Assignment III: Report Writing for Psychological Assessments (Bender Gestalt II,

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, and Post-Graduate Indian Memory Scale)

Tanishka Singh (M2024APCCP050)

MA in Applied Psychology - Clinical and Counselling Practice
AP 11: Psychological Assessment and Diagnostics I
Mr. Budhadeep Gondane
May 27, 2025
 2

BENDER GESTALT- II: Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt Test

(BGT) Scoring and Interpretation

Preliminary Information:

Name of the participant: A.S.

Age of the subject: 23 years

Gender of the subject: Female

Name of tester: Tanishka Singh

Place of administration: Informal setting

Date of administration: May 23, 2025

Time of administration: 12:00 pm

Rapport formation:
The subject was called into the setting once the materials were properly arranged. A casual
conversation was carried out to put her at ease. She was made comfortable and general
instructions were given.

Behavioural observation:

The subject began the test with a thoughtful and engaged attitude, initially taking time to
reason through each item. This pattern continued throughout the test and every item was
carefully and patiently drawn, by taking a lot of time. She remained focused, motivated and
completed the test in less than the average time, suggesting efficiency in processing abstract
patterns. Her performance hints at strong reasoning skills.

Data and data analysis:

As indicated in the attached data sheets.

Results:

Age: 23 years
 3

Table 1: Showing the raw scores, standard scores, percentile, t scores, and classification for
subject A.S.

Subtests Raw Standard Percentile T score Classification

Score Score

COPY PHASE 45 127 96.41 68 High

RECALL PHASE 28 120 90.88 63 High

MOTOR TEST 12 76-100

Percentile
range

PERCEPTION 10 76-100
TEST Percentile
range

Table 2: Showing the time taken for Copy and Recall phases by subject S.K.

Mean Standard Deviation Time Taken by

the Subject

COPY PHASE 11 min. 56 sec 5 min. 34 sec. 6 min. 30 sec.

RECALL PHASE 3 min. 52 sec.. 2 min. 29 sec. 3 min. 10 sec.

Discussion of Results:
The purpose of this test was to assess visual-motor integration skills in individuals ranging
from 4 to over 85 years of age.
In this case, the subject assessed was a 23-year-old adult.
In the Copy phase, she achieved a raw score of 45, which translates to a standard score of 127.
This places her in the 96.41 percentile, meaning she performed better than approximately 96%
of individuals her age. According to the test norms, this result falls into the "high" category,
indicating that she has strong visual-motor integration skills.
For the Recall phase, her raw score was 28, corresponding to a standard score of 120, placing
her at the 90.88 percentile. This means she outperformed about 90% of her peers. This score
 4

also places her in the "high" category, reaffirming her well-developed visual-motor
integration abilities.
She also performed well in the supplemental assessments. In the Motor test, she scored 12,
placing her in the 76–100 percentile range. This suggests that she has well-developed fine
motor skills—reflected in the controlled, precise movements of her hands, fingers, and other
small muscles. It also indicates good coordination between gross and fine motor movements.
In the Perception test, she scored 10, which again falls within the 76–100 percentile range.
This suggests that she has a strong ability to accurately perceive and mentally represent visual
information. Additionally, her performance reflects a well-developed figure-ground
perception—a cognitive ability to distinguish foreground elements from background based on
contrasts such as light and dark. This perceptual skill also often extends to abstract domains,
like distinguishing melody from harmony or subject from background in complex visuals.
In terms of time, she completed the Copy phase in 6 minutes and 30 seconds, which is well
below the average time for her age group (mean: 11 minutes 56 seconds; SD: 5 minutes 34
seconds). For the Recall phase, she took 3 minutes and 10 seconds, which is close to the
average (mean: 3 minutes 52 seconds; SD: 2 minutes 29 seconds).
Overall, her performance demonstrates strong visual-motor integration, solid hand-eye
coordination, and refined perceptual skills. These abilities are often beneficial in tasks like
sports, learning musical instruments, and using computers—areas that require precision,
coordination, and the ability to interpret visual information efficiently.
 5

(RAVEN’S) STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES (RSPM)

Scoring and Interpretation

Preliminary information:

Name of the subject: R.S.

Age of the subject: 20 years

Gender of the subject: Female

Name of the tester: Tanishka Singh

Place of administration: Informal setting

Date of administration: May 22, 2025

Time of administration: 4:00 pm

Rapport formation:
The subject was seated comfortably. Later, a friendly conversation was held by asking her
about her schooling, parents, friends and interests in general. When the subject felt at ease,
she was asked if she was ready for the test to begin. After an affirmative answer she was
briefed about the process of conduction and was ensured that she won’t be judged on the
basis of results. Also, she was told that her identity will not be disclosed. After clearing all the
doubts, the instructions were given to her

Behavioral observation of the subject:

The subject was calm in the beginning. But towards the end and as the test progressed,
became restless as she was facing difficulty in solving them. Somehow, she managed to
answer all the questions. She kept on saying that the difficulty keeps on increasing and its
exhausting.

Data and data analysis:

As indicated in the data sheet attached.
 6

Results:
Age: 20 years

Table 1: Showing the scores, percentile, grade, and interpretation for subject R.S.

SUBTESTS A B C D E

Raw Scores 11 11 12 10 3

Total Raw Score 47

Percentile 50th Percentile

Grade III +

Interpretation Intellectually average

Table 2: Showing the obtained discrepancy for subject R.S.

A B C D E

EXPECTED 11 10 10 9 5
DISCREPANCY

OBTAINED 0 1 2 1 -2
DISCREPANCY

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 in an age group of 6-65 years.
It was developed by JC Raven and HC Court. The test was constructed to measure
the inductive component of the G factor as defined in Spearman's theory of
intelligence. This is done by providing figures and patterns and measuring the
ability to figure out patterns between them. It consists of 60 non-verbal items
divided into 5 sets A,B,C,D,E each consisting of 12 problems.
 7

The subject’s raw score was 47 which corresponds to 50th percentile and Grade 3+. This
implies the subject scoring Grade 3+ and falling in the 50th percentile is ‘Intellectually
Average’ and makes judgement and forms opinions autonomously and handles abstractions.
It means that the participant has an average level of original and creative thinking. Also she
might have the ability to think logically, question and solve problems as any other average
human being
Discrepancy Score-The difference between the score a person obtains on each set and that
normally expected for her total score is called the Discrepancy score. Since the discrepancies
are not deviating by more than 2, the scores have been accepted to be valid measures of a
person's general 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 11, 11, 12, 10 and 3 on sets A, B, C, D and E respectively.
The expected score for each set was 11, 10, 10, 9, and 5 respectively for the above sets. The
discrepancy thus, is 0, 1, 2, 1 and -2 on sets A, B, C, D and E respectively.
In the context of the SPM, the expected discrepancy scores represent the typical difficulty
gradient from Set A to E, with Set A being the easiest and Set E the hardest. The obtained
discrepancies, however, show that the individual performed relatively equally across sets,
but with the expected drop in performance as the items got harder. For example, the
discrepancy in Set A is 0 and in Set E it’s -2, lower than what is expected, suggesting the
person struggled more with harder items and performed better on the easier ones. This
pattern may indicate usual cognitive processing, fast engagement, or fast warm-up, and
might reflect difficulty in abstract reasoning but better ability of simpler or more structured
tasks. 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 30 minutes and 11 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.

Thus, the subject can be said to be average in intellectual capacity than the population of her
age, having obtained a score of 47 out of 60, and a corresponding percentile of 50. However,
the test results cannot be taken as an accurate measure of her 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.
 8

POST-GRADUATE INDIAN MEMORY SCALE (PGIMS)

Scoring and Interpretation

Preliminary Information:

Name of the participant: J.S.

Age of the subject: 22 years

Gender of the subject: Female

Name of tester: Tanishka Singh

Place of administration: Informal and physical classroom setting.

Date of administration: 11 April, 2025

Time of administration: 2:30 pm

Rapport formation:

The subject was seated comfortably in a well-ventilated, well-lit classroom, however noise
levels were too high which could have interrupted the subject very often during the test and
possibly had its effect on the result as well. A casual conversation was briefly carried out to
make her comfortable and general instructions were given.

Behavioral observation:

The subject appeared to possess an adequate level of task persistence, as she attempted all
items without giving up easily, even when the tasks became progressively challenging. Her
verbal responses were clear and appropriately paced, indicating a reasonable level of verbal
fluency and cognitive processing speed. Although minor distractions were present due to the
high noise levels in the environment, she was able to reorient herself with minimal external
prompting. This reflects a moderate capacity for self-regulation and adaptability under
suboptimal testing conditions.

Data and data analysis:

As indicated in the attached data sheets.

 9

Results:

Age: 22 years

Table 1: Showing the scores, percentile range, and interpretation for subject J.S.

NAME SCORES PERCENTILE RANGE INTERPRETATION

Remote Memory 8 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Recent Memory 5 40 - 60 Average/Moderate

 1
0

Memory

Mental Balance 9 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Attention and 24 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Concentration

Delayed Recall 10 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Immediate Recall 10 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Verbal Retention 5 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

for Similar Pairs

Verbal Retention 15 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

for Dissimilar Pairs

Visual Retention 13 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Recognition 9 60 - 80 Above Average

Memory

TOTAL 108 80 - 100 Excellent Memory

Discussion of results:
Based on the results obtained, the individual demonstrates a largely superior memory profile,
with performance in most subtests falling within the above average to excellent range. A
detailed interpretation of each subtest offers insight into the specific strengths and relative
weaknesses observed.
The first subtest is remote memory. Recollection of events and details from the distant
past is known as remote memory. For example, an adult recalling childhood can be said to be
experiencing remote memory. The score of the participant for this subtest is 8 and the
corresponding percentile range is 80 – 100 which, is an excellent memory range. The score of
the participant for the subtest 2, recent memory is 5 and the percentile range is 40-60 which is
an average range of remembrance. Recent memory is a system for temporarily storing and
managing the information required to carry out complex cognitive tasks such as learning,
reasoning, and comprehension. Recent memory is involved in the selection, initiation, and
termination of information-processing functions such as encoding, storing, and retrieving
data. Mental balance is the third subtest and it refers to the psychological state of someone
 1
1
who is functioning at a satisfactory level of emotional and behavioural adjustment. The score
for this subtest is 9 and the percentile range is 80-100 which is excellent memory range.
Attention and concentration is the fourth subtest. Attention is the cognitive process of
selectively concentrating on one aspect of the environment while ignoring other things.
Examples include listening carefully to what someone is saying while ignoring other
conversations in the room. Exclusive attention to one object or close mental application is
concentration. The score of this subtest is 24. The percentile score is 80-100 which is
excellent range again.
The fifth subtest is delayed recall. The score for this subtest is 10 and the percentile
range is 80-100 which, is excellent performance by the participant. Immediate recall is
the sixth subtest. The score is 100. The percentile range is 80-100. It is an excellent range.
The seventh subtest is verbal retention for similar pairs. The score is 5 and the percentile
range is 80-100 which, is an excellent range. In the eighth subtest, verbal retention for
dissimilar pairs, the score of the participant is 15 and the percentile range is 80-100, which is
a very good range. The ninth subtest is visual retention. The score is 13 and the percentile
range is 80-100, which is an excellent range. The tenth subtest is recognition. The score is 9.
The percentile range is 60-80 and is an above-average range.
The total score of the participants is 108. And the percentile score is 80-100, which is an
excellent range. This means that the person’s overall impression of the memory scale is very
good and is in excellent range. Strengths are particularly evident in long-term memory, visual
retention, immediate recall, and associative memory. Minor fluctuations in recent memory
should be interpreted with consideration of contextual factors, such as the individual’s current
emotional state or environmental stressors during testing or high noise levels in the classroom
which might have acted as a distractor.