STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

Introduction

Intelligence is a complex trait that has been studied by psychologists for decades.
Intelligence tests are commonly used to measure a person's intellectual ability. Intelligence tests
are used in a variety of settings, including educational, occupational, and clinical settings, to
assess individuals’ intellectual strengths and weaknesses (Kaufman et al., 2016). Raven's
Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) test is one of the most widely used intelligence tests. The
SPM measures abstract reasoning and assesses individuals’ general intelligence.

History

John C. Raven, a British psychologist, developed Raven's SPM test in the early 1900s.
The test was initially used to assess soldiers' intellectual abilities during World War I. The first
edition of the test consisted of 60 multiple-choice questions that were divided into five sets, with
each set containing 12 questions. Raven continued to revise the test over the years, with the most
recent edition being Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), which was published in
1998 (Flanagan & Dixon, 2019).

Variations of SPM

Over the years, various versions of the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) have been
developed to cater to different age groups and cultural backgrounds. The variations in these
versions can be seen in the content, format, and difficulty levels of the matrices.

One of the most widely used variations is the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM), which was
developed by J.C. Raven and J.H. Court in 1988. As the name suggests, this version uses
coloured images instead of black and white images to enhance visual appeal, particularly for
younger age groups. The CPM is typically administered to children aged 5-11 years old and has
been found to have good reliability and validity (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998).

Another variation is the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM), which was developed to cater to
individuals with higher cognitive abilities. The APM comprises of 36 items that increase in
difficulty as the test progresses and is typically administered to individuals aged 16 years or
older. This version has been found to have good reliability and validity in measuring fluid
intelligence (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998).

In addition to these variations, there are also culture-specific versions of the SPM, such as the
Standard Progressive Matrices - Plus (SPM+), which was developed to measure the cognitive
abilities of Chinese individuals (Tan, Yang, Ruan, & Zhang, 2011). The SPM+ consists of 60
items and has been found to have good reliability and validity in measuring fluid intelligence in
Chinese university students.

Overall, these variations of the Standard Progressive Matrices allow for a more tailored and
targeted assessment of cognitive abilities in different populations. However, it is important to
note that these variations have been developed for specific purposes and should be chosen based
on the population being tested and the cognitive abilities being measured.

Purpose

The Raven's SPM test is administered to assess an individual's nonverbal, abstract

reasoning ability, or fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence is solving novel problems, thinking
abstractly, and adapting to new situations. Unlike crystallized intelligence, which is knowledge
accumulated over time, fluid intelligence is more innate and not influenced by environmental
factors (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008). The test is often used for educational,
clinical, and occupational purposes, such as screening job applicants or identifying children who
may benefit from gifted programs.

Nature of the Test

The Raven's SPM test is comprised of multiple-choice questions that assess an

individual's ability to reason and solve problems without relying on language or mathematical
skills. The questions are presented in a matrix format, with one or more missing elements in each
matrix. The individual must identify the missing element or pattern by selecting one of six or
eight options provided.
 The test consists of 60 questions that are divided into five sets of 12 questions each. Each
set becomes progressively more difficult, and the questions become more complex as the
individual progresses through the test (Raven, 2000). Each set of test has a time limit, with the
first set allowing 20 minutes, the second set 25 minutes, and the remaining sets 30 minutes each.

Administration

The Raven's SPM test is administered individually or in a group setting, and it can be
administered to individuals aged 6 and above. The test administrator reads the instructions aloud
and ensures that the individual understands them before beginning the test. The individual is then
given a booklet containing the test questions and a separate answer sheet. The test administrator
sets a timer for each set of the test, and the individual is instructed to complete as many questions
as possible in the allotted time. The test typically takes around 40-60 minutes to complete,
depending on the edition and the individual's ability (Flanagan & Dixon, 2019).

Reliability and Validity

The reliability of the SPM test has been extensively investigated across various populations and
age groups. A study by Benson and colleagues (2008) reported high test-retest reliability for the
SPM test, with a coefficient of .87 over a four-year period. Another study by Lohman and Hagen
(2001) found similarly high reliability for the SPM test, with a coefficient of .90 over a
three-year period. These findings suggest that the SPM test is a reliable measure of fluid
intelligence over time.

The validity of the SPM test has also been extensively studied. The SPM test is designed to be a
culture-free measure of fluid intelligence, meaning that it should be equally effective in
measuring intellectual functioning across different cultures and language groups. A
meta-analysis by Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) reported that the SPM test has a high level of
cross-cultural validity, with no significant differences in performance across different ethnic or
language groups. Similarly, a study by Tan and colleagues (2011) found that the SPM test was a
valid measure of fluid intelligence in a sample of Chinese university students.

The convergent validity of the SPM test has also been investigated by comparing its scores with
those of other intelligence tests. A study by Jensen (2006) reported a high correlation between
the SPM test and other measures of nonverbal intelligence, such as the Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Another study by
Kaufman and Kaufman (2004) found that the SPM test had a strong correlation with the Raven's
Colored Progressive Matrices test, which is a variant of the SPM test.

Furthermore, the predictive validity of the SPM test has been investigated by examining its
relationship with academic and professional outcomes. A study by Heggestad and colleagues
(2006) found that SPM test scores were significantly related to job performance in a sample of
military personnel. Similarly, a study by Lubinski and colleagues (2006) found that SPM test
scores predicted academic performance in a sample of gifted high school students.

Name: P
Age: 23 years 11 months
Gender: Female
Education: Graduate

Brief History
Schooling was done in the CBSE board, High school in the Maharashtra board, Graduation in
Nagpur University and Masters at Christ University. The medium of instruction was English.

Purpose of Testing
The test measures intellectual development and logical thinking levels.

Behavioural Observation
The participant was comfortably seated and rapport could be established easily. She was alert
and responsive and was motivated for the testing. She completed sets A, B & C easily. She took
longer to complete sets D & E. While attempting to solve set E, the participant appeared stressed.
This could be due to the increasing difficulty of the sets.
Test Finding

Total Score 55

Percentile Range 95

Grade I

Interpretation Intellectually Superior

SPM was designed to evaluate Spearman’s educative Ability. Educative ability entails the
ability to make sense of ambiguity; to develop mostly nonverbal structures that make dealing
with complexity and to see beyond the obvious. SPM tests the intellect level of both youngsters
and adults. SPM is divided into five sets (A, B, C, D and E) each of which has 12 items for a
total of 60.

The experiment was done on a 23-year-old female student. The time taken for completion
increased gradually. The result suggests that subject P has a raw score of 55 with scores of 12,
12, 12, 11 and 9 in each respective set. The total score of the subject is 55 and the percentile for
this is 95 with a grade of I. From the scores, it can be interpreted that the participant is
intellectually superior. This implies that the individual is capable of abstract thinking, reasoning,
comprehending complex ideas, and problem-solving. Moreover, they also have the ability to
perceive and think clearly, make meaning out of confusion, and formulate new concepts when
faced with novel information. The participant could do well in academics and might be quick to
learn from past experiences.

Conclusion
The participant has superior intellectual ability.
 References:

Benson, N. F., Hulac, D. M., & Kranzler, J. H. (2008). Independent examination of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition (WAIS-III) and the Kaufman Adolescent and
Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT) using a sample of psychometricians. Psychological
Assessment, 20(3), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.3.284

Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A
theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices Test.
Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.404

Heggestad, E. D., Morrison, M., Reeve, C. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2006). Relations of three
cognitive intelligence tests to job performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 639–672.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00049.x

Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence
with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105(19), 6829-6833.

Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the Mind: Mental Chronometry and Individual Differences.
Elsevier.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lohman, D. F., & Hagen, E. P. (2001). Raven's Progressive Matrices: A review of

standardization and normative studies conducted in the United States. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 19(4), 353–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290101900404

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., Webb, R. M., & Bleske-Rechek, A. (2006). Tracking exceptional
human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17(3), 194–199.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales: Section 1: General Overview. Oxford Psychologists Press.

Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven's progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and
time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.

Tan, Q., Yang, H., Ruan, M., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Psychometric properties of Raven’s
Progressive Matrices Test in Chinese university students. Psychological Reports, 108(3),
759–768. https://doi.org/10.2466/09.07.15.PR0.108.3.759-768