ReBATT Manual

REVERSIBILITY-BASED ABSTRACT THINKING TEST
(ReBATT)
MANUAL
Prepared by:
FELIPE P. BRIANA, Ed.D., RGC
November 2022
2
Table of Contents
Page Number
Reversibility and Abstract Thinking . . . . . 3
The Features of the Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test . 6
ReBATT . . . . . . . . . 8
Answer Sheet Form . . . . . . . . 13
Answers Key . . . . . . . . . 15
Percentile Ranks and Stanine (Norm) . . . . . 15
Item Analysis . . . . . . . . 17
Time Limit Set . . . . . . . . 22
Content Validity of ReBATT . . . . . . 22
Factorial Validity of ReBATT . . . . . . 23
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Spearman-Brown

Split Half Method . . . . . . . . 24
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Kuder-Richardson

Formula 20 . . . . . . . . . 25
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Cronbach Alpha . . 25

3
Reversibility and Abstract Thinking
Reversibility, in Jean Piaget’s theory on cognition, is an ability developed

during the Concrete Operational Stage, which is from seven to eleven years of
age and is characterized by the development of organized and rational thinking
(www.simplypsychology.org). This and conservation, another logical operation,
allows the development of logical reasoning which is the cognitive foundation for
Formal Operations, the ultimate stage.
Cognition, as defined by Herbert Simon, includes all conscious and

unconscious processes by which knowledge is accumulated, such as perceiving,
recognizing, conceiving, and reasoning (www.britannica.com). He distinguishes it
from an experience of feeling or willing by describing it as a state or experience
of knowing.
Piaget’s theory of cognitive development postulates that intelligence

changes as children grow and that cognition is not just about acquiring
knowledge but actually constructing a mental model of the world
(www.simplypsychology.org). Children actively build up their knowledge about
the world, and are not mere passive recipients of knowledge. His theory also
emphasizes that cognitive development occurs through the interaction of innate
capacities and environmental stimuli or events and that children pass through a
series of stages.
The Piagetian stages, like those of other theories, are a continuum and
not segregated parts. Each upper stage is built on the lower ones. Children move
through four different stages of intellectual development which reflect the
increasing complexity of their cognition.
The International Center for Educators’ Styles, or ICES, enumerates

Piaget’s four stages of cognitive development as: sensory-motor (ages birth
through two); preoperational (ages two through seven); concrete operational
(ages seven through eleven); and formal operational (ages eleven through
sixteen). During the sensory-motor stage, senses, reflexes, and motor abilities
develop rapidly. Intelligence is first displayed when reflex movements become
more refined, such as when an infant will reach for a preferred toy, and will suck
on a nipple and not a pacifier when hungry. Understanding of the world involves
only perceptions and objects with which the infant has directly experienced.
4
Actions discovered first by accident are repeated and applied to new situations to
obtain the same results (eiclsresearch.wordpress.com).
ICES further explains that the child in the preoperational stage is not yet
able to think logically. With the acquisition of language, the child is able to
represent the world through mental images and symbols, but in this stage, these
symbols depend on his own perception and his intuition. The preoperational child
is completely egocentric (preoperational egocentrism). Although he or she is
beginning to take greater interest in objects and people around him, he sees
them from only one point of view: his own. This stage may be the age of
curiosity; preschoolers are always questioning and investigating new things.
Since they know the world only from their limited experience, they make up
explanations when they don’t have one.
The stage of concrete operations, ICES adds, begins when the child is
able further develop deductive reasoning and to perform mental operations.
Piaget defines a mental operation as an interiorized action, an action performed
in the mind. Mental operations permit the child to think about physical actions
that he or she previously performed. The preoperational child could count from
one to ten, but the actual understanding that one stands for one object only
appears in the stage of concrete operations.
Finally, as the child in the concrete operational stage deals with the
present, the here and now, ICES explains that the now adolescent who can use
formal operational thought can think about the future, the abstract, and the
hypothetical. Piaget’s final stage coincides with the beginning of adolescence,
and marks the start of abstract thought and further development of deductive
reasoning. Thought is more flexible, rational, and systematic. The individual can
now conceive all the possible ways they can solve a problem, and can approach
a problem from several points of view. The adolescent can think about thoughts
and operate on operations, not just concrete objects. He or she can think about
such abstract concepts as space and time. The adolescent develops an inner
value system and a sense of moral judgment. He or she now has the necessary
“mental tools” for living his life.
While Piaget’s theory on cognition deals with cognitive attributes

developed across the stages such as object permanence (during the sensory-
motor stage); centration, egocentrism, symbolic representation, symbolic play,
animism, transductive reasoning (during the pre-operational stage);
conservation, deductive reasoning, and mental operations (during the concrete
5
operational stage), this study which aims to propose an assessment instrument

for cognitive ability is focused on reversibility.
Concrete operational thought’s primary characteristic is its reversibility.
The pre-adolescent child can mentally reverse the direction of his or her thought.
A child knows that something that he can add, he can also subtract. He or she
can trace her route to a certain place like school and then follow it back home, or
picture where he or she has left an item without exploring the entire place
haphazardly to look for it. A child at this stage is able to do simple arithmetic
operations involving reversible thinking which can be a foundation to higher
mathematical skills.
As a higher stage of cognitive development is built on the lower ones,

skills developed during the concrete operational stage serve as a foundation to
abstract thinking or reasoning which is achieved during the formal operational
stage.
Abstract thinking or reasoning involves the ability to understand and think
with complex concepts that, while real, are not tied to concrete experiences,
objects, people, or situations (www.verywellmind.com). This type of reasoning
involves thinking about ideas and principles that are often symbolic or
hypothetical. While abstract reasoning is an essential skill, it is not something
that people are born with. Instead, this cognitive ability develops throughout the
course of childhood as children pass through the stages and gain new abilities,
knowledge, and experiences.
Contrasted to concrete reasoning which is tied to specific experiences or

objects that can be observed directly, abstract thinking involves perceiving
something figuratively, analyzing a situation, noticing relationships or patterns,
deducing inferences and forming theories about why something occurs, and
proposing creative solutions to a problem.
Understanding the equation of expressions in a mathematical problem

and applying processes such as transposition is an example of abstract thinking.
Reversibility, which is developed during the concrete operational stage, is an
essential requisite to abstract thinking as it is a foundation to processes such as
verbal and number seriation, verbal and number analogies, and transposition.
Exploringyourmind.com underscores the importance of reversible thinking

as it defines it as people’s ability to reason in different directions. It is, thus, the
ability to see things from different perspectives, and this ability helps one to
solve complex problems and see all positions on the spectrum between two
6
opposites. It broadens a person’s perspectives and makes it easier to solve

problems, whether personal or professional and enables him or her to deal with
problems in a more logical, direct way.
This test assesses the adolescents and adults’ cognitive or mental ability
with reversible thinking as the main construct.
References
https://www.britannica.com/topic/cognition-thought-process accessed on April 9,

2022
https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html accessed on April 9, 2022
https://eiclsresearch.wordpress.com/types-of-styles/learning-styles/piaget-jean/
accessed on April 10, 2022
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-abstract-reasoning- accessed on April 10,

2022
https://exploringyourmind.com/reversible-thinking-cognitive-laziness/ accessed
on April 12, 2022
The Features of the Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test, or

ReBATT
1. Classification and Specific Use as an Assessment Instrument
The Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test, or ReBATT, is an aptitude

test that assesses a person’s analytical ability with focus on his/her reversible
thinking, the ability to reason in different directions and analyze things from
different perspectives.
2. Theoretical Basis of the Instrument
ReBATT has for its theoretical framework Jean Piaget’s Cognitive

Development. This theory teaches that intelligence changes as children grow and
that cognition is not just about acquiring knowledge but actually constructing a
mental model of the world (www.simplypsychology.org). Children actively build
up their knowledge about the world, and are not mere passive recipients of
7
knowledge. A person from babyhood to adulthood undergoes four stages of

cognitive development, namely, sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete
operational, and formal operational stages. Reversibility is developed during the
concrete operational stage, when the child is of elementary school age, and this
ability serves as a foundation to abstract thinking which is heightened during the
last stage.
3. Features of the Instrument, including Attributes Assessed
A standardized 62-item aptitude test, ReBATT has reversible thinking or

reversibility for its main construct measured. The latter ability is specifically
assessed through the following components: number seriation, verbal seriation,
number analogy, verbal analogy, and mathematical transposition.
This test is further classified as norm-referenced, group, psychological,

verbal and non-verbal, selection, and speed. The latter classification is
specifically indicated in the time limit determined from the average of all the test-
taking durations of the standardization group.
8
REVERSIBILITY-BASED ABSTRACT THINKING TEST (ReBATT)
by Felipe P. Briana, Ed.D., RGC
Directions:
The following are questions aimed at finding out how well you can think. They
are grouped into the following parts whose items are randomly arranged: Number
Seriation, Verbal Seriation, Number Analogy, Verbal Analogy, and Mathematical
Transposition.
In your answer sheet, shade the box corresponding to your answer. You are
given 77 minutes to work on this test. Although you are not expected to be able to
answer all the questions, you are advised not to spend too much time on any one item.
Begin here.
1. 7/3 1/3; 2 1/3; 5/3 1/3; 4/3 1/3; 1 1/3; 2/3 1/3; ?
1/6 b. 1/5 c. 1/4 d. 1/3
2. 39 31 24 18 13 9 6 ?
a. 2 b. 3 c. 4 d. 5
3. 18 17 15 14 12 11 9 8 6 ?
a. 2 b. 3 c. 4 d. 5
4. 51/40 1/5 43/40 1/5 7/8 1/5 27/40 1/5 19/40 1/5 11/40
1/5 ?
a. 5/40 b. 4/40 c. 3/40 d. 2/40
5. ? sea bay river brook

a. bodies of water b. Gulf c. lake d. Ocean
6. How are these arranged in ascending order: A. centimeter; B. decameter; C.

decimeter; D. hectometer; E. meter; F. millimeter; G. kilometer?
a. AFCEBDG b. BCFAEDG c. CAFEBDG d. FACEBDG
7. 8 : 7 = 16 : A
a. A = 14 b. A = 15 c. A = 21 d. A = 28
8. 8 : 7 = 56 : B
a. B = 35 b. B = 42 c. B = 49 d. B = 63
9. Ilocano is to Filipino as ?
a. Cantonese is to b. Hindu is to c. Mexican is to d. Singaporean is
9
Chinese Indian Spanish to Malaysian
10. If 13 equals the square root of M, then what is the value of M?

a. M = 39 b. M = 52 c. M = 154 d. M = 169
11. The value of N in (N + 2)/N = 3/4 ?

a. -12 b. -8 c. 6 d. 12
12. Five consecutive whole numbers equal 170. What is the value of the
second smallest number?
a. 32 b. 33 c. 35 d. 37
13. A car driver drove 450 kilometers with an average speed of 75 km/hour.
How many hours did he drive?
a. 9 hours b. 7 hours c. 6 hours d. 5 hours
14. 42 33 25 18 12 7 ?
a. 5 b. 4 c. 3 d. 2
15. 4734 1458 486 162 ? 18 6

a. 56 b. 54 c. 52 d. 50
16. 169 13 121 11 81 9 49 7 ? 5

a. 15 b. 20 c. 25 d. 35
17. 8748 2916 972 324 ? 36 12

a. 108 b. 106 c. 104 d. 102
18. ? red fuchsia pink fuchsia

a. lavender b. Maroon c. orange d. Purple
19. ? shove push click press

a. drag b. Engrave c. mark d. Thrust
20. 23 : 28 = 161 : C
a. C = 192 b. C = 194 c. C = 196 d. C = 198
21. D : 87 = 32 : 29
a. D = 98 b. D = 96 c. D = 94 d. D = 92
22. Metal is to gold as ?

a. stone is to b. forest is to c. jewelry is to d. school is to
ruby tree diamond student
23. What is the value of F in 45 = 5/9(F – 32)?

a. F = 109 b. F = 113 c. F = 115 d. F = 118
24. What is the value of C in 158 = 9/5C + 32?

10
a. C = 76 b. C = 73 c. C = 70 d. C = 69
25. What is the value of P in 65 = P/2.2?

a. P = 143 b. P = 145 c. P = 152 d. P = 155
26. Find the value of K in 165 = K(2.2).

a. K = 70 b. K = 72 c. K = 75 d. K = 78
27. 1/14326 1/4; 1/3584 1/4; 1/896 1/4; 1/224 1/4; 1/56 1/4; ? 1/4;
2/7
a. 1/36 b. 1/28 c. 1/21 d. 1/14
28. 0.95 0.90 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.20 ?

a. 0.10 b. 0.05 c. -0.10 d. -0.01
29. 97 88 80 73 67 62 58 ?
a. 55 b. 54 c. 53 d. 52
30. 57 56 54 51 47 42 ? 29
a. 36 b. 38 c. 34 d. 32
31. ? cry sob grimace

a. pout b. Scream c. shriek d. wail
32. V T Q M H ?
a. A b. B c. C d. D
33. 75 : E = 115 : 23
a. E = 12 b. E = 15 c. E = 21 d. E = 25
34. 21 : 17 = F : 102
a. F = 122 b. F = 124 c. F = 126 d. F = 128
35. boil : simmer as ?

a. bake : leaven b. broil : smoke c. cook : fry d. fry : sizzle
36. Find the value of D in 5 = (D/2.54) / 12.

a. 142.8 b. 148.6 c. 150.2 d. 152.4
37. Find the value of E in 17.50 = 140/(1 + 140E).

a. E = 50 b. E = 5 c. E = 0.5 d. E = 0.05
38. Find the value of P in 40 = P + 0.25P.

a. P = 32 b. P = 28 c. P = 24 d. P = 10
39. Find the value of Z in 90 = 72 + 72Z.

a. Z = 0.025 b. Z = 0.25 c. Z = 2.5 d. Z = 25
11
40. 32/405 3/2; 16/135 3/2; 8/45 3/2; 4/15 3/2; 2/5 3/2;
3/5 3/2;
a. 9/10 b. 8/10 c. 9/5 d. 8/5
41. 69 66 61 54 45 34 ?
a. 27 b. 24 c. 21 d. 18
42. 0.95 0.85 0.76 0.68 0.61 0.55 ?

a. 0.53 b. 0.52 c. 0.51 d. 0.50
43. 78 71 64 57 50 ? 36
a. 42 b. 43 c. 44 d. 45
44. ? O L I F C
a. Q b. R c. S d. T
45. scream yell shout speak ?

a. hum b. Stammer c. stutter d. Whisper
46. -12 : -4 = -48 : G

a. G = -14 b. G = -16 c. G = 14 d. G = 16
47. 19/16 = H/64

a. H = 72 b. H = 76 c. H = 80 d. H = 84
48. Sri Lanka : South Asia as ?

a. Haiti : b. Israel : c. Philippines : d. Philippines :
Central Africa Middle East Asean East Asia
49. If 4 equals the cube root of O, what is the value of O?

a. O = 52 b. O = 56 c. O = 62 d. O = 64
50. If 36 grams of sugar in food products are equivalent to 9 teaspoons of table

sugar, how many teaspoons of table sugar does an 8 once drink with 12 grams of
sugar have?
a. 2 teaspoons b. 3 teaspoons c. 4 teaspoons d. 6 teaspoons
51. What is the value of Q in 54/6 = 3Q/2?

a. Q = 4 b. Q = 6 c. Q=9 d. Q = 12
52. Find the value of R in 2(R + 3) = 30 – R.

a. R = 6 b. R = 8 c. R = 12 d. R = 18
53. 2916 972 324 108 36 ? 4

a. 18 b. 16 c. 14 d. 12
54. 60 47 36 27 ? 15 12
a. 22 b. 21 c. 20 d. 18
12
55. carry lift grip hold ?

a. feel b. Press c. push d. Touch
56. 56/52 = I/13

a. I = 14 b. I = 15 c. I = 16 d. I = 18
57. 63/J = 21/23

a. J = 66 b. J = 69 c. J = 72 d. J = 75
58. swallow from chew as ?

a. shoot from b. drink from c. dance from d. walk from
aim sip sway run
59. Find the value of S in 108 = S – 0.40S.

a. S = 160 b. S = 172 c. S = 175 d. S = 180
60. What is the value of T in 29 = 25.50 + [T/(T + 3)] x 5

a. T = 7 b. T = 8 c. T = 9 d. T = 11
61. K/54 = 8/9

a. K = 42 b. K = 44 c. K = 46 d. K = 48
62. 0.65 : 0.35 = L : 0.14

a. L = 0.25 b. L = 0.26 c. L = 0.27 d. L = 0.28
End of Test
13
Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test (ReBATT) Answer Sheet
NAME: Date:
Directions: Shade the box corresponding to the letter of your answer.
Page 1 for item numbers 1 – 40
A B C D A B C D
1. 21.
2. 22.
3. 23.
4. 24.
5. 25.
A B C D A B C D
6. 26.
7. 27.
8. 28.
9. 29.
10. 30.
A B C D A B C D
11. 31.
12. 32.
13. 33.
14. 34.
15. 35.
A B C D A B C D
16. 36.
17. 37.
18. 38.
19. 39.
20. 40.
14
Page 2 for item numbers 41 – 62
A B C D A B C D
41. 53.
42. 54.
43. 55.
44. 56.
45. 57.
A B C D A B C D
46. 58.
47. 59.
48. 60.
49. 61.
50. 62.
A B C D End of Test
51.
52.
For the test administrator / checker to accomplish:
Raw Score Percentile Stanine

15
Answers Key
1. D 16. C 31. D 46. B

2. C 17. A 32. B 47. B
3. D 18. B 33. B 48. B
4. C 19. D 34. C 49. D
5. D 20. C 35. D 50. B
6. D 21. D 36. D 51. B
7. A 22. A 37. D 52. B
8. C 23. B 38. A 53. D
9. A 24. C 39. B 54. C
10. D 25. A 40. A 55. D
11. B 26. C 41. C 56. A
12. B 27. D 42. D 57. B
13. C 28. C 43. B 58. A
14. C 29. A 44. B 59. D
15. B 30. A 45. D 60. A
61. D
62. B
ReBATT Test Norm
Cumulative Percentile
Raw Score Frequency Frequency Rank Stanine Description
61 3 260 99 9 Very High
60 3 257 98 9 Very High
59 3 254 97 9 Very High
58 9 251 95 8 Above Average
49 6 198 75 6 High Average
16

41 2 155 59 5 Average
40 2 153 58 5 Average
39 5 151 57 5 Average
38 4 146 55 5 Average
37 10 142 53 5 Average
36 9 132 49 5 Average
35 5 123 46 5 Average
34 8 118 44 5 Average
33 8 110 41 5 Average
32 2 102 39 4 Low Average
25 8 61 22 3 Below Average
14 3 10 3 1 Very Low
13 2 7 2 1 Very Low
12 2 5 2 1 Very Low
8 2 3 1 1 Very Low
7 1 1 0 1 Very Low
Total 260
17
Item Analysis
Item Analysis for Number Seriation
f upper f lower Difficulty Discrimination

Item (n = 48) (n = 48) Index Description Index Description Decision
1 38 23 0.64 RD 0.31 RGI Retain
Very Good
2 47 14 0.64 RD 0.69 Item Retain
3 48 32 0.83 Easy 0.33 RGI Discard
Very Good
4 47 17 0.67 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
5 38 11 0.51 RD 0.56 Item Retain
Very Good
6 46 18 0.67 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
7 46 22 0.71 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
8 46 18 0.67 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
9 47 17 0.67 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
10 36 12 0.50 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
11 40 8 0.50 RD 0.67 Item Retain
Very Good
12 47 19 0.69 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
13 47 22 0.72 RD 0.52 Item Retain
Very Good
14 34 9 0.45 RD 0.53 Item Retain
15 28 19 0.49 RD 0.19 Poor Item Discard
Very Good
16 48 9 0.59 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
17 46 19 0.67 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
18 48 12 0.63 RD 0.75 Item Retain
Very Good
19 47 10 0.59 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
20 43 15 0.60 RD 0.58 Item Retain
RD: Reasonably Difficult RGI: Reasonably Good Item No. of Items Retained = 18
18
Applying the Stoecklein method, the test performance of the 48 highest

scorers, or 27%, among the 178 individuals who comprised the first batch of
standardization sample and that of the 48 lowest scorers in the same group were
evaluated for item analysis. Eighteen of the 20 items prepared for Number
Seriation were retained following item analysis, owing to their acceptable
difficulty and discrimination indices.
Based on the Stoecklein guide in accepting or retaining items, those with

difficulty index ranging from 0.21 to 0.80 are considered moderately or
reasonably difficult and must therefore be retained, while items with higher and
lower indices are estimated easy and difficult respectively.
A discrimination index lower than 0.30 indicates that the total points in
the item of the lower scorers and high scorers are not statistically different, and
therefore the question failed to distinguish between good and poor performers in
the test.
Item Analysis for Verbal Seriation

21 40 32 0.75 RD 0.25 Marginal Item Discard
24 13 16 0.30 RD -0.06 Poor Item Discard
Very Good
25 44 21 0.68 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
26 47 14 0.64 RD 0.69 Item Retain
28 44 29 0.76 RD 0.31 RGI Retain
29 44 40 0.88 Easy 0.08 Poor Item Discard
30 8 3 0.11 Difficult 0.10 Poor Item Discard
Very Good
31 29 5 0.35 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
32 32 10 0.44 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
35 33 9 0.44 RD 0.50 Item Retain
36 44 22 0.69 RD 0.46 Very Good Retain
Item
37 46 28 0.77 RD 0.38 RGI Retain
19
38 34 19 0.55 RD 0.31 RGI Retain

RD: Reasonably Difficult RGI: Reasonably Good Item Number of Items Retained = 9
Nine, or 45%, of the 20 items for Verbal Seriation passed the Stoecklein
item analysis requirements.
Analysis of results shows that 8 of the 11 discarded items have poor to

marginal discrimination indices while their difficulty indices are acceptable. Two
rejected items, numbers 30 and 40, have very low difficulty indices, indicating
their strong difficulty, and they at the same time registered very low
discrimination indices. Item number 29 was discarded for both its high difficulty
index, indicating its being an easy one, and its negligible discrimination index.
Item Analysis for Number Analogy

Very Good
41 44 14 0.60 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
42 46 16 0.65 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
43 47 16 0.66 RD 0.65 Item Retain
Very Good
44 47 15 0.65 RD 0.67 Item Retain
Very Good
45 43 16 0.61 RD 0.56 Item Retain
Very Good
46 46 13 0.61 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
47 43 20 0.66 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
48 47 11 0.60 RD 0.75 Item Retain
Very Good
49 47 12 0.61 RD 0.73 Item Retain
Very Good
50 47 19 0.69 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
51 47 9 0.58 RD 0.79 Item Retain
Very Good
52 43 7 0.52 RD 0.75 Item Retain
RD: Reasonably Difficult No. of Items Retained = 12
20
All the original twelve items for Number Analogy, owing to their good
difficulty and discrimination indices, were retained. Data show that all the items
are consistently reasonably or moderately difficult, as indicated in indices ranging
from 0.52 to 0.69, and very clearly discriminate between the high scorers and
low scorers, as evidenced in 0.56 – 0.79 range of indices.
Item Analysis for Verbal Analogy

Item (n = 48) (n = 48) Index Description
Index Description Decision
Very Good
54 31 9 0.42 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
57 31 12 0.45 RD 0.40 Item Retain
Very Good
58 33 7 0.42 RD 0.54 Item Retain
59 15 3 0.19 Difficult 0.25 Marginal Item Discard
62 26 9 0.36 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
63 29 12 0.43 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
Of the 12 items drafted for Verbal Analogy, only 5 or 42% passed item
analysis’ difficulty and discrimination level requirements. These items obtained
difficulty indices ranging from 0.36 to 0.42 and discrimination indices with 0.35 –
0.54 range. Six of the items assessed as reasonably difficult, thus acceptable,
were still discarded because of their discrimination indices marked marginal to
poor. One item was rejected for being difficult and at the same time marginally
differentiating the high and low scorers.
The tabular data below show that all the 18 items prepared to assess
one’s mathematical transposition ability were retained following item analysis as
they obtained difficulty indices ranging from 0.45 to 0.73 and marked reasonably
difficult and discrimination indices which range from 0.44 to 0.81 and are labeled
“very good”.
21
Item Analysis for Mathematical Transposition

Very Good
65 46 7 0.55 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
66 42 8 0.52 RD 0.71 Item Retain
Very Good
67 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
68 47 23 0.73 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
69 40 10 0.52 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
70 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
71 45 12 0.55 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
72 47 8 0.57 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
73 41 8 0.51 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
74 38 5 0.45 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
75 44 7 0.53 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
76 45 17 0.65 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
77 46 9 0.57 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
78 44 22 0.69 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
79 35 14 0.51 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
80 35 9 0.46 RD 0.54 Item Retain
Very Good
81 40 11 0.53 RD 0.60 Item Retain
Very Good
82 36 8 0.46 RD 0.58 Item Retain
22
Time Limit Set for ReBATT
Duration Duration
(minutes Frequency Percentage (minutes) Frequency Percentage
126 – Above 2 0.77 54 – 62 26 10
117 – 125 5 1.92 45 – 53 30 11.54
108 – 116 4 1.54 36 – 44 42 16.15
99 – 107 5 1.92 27 – 35 36 13.85
90 – 98 15 5.77 18 – 26 38 14.62
81 – 89 8 3.08 9 – 17 20 7.69
72 – 80 13 5 Below 9 2 0.77
63 – 71 14 5.38
Time Limit Based
on Confidence
Mean Duration = Confidence Level Standard Deviation Interval = 53
n =260 49.2 Value (Z) = 1.96 = 27.68 minutes
Based on the confidence interval derived from the standardization group size
of 260, mean test-taking duration of 49.02, standard deviation of 27.68, and
confidence level (Z-score) value of 1.96, the time limit set for ReBATT is 53
minutes (or 52.3846 rounded up).
A close look at the data shows that 42 examinees, or 16.15%, the highest
number, registered a duration of 36 to 44 minutes, and they were followed by
the 38, or 14.62%, and 36, or 13.85%, who recorded 18 – 26 and 27 – 35
minute-durations respectively. Further perusal of the tabular data reveals that
the four highest duration classes and the lowest class registered the least
number of examinees.
Content Validity of ReBATT
Analysis of content validation results presents validity indices which are all
interpreted “very high.” All the 18 items of Number Seriation were retained
following item analysis were rated 4 or relevant to the subtest by all the 4
evaluators, resulting in a content validity index of 1.0. The same index was
obtained by Number Analogy and Verbal Analogy which have 12 and 5 items
respectively. On the other hand, 7 of the 9 items of Verbal Seriation were
regarded relevant by all the evaluators while the remaining 2 items were rated
the same by three. Fifteen of the retained 18 items of Mathematical
Transposition were rated fit for the subtest by all the evaluators, while 3 were
23
rated the same by three. Ratings of Verbal Seriation and Mathematical

Transposition resulted in their content validity indices of 0.94 and 0.96
respectively.
With all 4 With 3

evaluators evaluators
rating the rating the item
item 3 or 4 3 or 4 Content Validity
No. of No. of Total Index and
Factor / Test Part Items % Items % Items Description
Number Seriation 18 100 ---- ---- 18 1.0 Very High
Verbal Seriation 7 77.28 2 22.22 9 0.94 Very High
Number Analogy 12 100 ---- ---- 12 1.0 Very High
Verbal Analogy 5 ---- ---- ---- 5 1.0 Very High
Mathematical
Transposition 15 83.33 3 16.67 18 0.96 Very High
Total Items 57 91.94 5 8.06 62 0.98 Very High
4: Item is representative or relevant.
3: Item just needs minor revisions to be
representative. No item was evaluated 3 or 4 by
merely 2 or 1 evaluator.
Overall, all the 4 evaluators rated 57 of the 62 items of the entire test as 4
or relevant to the test of reversibility, while the remaining 5 items were rated as
such by 3 evaluators. ReBATT’s overall content validity index is 0.98, interpreted
as “very high.”
Factorial Validity of ReBATT
Number of Items Whose Factors / Test Parts were Identified Correctly

Number of Number Verbal Number Verbal Mathematical Total
Evaluators Seriation Seriation Analogy Analogy Transposition Items
All (4) 17 8 11 4 12 52
Three ---- 1 1 ---- 2 4
Two ---- ---- ---- 1 3 4
One 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 2
Total 18 9 12 5 18 62
Factorial
Validity 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.85 0.93
Index Very High Very High Very High Very High High Very High
The foregoing data show that Number Seriation, Verbal Seriation, Number
Analogy and Verbal Analogy registered indices of 0.96, 0.97, 0.98 and 0.90
24
respectively, which are all described as “very high.” Mathematical Transposition,

on the other hand, obtained an index of 0.85, described as high.
Analysis of the data shows that 17 of the 18 items of Number Seriation
were correctly identified by all the evaluators as belonging to this subtest, while
1 item was accurately placed by only one of them. Eight of the 9 items of Verbal
Seriation were rightly identified by all the evaluators and 1 item was placed by 3
evaluators under this subtest. Of the 12 items which belong to Number Analogy,
11 were accurately classified by all the evaluators while 1 item was put by three
under this test part. Verbal Analogy has 4 of 5 items correctly identified by all the
evaluators and the remaining 1 item was rightly classified by two. Twelve of the
18 items of Mathematical Transposition were classified correctly by all the raters,
and 2 items were rightly placed by three. Three items were placed by 2
evaluators under this test part, and 1 was correctly identified by only one rater.
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Spearman-Brown Split Half

Method
Standard
Mean of Scores Deviation Spearman-Brown
Odd Even Odd Even Pearson r Formula
Factor / Test Part Items Items Items Items Coefficient
0.88
Number Seriation 5.79 6.01 2.31 2.49 0.79 High
0.73
Verbal Seriation 3.55 2.49 1.3 1.21 0.58 Substantial
0.88
Number Analogy 3.78 3.73 1.94 2.02 0.78 High
0.68
Verbal Analogy 1.33 0.92 1.11 0.82 0.52 Substantial
Mathematical 0.90
Transposition 4.69 4.70 2.85 2.51 0.82 Very High
0.95
Total Items 18.68 18.32 7.10 7.07 0.91 Very High
Application of the Spearman-Brown Split Half Method resulted in ReBATT’s

overall reliability coefficient of 0.95, described as “very high.” The same reliability
estimate treatment obtained for the test’s parts the following coefficients: 0.88,
high; 0.73, substantial; 0.88, high; 0.68, substantial; and 0.90, very high for
Number Seriation, Verbal Seriation, Number Analogy, Verbal Analogy, and
Mathematical Transposition respectively. These results indicate that the
standardization sample’s scores in the odd items and even items have high
25
correlation, and thus the items’ strong internal consistency in what they measure
is manifested.
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20
Total Items
Factor / Test Part (k) Mean Variance PKR21 Description
Number Seriation 18 11.80 20.65 0.85 High
Verbal Seriation 9 6.03 4.98 0.68 Substantial
Number Analogy 12 7.52 13.97 0.87 High
Mathematical
Transposition 18 9.39 26.09 0.88 High
Total Items 62 36.99 191.69 0.94 Very High
Results of ReBATT’s reliability estimate using the Kuder-Richardson

Formula 20 reveal a very high overall coefficient of 0.94. The same reliability
estimate method applied in the test’s parts obtained coefficients of 0.85, high;
0.68, substantial; 0.87, high; 0.71, substantial; and 0.88, high for Number
Transposition respectively. These estimates corroborate the Spearman-Brown
results shown in the preceding tabular data as the test items’ strong internal
consistency in what they measure is also manifested here. Instead of correlating
the scores in the two halves of the test, correlation among all the items is
calculated here.
Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Cronbach Alpha
Factor / Test Part Total Items Cronbach Alpha Description

Number Seriation 18 0.86 Good
Verbal Seriation 9 0.71 Acceptable
Number Analogy 12 0.87 Good
Verbal Analogy 5 0.71 Acceptable
Mathematical Transposition 18 0.88 Good
Total Items 62 0.94 Excellent
As substantiated in the reliability coefficient of 0.94, Cronbach Alpha

treatment of the standardization sample’s scores in ReBATT revealed the test to
have an excellent overall reliability. This method of internal consistency estimate
also reports the following reliability coefficients for the test’s parts: 0.86, good;
0.71, acceptable; 0.87, good; 0.71, good; and 0.88, good for Number Seriation,
26
Verbal Seriation, Number Analogy, Verbal Analogy, and Mathematical

Transposition respectively.

the test.

Very Good
25 44 21 0.68 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
26 47 14 0.64 RD 0.69 Item Retain
28 44 29 0.76 RD 0.31 RGI Retain
Very Good
31 29 5 0.35 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
32 32 10 0.44 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
35 33 9 0.44 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Item
37 46 28 0.77 RD 0.38 RGI Retain
27
38 34 19 0.55 RD 0.31 RGI Retain



Very Good
41 44 14 0.60 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
42 46 16 0.65 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
43 47 16 0.66 RD 0.65 Item Retain
Very Good
44 47 15 0.65 RD 0.67 Item Retain
Very Good
45 43 16 0.61 RD 0.56 Item Retain
Very Good
46 46 13 0.61 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
47 43 20 0.66 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
48 47 11 0.60 RD 0.75 Item Retain
Very Good
49 47 12 0.61 RD 0.73 Item Retain
Very Good
50 47 19 0.69 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
51 47 9 0.58 RD 0.79 Item Retain
Very Good
52 43 7 0.52 RD 0.75 Item Retain
28

Very Good
54 31 9 0.42 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
57 31 12 0.45 RD 0.40 Item Retain
Very Good
58 33 7 0.42 RD 0.54 Item Retain
62 26 9 0.36 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
63 29 12 0.43 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
“very good”.
29

Very Good
65 46 7 0.55 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
66 42 8 0.52 RD 0.71 Item Retain
Very Good
67 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
68 47 23 0.73 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
69 40 10 0.52 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
70 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
71 45 12 0.55 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
72 47 8 0.57 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
73 41 8 0.51 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
74 38 5 0.45 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
75 44 7 0.53 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
76 45 17 0.65 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
77 46 9 0.57 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
78 44 22 0.69 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
79 35 14 0.51 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
80 35 9 0.46 RD 0.54 Item Retain
Very Good
81 40 11 0.53 RD 0.60 Item Retain
Very Good
82 36 8 0.46 RD 0.58 Item Retain
30
Duration Duration
126 – Above 2 0.77 54 – 62 26 10
117 – 125 5 1.92 45 – 53 30 11.54
108 – 116 4 1.54 36 – 44 42 16.15
99 – 107 5 1.92 27 – 35 36 13.85
90 – 98 15 5.77 18 – 26 38 14.62
81 – 89 8 3.08 9 – 17 20 7.69
72 – 80 13 5 Below 9 2 0.77
63 – 71 14 5.38
Time Limit Based
on Confidence
n =260 49.2 Value (Z) = 1.96 = 27.68 minutes
31

respectively.
With all 4 With 3

Mathematical
as “very high.”

All (4) 17 8 11 4 12 52
Three ---- 1 1 ---- 2 4
Two ---- ---- ---- 1 3 4
One 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 2
Total 18 9 12 5 18 62
Factorial
Validity 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.85 0.93
32


Method
Standard
0.88
0.73
0.88
0.68
Mathematical 0.90
0.95

33
is manifested.
Total Items
Mathematical

calculated here.


34


the test.

Very Good
25 44 21 0.68 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
26 47 14 0.64 RD 0.69 Item Retain
28 44 29 0.76 RD 0.31 RGI Retain
Very Good
31 29 5 0.35 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
32 32 10 0.44 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
35 33 9 0.44 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Item
37 46 28 0.77 RD 0.38 RGI Retain
35
38 34 19 0.55 RD 0.31 RGI Retain



Very Good
41 44 14 0.60 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
42 46 16 0.65 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
43 47 16 0.66 RD 0.65 Item Retain
Very Good
44 47 15 0.65 RD 0.67 Item Retain
Very Good
45 43 16 0.61 RD 0.56 Item Retain
Very Good
46 46 13 0.61 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
47 43 20 0.66 RD 0.48 Item Retain
Very Good
48 47 11 0.60 RD 0.75 Item Retain
Very Good
49 47 12 0.61 RD 0.73 Item Retain
Very Good
50 47 19 0.69 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
51 47 9 0.58 RD 0.79 Item Retain
Very Good
52 43 7 0.52 RD 0.75 Item Retain
36

Very Good
54 31 9 0.42 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
57 31 12 0.45 RD 0.40 Item Retain
Very Good
58 33 7 0.42 RD 0.54 Item Retain
62 26 9 0.36 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
63 29 12 0.43 RD 0.35 RGI Retain
“very good”.
37

Very Good
65 46 7 0.55 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
66 42 8 0.52 RD 0.71 Item Retain
Very Good
67 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
68 47 23 0.73 RD 0.50 Item Retain
Very Good
69 40 10 0.52 RD 0.63 Item Retain
Very Good
70 36 15 0.53 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
71 45 12 0.55 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
72 47 8 0.57 RD 0.81 Item Retain
Very Good
73 41 8 0.51 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
74 38 5 0.45 RD 0.69 Item Retain
Very Good
75 44 7 0.53 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
76 45 17 0.65 RD 0.58 Item Retain
Very Good
77 46 9 0.57 RD 0.77 Item Retain
Very Good
78 44 22 0.69 RD 0.46 Item Retain
Very Good
79 35 14 0.51 RD 0.44 Item Retain
Very Good
80 35 9 0.46 RD 0.54 Item Retain
Very Good
81 40 11 0.53 RD 0.60 Item Retain
Very Good
82 36 8 0.46 RD 0.58 Item Retain
38
Duration Duration
126 – Above 2 0.77 54 – 62 26 10
117 – 125 5 1.92 45 – 53 30 11.54
108 – 116 4 1.54 36 – 44 42 16.15
99 – 107 5 1.92 27 – 35 36 13.85
90 – 98 15 5.77 18 – 26 38 14.62
81 – 89 8 3.08 9 – 17 20 7.69
72 – 80 13 5 Below 9 2 0.77
63 – 71 14 5.38
Time Limit Based
on Confidence
n =260 49.2 Value (Z) = 1.96 = 27.68 minutes
39

respectively.
With all 4 With 3

Mathematical
as “very high.”

All (4) 17 8 11 4 12 52
Three ---- 1 1 ---- 2 4
Two ---- ---- ---- 1 3 4
One 1 ---- ---- ---- 1 2
Total 18 9 12 5 18 62
Factorial
Validity 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.85 0.93
40


Method
Standard
0.88
0.73
0.88
0.68
Mathematical 0.90
0.95

41
is manifested.
Total Items
Mathematical

calculated here.


42


ReBATT Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ReBATT Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ReBATT Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVERSIBILITY-BASED ABSTRACT THINKING TEST

FELIPE P. BRIANA, Ed.D., RGC

Reversibility and Abstract Thinking . . . . . 3

The Features of the Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test . 6

Answer Sheet Form . . . . . . . . 13

Percentile Ranks and Stanine (Norm) . . . . . 15

Time Limit Set . . . . . . . . 22

Content Validity of ReBATT . . . . . . 22

Factorial Validity of ReBATT . . . . . . 23

Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Spearman-Brown

Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Kuder-Richardson

Reliability Estimates of ReBATT via the Cronbach Alpha . . 25

Reversibility and Abstract Thinking

Reversibility, in Jean Piaget’s theory on cognition, is an ability developed

Cognition, as defined by Herbert Simon, includes all conscious and

Piaget’s theory of cognitive development postulates that intelligence

The International Center for Educators’ Styles, or ICES, enumerates

While Piaget’s theory on cognition deals with cognitive attributes

operational stage), this study which aims to propose an assessment instrument

As a higher stage of cognitive development is built on the lower ones,

Contrasted to concrete reasoning which is tied to specific experiences or

Understanding the equation of expressions in a mathematical problem

Exploringyourmind.com underscores the importance of reversible thinking

opposites. It broadens a person’s perspectives and makes it easier to solve

https://www.britannica.com/topic/cognition-thought-process accessed on April 9,

https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html accessed on April 9, 2022

https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-abstract-reasoning- accessed on April 10,

The Features of the Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test, or

1. Classification and Specific Use as an Assessment Instrument

The Reversibility-Based Abstract Thinking Test, or ReBATT, is an aptitude

2. Theoretical Basis of the Instrument

ReBATT has for its theoretical framework Jean Piaget’s Cognitive

knowledge. A person from babyhood to adulthood undergoes four stages of

3. Features of the Instrument, including Attributes Assessed

A standardized 62-item aptitude test, ReBATT has reversible thinking or

This test is further classified as norm-referenced, group, psychological,

REVERSIBILITY-BASED ABSTRACT THINKING TEST (ReBATT)

by Felipe P. Briana, Ed.D., RGC

5. ? sea bay river brook

6. How are these arranged in ascending order: A. centimeter; B. decameter; C.

Chinese Indian Spanish to Malaysian

10. If 13 equals the square root of M, then what is the value of M?

11. The value of N in (N + 2)/N = 3/4 ?

15. 4734 1458 486 162 ? 18 6

16. 169 13 121 11 81 9 49 7 ? 5

17. 8748 2916 972 324 ? 36 12

18. ? red fuchsia pink fuchsia

19. ? shove push click press

22. Metal is to gold as ?

23. What is the value of F in 45 = 5/9(F – 32)?

24. What is the value of C in 158 = 9/5C + 32?

25. What is the value of P in 65 = P/2.2?

26. Find the value of K in 165 = K(2.2).

28. 0.95 0.90 0.80 0.65 0.45 0.20 ?

31. ? cry sob grimace

35. boil : simmer as ?

36. Find the value of D in 5 = (D/2.54) / 12.

37. Find the value of E in 17.50 = 140/(1 + 140E).

38. Find the value of P in 40 = P + 0.25P.