![]() ![]() Kunze, Thiemo ![]() ![]() ![]() Scientific Conference (2017, September) Detailed reference viewed: 93 (2 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling (2017) Detailed reference viewed: 94 (1 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, Special Issue Current Methodological Issues in Educational Large-Scale Assessments – Part II (2017), 59 Detailed reference viewed: 195 (14 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling (2017) Detailed reference viewed: 59 (4 UL)![]() ![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() Scientific Conference (2017) Detailed reference viewed: 70 (1 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling (2017), 59 Detailed reference viewed: 103 (14 UL)![]() ; Stadler, Matthias ![]() in Computers in Human Behavior (2016) Computer-based assessments of complex problem solving performance often take place in group settings like classrooms and computer laboratories. Such computer-based procedures provide an excellent ... [more ▼] Computer-based assessments of complex problem solving performance often take place in group settings like classrooms and computer laboratories. Such computer-based procedures provide an excellent opportunity to examine setting effects that might occur while participants are tested in a non-group session online at a time and place of their own choosing. For this purpose, N = 273 teacher students were randomly assigned to one of two settings: the individual online condition (n=216) or the computer laboratory group condition (n=57). Strong factorial measurement invariance was evidenced. Participants performed significantly better in the individual online condition than in the group condition (knowledge acquisition:d=0.38; knowledge application: d=0.39). The worse performance in the group setting compared to the individual setting could neither be explained by exploration time, nor by time on task. The internal experimental design validity strengthens the conclusion that setting-related differences in cognitive ability testing are not negligible but noteworthy. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 157 (9 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() Doctoral thesis (2016) Detailed reference viewed: 75 (16 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() in Higher Education Research & Development (2016), 35(2), 365-379 Detailed reference viewed: 176 (6 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Special Issue: Current Methodological Issues in Educational Large-Scale Assessments – Part I (2016), 58 Detailed reference viewed: 50 (4 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() in Personality and Individual Differences (2016), 94 Achieving a university degree is a demanding long-term goal, and students often show varying levels of academic achievement despite similar intellectual abilities. In order to help students, researchers ... [more ▼] Achieving a university degree is a demanding long-term goal, and students often show varying levels of academic achievement despite similar intellectual abilities. In order to help students, researchers thereby need to understand the origins of these individual differences. However, it remains unclear whether self-control is important for students' academic achievement beyond their general cognitive ability. To answer this question,N= 150 German university students completed a measure of general cognitive ability as well as a German translation of the Brief Self-Control Scale. Grade point average (GPA) served as an objective indicator of academic achievement, complemented by personal ratings as a measure of subjective academic achievement (SAA). Both cognitive ability and self-control explained substantial amounts of variance in GPA; however, only self-control accounted for variance in SAA. The study's keyfinding was that self-control indeed contributed to explaining GPA and SAA, even when cognitive ability was controlled for. On the basis of these results, we argue that self-control holds important explanatory value for both objective and subjective academic achievement, and we discuss the results' practical relevance with regard to student success at university. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 222 (7 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling (2016), 58 Detailed reference viewed: 120 (10 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() in Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling (2016), 58 Detailed reference viewed: 67 (8 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() ![]() Poster (2015) Detailed reference viewed: 134 (0 UL)![]() ![]() Kunze, Thiemo ![]() ![]() ![]() Scientific Conference (2015) Detailed reference viewed: 69 (1 UL)![]() ![]() ; Stadler, Matthias ![]() ![]() Scientific Conference (2015) Detailed reference viewed: 220 (4 UL)![]() ![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() Scientific Conference (2015) Detailed reference viewed: 77 (0 UL)![]() Greiff, Samuel ![]() ![]() ![]() in Intelligence (2015), 50 Detailed reference viewed: 268 (13 UL)![]() Greiff, Samuel ![]() ![]() in Thinking & Reasoning (2015), 21 Detailed reference viewed: 198 (4 UL)![]() Stadler, Matthias ![]() in Intelligence (2015), 53 Detailed reference viewed: 277 (37 UL) |
||