STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

Aim

To determine the level of intelligence or analytical reasoning of the participant.

Participant details

The test was administered on the participant ‘N.S’, aged 28, working as a software developer in
Bangalore

Materials required:

1. RPM test booklet

Procedure

The participant was seated comfortably in a well-ventilated and bright room and rapport was
established. Once done the participant is briefed about the purpose of the test. Demographic details
are collected and informed consent is taken. The booklet along with the answer sheet is placed in
front of the participant and instruction are given, with the example of the first pattern. It is ensured
that the participant has understood the instruction before the test is started. With the signal ‘start’
allow the participant to work. There is no time limit. Generally, the participants complete the test
within an hour.

Instructions

“On every page of the booklet there is a pattern with a piece missing (the experimenter points
them). You have to choose which of the pieces below is the right one to complete the pattern. When
you think you have found the right piece write its corresponding number next to the problem
number in the answer sheet. If you make a mistake, or want to change your answer, put a cross
through the incorrect answer, and then write the corresponding number of the correct answer on
your answer sheet. Go on like this by yourself until you get to the end of the booklet. They are quite
simple in the beginning and get difficult progressively. If you attend to the pattern with
concentration, they get less difficult. Work at your own pace. Do not miss any item. Do not turn back
to the previous item. Begin when I give the ‘start’ signal. There are 60 problems, 12 in each set.

Precaution

1. Ensure that the participant has understood the instruction clearly before starting the test.
2. Problems should be solved one after the other.
3. All the problems in the test booklets should be attempted by the participant.

Scoring

 Score the answers with the reference to the key

If the participant’s score on any one of the sets deviates by more than +2 or -2 from the normal
expected score, his/her total score on the scale cannot be accepted at it’s face value, as the
consistent estimate of his general capacity for intellectual activity

(for normal expected score refer- SPM II normal (expected) score composition(1979) standardization)

Result

Table 1 shows the consistency score of the participant. The participant scores 12 in set A, 11 in set B,
10 in set C, 12 in set D and 9 in set E with total raw score of 54. The normal expected score for the
total of 54 is 12, 11, 10, 12 and 9 for set A,B,C,D,and E respectively.

Table 2 shows the results of the participant. The participant had scored the total raw score of 54 with
a percentile rank of 95, and grade I that interpreted as ‘superior’, according to standard progressive
matrices.

Discussion

The aim of the experiment is to determine the level of intelligence or analytical reasoning of the
participant.

The test was administered to ‘N.S.,’ a 28-year-old software developer in Bangalore. N.S. works at a
technology firm, where his job involves designing and debugging software applications and
collaborating with teams to create solutions. He follows a 9-hour work schedule, occasionally
working longer hours. He comes from an upper-middle-class socio-economic background.

The results indicate that the participant demonstrates a superior level of intelligence which suggests
a strong capacity for abstract reasoning and pattern recognition. The participant’s scores across
different sets were consistent, falling within the expected range of ±2, indicating reliable
performance. This supports the interpretation that N.S. may have excellent fluid intelligence, which is
essential for tasks requiring quick thinking, problem-solving, and adaptability.

According to Spearman's Two-Factor Theory, N.S.'s high score can be explained by the concept of
general intelligence (g), which underlies all cognitive tasks. The performance of N.S. indicates that he
possesses superior fluid intelligence, allowing him to excel in abstract reasoning, pattern recognition,
and problem-solving. Similarly, Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory supports the idea that N.S.'s analytical
reasoning reflects strong analytical intelligence, necessary for evaluating and solving technical
challenges.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Intelligence further supports N.S.'s results. This theory
differentiates fluid intelligence (Gf), which relates to the ability to solve novel problems and think
abstractly, and crystallized intelligence (Gc), which reflects knowledge gained through experience.
N.S.'s results aligns with the high fluid intelligence necessary for quickly learning new software
systems, adapting to new technologies, and solving complex problems in his field.

A study by Stephanie Alcock, Aline Ferreira-Correia, Nicole Israel, and Kate Cockcroft (2024), titled
"The Relationship Between Fluid Intelligence, Divergent and Convergent Thinking in Older Adults:
The Moderating Effects of Demographic and Contextual Variables," supports the RPM as a strong
measure of fluid intelligence. N.S's superior performance on the RPM suggests high fluid intelligence,
which, according to Alcock et al.'s findings, may be associated with enhanced divergent and
convergent thinking abilities.

In the workplace, N.S.'s fluid intelligence could play a significant role in his ability to adapt, think
critically, and contribute to innovative solutions. Given the nature of his job, his high fluid intelligence
may help him excel in the dynamic field of software development. Therefore, N.S.'s strong
performance on the test may indicate his potential for continued success in his profession.

Conclusion

The participant has superior intelligence according to Standard Progressive Matrix.

References

Srivastava, A. K. & Misra, G. (1996). Changing perspectives on understanding

intelligence: an appraisal. Indian Psychological Abstracts and Reviews, 3, 3-34.

Alcock, S., Ferreira-Correia, A., Israel, N., & Cockcroft, K. (2024). The relationship between fluid

intelligence, divergent and convergent thinking in older adults: The moderating effects of

demographic and contextual variables. Journal of Cognitive Aging, 12(3).

DOI: https://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/home