{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03449597546952855, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02261402836335761, 'mean_word_length': 4.865168539325842, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Test-Retest Reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test Scores of Female Undergraduates

The dimension reflection-impulsivity, identified by Jerome Kagan and associates (21, describes individual differences among children's problem-solving situations. The reflection-impulsivity construct has most often been measured through the use of the Matching Familiar Figures Test which allows classification of a subject's cognitive sryle based upon average time to respond to test items and total number of errors. While Kagan has hypothesized the existence of the reflection-impulsivity dimension across a wide age range, experimenters have typically used children and virtually ignored adults and adolescenrs as subjects. One study (1) addressed the issue of reliability of the Marching Familiar Figures Test for adult subjects. In conclusion, these authors suggested that stability of scores needed to be studied over longer periods of time particularly with adult subjects. The present study examined stability of scores on the Matching Familiar Figures Test for 25 female undergraduate students who were majoring in education. They were randomly chosen from a total of 270 women enrolled in educational psychology. The median chronological age for the sample was 21 yr., 4 mo. Two subjects did not take the retest after 10 wk. so results are based on the scores of 23 students. For both sessions each subject was individually administered the adult/adolescent version of the test. Mean response times for the first and second sessions were 56.03 sec. (SD = 13.87) and 51.61 sec. (SD = 12.95), respectively. Mean errors for the two tests were 6.52 (SD = 3.42) and 4.26 (SD = 2.91). respectively. To determine test-retest reliability for these college students, Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated for both latencies and errors. Significant moderate correlations were obtained for latencies (I = .51, p < .05) and error scores (r = .44, p < .05). An additional Pearson productmoment correlation was calculated between the two variables, mean time to respond over 12 trials and total number of errors for each subject for the first administration of the test. A significant correlation of -.59 (df = 21, p < .01) was obtained for average latency and total number of errors for these subjects. While these results represent significant test-retest correlations for both latencies and errors, the correlations are only moderately high. There appears to be a definite need for construction of equivalent forms of the test, particularly for use in repeated-measures designs with college students.