The Prediction of Problem-Solving Assessed Via Microworlds

In this study, we explored the network of relations between fluid reasoning, working memory, and the two dimensions of complex problem solving, rule knowledge and rule application. In doing so, we replicated the recent study by Bühner, Kröner, and Ziegler (2008) and the structural relations investigated therein [ Bühner, Kröner, & Ziegler, (2008) . Working memory, visual-spatial intelligence and their relationship to problem-solving. Intelligence, 36, 672–680]. However, in the present study, we used different assessment instruments by employing assessments of figural, numerical, and verbal fluid reasoning, an assessment of numerical working memory, and a complex problem solving assessment using the MicroDYN approach. In a sample of N = 2,029 Finnish sixth-grade students of which 328 students took the numerical working memory assessment, the findings diverged substantially from the results reported by Bühner et al. Importantly, in the present study, fluid reasoning was the main source of variation for rule knowledge and rule application, and working memory contributed only a little added value. Albeit generally in line with previously conducted research on the relation between complex problem solving and other cognitive abilities, these findings directly contrast the results of Bühner et al. (2008) who reported that only working memory was a source of variation in complex problem solving, whereas fluid reasoning was not. Explanations for the different patterns of results are sought, and implications for the use of assessment instruments and for research on interindividual differences in complex problem solving are discussed.