Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) Report
Saee Pathak 2437548
2 MPCL-B
Department of Psychology
CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bangalore
MPS251: Psychodiagnostics Lab-1
Submitted to Dr. Hema
2nd January, 2025
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM)
Introduction
Description of the attribute
Intelligence is widely studied psychological concept that various scholars have
defined in different ways over the years. Wechsler (1958, as cited in Swerdlik & Cohen,
2021, p. 300) defines intelligence as “the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act
purposefully, to reason and to deal effectively with his environment”. Spearman (1904, 1923,
as cited in Gregory, 1991, pp. 156–157) described it as “a general ability that involves mainly
the education of relations and correlates.” Binet and Simon, who developed a series of tests
designed to assess mental abilities (1905, as cited in Gregory, 1991, pp. 156-157), viewed
intelligence as “the ability to judge well, understand well, and reason well.” Terman, who
developed the Stanford Binet test widely used to measure intelligence quotient (1916, as cited
in Gregory, 1991, pp. 156–157), emphasised “the capacity to form concepts and grasp their
significance.”
Description of the test
According to Bilker et al. (2012), Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices is a
multiple-choice assessment tool designed to measure mental abilities related to abstract
reasoning, which Cattell (1940) called fluid intelligence. It is a non-verbal measure of
Spearman's ‘g’ factor, eduction of relations among abstract items. Initially published in 1938,
based on Raven’s unpublished theses, the standard version of the RSPM comprises five sets
of twelve black-and-white matrices. The items in the test are arranged in sets of increasing
difficulty, with each set starting with simpler items that gradually become more complex
(Jensen, 1980; Raven, 1941; Raven et al., 2000; as cited in Queiroz-Garcia et al., 2021). Each
item presents a matrix with one missing cell, typically in the lower right corner, and the
participant must choose the most appropriate solution from several options. The five sets of
items allow participants to grasp the problem-solving approach required and progressively
assess their intellectual (Jensen, 1980; Lovett et al., 2007; Raven, 1941; Raven et al., 2000; as
cited in Queiroz-Garcia et al., 2021). The RSPM can be administered individually or in
groups (Jensen, 1980; as cited in Queiroz-Garcia et al., 2021). According to its manual, if
time constraints exist, the test should be interpreted as a measure of intellectual efficiency
rather than the general intelligence factor, or g factor.
Psychometric properties
Reliability
The Raven Standard Progressive Matrices was administered to a sample of 6,529
children in Kuwait ranging in age from 8 to 15 years. Test-retest reliability (N = 968) ranged
between .69 and .85 (Abdel-Khalek, 2005). The RPM exhibits high internal consistency, with
split-half reliability coefficients typically exceeding 0.90. This consistency indicates a robust
measure of cognitive ability (Raven, 2000)
Validity
The loadings of the five sets of matrices on the only salient factor ranged from .73
to .89, indicating the good factorial validity of the scale (Abdel-Khalek, 2005). Criterion
Validity indicates moderate to strong correlations (0.54–0.86) with other intelligence
measures, like the Wechsler and Binet scales (Raven, 2000).
Applications
The Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) is used to assess school children's
intellectual abilities, focusing on reasoning rather than language skills. This makes it effective
for identifying students in need of educational support. In workplace assessments, the RPM
predicts job performance in complex roles requiring logical reasoning. It also helps identify
cognitive deficits and differentiate between normal aging and disorders like dementia.
Additionally, its non-verbal nature makes it suitable for those with disabilities or language
impairments (Bürkner, 2020).
Proforma of the client
Name: S.P
Age: 22
D.O.B: 5/12/2002
Gender: Female (she/her)
Education: Currently pursuing MSc. Clinical Psychology
Referred by: Self
Presenting Concerns: The client seeks to gain a deeper understanding and insight into their
level of general intellectual functioning and abstract reasoning.
Test Administered: Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (RSPM)
Date: 19/12/2024
Purpose of Testing: The purpose of testing was to evaluate the client's general intellectual
functioning and assess their level of abstract reasoning.
Behavioural Observations:
The client had a neutral demeanour. The client listened to instructions attentively and
was able to grasp them. However, the client expressed disinterest in undertaking the in the
beginning as they were not feeling well rested. Upon finishing the test, the client requested
that the results be shared with her.
Test Results
The client attempted all questions and took a total of 31 minutes and 43 seconds to
complete the test. Scoring was conducted manually using a scoring key. Correct answers
were awarded 1 point, while incorrect answers received 0 points. The scores for each column
are summed up.
Table 1: Scores obtained on each set
Sr. No. A B C D E
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 0 1 1
7 1 0 1 1 0
8 1 1 0 0 0
9 1 1 1 1 0
10 1 1 1 1 0
11 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 1 0 0 0
Total 10 10 8 9 6
A final score is calculated by adding the totals of all five columns. The corresponding
percentile score and grade are then referenced from the manual for further analysis.
Table 2: Percentile interpretation
Raw Score Percentile Grade Interpretation
43 50-75 III Average+
The discrepancy score measures the difference between the actual score a person
achieves on a specific set and the score expected based on their overall total. This is
represented numerically as 0, -1, +2, -2, or +1. If a person’s score on a set deviates by more
than 2 points, their total score may not reliably reflect their general intellectual capacity.
However, the total score remains a relatively valid indicator for general purposes, even when
discrepancies more significant than 2 points are present.
Table 3: Discrepancy scores of the client
A B C D E Total
Normal 12 10 9 9 3 43
expected
score
Client score 10 10 8 9 6 43
Consistency -2 0 -1 0 3 -
score
Test Interpretation
The raw score obtained by the subject was 43, and her scores on the five sets A, B, C,
D, and E were 10, 10, 8, 9, and 6, respectively. The discrepancies corresponding to the raw
scores were -2, 0, -1, 0, and 3, respectively. The discrepancies for sets B, C and D do not
deviate beyond +2 or -2, while the scores on sets A and E do.
If a client’s score on a set deviate by more than 2 points, their total score may not
reliably reflect their general intellectual capacity. Such deviations suggest variability in
performance that may influence the reliability of the total raw score as an indicator of general
intellectual capacity. The significant discrepancy on set E may point towards challenges with
more complex abstract reasoning tasks. The significant discrepancy could also be explained
as a result of test taker’s fatigue or boredom towards the end. While the score provides some
insight into the subject's intellectual functioning, the observed variability suggests caution in
interpreting the total score as a fully accurate reflection of general intellectual ability.
The client obtained a percentile score of 50-75, corresponding to grade III. This
indicates that her overall intellectual performance is average, leaning towards the higher end
of the spectrum. This suggests that the client demonstrates an adequate ability to perceive
patterns, solve problems, and engage in abstract reasoning, which make up the key
components of non-verbal intelligence measured by the test. It implies a capacity for
cognitive functioning in tasks requiring logical reasoning and pattern recognition that is
average or slightly above-average as compared to the general population. However, taking
into consideration the discrepancy scores on sets A and E, it is imperative to interpret this
result with consideration of specific strengths and potential challenges that may occur in
abstract reasoning and problem-solving tasks of different levels of complexity.
Recommendations
To obtain a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of the client’s
intellectual functioning, additional assessments should be conducted.
External factors that may have influenced the client’s performance, such as fatigue,
boredom, or environmental distractions should be taken into consideration while interpreting
the result. The notable discrepancy in set E may be resulting from fatigue, cognitive overload
or problems with sustaining focus.
The client’s strong performance in the middle sets (B, C, and D) highlights her
competence in reasoning tasks of moderate complexity. The client should be encouraged to
build upon these strengths by engaging in activities that promote abstract reasoning, such as
puzzles, strategy games, or pattern recognition exercises. These could help the client enhance
cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills.
1
References
Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2005). Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Standard Progressive
Matrices among Kuwaiti Children Ages 8 to 15 Years. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
101(2), 409–412. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.101.2.409-412
Bilker, W. B., Hansen, J. A., Brensinger, C. M., Richard, J., Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (2012).
Development of abbreviated Nine-Item forms of the Raven’s Standard Progressive
Matrices Test. Assessment, 19(3), 354–369.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112446655
Bürkner, P. (2020). Analysing Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM-LS) with Bayesian Item
Response Models. Journal of Intelligence, 8(1), 5.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8010005
Cattell, R. B. (1940). Culture Fair Intelligence Test [Dataset]. In PsycTESTS Dataset.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t14354-000
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (1992). Psychological Testing and Assessment: An
introduction to tests and measurement. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA19098412
Gregory, R. J. (1991). Psychological Testing: history, principles, and applications.
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA47494065
Moran, A. P. (1986). The reliability and validity of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices
for Irish apprentices. Applied Psychology, 35(4), 533–538.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1986.tb00955.x
Queiroz-Garcia, I., Santo, H. E., & Pires, C. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Raven’s
Standard Progressive Matrices in a Portuguese sample. Revista Portuguesa De
Investigação Comportamental E Social, 7(1), 84–101.
https://doi.org/10.31211/rpics.2021.7.1.210
1
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and Stability over Culture and
Time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735
Smith R. J. C. M. E. S. D. K. (n.d.). Psychological testing and assessment : an introduction to
tests and measurement. Retrieved December 30, 2024, from
http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA19098412
