Maze learning: Reliability and equivalence of alternate pathways

Abstract

The equivalence of a popular Austin Maze path and an alternate mirror reflection was examined in a sample of 44 university students (22 male, 22 female) under a counterbalanced latin square design. While all subjects performed better on the pathway administered second, the two paths were equivalent in difficulty. There was also evidence of a sex difference favouring the males. Correlation coefficients indicated that the Maze displayed alternate-form reliability equal to or better than other popular clinical tests of such learning.