![revised minnesota paper form board test form aa by renis revised minnesota paper form board test form aa by renis](https://0.academia-photos.com/attachment_thumbnails/35213809/mini_magick20180818-29335-12vqg07.png)
![revised minnesota paper form board test form aa by renis revised minnesota paper form board test form aa by renis](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/developmentalassessment-131210040323-phpapp01/95/developmental-assessment-59-638.jpg)
This suggests as is indicated by Mumaw at least two separate sources of processing inefficiency. Errors in positive ('yes’ response) and negative items were only weakly correlated. Speed differentiation between the present groups was only found for obviously negative (‘no response) items and speed variables correlated much lower with standard test performance than error percentages. The results were in general very similar to the results of adult university students who were tested by Mumaw (1981). In order to see which component processes differentiated between a group of high standard test performers and a group of low standard test performers, these students were presented with an experimental task (Mumaw, 1981) based on an information processing model. A visualization ability test (the Revised Minnesota Paper Form Board Test) was administered to 139 Dutch 13-year-old technical school children.