Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Vehicles of spatial ability

Roberto Colom*, Ma José Contreras, Juan Botella, José Santacreu
Facultad de Psicologı´a, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain

Received 22 January 2001; received in revised form 4 April 2001

Abstract
Spatial ability implies the generation, retention, retrieval, and transformation of visuo-spatial informa-
tion. Factor analytic research has identified a broad array of spatial factors. Visualization (Vz) and Spatial
relations (SR) are among the most cited. Dynamic spatial performance (DSP) has emerged in more recent
times as a new strong candidate. However, there are some doubts about the existence of clear separate
spatial factors. On the one hand, general spatial ability (Gv) has a substantial overlap with fluid reasoning
(Gf). On the other hand, as Carroll’s [Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor
analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] survey notes, procedures of measurement are in
need of considerable refinement. A battery of Vz, SR, and DSP spatial tests was applied in the present
study to a sample of 105 undergraduates. The correlation matrix is analysed through a Schmid–Leiman
hierarchical factor analysis, resulting in a powerful higher-order factor identified with Gv. First-order fac-
tors are shown as psychologically meaningless. Moreover, a confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates that
a single endogenous factor, identified with Gv, predicts fairly well all the spatial markers. The correlation
between the subjects’ Gv factor scores and their scores in the Cattell’s Culture Fair test shows a value of
+0.6. Therefore, the study suggests that there is no clear separation among markers of some core spatial
factors and that Gv strongly correlates with fluid ability (Gf). # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: General visualization; Visualization; Spatial relations; Dynamic spatial performance; Fluid reasoning;
Cattell’s Culture Fair test; Schmid–Leiman hierarchical factor analysis

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-397-4141; fax: +34-91-397-5215.

E-mail address: roberto.colom@uam.es (R. Colom).

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(01)00095-2
904 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

1. Introduction

Spatial ability is routinely defined by the generation, retention, retrieval and transformation of
visual images. However, it is usually claimed that spatial ability is not a unitary construct.
Reviews of factor analytic studies show a broad array of spatial factors (Carroll, 1993; Ekstrom,
French, & Harman, 1976; French, 1951; French, Ekstrom & Price, 1963; Lohman, 1979, 1988,
2000). Vz, SR, and SO are among the most prominent factors. Vz, or visualization, is defined by
complex spatial tests such Paper folding or Surface development. SR, or spatial relations, is
defined by the speed in manipulating simple visual patterns such as mental rotations. SO, or
spatial orientation, can sometimes be distinguished. SO tests require the subject to imagine how
an array would appear from a different perspective and then to make a judgement from that
imagined perspective. SO is not always recognized as a separate factor (Carroll).
The main distinction between Vz and SR is obviously based on several cognitive tests. There are
some researchers that have intended to classify the available tests by construct (Carroll, 1993;
French, 1951; Lohman, 1979, 1988). French described Vz as the ability to comprehend imaginary
movements in a three-dimensional space or the ability to manipulate objects in imagination. Vz is
represented in the 1963 ETS factor kit (French et al., 1963). It offers as marker tests Vz-1 (Form
Board Test), Vz-2 (Paper Folding Test), and Vz-3 (Surface Development Test). These same tests
are indicated as Vz markers in the 1976 ETS kit (Ekstrom et al., 1976). Vz is one of the factors
most frequently isolated in factorial investigations. Lohman (1988) suggests that Vz can be mea-
sured through the following tests: Paper Folding, Paper Form Board, Surface Development,
Block Design, Shepard–Metzler Mental Rotations, and Mechanical Principles. Carroll nominated the
next Vz markers: Paper Form Board Tasks, Block Tasks, Block Rotation Tasks, Paper Folding
Tasks, Surface Development Tasks, and Perspective Tasks. Therefore, Vz markers requires the sub-
ject to apprehend a spatial form, shape, or scene in order to match it with another spatial form,
shape, or scene with the necessity of rotating it in two or three dimensions one or more times.
French (1951) defined SR as the ability to perceive spatial patterns or to maintain orientation
with respect to objects in space. The suggested markers were: S-1 (Card Rotations), S-2 (Cube
Comparisons), and S-3 (Spatial Orientation). The 1976 ETS kit offers only the Card Rotations
Test and the Cube Comparisons Test as SR markers. According to Lohman (1988), SR can be
measured through the following tests: the Cards, flags, and figures test, the Aerial orientation test,
and the Chair-window test. Carroll’s (1993) survey is influenced by the Lohman et al. (1987)
suggestion that SR is usually defined by simple, speeded tests such as the Cards, flags, and figures
test that require the subject to compare two stimuli to determine whether one is only a rotated
version of the other, or is a reflected version of the other, rotated or not. Probably, the best
marker of SR is the Cards, flags, and figures test as used by Thurstone; the Card Rotation Test
can be used also. Rotation of the stimulus seems a critical aspect of the factor, although accuracy
in visual scanning is also a component of the factor.
Beyond the domain of printed spatial tests, Hunt, Pellegrino, Frick, Farr, and Alderton (1988)
performed an influential study of static and dynamic spatial ability. ‘‘Static’’ refers to some of the
spatial factors ordinarily measured by printed tests such as Vz or SR. ‘‘Dynamic’’ refers to the
prediction of where a moving object is going and when it will arrive at its predicted destination.
These researchers state that dynamic spatial performance (DSP) is measurable only in the context
of computerized testing. They suggest that dynamic spatial factors in addition to those associated
 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912 905

with static spatial factors are necessary to account for performance of tasks involving prediction
of directions and arrival times of moving points and objects (Law, Pellegrino & Hunt, 1993; Law,
Pellegrino, Mitchell, Fischer, McDonald, & Hunt, 1993; Pellegrino & Hunt, 1989; Pellegrino,
Hunt, Abate, & Farr, 1987).
In summary, Vz refers to the ability to mentally manipulate visual patterns, as indicated by
level of difficulty and complexity in visual material that can be handled successfully. SR refers to
the speed in manipulating relatively simple visual patterns by mentally rotating or transforming
them. There is some evidence for factors involving tasks in which the subject must predict direc-
tions and arrival times of moving objects (DSP). However, as stated by Carroll (1993), ‘‘although
there exists a considerable amount of knowledge about individual differences in the spatial ability
domain, there are many gaps, and procedures of measurement are in need of much refinement’’ (p.
363, italics added).
It is this latter statement that has motivated the present study. Researchers used routinely sev-
eral markers of Vz, SR, or DSP. However, there is an open possibility associated with the well-
known principle of the positive manifold: ‘‘many different kinds of measures of intellectual ability
form a positive manifold. This means that individuals who excel in one kind of intellectual task
are likely to excel in other kinds. To the extent that this is true, the choice of tasks that are used to
develop a measure of intelligence is not critical’’ (Brody & Ehrlichman, 1998, p. 256). The main
question we are trying to answer is whether or not there are spatial abilities (Vz, SR and DSP are
some examples) or a single general spatial ability (Gv). Several markers of Vz and SR, including
DSP tasks, are selected for that purpose.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

105 psychology undergraduates took part in the study. The mean age was 18.79 (S.D.=2.3). 89
were females and 16 were males. They were paid volunteers ($15 for their participation plus a $25
reward for the best scorers).

2.2. Measures and procedures

Several markers were selected. SR was measured by the following tests: Coordinates (Secadas,
1960), Trajectories (Germain & Pascual, 1969), Eliot–Donnelly (Eliot & Donnelly, 1978), PMA-S
(Thurstone, 1938), Arrows (Juan-Espinosa, Abad, Colom, & Fernández-Truchard, 2000), Maps
(Juan-Espinosa et al), TCT (Santacreu, Contreras, & Shih, 1999), and SODT-R (Santacreu &
Rubio, 1998). Vz was measured by Surface development (Thurstone & Thurstone, 1948) and
SVDT-R (Santacreu & Rubio). There is an excess of SR markers because different kinds of
mental transformations were considered (mental rotation and orientation are some examples).
Arrows, Maps, TCT, SODT-R and SVDT-R were computer administered (TCT, SODT-R, and
SVDT-R were DSP markers too). Furthermore, the Cattell’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test (TEA,
1997) was applied as a marker of fluid intelligence (Gf). As Lohman (2000) has pointed out, there
is a substantial overlap between spatial ability and fluid reasoning (p. 322) so it seems appropriate
906 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

to measure this ability for control purposes. Half of the participants took the printed tests first,
while the other half took the computerized tests first. A brief task description follows.

2.2.1. SODT-R and SVDT-R

The participant’s task is to simultaneously direct two moving points to a given destination. The
destination changes from trial to trial and the two moving points could come from the north, the
east, or the west of the computer screen. To direct the two moving points, the subject must use a
digital compass linked to each of them in the SVDT-R. The moving points disappear from the
computer screen in a given moment, and, thus, the person must ‘‘visualize’’ the points. In the
SODT-R, the person must direct the moving points through a box with two arrows linked to each
moving points: one arrow moves the point in a given direction, while the other arrow moves it in
the opposite direction. SODT-R and SVDT-R are modified versions of the computerized tests
described by Contreras, Colom, Shih, Álava, and Santacreu (2001) under the heading SODT and
SVDT. The computerized tests were applied in groups of 20 people. The administration of both
tests takes about 20 min of effective work. Each computerized test consists of 10 trials.

2.2.2. TCT
Two moving points appear on the computer screen coming from different places. Both points move
at a constant speed. They stop at an unpredictable moment. The participant’s task is to manipulate
the path of one of the points, so it will contact the second point in a ‘‘predicted’’ given destination.

2.2.3. Arrows
The participant is asked to imagine that a long arrow indicates the direction of travel and a
short arrow (associated with the long one) indicates a deviation onto which he/she could turn.
The participant must decide, as soon as possible, whether she/he has turned to the right or to the
left, depending on both arrows, the long and the short one.

2.2.4. Maps
The participant read a route (a set of directions) on the computer screen and then a street map with
four different coloured routes. Below the map, four rectangles with the route colour are shown. The
participant must decide which of the coloured routes represents the route described at first.

2.2.5. Eliot–Donnelly B-F test

A chair is located inside a room. There are five points located in five different places of the
room (floor, back, front, and so forth). The subject’s task is to decide from which point it is
possible to see the chair as indicated by a chair-model presented outside the room.

2.2.6. Surface development

The person must fold a piece of paper to form a solid figure. Then, she/he must decide the cor-
respondence among several numbers and letters in the unfolded and the folded pieces, respectively.

2.2.7. PMA-S
The subject must decide which of six possible alternatives are rotated or inverted versions of a
given figure that serve as the model figure.
 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912 907

2.2.8. Coordinates
A coordinate system is presented. Within the system, there are some points. The subject must
take a decision about the numbers that correspond to the X and the Y axes that permit the
location of the points.

2.2.9. Trajectories
Four arrows represent the curve trajectories of four cars. Five points are proposed as passing
points of the curve trajectories that the cars must presumably follow. The subject is asked to
decide which point is within the cars’ trajectories.

2.2.10. Cattell’s Culture-Fair Intelligence Test

This is the well-known test of fluid intelligence (Gf) developed by R.B. Cattell. The Scale 3 was
administered.

2.3. Analyses

The correlation matrix was submitted to a hierarchical factor analysis (Schmid–Leiman trans-
formation; Schmid & Leiman, 1957). A principal axis factoring (PFA) was performed to extract
the factors, followed by a Promax rotation. In the Schmid–Leiman transformation, a procedure
highly recommended within the abilities domain (Carroll, 1993; Jensen, 1998; Loehlin, 1992) the
higher order factors are allowed to account for as much of the correlation among the observed
variables as they can, while the lower order factors are reduced to residual factors uncorrelated
with each other and with the higher order factors. Therefore, each factor represents the indepen-
dent contribution of the factor in question. We first checked a two-factor solution. Therefore, the
hierarchical factor analysis extracted a higher-order factor and two first-order factors. Pre-
sumably, the first-order factors will be defined by the SR and the Vz markers. Then, a three-fac-
tor solution was attempted, because of the possible separation between Vz, SR, and DSP
markers.

3. Results

The descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Table 2 shows the correlation matrix. The cor-
relation matrix was submitted to a hierarchical factor analysis. The two-factor solution is shown
in Table 3.
The Schmid–Leiman two-factor solution tells a familiar story within the abilities domain: there
is a great ‘‘positive manifold’’ in the test battery. First, note that there is a higher-order factor
that accounts for more than 20% of the variance. The mean test’s Gv loading is 0.435
(S.D.=0.127, range 0.20/0.61). Most of the tests load primarily on the higher-order factor, that
we think represents Gv (general visualization) fairly well. F1 is an important factor that groups
most of the tests, with the notable exception of Coordinates and Trajectories. The latter tests
define F2. Therefore, there seems to be a separation of the variance corresponding to the eleven
tests in the battery between the higher-order factor and the first-order factors. However, and this
is the important point to note, the first-order factors are not defined by SR and Vz markers.
908 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

There is something common to all the measures of spatial ability, irrespective of the construct
they are intended to tap.
The three-factor solution is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 reveals some appreciable changes. First, Gv was even greater in importance: Now, Gv
explains 28% of the common variance. The mean Gv loading of the tests is now 0.506
(S.D.=0.160, range=0.15/0.71). With respect to the first-order factors, most of the tests load on
more than one factor and, therefore, there is no simple structure here. The Culture-Fair Intelli-
gence Test shows a very high loading on F1, and the same can be said of Coordinates and Tra-
jectories on F3. All the remaining tests are factorially complex.
Thus, the usual markers of SR and Vz are not distinguished in the present study. What this
could mean is that there is a great positive manifold in the spatial abilities domain: if you are a

Table 1
Descriptive statistics

Tests Mean S.D.

Cattell 24.92 4.16

Elliot 9.09 4.47
Arrows 118.05 61.95
Maps 12.34 5.55
PMA-S 24.24 11.88
Surface development 28.47 15.13
TCT 44.32 33.72
SODT-R 66.86 33.11
SVDT-R 56.01 25.03
Coordinates 30.28 13.30
Trajectories 13.11 7.84

Table 2
Correlation matrix

Cattell Elliot Arrows Maps PMA-S Surface TCT SODT-R SVDT-R Coordinates Trajectories

Cattell
Elliot 0.501**
Arrows 0.241* 0.386**
Maps 0.388** 0.342** 0.307**
PMA-S 0.501** 0.386** 0.219* 0.344**
Surface 0.505** 0.510** 0.465** 0.459** 0.486**
TCT 0.398** 0.388** 0.283** 0.374** 0.428** 0.342**
SODT-R 0.381** 0.541** 0.345** 0.421** 0.332** 0.495** 0.472**
SVDT-R 0.026 0.161 0.130 0.239* 0.186 0.340** 0.187 0.269**
Coordinates 0.271** 0.357** 0.318** 0.252** 0.247* 0.409** 0.084 0.398** 0.114
Trajectories 0.048 0.137 0.165 0.089 0.113 0.118 0.010 0.069 0.018 0.347**

*P< 0.05
**P< 0.01
 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912 909

good scorer on a spatial test, you probably will be a good scorer on another spatial test irre-
spective of the specific construct it tries to tap. If this is true, then it is not a reasonable practice to
use spatial ability markers to separate the so-called spatial sub-abilities. There are no clear spatial
sub-abilities, such as Spatial relations (SR), Visualization (Vz), or Dynamic spatial reasoning
(DSR). What you have are general visualization tests (Gv).
A CFA model was contrasted to look at the likelihood of the latter statement. The analysis was
performed through the AMOS statistical package (Arbuckle, 1997). The resulting CFA model is
shown in Fig. 1. The cognitive tests load on a single endogenous factor, designated as Gv. The fit
indexes follow: GFI=0.904, TLI=0.917, RMSEA=0.065, CMIN/DF=1.437, P=0.030. There-
fore, the proposed model shows a good fit. This is further evidence supporting the view that there
is a powerful single spatial ability (Gv) underlying spatial performance.

Table 3
Hierarchical two-factor solution (Schmid–Leiman transformation)

Tests Gv F1 F2

Cattell 462 472 034

Elliot 551 427 095
Arrows 437 249 165
Maps 384 456 092
PMA-S 437 421 007
Surface development 610 443 135
TCT 350 511 178
SODT-R 525 440 057
SVDT-R 198 200 012
Coordinates 564 037 496
Trajectories 271 137 394

% Variance 20.45 14.18 4.54

Table 4
Hierarchical three-factor solution (Schmid–Leiman transformation)

Tests Gv F1 F2 F3

Cattell 560 692 136 0

Elliot 636 229 128 119
Arrows 494 0 170 177
Maps 540 143 223 142
PMA-S 518 353 031 026
Surface development 706 175 186 143
TCT 516 228 180 195
SODT-R 667 067 270 030
SVDT-R 309 133 252 075
Coordinates 475 0 041 545
Trajectories 146 022 093 516

% Variance 27.9 7.1 3 6.27

910 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

Fig. 1. CFA model.

4. Discussion

The present study raises doubts about the use of cognitive tests as markers of specific spatial
factors. The hierarchical factor analyses suggest that it is difficult to separate SR, Vz, and DSP
markers. A higher-order factor emerges that explains a large part of the common factor variance.
The spatial tests show salient loadings on this higher-order factor designated as Gv (general
visualization). Moreover, the first-order factors are psychologically meaningless: there is no
separation of Vz, SR, and DSP markers. This is true both for the two-factor and the three-factor
solution.
 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912 911

The confirmatory factor analysis considering a single factor shows a good fit. In this model, all
the cognitive tests are predicted by a single endogenous factor designated as Gv. This is further
evidence supporting the main finding: within the spatial ability domain, there is a powerful single
source of variance, namely, general visualization (Gv).
Gv is also strongly related with the participants’ performance in the Cattell’s Culture Fair test:
the Pearson r between the participants’ Gv factor scores (excluding the CF test) and their scores
on the Culture Fair test is +0.6 (P<0.01). Given that the Culture-Fair test is a good measure of
fluid reasoning, this is new evidence supporting Lohman (2000) statement about the close rela-
tionship among spatial ability and fluid reasoning.
A reviewer notes that given the restriction of talent in the sample, the correlation between Gv
and the CF test is high. The three-factor solution (Table 4) indicates that there may be variance in
the CF test that is independent of Gv. This fact suggests that if there were more marker variables
for Gf it would be possible to obtain a separate Gf factor partially independent of Gv. We agree.
However, as the reviewer acknowledges, the present study cannot provide an answer to this issue.
To what extent agree the present results with previous research? There is another study in which
a broad battery of dynamic and static tests was used (Hunt et al., 1988). We re-analysed their
correlation matrix to make their findings comparable with ours. Only the accuracy scores were
considered1. Three models were fitted. Model A postulates three correlated factors, correspond-
ing to the dynamic, the static, and the printed spatial measures, respectively. Model B postulates
a single endogenous factor representing Gv. Finally, Model C is a hierarchical higher-order factor
model (Yung, Thissen, & McCleod, 1999); it is like Model A, but a higher-order factor (Gv)
predicts the first-order factors corresponding to the dynamic, the static, and the printed measures
of spatial performance. The fit indexes for Models A and C are exactly the same (CMIN/
DF=1.612; GFI=0.860; TLI=0.832, RMSEA=0.063; ECVI=2.120). This is the expected
result, given that the correlations among the factors in Model A are all higher than 0.7. The fit
indexes for Model B are CMIN/DF=1.759; GFI=0.841; TLI=0.791, RMSEA=0.071;
ECVI=2.259. Therefore, our re-analysis of the Hunt et al. data seems congruent with the
empirical results observed in the present study: there is an important ‘‘positive manifold’’ within
the spatial domain.
In summary, spatial ability can presumably be conceptualised as a unitary construct. Although
there were several attempts to separate spatial markers, the results are far from conclusive. It
seems more promising to separate spatial tasks according to their level of complexity. This is
recognised by researchers like Carroll (1993). There are some tasks relying on the level of diffi-
culty the subject can handle, while others rely on the speed in manipulating simple visual pat-
terns. There is nothing really intrinsic to the spatial tasks themselves leading to a separation like
the one based on visualization (Vz) or spatial relation (SR) mental processes.

Acknowledgements

This research was partially supported by the project AENA-UAM/785001. We thank Dr. Sybil
Eysenck for editing the manuscript with an extremely high Conscientiousness

1
The analyzed correlation matrix is available upon request from the first author.
912 R. Colom et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2001) 903–912

References
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS 3.6. Smallwaters Corporation.
Brody, N., & Ehrlichman, H. (1998). Personality. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Contreras, M. J., Colom, R., Shih, P. C., Álava, M. J., & Santacreu, J. (2001). Dynamic spatial performance: sex and
educational differences. Personality and Individual differences, 30(1), 117–126.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., & Harman, H. H. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Eliot, J., & Donnelly, J. (1978). Eliot-Donnelly’s B-F test. University of Maryland: Institute for Child Study.
French, J. W. (1951). The description of aptitude and achievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Edu-
cational Testing Service.
Germain, J., & Pascual, M. (1969). Apreciación de trayectorias [Trajectories appreciation]. Madrid: INPAP.
Hunt, E., Pellegrino, J. W., Frick, R. W., Farr, S. A., & Alderton, D. (1988). The ability to reason about movement in
the visual field. Intelligence, 12, 77–100.
Jensen, A. (1998). The g factor. London: Praeger.
Juan-Espinosa, M., Abad, F. J., Colom, R., & Fernández-Truchaud, M. (2000). Individual differences in large-spaces
orientation: g and beyond? Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 85–98.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Comparing the tortoise and the hare. Gender differences and
experience in dynamic spatial reasoning tasks. Psychological Science, 4, 35–40.
Law, D. J., Pellegrino, J. W., Mitchell, S. R., Fischer, S. C., Mcdonald, T. P., & Hunt, E. B. (1993). Perceptual and
cognitive factors governing performance in comparative arrival-time judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1183–1199.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variables models: an introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lohman, D. (1979): Spatial ability: a review and reanalysis of the correlational literature. (Technical report, N. 8).
Stanford University, School of Education: Aptitude Research Project.
Lohman, D. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psy-
chology of human intelligence, (Vol. 4). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Lohman, D. (2000): Complex information processing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.): Handbook of human intelligence.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lohman, D. F., Pellegrino, J. W., Alderton, D. L., & Regian, J. W. (1987). Dimensions and components of individual
differences in spatial abilities. In S. H. Irvine, & S. E. Newstead (Eds.), Intelligence and cognition: contemporary
frames of reference (pp. 253–312). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Pellegrino, J., & Hunt, E. (1989). Computer-controlled assesment of static and dynamic spatial reasoning. In R. Dillon,
& J. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: theoretical and applied perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Pellegrino, J. W., Hunt, E. B., Abate, R., & Farr, S. (1987). A computer-based test battery for the assessment of static
and dynamic spatial reasoning abilities. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 19, 231–236.
Santacreu, J., & Rubio, V. (1998). SODT and SVDT: dynamic computerized tests for the assessment of spatial abil-
ity(Technical report). Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Santacreu, J., Contreras, Ma J., & Shih, P. C. (1999). TCT, cross trajectories test. (Technical report). Madrid: Uni-
versidad Autónoma de Madrid.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.
Secadas, F. (1960). DECATEST. Baterı´a de tests de oficios. [Battery of occupations’ tests]. Madrid: CSIC.
TEA. (1997). Manual del test de factor g de Cattell [Handbook of the Cattell’s Culture-Fair Intelligence Test]. Madrid: TEA.
Thurstone, L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric Monographs, 1.
Thurstone, T., & Thurstone, L. (1948). Mechanical aptitude II: description of group tests (Report No. 54). Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago, Psychometric Laboratory.
Yung, Y., Thissen, D., & McCleod, L. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the
hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64(2), 113–128.