategies and found that 5 of the 11 strategies accounted for most of
the variance in time to completion.
The Stick Test uses 10 patterns of 5 inch long by 1/2 inch wide, flat
sticks with one white tip. The examiner arranges 2, 3, or 4 sticks in a
pattern and the subject who is sitting across the table must arrange her
sticks to look to her as the examiners sticks look to the examiner. In
other words, the subject has to up-down and left-right reverse the
pattern. Five of the patterns use only sticks placed in a
vertical/horizontal orientation and 5 patterns use sticks placed on a
diagonal orientation only.
When I did a pilot study of the Stick Test and plotted each subjects
time on the two orinetation dimensions subjects times seemed to fall
into 1 of 2 patterns, but, on further testing, this did not hold up.
If anybody has any ideas about a better way to analyze the data I would
apprecite hearing them.
Thanks in advance.
Pat Alfano