RAVEN’S PROGRESSIVE
MATRICES
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST
• This title was first introduced in 1938.
• For 30 years Raven continued to develop his
tests. The initial series of SPM (1938) was
followed by the CPM (1947) thereby extending
the range of the usefulness down to include
young children, old people and the mentally
defective.
• A need to extend the standard series at the
upper end led to the development of of
Advanced Progressive Matrices, prepared
initially in 1941 & appeared in repeated
version in 1947.
• During the subsequent years the term
Progressive Matrices has been used to refer
without distinction to any of three series
(Raven’s General Overview, 1985)
• Three series of Raven’s are:
• Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)
• Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)
• Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)
RAVEN’S VOCABULARY SCALES
• Researchers and developers found it difficult to
describe the cognitive functioning only with the
help of non-verbal scales as it provided only
one part of cognitive functioning
(performance=non verbal)
• Other complete information could be obtained
by administering vocabulary scales.
• So Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale and Crichton
Vocabulary Scales were developed.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND OF RAVEN’S
PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
• Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales are theoretical based
tests with their roots in the investigations of
Spearman into the nature of intelligence.
• In his view an undifferentiated concept of
intelligence was less than adequate in
describing cognitive abilities.
SPEARMAN’S THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE
• Charles Spearman (1927 as cited in Gregory,
1996), the intelligence consisted of 2 factors:
- a single factor (g)
- Specific factor (S1, S2, S3….etc).
- Spearman helped invent factor analysis to aid his
investigation of the nature of intelligence
(Gregory, 1996)
• Factor Analysis: a family of statistical
procedures that researchers used to
summarize relationships among variables that
are correlated in highly complex ways
(Gregory, 1996).
• The purpose of factor analysis is to identify the
minimum number of determiners (factors)
required to account for the Interco relations
among a battery of tests. (Gregory, 1996)
• The analysis gives a correlation
matrix
• What is a correlation matrix?
• Through factor analysis loading is also obtained which
is actually a correlation between an individual test and a
single factor.
• The factor loadings can vary between –1 to + 1.
• Provides important information relevant to construct
validity.
(Gregory, 1996)
• Spearman used this statistical
technique to discern the number of
separate underlying factors that must
exist to account for the observed
correlations between a large number
of tests.
• (Gregory, 1996)
• In Spearman’s view an examinee’s performance
on any homogeneous test or subtest of
intellectual ability was determined mainly by 2
factors:
- g= the pervasive general factor
- s= a factor specific to that test or subtest.
Specific factor “s” was different for each intellectual
test or subtest and was usually less influential
than “g” in determining performance level
• (Gregory, 1996)
• Spearman expressed less interest in studying “s”
• He concentrated mainly on defining the nature of
“g” which he likened to an energy or power which
serves in common the whole cortex.
• General factor constituted most important aspect
of intelligence since it is vital in the performance
of almost all tasks (Spearman, 1904, 1923 as cited
in introduction to psychology by Nicholas, 2008)
• However he defined it as “mental
energy” in 1927 (introduction to
psychology by Nicholas, 2008)
• Spearman reasoned that some tests were heavily
loaded with the “g” factor whereas other tests
especially purely sensory measures were
representative mainly of a specific factor.
• 2 tests each heavily loaded with “g” should
correlate quite strongly.
• (Gregory, 1996)
• People who performed well on one
cognitive test tended to perform well on
other tests, while those who scored badly
on one test tended to score badly on
other. He concluded that intelligence is
general cognitive ability that could be
measured and numerically expressed
(Spearman, 1904).
OR
Mental ability is something that is general
in nature.
• For example people who achieve
high scores for mathematical ability
would achieve equally high score for
another mental ability test such as
language competency. This is due to
the general factor.
(as cited in introduction to psychology
by Nicholas, 2008)
• Spearman considered “s” the
specific factor to have the
physiological substrate localize in
the group of neurons serving the
particular kind of mental operation
demanded by a test or subtest.
(Gregory, 1996)
• Substrate: the natural environment in which an
organism lives, or the surface or medium on
which an organism grows or is attached
• “s’ factor refers to the specific abilities
that are required to perform various tasks
(specific) (Spearman, 1904, 1923 as cited in
(introduction to psychology by Nicholas).
• “s” factor varies from one act to another
while “g” is available at the same level for
all intellectual acts (Spearman, 1927 as
cited in introduction to psychology by
Nicholas, 2008).
• However the performance of any
intellectual act requires a combination of
“g” and “s”. The contribution of each
would depend on the nature of the task at
hand.
(Spearman, 1927 as cited in introduction to
psychology by Nicholas, 2008).
• An example that highlights the difference between
“g” and “s” would be autistic savants. Even
though these individuals are mentally retarded
(g), they may portray genius like abilities within a
specific field (s) of which the most common are
numeric reasoning, memory feast, artistic and
musical ability (Edelson, 1995 as cited in
(introduction to psychology by Nicholas, 2008).
• specific factor: specific to an
individual mental task: the individual
abilities that would make a person
more skilled at one cognitive task
than another.
• general factor: that governs
performance on all cognitive tasks.
• According to the Spearman, though intelligence tests
should focus on the measurement of “g” & avoid any
inference of “s”, since “s” is merely an indication of the
performance on individual subtests of intelligence.
• He considered “g” alone to be responsible for meaningful
interpretation of intelligence.
(as cited in introduction to psychology by Nicholas, 2008).
• Spearman (1923, Gregory, 1996) believed that
individual differences in “g” were most directly
reflected in the ability to use 3 principles of
cognition:
1. Apprehension of experience;
perception and understanding of
each term based on past experience
• Apprehension of experience; as explained by
Spearman in 1923:
“any lived experience tend to evoke immediately a knowing of its
direct attributes & its experiences”
Stimuli are meaningful for persons when they have relevant
experiences or knowledge of related attributes
2. Eduction of relations;
refers to the process of figuring out
things
“the presenting of two or more characters tends to evoke
immediately a knowing of relation between them”
•
It involves inference
3. Eduction of correlates:
the ability to apply the inferred
principle to the new
domain.
“the presenting of any character together with a relation tends to
evoke immediately a knowing of correlative character (Spearman
1923; as cited in Handbook of intelligence
By Robert J. Sternberg, 2000)
• Example:
Hammer : nail ::Screwdriver : ?
• Although Spearman speculations have been
largely dismissed, the idea of a general factor
has been a central topic in research on
intelligence and still very much alive today.
RAVEN’S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
• The purpose of Raven’s Progressive
Matrices is to assess reasoning in
the visual modality.
• It is a test of inductive reasoning.
• Test items requires the examinee to infer a rule
relating to a collection of elements and then to
use the rule to generate the next item in the series
or to verify that the presented element is relative
to the rule (Alderton, & Larson, 1990 as cited in a
compendium of neuropsychological tests
administration, norms & commentary by Spreen
& Strauss, 2nd edition)
• Problems become progressively more difficult,
the easier items serving as a learning experience
for later and more difficult items.
• Thus the test has been used to assess intellectual
efficiency, or the ability to become more efficient,
by learning from immediate experiences with the
problems (Mill et al., 1993 as cited in a
compendium of neuropsychological tests
administration, norms & commentary 2nd edition)
• It’s a popular measure of conceptual
ability as responses require neither
verbalization, skilled manipulative
ability, or subtle differentiation of
visuospatial information.
• In addition verbal instruction is kept
to a minimal.
COLORED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
(1984 edition)
• The Coloured Progressive Matrices is designed
for use with young children and old people, for
anthropological studies & for clinical work.
• It can be satisfactorily used with people who for
any reason, cannot understand or speak the
English language, with people suffering from
physical disabilities, aphasias, cerebral palsy or
deafness, as well as with people who are
intellectually subnormal or have deteriorated.
• Aphasia is an acquired language
disorder in which there is an
impairment of any language
modality. This may include difficulty
in producing or comprehending
spoken or written language.
• CPM is designed to assess as
accurately as possible a person’s
clarity of observation and level of
intellectual development.
• There are 3 sets (A. Ab, B, 12 items in each set)
arranged to assess mental development up to the
stage when a person is sufficiently able to reason
by analogy to adopt this new way of thinking as a
consistent method of inference.
• This apparently decisive stage in intellectual
maturation appears to be one of the earliest to
decline as a result of organic dysfunction.
• Reason by analogy;
Analogy involves a structured
comparison or mapping between one
situation (source) & another (target).
e.g. a reasoner may be given a
problem such as :
Bird : nest :: bear : ?
• If two individuals are known to be alike in certain
respects, and one is found to have a particular
property, we often infer that, since the individuals
are similar, the other individual probably also
has that property. This is a simple example of
reasoning by analogy and it is a kind of
reasoning that we use every day
(Maher, 2006 as cited in
http://patrick.maher1.net/471/lectures/confirmatio
n4.pdf)
• My neighbor had her carpets
cleaned by Klean Rite, and the
company did a good job on them.
That is reason to think Klean Rite
would do a good job on my carpets.
• The three sets of 12 problems are arranged to
assess the chief cognitive processes of which
children under 11 are usually capable.
• The 3 sets together provide 3 opportunities for a
person to develop a consistent theme of thought
& the scale of 36 problems as a whole is designed
to assess as accurately as possible mental
development up to intellectual maturity.
• Mental development in childhood is
more like a salmon leaps in stream
of life than the equally arranged
rungs of a ladder.
• These running leaps can be clarified
by CPM.
• To obtain useful information concerning
the various uses of CPM, it seemed
important to work initially with small
groups of carefully selected subjects,
rather to rely on large groups
• It is also desirable to compare the scores
of young children with that of older
population obtaining similar scores.
• It was noted above that children rarely reason by
analogy in the way adults do but the context of
problem is important
• In this view, it is necessary to reconsider
Spearman’s “Principle of Cognition” in the light
of Gestalt theory & to design the problems of the
type used in set Ab, in which discrete figures
could be apprehended as parts of an organized
“whole” or individual entity appropriately
oriented to the observer & its perceptual field.
• From the experimental work leading
to the construction of CPM at least 5
qualitative developments in order of
intellectual capacity could be
distinguished.
• 1. a child is first able to distinguish
identical figures from different
figures & later similar from
dissimilar figures.
2. Sometimes after this, he is able to
appreciate a figure’s orientation with
respect to himself & other objects in
the perceptual fields.
3. Finally he can compare analogous
changes in the characters perceived
& adopt this as a logical method of
reasoning.
4. Subsequently he is able to analyze
the perceived whole into its
constituent elements or characters &
distinguish between what is given &
what he himself contributes.
5. Later he is able to apprehend 2 or
more discrete figures as forming a
whole, or organized individual
entity.
Test revisions:
• From an item analysis of responses to problems
leading up to the 1947 edition of the CPM, 12 were
selected to form set Ab.
• In 1956 edition, all 36 problems constituting sets
A, Ab, B were revised & where necessary
rearranged to provide a more uniform increase
in the order of difficulty
• The alternatives have been rearranged as to
minimize the effect of their positions upon
frequency with which any one type is chosen.
• In one or 2 cases the alternatives itself has been
altered.
• In no case has any change been made in the
nature of the problem to be solved, or in the
position of the right answer.
• The equivalent changes have been made in the
1956 edition of SPM, although values of these
changes is chiefly confined to the CPM, for use
with children & for clinical work.
• Age range:
• According to CPM guide the age range is 5 – 11
years of age, to make the test more suitable for
use with persons who are for any reason
mentally sub normal or impaired.
• According to manual it can be used with children
under age 11 years
• The norms are given in manual for the age range
of 5.5 – 11.5 years children, according to
standardization sample of 1982.
• Time taken
25 minutes to complete the test
• Forms of the Tests:
1. The book form of the test
2. The board form of the test
(manual, 1984, pg # 9-10)
• Instructions for giving the book form of the
test:
(Individual Administration)
(manual pg # 11-12)
(Group Administration)
(manual pg # 12-13)
Instructions for giving Board form of the test:
(manual pg # 14-16)
• Studies of Reliabilities & Validities
Reliability (manual pg # 21)
Validity (manual pg # 22-24)
• Scoring and Interpretation
• Erroneous Choices