Cognitive Competencies

Symbol-Digit Test and Animal Naming Task

Summary

The two ultra-short cognitive performance tasks allow for reliable assessment of general intellectual ability and distinguish between two components of intellectual functioning: cognitive mechanics and pragmatics (e.g., Lindenberger & Baltes, 1997). Each test takes 90 seconds and is completed on a laptop. The respondent completes the Symbol-Digit Test him/herself, whereas the interviewer documents the answers to the Animal Naming Task. Both tasks therefore require the survey mode of Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).

Theoretical Background

Cognitive mechanisms are hard-wired, biologically based capacities for information processing and are measured with the Symbol-Digit Test (SDT). The study of cognitive mechanics deals with differences in cognitive performance, for example, in the speed, accuracy, processing capacity, coordination, and inhibition of basic cognitive processes. Prime examples include perceptual speed, working memory, and the capacity for deductive reasoning. The cognitive mechanics usually develop in a process continuing up to early adulthood, then begin to decline gradually and may deteriorate more rapidly in some areas in old age. Cognitive pragmatics are education- and experience-related competencies, which are measured with the Animal Naming Task (ANT). The development of cognitive pragmatics is the result of investments in the development of cognitive mechanics in selected behavioral areas early in the life course (e.g., in educational trajectories, in training). The cognitive pragmatics develop continuously throughout life, reaching their peak late in the life course and declining only marginally in old age. Unsurprisingly, the cognitive abilities that build on pragmatic intellectual abilities (e.g., knowledge, vocabulary, wisdom) usually correlate much more strongly with socio-economic resources such as education, income, and occupational prestige, whereas the development of basic cognitive mechanisms over the life course is much more strongly affected by individual sensory and psychomotor resources (Baltes, Lindenberger & Staudinger, 1998).

Scale Development

The individual tests of perceptual speed (Symbol-Digit Test) and word fluency (Animal Naming Test) were modified for use with a computer-assisted survey mode. The decisive factor in this was the need to be able to use the tests without any special interviewer training and to reduce sources of error in the framework of Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) as much as possible. Further information on the development of the tests can be found in Lang (2005), Lang, Weiss, Stocker and von Rosenbladt (2007), and in Schupp, Herrmann, Jaensch and Lang (2008).

References

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U. & Staudinger, U. M. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In R. M. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th edition, Vol. 1: Theoretical models of human development, pp. 1029 – 1143). New York: Wiley.

Lang, F. R. (2005). Erfassung des kognitiven Leistungspotenzials und der “Big Five” mit Computer- Assisted-Personal-Interviewing (CAPI): Zur Reliabilität und Validität zweier ultrakurzer Tests und des BFI-S (Assessment of cognitive capabilities and the Big Five with Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI): Reliability and validity). German Institute of Economic Research. Berlin: DIW Berlin.

Lang, F. R., Weiss, D., Stocker, A., & von Rosenbladt, B. (2007). Assessing cognitive capacities in Computer-Assisted Survey Research: Two ultra-short tests of intellectual ability in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127, 183-192.

Lindenberger, U., & Baltes, P. B. (1997). Intellectual functioning in old and very old age: Cross- sectional results from the Berlin Aging Study. Psychology and Aging, 12, 410-432.

Schupp, J., Herrmann, S., Jaensch, P., & Lang, F. R. (2008). Erfassung kognitiver Leistungspotentiale Erwachsener im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP). Berlin: DIW Berlin.

Items

Symbol-Digit Test & Animal Naming Task

  1. In 30 seconds.

  2. In 30-60 seconds.

  3. In 60-90 seconds.

Items and Scale Statistics

year

variable

count

mean

sd

itemrestcorr

alpha

2006

f99z30r

5790

8.09

4.09

0.86

0.94

2006

f99z60rneu

5790

9.05

4.10

0.91

0.94

2006

f99z90rneu

5790

8.61

3.62

0.86

0.94

2012

f99z30r

7342

8.97

3.82

0.78

0.90

2012

f99z60rneu

7342

10.22

3.55

0.85

0.90

2012

f99z90rneu

7342

9.98

3.07

0.77

0.90

2016

f99z30r

18155

9.50

6.13

0.39

0.68

2016

f99z60rneu

18155

10.62

3.72

0.65

0.68

2016

f99z90rneu

18155

10.25

3.23

0.61

0.68

2006

f96t30g

5790

11.83

6.02

0.40

0.65

2006

f96t60gneu

5790

7.18

4.60

0.57

0.65

2006

f96t90gneu

5790

5.06

4.19

0.47

0.65

2012

f96t30g

1285

12.64

5.18

0.40

0.68

2012

f96t60gneu

1285

8.86

4.44

0.58

0.68

2012

f96t90gneu

1285

6.34

4.14

0.52

0.68

2016

f96t30g

809

11.99

4.83

0.46

0.70

2016

f96t60gneu

809

8.88

4.18

0.60

0.70

2016

f96t90gneu

809

6.53

3.93

0.52

0.70

Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test (MWT)

Summary

The Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test (Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest; MWT; Lehrl, 2005) aims to measure the education- and experience-related cognitive pragmatics. The test asks for knowledge and is therefore only minimally influenced by currently availably cognitive capacities. The test takes about 5 minutes. The respondents are asked to find the existing and commonly known word in 37 groups of five words each with four words in each group being fictive and newly constructed (multiple-choice). The 37 groups are ordered by difficulty and the test is finished after three incorrect classifications.

Scale Development

The Multiple-Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test (Version A) was modified for use with a computer- assisted survey mode. After pretesting in 2011 the test was introduced into the SOEP in 2012 (N = 6,864, M = 28.14, SD = 6.98).

References

Lehrl, S. (1991). Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest MWT-A; (Parallelform zum MWT-B). Erlangen: perimed-Fachbuch-Verl.-Ges.

Items

The MWT items are not allowed to be published.

I-S-T 2000 R

Summary

In the year 2006, the SOEP included its first cognition test for adolescents in the range of SOEP survey instruments. Since then, the test has been carried out annually with each new cohort of adolescents. A specially designed questionnaire is used to measure adolescents’ cognitive mechanics based on the I-S-T 2000 test in three modules (word analogies, number sequences, and matrices). In strict adherence to the test criteria, interviewer-based surveying is compulsory. Also, the use and especially design and structure of the questionnaire require that the test be conducted by an interviewer and that the time be monitored.

Theoretical Background

The cognitive test measures adolescents’ cognitive mechanics in three different modules. Cognitive mechanics refer to the hard-wired, biologically based capacities for information processing. The task set “word analogies” measures respondents’ verbal cognitive potentials. Respondents are asked to assign words to a given sequence of words according to a specific rule. The test uses the individual’s own vocabulary to measure combinatory ability. The task set “number sequences” measures the numerical cognitive potential of the respondents. These tasks focus primarily on the adolescents’ abstract combinatory ability and logical thinking. The task set “matrices” measures the figural cognitive abilities of the respondents.

Scale Development

To study the cognitive performance potential of adolescents, we developed a questionnaire based on the I-S-T 2000-Test (Amthauer, Brocke, Liepmann & Beauducel, 2001) that is appropriate for an individual panel survey. The modifications have been described in detail by Solga et al. (2005). Further information on test development can be found in Schupp and Herrmann (2009).

References

Amthauer, R., Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., & Beauducel, A. (2001). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 R (I- S-T 2000 R) – Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

Solga, H., Stern, E., von Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2005). The measurement and importance of general reasoning potentials in schools and labour markets. Berlin: DIW Berlin.

Schupp, J., & Herrmann, S. (2009). Kognitionspotenziale Jugendlicher. Ergänzung zum Jugendfragebogen der Längsschnittstudie Sozio-oekonomisches Panel (SOEP). Berlin: DIW Berlin.

Items

I-S-T 2000 R

  1. Word analogies.

  2. Number sequences.

  3. Matrices.

Items and Scale Statistics

year

variable

count

mean

sd

itemrestcorr

alpha

2006-2020

analog

3570

8.18

3.65

0.53

0.69

2006-2020

rechenz

3545

12.59

4.91

0.50

0.69

2006-2020

matrize

3562

9.78

3.43

0.54

0.69