Psychological Assessment Journal-1

(RAVEN’S) STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES (SPM)

Introduction of the test:

Intelligence can be defined as the individual’s ability or abilities to

understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to
learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to
overcome obstacles by careful thought.

According to E.L. Thorndike, abstract intelligence is the ability to deal with

symbols, signs, numbers, words etc. It is the capacity to understand and
manage abstract ideas and symbols and consists of numerical and spatial
abilities, deductive and inductive reasoning, mental ability and attention
span.

RSPM (1938) was constructed to compare people with respect to their

immediate capacities for observation and clear thinking. It provides a
practical means of assessing a person’s intellectual development,
attainability or mental impairment.

The SPM, sets A, B, C, D and E is a test of a person’s capacity at the time

of the test to apprehend meaningless figures presented for observation,
use the relations between them, conceive the nature of the figure
completing each systems of relations presented, and, by doing so,
develop a systematic method of reasoning.

The SPM test was constructed to measure the educative component of g

as defined by Spearman’s theory of cognitive ability.

Educative ability is the ability to forge new insights, the ability to discern
meaning in confusion, the ability to identify relationships.

According to Spearman, g has second component, reproductive ability i.e.

the ability to recall and use a culture’s store of explicit, verbalised,
concepts. It is measured by the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale.

The SPM was developed for use in homes, schools, and workplaces as well
as in laboratories. It had therefore to be simultaneously short, attractive,
robust and valid.

The SPM is now used internationally for comparative purposes, and no

general revision of it has until recently appeared necessary. Two derivates
of the standard test were also prepared for further experimental work and
comparative studies which were later published as the Coloured (CPM)
and the Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) in 1947.
Towards the end of the 1990s, Andrich and Styles prepared tables SPM4 to
SPM6 which make it possible to convert scores on the CPM to SPM and
SPM to APM (and vice versa).

Description of the test:

RSPM is aimed at understanding a person’s capacity at the time of the

test to apprehend meaningless figures presented to him/her. For
observation, to see the relation between them, to conceive the nature of
the figures completing each system of relations presented and by doing
so, develop a systematic method of reasoning.

The test is made up of 5 sets or series of diagrammatic puzzles exhibiting

serial change in two dimensions simultaneously. Each puzzle has a part
missing, which the person taking the test has to find among the options
provided. The Standard test consists of 60 problems divided into 5 sets (A,
B, C, D and E), each made up of 12 problems. The 5 sets provide five
opportunities for grasping the method and five progressive assessments
of a person’s capacity for intellectual activity. To ensure sustained interest
and freedom from fatigue, each problem is boldly presented, accurately
drawn, and, as far as possible, pleasing to look at.

The SPM was designed to cover the widest possible range and mental
ability and to be equally useful with persons of all ages, whatever their
education, nationality, or physical condition. Hence, it has a wide range of
utility.

The scale is intended to cover the whole range of intellectual development

from the time a child is able to grasp the idea of finding a missing piece to
complete a pattern and to be sufficiently long to assess a person’s
maximum capacity to form comparisons and reason by analogy without
being unduly exhausting and unwieldy.

The test is often described as a test of observation and clear thinking. In

itself, it is not a test of general intelligence. Each problem in the scale is
really the ‘mother’ or ‘source’ of a system of thought- hence the name
‘Progressive Matrices’.

Construct Validity:

It is one through the ‘Item Characteristic Curves’. It is not a measure of

general intelligence, or abstract or problem solving ability. It is the range
of practical utility i.e. 10% of the variance explained by SPM.

Standardisation:
The Progressive Matrices was originally constructed by Raven in 1938. In
1947 and 1956, a few corrections were made to give the test a more
uniform problem distribution. In 1993, the test was standardised along
with Mill Hill Vocabulary on school children.

The present test has been standardised on representative samples of

British sample, 6-65 years of age. There are also no gender differences
seen except at age 11 + or -6 months. However, test bias is stronger in
the US population

1. UK Norms

Percentile Age( 20-25)

95 59
90 58
75 57
50 54
25 49
10 44
5 39

2. USA norms

Percentile Age( 20-25)

95 59
90 58
75 56
50 52
25 47
10 41
5 35
Reliability of the test:

The reliability of a test is its ability to yield consistent results from one set
of measures to another.

This scale has a test-retest reliability ranging from 0.83 to 0.93. The test
has been found to have a ‘g’ saturation of 0.82.

Norms used in the test:

A norm is the average or typical score (mean or median) on a particular

test made by a specified population.

The norms being used in RSPM are percentile ranks. Percentile scores are
expressed in terms of persons who fall below a given raw score.

Percentile ranks show at once the individual’s intellectual capacity relative

to other people of his/her own age and the frequency with which one
should expect to find people of similar capacity.

Advantages of SPM:

 A person’s total score provides an index of his/her intellectual

capacity, whatever his nationality or education. Thus, the test is a
culture-fair test and can be administered on a large variety of
people.

 As the order of the problems provides the standard training in the

method of working, the test can be given as an individual, a self
administered, or a group test.

 It provides a valid means of assessing a person’s present capacity

for clear thinking and accurate intellectual work.

 SPM Plus, which retains the 60-item cynical format of the Classic
SPM, retains this ability to discriminate among younger children
and older adults because all the items from the Parallel forms of
Sets A and B have been included. But it also offers better
discrimination among today’s more able adolescents and young
adults.

Limitations of the test:

  The test does not differentiate very clearly between young
children or between adults of superior intellectual capacity.

 Neither shortening the test, making it longer, dividing it nor

rearranging the problems overcome the shortcomings without
limiting the usefulness of the scale as a whole.

 For vocational guidance and occupational selection, a ‘speed’ of

‘efficiency’ test is more appropriate. The RSPM, being an untimed
test, loses out here.

 As it was designed to be used with children as well as adults, the

first and second sets in the standard form of the test, and the
introductory problems of the third and fourth sets, provide, for
adults, little more than training in the method of working. These
training items are, however, particularly important for those who
come from backgrounds in which they may have had little
opportunity to become familiar with puzzles of this type.
Shortening (or timing) the test therefore disadvantages those
whose abilities are hardest to demonstrate on other tests, and for
whom the SPM is especially suited.

 Although it is short enough not to be unduly exhausting or

unwieldy, the original version had, at the time it was developed,
enough difficult problems to discriminate between adults. The
discriminative power, eroded by the worldwide increase in
educative ability over the years, has been restored in SPM plus.
Where greater differentiation is required at the lower or upper
ends of the distribution, the Coloured or the Advanced
(respectively) Progressive Matrices should be used.

 Use of the SPM with an overall time limit which does not enable
everyone to finish results in an uneven and invalid distribution of
scores. In such circumstances, some people spend a lot of time
trying to solve the more difficult problems in the early sets while
others skip over them and greatly enhance their scores by
correctly solving the easier items of later sets.

 Young children, mentally handicapped persons, and very old

people are not expected to solve more than the problems in sets
A and B of the test and the easier problems of sets C and D,
where reasoning and analogy is not essential.

Materials required:

 Raven’s SPM Manual

 Response sheet

 Norm tables
  Scoring key

 Poster-sized enlargements of the first two items of Set A (which

should be pinned to a flip-chart board in such a way that Problem
A1 hides Problem A2, but A1 can be turned over to expose A2)

 Screen board

 Paper, pen, pencil

Precautions:

 The subject should not have any prior knowledge of the test.

 The subject should be instructed to complete all the problems in

each set.

 The pages of the booklet should not be marked.

 Proper testing conditions to be maintained and ensured.

 The subject should be made comfortable.

 The tester should ensure that the pages of the booklet are turned
one at a time.

Instructions:

1. Hold up the SPM answer sheet: Please fill up your name, today’s
date, your age and date of birth at the top. Remember that all your
answers should be made on the answer sheet. Please do not mark
the test booklet in any way. Now take the test booklet- but don’t
open it yet.

2. Hold up the SPM test booklet: This is a test of observation and clear
thinking. Please open your test booklet at the first page. You see
that this is Problem A1. Now look at your answer sheet.

3. Hold up the answer sheet and point to Column 1: You will see that
under the heading Set A there is a column of numbers 1,2,3,4
through to 12. This is where the answers go. Now look back at your
test booklet.

4. Turn to the enlargement of Problem A1: The top part of Problem A1

is a pattern with a bit of cut out of it. Look at the pattern, think what
the piece needed to complete the pattern correctly both along and
down must be like. Then find the right piece out of the six bits
shown below. Only one of these pieces is perfectly correct. This..

5. Point to each in turn: ..is the right shape to fill the space, but only
one of them is the right pattern. Number 1 is the right shape, but
 not the right pattern. Number 2 is not a pattern at all. Number 3 is
quite wrong. Number 6 is nearly right, but is wrong here.

6. Point to the white piece in Number 6: put your finger on the piece
which is correct both ways. Number 4 is the right bit, isn’t it? So the
answer is Number 4, and you write “4” next to number 1 in the first
column of your answer sheet. Please don’t mark the test booklet.

7. Tester and assistants check that everyone has marked “4” for Set A,
Problem 1: Now please turn over to the next page of the test
booklet, and do problem A2 by your selves.

8. Allow everyone sufficient time to find and record their answer to

problem A2: The right answer is Number 5. Has everyone written
“5” against Number 2 in the first column of their answer sheet?

9. Check that everyone has done this correctly: On every page of the
booklet there is a pattern with a piece missing. You have to choose
which of the pieces below the right one to complete the pattern is.
When you think you have found the right piece, write its number to
the problem number on your answer sheet. If you make a mistake,
or want to change your answer, put a cross through the incorrect
answer, and then write the number of the correct answer. Do not try
to rub out the incorrect answer. Go on like this by yourself until you
get to the end of the booklet. I will come round to see that you are
getting on all right. Any questions? The problems are simple at the
beginning and get harder as you go on. There is no catch. Work at
your own pace. Do not miss any out. If you are not sure, guess as
guesses are sometimes right. If you get stuck, move on to the next
problem and come back to the one you had difficulty with. You can
have as much time as you like. Turn over to A3 and start.

10. Note the time. Go around checking if everyone is answering

correctly. If anyone has not grasped the nature of the problem, re-
demonstrate problem A1. At the end of 15 minutes, begin to check
that the answers are being recorded in the right place. At the end of
20 minutes, ask those taking the test to ring the number of the
problem that they are working on just then. After about half an hour,
ask those being tested to indicate when they have finished.

11. Collect the test booklets and answer sheets once they are done.

Administration of the test:

It is important that the subject taking the test has understood what they
have to do which includes their method of thought. It is important to see
that the test is administered in the same way to all those who are taking
the test. The people giving the test should be allowed to work in peace,
taking their own time as it helps in clear thinking. While testing children, it
is important to see that they are answering correctly and this can be done
through regular checks while they are performing. There should be a
supervisor for every group of 10-15 people. The seats should be
comfortable and space between the subjects should be maintained to
prevent copying. There should be space for the supervisor to move around
the room. No respondent should have their back towards the supervisor.

Discussion of results: GROUP

The aim of the present test was to measure or assess the abstract
intelligence or fluid intelligence of the group with the help of RSPM.

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (1938) provides a practical means

of assessing a person’s intellectual development, attainability or mental
impairment. It provides a valid means of assessing the person’s present
capacity for accurate intellectual work and clear thinking. It can be
administered on an age group of 6-65 years.

The consistency score of a subject is also calculated based on comparison

with other individuals who have gotten the same scoring range. This is
done by subtracting from an individual’s score on each of the five sets,
the score which others in the same range have also obtained. Thus the
difference between the score a person obtains on each set and the
normally expected score for that domain is shown as follows:

Discrepancy: 0, +1, +2, 0, -1

If a person’ score on one of the sets deviates by more than 2, the total
score on the test cannot be accepted at its face value as a consistent
estimate of general capacity for intellectual activity.

For convenience, certain percentages of the population are taken and

people’s scores are generally grouped together.

Subjects can be classified as:

 Grade I: “Intellectually superior” if the score lies at or above 95th

percentile for people of the same age group.

 Grade II: “Above average”, if the score of the individual lies at or

above the 75th percentile of the same age group.

 Grade III: “Intellectually average”, if the score lies between 25th and
75th percentiles for that age group.

 Grade 1V: “Below average”, if the score lies at or below the 25th
percentile for that age group.

 Grade V: “Intellectually Impaired” if a score lies at or below the 5th

percentile for that age group.

Subjects who have taken the test are debriefed by the experimenter as to
what the test measures and what their score indicates. This can be done
by referring to the norms below to obtain percentile in a culture specific
context.

 Individual and Group scores:

The SPM was conducted on a group of 19 individuals within the age range
of 20-28.

The individual subject, HS obtained a score of 56 with a corresponding

percentile of above 75, corresponding to a categorization of Grade II, i.e.
“above average” in intellectual capacity.

The group results obtained were as follows:

Score Mid point(X) Number of individuals(f) fX value o

Range
49-50 49.5 4
51-52 51.5 2
53-54 53.5 5
55-56 55.5 3
57-58 57.5 2
59-60 59.5 3
TOTAL 19

Mean value (D) obtained: ∑fxN = 54.13= 54.

S.D (Standard Deviation): ∑X-D2/(N-1)

= 55.518 = 0.41

Hence we can say that the group raw score obtained is 54 with a S.D of
0.41 and a corresponding percentile of 50 which implies that 50% of the
cases lies above the group sample and 49.5% of the cases lie below the
group sample.

As per the grade norms, the group lies in the category of Grade III+ which
implies that the group is “intellectually average”.

The raw scores are converted into percentiles as the percentiles show at
once the group’s intellectual capacity relative to other groups of the same
age and the frequency with which one should expect to find people of
similar capacity.

Quartile Calculation:

f/4= 19/4= 4.75

Q1= 51-52

Q3= 56-57

However, the test results cannot be taken as an accurate measure of his

intellectual capacity unless taken along with the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale.
Also the accuracy of the test may not be obtained as the testing
conditions differ along with environmental conditions such as place of
administration, varied socio-economic status of the group samples, and
the like.

Reference:

J.C. Raven’s Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices Manual, Edition 2000

INDIVIDUAL CASE ANALYSIS:

Preliminary information:

Name of the subject-

Age of the subject- 15 years

Name of the tester-

Place of administration- Sir Sayyad English High School

Date of administration- January 27, 2011

Time of administration- 12:44pm – 1pm

Rapport formation:

After setting up the materials required for the test, the subject was called
into the setting. Since the subject was a little nervous and tensed, to put
him at ease, general conversation was carried out. Once the subject was
made comfortable, the test was administered and general instructions
were given.
Administration of the test:

Once the instructions were given, the subject was asked to begin the test.
It was made sure that the subject marked at the right places in the
response sheet and pages of the booklet were turned one at a time.

When the test was completed, the total time taken by the subject was
noted down and the introspective report taken.

The scoring was done using the appropriate table of the manual, raw
score was converted to a percentile rank.

Introspective report:
“The test is very good, like a game and an interesting test.”

Behavioural observation of the subject:

The subject seemed to be enthusiastic about the test. He initially started

by giving each problem a thought, however as he proceeded, he started
rushing through the problems. He seemed confident while administering
the test as well.

Data and data analysis:

As indicated in the data sheet attached.

Results:

Raw Score Total Raw

A 12

B 9
37
C 7

D 7
 E 2
Result Summary Table-1

A B C D E
E 11 9 7 8 2
X
PE
C
TE
D
DI
S
C
R
EP
E
N
C
Y
O 1 0 0 -1 0
BT
AI
N
E
D
DI
S
C
R
EP
E
N
C
Y
Result Summary Table-2

Discussion of results:
The aim of the present test was to measure or assess the abstract
intelligence or fluid intelligence of the subject with the help of RSPM.

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (1938) provides a practical means

of assessing a person’s intellectual development, attainability or mental
impairment. It provides a valid means of assessing the person’s present
capacity for accurate intellectual work and clear thinking. It can be
administered on an age group of 6-65 years.

The raw score of the subject was found to be 37out of 60, which means
that the subject was able to correctly solve 37 problems out of 60.

The scores were compared to the available norms. The subject got a
percentile rank of 25, corresponding to the raw score of 37. This implies
that 24.9% of the cases fall below him, and 75% of the cases above him.
[Ref. Norms, Standard Progressive Matrices for Classes VI & IX of Delhi
Schools. Delhi: Bureau of Educational & Vocational Guidance, State
Institute of Education. 1986]

The raw scores are converted into percentiles as the percentiles show at
once the individual’s intellectual capacity relative to other people his own
age and the frequency with which one should expect to find people of
similar capacity.

For practical purposes, it is convenient to take certain fixed percentages of

the population and to group people as their scores fall between them. In
this way, it is possible to classify a person according to the score he/she
obtains.

Thus, the subject’s percentile rank was converted into grades, and he
obtained Grade-III, which shows that he is “intellectually average” in
intellectual capacity.

By subtracting from a person’s score on each of the 5 sets, the score

normally expected on each set for the same total score on the scale, the
consistency of his/her work can be assessed.

The subject obtained a score of 12, 9, 7, 7 and 2 on sets A, B, C, D and E

respectively. The expected score for each set was 12, 11, 11, 10, and 8
respectively for the above sets.

The discrepancy thus, is 1, 0, 0, -1 and 0 on sets A, B, C, D and E

respectively.

If a person’s score on one of the sets deviates by more than 2, his/her

total score on the scale cannot be accepted at its face value as a
consistent estimate of his/her general capacity for intellectual activity.
Since the subject’s score does not deviate by more than 2 on any of the
sets, we can accept the scores at its face value as a consistent estimate of
his general capacity for intellectual activity. However as we can see from
Result Summary table-2, the subject does not have discrepancy in scores.
Any discrepancy in scores can be attributed to the environmental
conditions such as noise levels, physiological factors of the subject, socio
economic status, literacy levels etc.

The time taken by the subject to complete the test was 16 minutes and 20
seconds. The average time taken to complete the test is 45 minutes.

The subject thus, completed the test in less than the given average time.
Since the subject took less than the average time, we can say that it is
another indicator of her efficiency and intellectual capacity which however
is contradictory to his scores and corresponding percentile and grade
point.

Thus the subject can be said to be average in intellectual capacity than

the population of his age, having obtained a score of 37 out of 60, and a
corresponding percentile of 25.

However, the test results cannot be taken as an accurate measure of his

intellectual capacity unless taken along with the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale.
Other factors that may contribute to the inaccuracy of the scores may be
culture variations, socio economic status of the subject, age,
environmental conditions and so on.

Reference:

J.C. Raven’s Ravens Standard Progressive Matrices Manual, Edition 2000