Training effects varied by inductive reasoning process: all processes except Cross classification developed significantly, with the largest effects in Recognizing and Differentiating relationships¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 causal r2 · q3 · i1–i2
Currency · no dated study recorded · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i1 For the experimental group, all inductive reasoning processes except Cross classification developed significantly; corrected effect sizes were largest for Differentiating relationships (.53) and Recognizing relationships (.42), while Cross classification was .03. → Pásztor 2022 q3 i2 At the factor level, corrected effect sizes were close to 0.5 standard deviations for Similarity (.41) and Dissimilarity (.47) but much smaller for Integration (.13). → Pásztor 2022 (2)

Evidence¶

Pásztor 2022¶

Pásztor, Attila, Andrea Magyar, Anita Pásztor-Kovács, and Attila Rausch. 2022. Online Assessment and Game-Based Development of Inductive Reasoning. Journal of Intelligence 10: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030059

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Process-level analysis of the 122-student intervention (Table 7): experimental-group gains of 14.8% (Generalization, d = .31), 10.9% (Discrimination, .32), 18.7% (Recognizing relationships, .42), 14.8% (Differentiating relationships, .53), 9.8% (System construction, .20); Cross classification gained 2.0% (d = .03, not significant).

"For the experimental group, except for Cross Classification, all inductive reasoning processes developed significantly. Based on the corrected effect sizes, the largest developmental effects occurred in Recognizing and Differentiating relationships. In the latter case, the effect reached .5 of the standard deviation"

Pásztor 2022 (2)¶

Pásztor, Attila, Andrea Magyar, Anita Pásztor-Kovács, and Attila Rausch. 2022. Online Assessment and Game-Based Development of Inductive Reasoning. Journal of Intelligence 10: 59. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030059

q3 · i2 · causal · r2

Factor-level analysis of the same intervention study (Table 7): Similarity corrected d = .41, Dissimilarity .47, Integration .13; for Similarity both groups developed significantly, while for Dissimilarity and Integration only the experimental group increased significantly.

"For Similarity and Dissimilarity, the corrected effect sizes are similar in magnitude, close to 0.5 standard deviations. The developmental effect is much smaller for Integration, the corrected effect size is .13"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interleaving category examples improves inductive category learning for visual and mathematical materials, but not for expository texts or word categories — related
• A review of approximately 80 studies found cognitive training teaching both discrimination and generalization effective for inductive reasoning and problem-solving transfer — related