第 六 章 結 論 與 建 議
第 一 節 結 論
本研究的結論，詳列如下：
一、就促發法的建構效度而言
以促發法測量概念接近性的測量結果，進行徑路搜尋法分析 後產生的相似性指數，若作為「知識結構」的觀察指標，能夠符 合 Reber（1993）提出的「年齡獨立性」、「低變異性」、「智力獨 立性」等內隱記憶系統的假設。若進行本研究提出的 MTMM 模 式考驗，也能符合「內隱記憶和外顯記憶無關」的理論假設。此 外 ，促 發法 的測量 結果 也具 有適當 的內 部一 致性信 度與 輻合 效 度。以上的結果都支持促發法能夠測量到「內隱知識結構」，亦即 將促發法的測量結果以徑路搜尋法的語意網路模式加以表徵，有 其建構效度。
二、就相似性指數和測量法的效標關聯效度而言
(一) 本研究提出的 rPF 指數，如果作為潛在變項「知識結構」
的指標對學習成就進行迴歸，在評定法和 Q 分類法中都 具有顯著的解釋力。如果以 rPF 指數直接對學習成就進 行迴歸，rPF 指數在測驗法中也具有顯著的解釋力；而 rPF 指數在測驗法中也能顯著增加不同於其它三項指數 的解釋量。
(二) 以相似性指數直接預測學習成就的表現，PRX 指數具有 最大的標準化迴歸係數，其對「學習成就」的解釋力最 強。其次為 PFC 指數。
(三) 分 別 以 全 部 四 種 相 似 性 指 數 作 為 潛 在 自 變 項 「 知 識 結 構」的指標，對潛在依變項「學習成就」進行迴歸，以 評定法對「學習成就」的解釋量最高。其次為測驗法。
三、就各種測量法產生的知識結構圖的比較而言
(一) 就參照結構而言：
1. 連結數不同：促發法產生的參照結構，其連結數為 13，
測驗法為 17，評定法為 15，Q 分類法為 14。其中以促 發法最少，測驗法最多。
2. 可解釋性不同：
(1) 促 發 法 和 測 驗 法 產 生 的 參 照 結 構 ， 與 教 材 差 異 較 大：這兩種測量法產生的參照結構之核心概念都不是 教材內容的主題，而且在參照結構中有一部份連結不 容易以教材內容直接加以解釋。
(2) 評 定法和 Q 分 類法 產生 的參照 結構 ， 與教 材較 相 似：兩者都是以教材的主題為參照結構的核心概念，
並且在各節點之間具有符合教材內容的邏輯關係，可 依據教材內容直接加以解釋。
3. 相似性不同：
(1) 促發法產生的參照結構，與其他測量法的參照結構 之相似性指數 PFC 都偏低，亦即促發法的參照結構 與其他測量法的差異較大。
(2) 評定法和 Q 分類法產生的參照結構，彼此之間的相 似性指數 PFC 最大，亦即評定法和 Q 分類法的參照 結構兩者之間有較多的共同點。
(二) 以兩位高成就的受試者之知識結構為代表，與參照結構的 分析結果相比較，有相當多的共同點，表示參照結構的特
點多能類推到高成就受試者的知識結構之上。這些共同點 包括了：
1. 連結數：也是以促發法最少，測驗法最多。
2. 可解釋性：促發法和測驗法產生的知識結構之連結中不 易直接解釋的比例也都高於評定法和 Q 分類法。
3. 相似性：促發法與其他三種測量法的知識結構之相似性 指數 PFC 也是偏低的，而評定法和 Q 分類法產生的知識 結構之相似性指數 PFC 也都是最高的。
(三) 此外，受試者的知識結構之核心概念的一致性也因測量法 而有不同：其中以測驗法較大，其參照結構和受試者的知 識結構都包括了相同的核心概念；但其他三種測量法則未 發現此現象。
四、就 MTMM 和 MDMM 的模式考驗而言
(一) 本研究結果支持 MTMM 競爭模式 2 的假定：「內隱知識結 構和外顯知識結構是兩個獨立無關的特質，其相關為零」。 (二) 本研究結果支持 MDMM 基準模式的假定：「節點內容（PFC
指數）、節點圖解距離（GTD 指數）、節點原始距離（PRX 指數）等三個向度之間有相關」。
第二節 建議
一、實務上的建議
(一) 重視內隱學習情境
本研究的結果，支持了「內隱知識結構」和「外顯知識結構」
兩者無關的論點。但是從相反的觀點而言，學生的內隱知識結構 和其在學校學習所形成的外顯知識結構，兩者並不相同。學校教 育 強 調 的 多 是 對 教 材 內 容 的 外 顯 學 習 （ 如 ： 記 憶 知 識 ）
（Rademacher, 2005），但是研究結果發現，受試者在外顯學習上 的表現容易受到時間的影響而大幅下降（Berry & Dienes, 1993）；
內隱學習的結果則比較不容易受到時間延宕的影響（Buchner &
Wippich, 1998; Kolers, 1975）。因此，學校教育若能將內隱學習納 入考量，例如從問題解決情境中學習，將學校環境轉變成學生可 探索的真實情境，或者是可促進學生學習的虛擬情境（Rademacher, 2005），也許有助於減少外顯學習和內隱學習結果的差異。此種教 學目標和「情境學習」（Situation Learning）頗有相似之處。「情 境學習」的目標就在於：將學習目標隱藏在情境脈絡裡（Maurer &
Pivec, 2001）。「情境學習」的觀點主張：知識是來自於相關的情 境脈絡之中，無法從情境中加以隔離（鍾邦友，民 89）；學生在 情境中與不同的知識互動，將有可能建立個人的、且較為持久的 知識（Maurer & Pivec, 2001）。因此，透過情境、脈絡的間接教 學，對於學生的內隱學習成效之助益，似乎值得教育實務的探索。
(二) 強調概念學習的思考
教師教學時，應適時引導學生做概念的思考，尤其是重視與 核心概念的關連（方慧君，民 92）。在本研究比較不同測量法產 生的知識結構圖的結果中，發現評定法和 Q 分類法產生的知識結 構圖，其核心概念都是「1.受熱」，就該單元「熱和我們的生活」
的內容而言，「1.受熱」是教材的核心，所以參與本研究的四位專 家教師都是先選擇「1.受熱」作為該單元的重要概念。學生在學
習時若能先了解核心概念在教材中的重要性，建立其他次概念的 連結時將比較能對應教材的邏輯關係。在教學實務上，已有相當 多的研究在探討強調概念理解的教學策略對於學生學習的影響，
並且多能得到正向的效果；這些策略包括了問題思考寫作、電腦 輔助教學、教材設計、自我省思記錄、教學方案設計等（Guthrie, Van Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson, & McCann, 1998; Hsieh, 2003;
Johnson, Moher, Ohlsson, & Gillingham, 1999; May & Etkina, 2002;
Simon, Tzur, Heinz, & Kinzel, 2004; Zhou, Brouwer, Nocente, Martin, 2005）。可見重視概念理解的教學策略在教育實務上已逐 漸成為被關注的焦點之一。
(三) 拓展各種測量法的應用以促進多元評量的發展
就徑路搜尋法的研究領域而言，本研究比較了不同的概念相 似性測量法在預測學習成就上的表現，發現評定法和 Q 分類法對 學習成就都有其顯著的解釋量。這些測量方式與學校教育中常見 的紙筆測驗迥異，但也能提供教師有關學生學習成果的訊息；針 對知識結構或概念組織的發展而設計的教學或學習策略，已有相 當多的探討，並且獲得良好的成果（江淑卿，民 86；Basque, Pudelko,& Léonard, 2004; Leou & Liu, 2004; Noyd, 1999; Temple &
Marshall, 1996; Luo, Zhang, Gao, Liu, & Ma, 2001; Xu, 2003），這 些研究都顯示學生經由學習而產生的知識結構在教學上是可以被 觀察的變項，因此徑路搜尋法的分析結果，可以作為評量的依據，
也能作為教學設計的參考。就多元評量重視「型式多元、內容多 元」等的觀點而言（吳思穎，民 91），評定法、Q 分類法等測量 方式，有助於評量方式的多元化，其在教學實務上的應用性頗值 得進一步思考。
二、研究上的建議
(一) 探討「內隱知識結構」的特性
本研究提出了新構念「內隱知識結構」，雖然本研究以 MTMM
關特性，本研究提供的證據仍有不足之處，例如對內隱知識結構 的形成和改變，本研究仍停留在假設的階段：本研究假設內隱知 識結構的形成早於外顯知識結構，並且會受到外顯學習的影響。
因此，需要後續更多研究進一步加以探究，以釐清內隱知識結構 的本質。諸如：尋找其他「內隱知識結構」的觀察指標、或者探 討影響「內隱知識結構」形成的各種變項，都是進一步深入了解
「內隱知識結構」的探索方向。
(二) 深入再探內隱和外顯記憶系統的差異
本研究以徑路搜尋法來表徵由促發法測量所得的內隱知識結 構，能夠產生具有建構效度、輻合效度和內部一致性信度的結果，
此意謂著：以徑路搜尋法背後所主張的語意網路模式來表徵內隱 知識結構具有理論上的適切性，亦即內隱知識結構也是以語意網 路模式作為概念連結的法則。換言之，雖然內隱知識結構和外顯 知識結構的相關為 0，但是兩者組織其概念的法則都是相同的，
顯示兩者的零相關必然是來自於其他原因，而非由組織概念的法 則所造成。此外，既然內隱知識結構和外顯知識結構都是以相同 的法則來組織其概念，而且兩者是零相關，這表示人類的腦中應 至少同時存在兩種知識結構或記憶系統，這一點和多重記憶系統 觀 的 主 張 相 近 ， 皆 認 為 記 憶 系 統 可 分 為 多 種 次 系 統 （ Klein, Cosmides, Tooby, & Chance, 2002; Poldrack & Packard, 2003; Ryan
& Cohen, 2003）。因此，本研究為內隱和外顯記憶的研究領域提 供了相關的結果，可作為未來深入再探究內隱和外顯記憶之差異 的基礎。
(三) 提升 rPF 指數的效標關聯效度
本研究提出的 rPF 指數，雖然對學習成就的解釋力不高，不 如 PFC 等傳統相似性指數的表現，但 rPF 指數具有不同於 PFC 等傳統相似性指數的解釋量，顯示 rPF 指數所考量的比較不同知 識結構的向度有其價值和應用性。rPF 指數可以作為擴展知識結 構比較向度的起點，甚或作為提升 PFC 等傳統指數與學習成就關 係的依據。對知識結構的研究領域而言，這是頗為值得探究的方
向。
(四) 分析迷思概念與內隱知識結構的關係
由於迷思概念（misconception）不同於教材的學習內容，而 且會阻礙學生對學習內容的理解，造成學習困難，因此對迷思概 念的研究逐漸受到重視（周文欽、賴保禎、歐滄和，民 92）。由 於 迷思 概念 涉及到 概念 之間 的關係 ，這 正與 知識結 構的 組織 有 關；研究也發現，迷思概念會反映在學生的知識結構上，並且與 學生的學習成就有關（Chen, 2001）。迷思概念是否源自於概念之 間的錯誤連結？迷思概念是否與內隱知識結構有關？如果是，則 迷思概念是否產生了不同的內隱知識結構，或者是不同的內隱知 識結構產生了迷思概念？兩者的關係為何？這些問題都需要進一 步加以探究。
(五) 對相關研究進行統合分析（Meta-Analysis）
在本研究對相似性指數的比較分析裡，發現以 PRX 指數對學 習成就的影響力最大。但是，也有不少研究結果與本研究的結果 有所不同（江淑卿，民 86、民 89；宋德忠等人，民 87；林曉芳，
民 88；Goldsmith et al., 1991; Johnson et al., 1994），本研究認為「樣 本依賴」是可能的影響因素。因此，不同相似性指數對學習成就 預 測 效 能 的 比 較 ， 需 要 累 積 相 關 的 研 究 結 果 ， 進 行 統 合 分 析
（Rosenthal, 1991），始能得到較為一致性的結論。
(六) 進一步分析各相似性指數所代表的基本特質
本研究提出的 MDMM 模式，認為 PFC、GTD、PRX 等三種 指數所代表的向度之間有相關；而這三種指數也與學生的學習成 就有關，亦即這三種評量知識結構的向度似乎反映了某些與學習 有關的基本特質。為了深入瞭解這三種指數的特點，有必要進一 步探究其背後隱藏的與學習表現有關的認知成份。
參 考 文 獻
一 、 中 文 部 份
丁碧莉（民 93）：語文知識結構之評量研究－以國小英語科為例。國 立雲林科技大學資訊管理系碩士論文。
方慧君（民 92）：知識結構診斷分析：以四技二專入學考試數學科為 例。國立雲林科技大學資訊管理碩士班碩士論文。
王九逵（民 91）：集合論與數學教育。
http://episte.math.ntu.edu.tw/articles/sm/sm_31_03_1/ (visited 06/20/05).
江淑卿（民 86）：知識結構的重要特性之分析暨促進知識結構教學策 略之實驗研究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導研究所博士 論文。
江淑卿（民 89）：徑路探測法在測量知識結構的效度研究。測驗年刊，
47(1)，73-94。
自然與生活科技教師手冊第八冊（民 94）：單元一－熱和我們的生活。
台南：南一書局。
朱瀅（民 91）：實驗心理學。台北：五南。
宋德忠、林世華、陳淑芬、張國恩（民 87）：知識結構的測量－徑路
搜尋法與概念構圖法的比較。教育心理學報，30（2），123-142。
李坤崇（民 91）：多元化教學評量理念與推動策略。教育研究，98，
24-36。
吳思穎（民 91）：國小自然科多元評量實例。教育研究，98，52-61。
林冠群、吳裕益（民 90）：引出知識的方式對數學課室學習中概念構 圖評量的信、效度之影響。測驗年刊，48(2)，87-108。
林清山（民 75）：多向度量尺法（MDS）的理論及統計方法。測驗年 刊，33，109-124。
林清山（民 79）：多特質－多方法（MTMM）分析模式在驗證性建構 效度考驗的應用。測驗年刊，37，113-130。
林清山（民 92）：結構方程模式（SEM）：基本原理及其在心理與教育 研究之應用。台北：師大書苑。
林曉芳（民 88）：數學低成就國中生在代數概念學習之評量研究。國 立政治大學教育研究所碩士論文。
林曉芳、余民寧（民 90）：國中生在數學代數概念學習之評量研究:以 二元一次方程式為例。教育與心理研究，24，303-326。
邱皓政（民 92）：結構方程模式－LISREL 的理論、技術與應用。台 北：雙葉書廊。
周文欽、賴保禎、歐滄和（民 92）：心理與教育測驗。台北：國立空
中大學。
涂金堂（民 91）：國小學生數學文字題知識結構之評量。教育與心理 研究，25，369-399。
黃芳銘（民 92）：結構方程模式－理論與應用。台北：五南。
黃秀瑄、林瑞欽編譯（民 80）：認知心理學。台北：師大書苑。
黃秋芳（民 93）：從多元評量的角度談「健康與體育」學習領域之體 育教學評量。學校體育，80，99-102。
黃湃翔（民 91）：徑路搜尋法在高中學生物理學科知識結構測量上的 應用。教育與社會研究，4，1-33。
張紹勳（民 83）：SPSS For Windows－多變量統計分析。台北：松崗。
孟慶茂、常建華（民 89）：心理實驗學。台北：心理。
陳正昌、程炳林、陳新豐、劉子鍵（民 92）：多變量分析方法－統計 軟體應用。台北：五南書局。
陳新豐（民 91）：國小學生知識結構的評量分析－以國小自然學習成 就為例。教育與心理研究，25，657-680。
陳學志主譯（民 93）：認知心理學。台北：學富。
陳學志、李威震、周泰安、卓淑玲（民 91）：以內隱聯結測驗（IAT）
測量國人自尊的可行性研究。測驗年刊，49(2)，217-235。
陳學志、陳怡潔、卓淑玲（民 90）：以中文多義詞及破音字的促發效 果量來測量創造力的可行性研究：以新策略檢驗 Mednick 的連 結層級假設。載於第五屆華人社會心理與教育測驗學術研討會 論文集。
陳嘉甄（民 90）：國小學童自然科知識結構之測量。教育與心理研究，
24，327-344。
教育部訓育委員會（民 83）：各級學校可用測驗使用手冊。台北：教 育部。
郭生玉（民 74）：心理與教育測驗。台北：精華書局。
郭慶光譯（民 86）：心理學實驗與測驗之基礎－實習編。台北：五南。
楊治良、郭力平、王沛、陳寧（民 90）：記憶心理學。台北：五南。
賈馥茗（民 54）：簡介 Q-Technique，測驗年刊，12，5-7。
塗振洋（民 90）：路徑蒐尋網路分析在教學評量上的應用:以國小六年 級 學 童 在 天 文 概 念 上 的 學 習 為 例 。 教 育 與 心 理 研 究 ， 24 ， 367-392。
葛樹人（民 76）：心理測驗學（上）。台北：桂冠。
鄭昭明（民 82）：認知心理學－理論與實踐。台北：桂冠。
劉英茂（民 69）：基本心理歷程。台北：大洋。
鍾邦友（民 89）：以情境學習為觀點的統整課程設計。北縣教育，30，
32-37。
簡茂發（民 62）：Q 方法的新近研究的檢討。測驗年刊，20，92-98。
二 、 英 文 部 份
Acton, W.H., Johnson, P. J., & Goldsmith, T.E. (1994). Structural knowledge assessment: Comparison of referent structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 303-311.
Aizenstein, H. J., MacDonald, A. W., Stenger, V. A., Nebes, R. D., Larson, J. K., Ursu, Stefan, & Carter, C. S. (2000). Complementary category learning systems identified using event-related functional MRI. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(6), 977-987.
Alberts, K. S. & Ankenman, B. (2001). Simulating Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation in Q-sorts using EXCEL. Social Science Computer Review, 19(2), 221-226.
Aloisi, B. A., McKone, E., & Heubeck, B. G. (2004). Implicit and explicit memory performance in children with attention deficit/
hyperactivity disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 275-292.
Amador-Campos, J. A., Forns-Santacana, M., Guàrdia-Olmos, J., &
Peró-Cebollero, M. (in press). DSM-IV Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder symptons: Agreement between informants in prevalence and factor structure at different ages. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.
(1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. USA:
American Educational Research Association.
Amin, Z. (2000). Q methodology- A journey into the subjectivity of human mind. Singapore Medical Journal, 41(8), 410-414.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th). NY: Macmillan.
Anderson, W. & Brown, M. (2004). Revealing cost drivers for systems integration and interoperability through Q methodology.
Proceedings of The 26th Annual Conference of the International Society of Parametric Analysts (pp. 1-25). Italy: Frascati.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1993). Multitrait-miltimethod matrices in consumer research: Critique and new developments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(2), 143-170.
Basque, J., Pudelko, B., & Léonard, M. (2004, September). Collaborative knowledge modeling between experts and novices: A strategy to support transfer of expertise in an organization. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
Berry, D. C. & Dienes, Z. (1993). Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues.UK: LEA.
Boldt, M. N. (2001). Assessing students’accounting knowledge: A structural approach. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5),
262-269.
Bond, G. & Gwizdowski, I. (2005). Quantifying team transactive memory.
Paper presented at the Graduate Research and Arts Symposium, New Mexico State University, NM.
Bonebright, T. L., Miner, N. E., Goldsmith, T. E., & Caudell, T. P. (1998).
Data collection and analysis techniques for evaluating the perceptual qualities of auditory stimuli.
http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD98/papers/B ONEBRIG.PDF (visited 07/16/05).
Borg, I. & Groenen , P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Bowers, J. S. (2000). In defense of abstractionist theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7(1), 83-99.
Bowers, J. & Marsolek, C. J. (2003). Rethinking implicit memory. NY:
Oxford University Press.
Bowers, J. S. & Kouider, S. (2003). Developing theories of priming with an eye on function. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 19-40). NY: Oxford University Press.
Brannick, M. T. (2004). Campbell & Fiske's classic multitrait-multimethod matrix. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida at Tampa.
Brown, M. (2004). Illuminating patterns of perception: An overview of Q methodology (Technical Note: CMU/SEI-2004-TN-026). PA:
Camegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute.
Brown, S. R. (1991). Q methodology: 4. Q sorting.
http://www.qmethod.org(visited 10/12/04)
Brown, S. R. (1996). Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 6(4), 561-567.
Brualdi, A. (1999). Traditional and modern concepts of validity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 435 714)
Buchner, A. & Wippich, W. (1998). Differences and commonalities between implicit learning and implicit memory. In M. A. Stadler
& P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 3-46).
CL: Sage.
Bunting, B. P. & Adamson, G. (2000). Assessing reliability and validity in the context of planned incomplete data structures for multitrait-multimethod models. In Ferligoj, A. & Mrvar, A. (Eds.).
Developments in Survey Methodology (pp. 37-53). University of Ljubljana Press.
Bunting, B. P., Adamson, G., & Mulhall, P. K. (2002). A monte carlo examination of an MTMM model with planned incomplete data structures. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 369-389.
equivalent construct validity across groups: methodological and substantive issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24(4), 503-523.
Byrne, B. M. & Goffin, R. D. (1993). Modeling MTMM data from additive and multiplicative covariance structures: an audit of construct validity. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28(1), 67-96.
Callingham, R. (2003). Establishing the validity of a performance assessment in numeracy. Paper presented at the International Education Research Conference, Auckland, New Zealand.
Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
Carlsson, C. & Fullér, R. (1996). Adaptive fuzzy cognitive maps for hyperknowledge representation in strategy formation process.
Proceedings of International Panel Conference on Soft and Intelligent Computing (pp. 43-50). Hungary: Technical University of Budapest.
Chase, C. & Abbond, C. (2000). SuperLab Pro: Experimental laboratory software- User’s guide. CA: Cedrus Corporation.
Chen, C. C. (2001). Assessment of scientific knowledge structure in elementary school students. Journal of Education and Psychology, 24(2), 327-343.
Chen, C. & Carr, L. (1999). Visualizing the evolution of a subject domain:
A case study. Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization’99 Conference, 449-452.
Chen, C. & Czerwinski, M. (1998). From latent semantics to spatial hypertext: Integrated approach. HyperText, 98, Pittsburgh, USA, 77-86.
Chen, C. & Morris, S. (2003). Visualizing evolving networks: Minimum spanning trees versus Pathfinder Networks. IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (pp. 67-74). Seattle, WA.
Chen, C. & Paul, R. J. (2002). Visualizing a knowledge domain's intellectual structure. IEEE Computer, 34(3), 65-71.
Cheong, Y. & Leckenby, J. D. (2004). SEM versus regression for modeling of attitude toward the internet retailer. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Conference American Academy of Advertising, Baton Rouge, LA.
Choi, N. (2004). A psychometric examination of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(3), 348-352.
Chung, S. M. & Pereira, A. L. (2005). Timed Petri Net representation of SMIL. MultiMedia, 12(1), 64-72.
Church, B. A. & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(3), 521-533.
Clariana, R. B. (2005). Using concept map approaches to communicate and present knowledge. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oulu at Finland.
Clariana, R. B. & Wallace, P. (2005). A comparison of pair-wise, list-wise, and clustering approaches for eliciting structural knowledge.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cole, D. A., Cho, S., Martin, J. M., Seroczynski, A. D., Tram, J., &
Hoffman, K. (2001). Effects of validity and bias on gender differencesin the appraisalofchildren’scompetences: Results of MTMM analyses in a longitudinal investigation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 84-107.
Cooke, N. J. (1999). Knowledge elicitation. In F. T. Durso.
(Ed.),Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 479-509). UK: Wiley.
Corten, I. W., Saris, W. E., Coenders, G., van der Veld, W., Aalberts, C. E.,
& Kornelis, C. (2002). Fit of different models for multitrait-multimethod experiments. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 213-232.
Cote, J. A., Buckley, M. R., & Best, R. J. (2001). Combining methodologies in the construct validation process: an empirical illustration. The Journal of Psychology, 121(3), 301-309.
Cox, T. F. & Cox, M. A. A. (1994). Multidimensional scaling. London:
Chapman & Hall.
Craik, F. I. M. (2003). Commentary. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 327-336). NY: Oxford University Press.
Curran, T. (1998). Implicit sequence learning from a cognitive neuroscience perspective: What, how, and where? In M. A. Stadler
& P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp.
365-400). CL: Sage.
Dahlstrom, J., Dorai-Raj, A., McGill, D., Owen, C., Tymms, K., &
Watson, D. A. R. (2005). What motivates senior clinicians to teach medical students? BMC Medical Education, 5, 27-36.
Dapueto, J. J., Francolino, C., Servente, L., Chang, C. H., Gotta, I., Levin, R., & Abreu, M. D. (2003). Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Spanish version 4 in South America: Classic psychometric and Item Response Theory analyses. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1(1), 32.
Darlaston-Jones, D. (2003). Q methodology: An introduction to the analysis of subjectivity. Paper presented at the meeting of the 18th Annual Research Forum, Edith Cowan University at Australia.
Davis, M. A., Curtis, M. B., & Tschetter, J. D. (2003). Evaluating cognitive training outcomes: Validity and utility of structural knowledge assessment. Journal of Business & Psychology, 18(2),
Dawes, J.(2001). Comparing data gathered using five point vs eleven point scales. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC), Auckland, New Zealand.
Dawson, M. R. W., Boechler, P. M., & Valsangkar-Smyth, M. (2000).
Representing space in a PDP network: Coarse allocentric coding can mediate metric and nonmetric spatial judgements. Spatial Cognition and Computation, 2, 181-218.
Dearholt, D. W. & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Properities of pathfinder networks. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 1-30). NJ:
Ablex.
DeCoster, J. (1998). Overview of factor analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa.
De Jong, T. & Ferguson-Hessler, M. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 279-288.
Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clec, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., van de Moortele, P. F., & Bihan, D. L.
(1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597-600.
Delmas, M. & Toffel, M. W. (2005). Organizational receptivity to institutional pressure: The adoption of environmental management practices (Working Papers Series No. 9). Berkeley:
University of California, Center for Responsible Business.
Dennis, S. (1995). The impact of the environment on the word frequency and null list strength in recognition memory. Noetica: Open Forum, 1(1), http://psy.uq.edu.au/CogPsych/Noetica (visited 07/20/05).
Dienes, Z. & Fahey, R. (1998). The role of implicit memory in controlling a dynamic system. The Quarterly Journal Experimental Psychology, 51A(3), 593-614.
Dimovski, V. & Škerlavaj, M. (2004). Organizational learning and its impact of financial and nonfinancial performance. Paper presented at the Fifth European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Innsbruck, Austria.
Durso, F. T. & Coggins, K. A. (1990). Graphs in the social and psychological sciences: Empirical contributions of pathfinder. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks:
Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 31-52). NJ: Ablex.
Duyck, W., Diependaele, K., Drieghe, D., & Brysbaert, M. (2004). The size of the cross-lingual masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency. Experimental Psychology, 51(2), 116-124.
Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76(6),
615-652.
Everitt, B. S. & Rabe-Hesketh, S. (1997). The analysis of proximity data.
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Feldman, L. B. (2003). What the repetition priming methodology reveals about morphological aspects of word recognition. In J. S. Bowers
& C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp.
124-138). NY: Oxford University Press.
Fiser, J. & Biederman, I. (1995). Size invariance in visual object priming of gray scale images. Perception, 24, 741-748.
Fleischman, D. A., Vaidya, C. J., Lange, K. L., & Gabrieli, J. D. E.
(1997). A dissociation between perceptual explicit and implicit memory processes. Brain and Cognition, 35, 42-57.
Fleischman, D. A., Wilson, R. S., Bienias, J. L., Bennett, D. A., &
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2004). A longitudinal study of implicit and explicit memory in old persons. Psychology and Aging, 19(4), 617-625.
Frensch, P. A. (1998). One concept, multiple meaning: On how to define the concept of implicit learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 47-104). CL: Sage.
Friedman, R. B. (2000). The role of learning and memory paradigms in the remediation of aphasic disorders. Brain and Language, 71, 69-71.
Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 7(7), 1-78.
Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2005). Exploring the success factors of state website functionality: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the National Conference on Digital Government Research, Atlanta, GA.
GmbH, G. S. (2004a). Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM).
http://www.schuhfried.at/eng/wts/cpm.htm (visited 07/10/05).
GmbH, G. S. (2004b). Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM). http://www.schuhfried.at/eng/wts/spm.htm (visited 07/10/05).
Goldinger, S. D., Azuma, T., Kleider, H. M., & Holmes, V. M. (2003).
Font-specfic memory: More than meets the eye? In J. S. Bowers
& C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp.
157-196). NY: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, I. (1999). Q methodology as process and context in interpretivism, communication, and psychoanalytic psychotherapy research. The Psychological Record, 49(4), 589-604.
Goldsmith, T. E. & Davenport, D. M. (1990). Assessing structural similarity of graphs. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp.
75-88). NJ: Ablex.
classroom learning. In R. W. Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp.
241-254). NJ: Ablex
Goldsmith, T. E., Johnson, P. J., & Acton, W. H. (1991). Assessing structural knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 88-96.
Gomez, R. & Housner, L. D. (1992). Pedagogical knowledge structures in prospective teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Austin, TX. (ED 351307)
Gopnik,A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., &
Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111(1), 1-30.
Graf, P. & Birt, A. R. (1996). Explicit and implicit memory retrieval:
Intentions and strategies. In L. M. Reder (Ed.), Implicit Memory and Metacognition (pp. 25-44). NJ: LEA.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., Anderson, E., &
McCann, A. (1998). Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261-278.
Gutnik, G. & Kaminka, G. (2004). A scalable Petri Net representation of interaction protocols for overhearing. The Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 3, 1246-1247.
Hajdu, O. (2004). Multitrait-multimethod models for profitability indicators. Periodica Polytechnica Ser. Soc. Man. Sci., 12(2), 211-222.
Hartung, C. M., McCarthy, D. M., Milich, R., & Martin, C. A. (2005).
Parent-Adolescent agreement on disruptive behavior symptoms: A multitrait-multimethod model. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(3), 159-168.
Halliday-Boykins, C. A. & Graham, S. (2001). At both ends of the gun:
Testing the relationship between community violence exposure and youth violent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(5), 383-402.
Harper, M. E., Jentsch, F. G., Berry, D., Lau, H. C., Bowers, C., & Salas, E. (2003). TPL-KATS-card sort: A tool for assessing structural knowledge. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 35(4), 577-584.
Hjørland, B. & Nicolaisen, J. (2005). The Epistemological Lifeboat:
Epistemology and philosophy of science for information scientists.
http://www.db.dk/jni/lifeboat/Concepts/Knowledge%20representa tion.htm (visited 07/08/05).
Housner, L. D., Gomez, R. L., & Griffey, D. C. (1993). Pedagogical knowledge structures in prospective teachers: Relationships to performance in a teaching methodology course. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64(2), 167-177.
Howard, J. H. & Howard, D. V. (1997). Age differences in implicit learning of higher order dependencies in serial patterns.
Psychology and Aging, 12(4), 634-656.
Hoyer, W. J. & Lincourt, A. E. (1998). Aging and the development of learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 445-470). CL: Sage.
Hsieh, J. K. (2003, August). Student’s conceptual learning through teaching strategy with scientific writing. Paper presented at the meeting of the European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, Netherlands.
Huelsman, T. J., Furr, R. M., & Nemanick, R. C. Jr. (2003). Measutement of dispositional affect: Construct validity and convergence with a circumplex model of affect. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(4), 655-673.
Hupbach, A. (2000). Alterskorrelierte Differenzen in konzeptuellen impliziten Gedächtnisleistungen [Age-related differences in conceptual implicit memory tests]. Unpublished manuscript.
Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(4), 785-813.
Information Technology Services. (2004). Research consulting: General FAQ #10: Negative factor loadings. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas at Austin.
Interlink (2004): The Knowledge Network Organizing Tool (KNOT) Software. http://interlinkinc.net/KNOT.html (visited 10/11/04) Ito, K. & Wang, Z. (2002). A new cognitive skills test and its factor
structure. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Janz, B. D. & Prasarnphanich, P. (2005). Understanding knowledge creation, transfer, and application: Investigating cooperative, autonomous systems development teams. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Johnson, P. J., Goldsmith, T. E., & Teague, K. W. (1994). Locus of the predictive advantage in pathfinder-based representations of classroom knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(4), 617-626.
Johnson, A., Moher, T., Ohlsson, S., & Gillingham, M. (1999). The round earth project: Collaborative VR for conceptual learning. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 19(6), 60-69.
Jonassen, D. H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993). Structural knowledge:
Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge. NJ: LEA.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be?
izedCoefficientbe.pdf (visited 07/20/05).
Jurczyk, J. & Ramlo, S. (2004). A new approach to performing course evaluations: Using Q Methodology to better understand student attitudes. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Q Conference, Athens, GA.
Keller, F. (2005). Cognitive modeling- Lecture 18: Bayes nets.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh at UK.
Kinoshita, S. (1989). Masked and unmasked repetition effects: Activation of representation or procedure? In S. Lewandowsky, J. Dunn, & K.
Kirsner (Eds.), Implicit memory-Theoretical issues (pp. 213-227).
NJ: LEA.
Kinoshita, S. (2003). Familiarity in an implicit and explicit memory task:
A common mechanism. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 284-301). NY: Oxford University Press.
Kinoshita, S. & Woollams, A. (2002). The masked onset priming effect in naming: Computation of phonology or speech planning? Memory and Cognition, 30(2), 237-245.
Kirk, J., Bimler, D., Drawneek, A., McKim, M & Schőlmerich, A.(2004).
An alternative approach for the analyses and interpretation of attachment sort items. Early Child Development & Care, 174(7/8), 701-719.
Klein, D. C. D., & Chung, G. K. W. K., & Osmundson, E., Herl, H. E., &
O’Neil, H. F. Jr. (2002). Examining the validity of knowledge mapping as a measure of elementary student’s scientific understanding. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 465 803)
Klein, S. B., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Chance, S. (2002). Decisions and the evolution of memory: Multiple systems, multiple functions.
Psychological Review, 109(2), 306-329.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: The Guilford Press.
KNOT. (1998). Info: Proximity data file format. AZ: Interlink.
Kokoski, T. M. & Housner, L. D. (1994). Pathfinder analysis of knowledge structures: An exploratory investigation of math and science teacher educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 218)
Kolers, P. A. (1975). Memorial consequences of automatized encoding.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1(6), 689-701.
Kroh, M. (2005). Surveying the left-right dimension: The choice of a response format (ISSN electronic edition 1619-4535). Berlin, German: German Institute for Economic Research, Socio-Economic Panel Study.
Kruskal, J. B. & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. CA: SAGE.
Kuk, G., Wood, D., & Copeland, L. (1995). Using pathfinder networks to
distinguish conflict incidents. Paper presented at the meeting of the Audio-Recordings of NHS Management Team, University of Sheffield, UK.
Lachs, L., Mcmichael, K., & Pisoni, D. B. (2003). Speech perception and implicit memory: Evidence for detailed episodic encoding of phonetic events. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 215-235). NY: Oxford University Press.
Laming, D. R. J. (1968). Information theory of choice-reaction times.
London: Academic Press.
Leckenby, J. D. (2002). Theory in persuasive communication and decision making.
http://www.ciadvertising.org/SA/fall_02/adv382j/khkim05/howad wrok/memory.htm (visited 07/20/05).
Lehtonen, M. & Laine, M. (2003). How word frequency affects morphological processing in monolinguals and bilinguals?
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6(3), 213-225.
Leou, S. & Liu, J. C. (2004). The study of concept map implementation for enhancing professional knowledge of a high school mathematics teacher. Paper presented at the Proc. of the First Int.
Conference on Concept Mapping, Spain, Pamplona.
Li, B., Chang, E., & Wu, C. T. (2002). DPF: A perceptual distance function for image retrieval. Proceedings of 2002 International Conference on Image Processing, 2, 597-600.
Lievens, F., Chasteen, C. S., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (in press).
Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center convergent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Lin, T. C., Hsu, M. H., Kuo, F. Y., & Sun, P. C. (1999). An intention model-based study of software piracy. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Looney, C. A., Valacich, J. S., & Akbulut, A. Y. (2004). Online investment self-efficacy: Development and initial test of an instrument to assess perceived online investing abilities. Paper presented at the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Lowe, W. & McDonald, S. (2000). The direct route: Mediated priming in semantic space. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 675-680.
Luce, P. A., McLennan, C., & Charles-Luce, J. (2003). Abstractness and specificity in spoken word recognition: Indexical and allophonic variability in long-term repetition priming. In J. S. Bowers & C. J.
Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 197-214). NY:
Oxford University Press.
Luo, Y., Zhang, J., Gao, X., Liu, X., & Ma, B. (2001, October). Teaching
learning in electric engineering education. Paper presented at the 31thASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Reno, NV.
Manson, T. M., Levine, E. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2000). The construct validity of task inventory ratings: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. Human Performance, 13(1), 1-22.
Manza, L., & Zizak, D., & Reber, A. S. (1998). Artificial grammar learning and the mere exposure effect: Emotional preference tasks and the implicit learning process. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 201-222). CL: Sage.
Maria, J. S. (2004). Effect of instruction with expert patterns on the lexical learning of English as a foreign language. System, 32(1), 89-102.
Marsh, H. W. (1990). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data: the construct validation of multidimensional self-concept responses. Journal of Personality, 58(4), 661-692.
Marsh, H. W. & Grayson, D. (1993). The composite direct product model:
strengths, limitations, and new approaches. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 358 135)
Marsolek, C. J. (2003). What is priming and why? In J. S. Bowers & C. J.
Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 41-64). NY:
Oxford University Press.
Marsolek, C. J. & Burgund, E. D. (2003). Visual recognition and priming of incomplete objects: The influence of stimulus and task demands. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 139-156). NY: Oxford University Press.
Maurer, H. & Pivec, M. (2001). Situation learning: A new approach to knowledge mediation. In C. M. Montgomerie & J. V. Viteli (Eds.), World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, 2001(1), 1254-1259.
May, D. B. & Etkina, E. (2002). College physics student’s epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning. Physics Education Research: A supplement to the American Journal of Physics, 70(12), 1249-1258.
Maybery, M. & Taylor, M. (1995). Implicit learning: Sensitive to age but not IQ. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47(1), 8-17.
Mayes, A. R., Gooding, P. A., & van Eijk, R. (1997). A new theoretical framework for explicit and implicit memory. Psyche, 3(2), http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-3-02-mayes.html
(visited 07/20/05).
Mayfield, J. (1997). Two-level models of hypertext.
http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/ah94/Mayfield.html (visited 07/10/05).
McDonald, J. E., Paap, K. R., & McDonald, D. R. (1990). Hypertext perspectives: Using pathfinder to build hypertext systems. In R. W.
Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 197-212).NJ: Ablex.
McDonald, J. E., Plate, T. A., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Using pathfinder to extract semantic information from text. In R. W.
Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 149-164).NJ: Ablex.
McGaghie, W. C. (1996). Comparison of knowledge structures with the Pathfinder Scaling Algorithm. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
McGriff, S. J. & Van Meter, P. (2001). Measuring cognitive structure: An overview of pathfinder networks and semantic networks.
Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University at PA.
McKeown, B. & Thomas, D. (1988). Q Methodology. CA: SAGE.
McNamara , D. S. & O’Reilly , T. (2004): Learning: knowledge representation , organization, and acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, Old Dominion University at VA.
Medler, D. A. & Piercey, C. D. (2004). Processing ambiguous words: Are blends necessary for lexical decision? Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 944-949). IL: Chicago.
Mitchell, A. A. & Chi, M.T. (1984). Measuring knowledge within a domain. In P. Nagy (Ed.), The representation of cognitive structure (pp. 85-109). Toronto, Canada: ISE.
Müller, F. H. & Kals, E. (2004). Q-sort technique and Q-methodology:
Innovative methods for examining attitudes and opinions. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 5(2),
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-04/2-04muellerkal s-e.htm (visited 07/20/05).
Mycoted. (2004). Q-sort.
http://www.mycoted.com/creativity/techniques/q-sort.php (visited 05/25/05).
Nash, J. G. & Nash, J. M. (2003). A structural representation of migraine diagnostic criteria:The expert’sview.Headache, 43, 322-329.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005a). Euclidean distance. http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/euclidndstnc.html (visited 07/10/05).
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2005b). Levene tests for equality of variances.
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/eda/section3/eda35a.htm (visited 06/15/05).
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004, March). Reliability and validity estimates. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
Noyd, R. (1999). A primer on concept maps. Unpublished manuscript, Wayne State College at NE.
Oliveira, L. C. B. & Joia, L. A. (2005). A model for evaluating B2C e-commerce websites: Application in the CD e-retailing industry
Information Systems, Regensburg, Germany.
Panayides, P. M. & So, M. (2005). The impact of integrated logistics relationships on third-party logistics service quality and performance. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 7, 36-55.
Payne, D. G. & Westerman, D. L. (2003). Research methods in cognition.
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research (3rd).
FL: Harcourt Brace.
Perruchet, P. & Vinter, A. (1998). Learning and development: The implicit knowledge assumption reconsidered. In M. A. Stadler & P.
A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 495-532).
CL: Sage.
Poldrack, R. A. & Packard, M. G. (2003). Competition among multiple memory systems: converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologia, 41(3), 241-244.
Popovic, V. (2003, November). General strategic knowledge models connections and expertise development in product design. In N.
Cross & E. Edmonds (Chairs), Expertise in Design: Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Sydney, Australia.
Prasad, R. S. (2001). Development of the HIV/AIDS Q_sort instrument to measure physician attitudes. Family Medicine, 33(10), 772-778.
Rademacher,M.(2005).Media’simpactasimplicitlearning objectives: COMETS as an example of chances for internet-learning viewed from both Media-Theory and Constructivism. In A. Méndez-Vilas, B. González-Pereira, J. M. González, & J. A. M. González (Eds.), Recent Research Developments in Learning Technologies: Vol. 3 (pp. 1211-1215). Spain: FORMATEX.
Raghavendra, S. P. (2001). Development of the HIV/AIDS Q-sort instrument to measure physician attitudes. Family Medicine, 33(10), 772-778.
Ramey, J. A., Smith, S. M., Barile, A. L., Bihm, E. M., & Poindexter, A.
R. (2001). Assessment of training using Pathfinder Associative Networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. NY: Oxford Uni. Press.
Reber, P. J., Gitelman, D. R., Parrish, T. B., & Mesulam, M. M. (2003).
Dissociating explicit and implicit category knowledge with fMRI.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(4), 574-583.
Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Graphy theory: Definition and properties.
Unpublished manuscript, Hofstra University at NY.
Roediger, H. L. (2003). Reconsidering implicit memory. In J. S. Bowers
& C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 3-18).
NY: Oxford University Press.
Rokkan, A. I., Heide, J. B., & Wathne, K. H. (2002). Specific investments in marketing relationships: expropriation and bonding effects.
Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 210-225.
Rosenthal R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. CA:
Sage.
Rossell, S. L. & Nobre, A. C. (2004). Semantic priming of different affective categories. Emotion, 4(4), 354-363.
Rowe, A. L., Cooke, N. J., Hall, E. P., & Halgren, T. L. (1996). Toward an on-line knowledge assessment methodology: Building on the relationship between knowing and doing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(1), 31-47.
Rueckl, J. G. (2003). A connectionist perspective on repetition priming.
In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 67-104). NY: Oxford University Press.
Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1985). Representation of knowledge.
In A. M. Aitkenhead & J. M. Slack (Eds.), Issues in cognitive modeling (pp. 15-62). NJ: LEA.
Ryan, J. D. & Cohen, N. J. (2003). Evaluating the neuropsychological dissociation evidence for multiple memory systems. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(3), 168-185.
Rye, J. A. & Rubba, P. A. (1996). An exploratory study of the concept map as a tool to facilitate the externalization of students' understandings about global atmospheric change in the interview setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
Sawilowsky, S. S. (2002). A quick distribution-free test for trend that contributes evidence of construct validity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35(2), 78-88.
Sciscape (2001)：生物：腦的演化。
http://www.sciscape.org/news_detail.php?news_id=412. (visited 06/20/05).
Schacter, D. L. (1996). Implicit memory: A new frontier for cognitive neuroscience. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences (3rd) (pp. 815-824). MA: MIT press.
Schmitt, N. & Stults, D. M. (1986). Methodology reviews: analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 1-22.
Schmolck, P. (1999). WebQ.
http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/webq (visited 07/10/05)
Schmolck, P. (2002). PQMethod manual. (Available from the PQMethod package,
http://www.rz.unibw-muenchen.de/~p41bsmk/qmethod/pqmanual.
htm).
Schmolck, P. (2005). The Q method page. Unpublished manuscript, University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich at Germany.
Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1990). Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. NJ: Ablex.
& P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp.
295-320). CL: Sage.
Selby, A. (1995). Why slopes and more Math: A calculus primer (Vol. 3).
Quebec: Author.
Shanks, D. R. & Johnstone, T. (1998). Implicit knowledge in sequential learning tasks. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 533-572). CL: Sage.
Shulman, H. G. (1997). Priming. Unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University at Columbus.
Siekpe, J. S. (2005). An examination of the multidimensionality of flow construct in a computer-mediated environment. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 6(1), 31-43.
Simon, M. A., Tzur, R., Heinz, K., & Kinzel, M. (2004). Explicating a Mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 305-329.
Soledad, B. & José Manuel, R.（2004）. Intact haptic priming in normal aging and Alzheimer’sdisease:evidence fordissociable memory systems. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1063-1070.
Stadler, M. A. & Roediger, H. L. (1998). The question of awareness in research on implicit learning. In M. A. Stadler & P. A. Frensch (Eds.), Handbook of implicit learning (pp. 105-134). CL: Sage.
Steelman, T. A. & Maguire, L. A. (1999). Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(3), 361-388.
Steffens, T. (2005). Knowledge-intensive similarity-based opponent modeling. Proceedings of the 2005 IJCAI Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games (pp. 101-106).
Scotland: Edinburgh.
Stephens, S. M., Rung, J., & Lopez, X. (2004). Graph data representation in Oracle Database 10g: Case studies in life sciences. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 27(4), 61-66.
Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. IL: University of Chicago.
Sun, H. & Zhang, P. (2004). An empirical study of the roles of affective variables in user adoption of search engines. Paper presented at the Third Annual Workshop on HCI Research in MIS, Washington, D. C.
Tecuci, G. (2001). Lecture notes on systematic elicitation of expert knowledge. Unpublished manuscript, George Mason University at VA.
Temple, B. & Marshall, H. (1996). Using concept maps to evaluate teaching and learning. Unpublished manuscript, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University at Melbourne.
Thomas, D. M. & Watson, R. T. (2002). Q-sorting and MIS research: A primer. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 8, 141-156.
Tomás, J. M., Hontangas, P. M., & Oliver, A. (2000). Linear confirmatory factor models to evaluate multitrait-multimethod matrices: The effects of number of indicators and correlation among methods.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35(4), 469-499.
Tortora, G. J. (2004). Chap. 17 CNS- Brain, spinal cord and their judgement function. Unpublished manuscript.
Uttl, B., Graf, P., & Cosentino, S. (2003). Implicit memory for new associations: Types of conceptual representations. In J. S. Bowers
& C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp.
302-323). NY: Oxford University Press.
Valenta, A. L. & Wigger, U. (1997). Q-methodology: Definition and application in health care informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 4, 501-510.
Van Iddekinge, C. H., Raymark, P. H., Eidson, C. E. Jr., & Attenweiler, W.
J. (2004). What do structured selection interviews really measure?
The construct validity of behavior description interviews. Human Performance, 17(1), 71-93.
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Vereijken, C. M. J. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.
J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2004). Assessing attachment security with the Attachment Q Sort: Meta-analytic evidence for the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development, 75(4), 1188-1213.
Vecchio, N. D., Liporace, J., Nei, M., Sperling, M., & Tracy, J. (2004). A dissociation between implicit and explicit verbal memory in left temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia, 45(9), 1124-1133.
Vicari, S. (2001). Implicit versus explicit memory function in children with Down and Williams syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 7(1), 35-40.
Vinter, A. & Perruchet, P. (2002). Implicit motor learning through observational training in adults and children. Memory and Cognition, 30(2), 256-261.
Wagenmakers, E. M., Zeelenberg, R., Huber, D., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., Shiffrin, R. M., & Schooler, L. J. (2003). REMI and ROUSE:
Quantitative models for long-term and short-term priming in perceptual identification. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 105-123). NY: Oxford University Press.
Wheatley, P., Sergeant, D., & Mellor, P. (2003). A database design for representation networks. Unpublished manuscript, University of Leeds at UK.
Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2003). On the construction of behavior and subjective experience: The production and evaluation of performance. In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 239-260). NY: Oxford University Press.
research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (2nd) (pp. 417-420). NY: ESL.
Woosley, S. A. (2004). Q sort and student affairs: A viable partnership?
Journal of College Student Development, 45(2), 231-242.
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Lin, L. M. (2005). What drives mobile health care? An empirical evaluation of technology acceptance. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Xu, J. (2003). The reform of teaching in General Chemistry: Establishing student-centred teaching strategies. The China Papers: Tertiary Science and Mathematics Teaching for the 21st Century, 2, 15-19.
Yeh, C. H. (2001). An analysis of knowledge structures by the Pathfinder method: Freshmen academic achievement in a psychology class.
Journal of Education and Psychology, 24(2), 421-450.
Zechmeister, E. (2005). What’sleftand who’srightin Mexican politics?
A Q-method approach to understanding ideological labels in Mexican politics. Paper presented at the Conference on Surveys and Methods in Mexican Politics, San Diego, CA.
Zeelenberg, R., Pecher, D., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2003). Associative repetition priming: A selective review and theoretical implications.
In J. S. Bowers & C. J. Marsolek (Eds.), Rethinking implicit memory (pp. 261-283). NY: Oxford University Press.
Zhou, G., Brouwer, W., Nocente, N., & Martin, B. (2005). Enhancing conceptual learning through computer-based applets: The effectiveness and implications. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 16(1), 31-49.
