113

CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST (CFIT)

AIM OF THE TEST: To understand and demonstrate the administration, scoring and
interpretation of The Culture Fair Intelligence Test.

INTRODUCTION:

Definition of Intelligence

David Wechsler, a prominent psychologist, defined intelligence as "the global capacity of a

person to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment"
(Wechsler, 1944). This definition emphasises the multifaceted nature of intelligence,
including the abilities to adapt to new situations, learn from experience, and apply knowledge
to solve problems.

Theories of Intelligence:

Galton’s theory

Francis Galton's theory of intelligence, influenced by Charles Darwin's ideas on evolution, is

referred to as the theory of Hereditary Genius. The theory posits that intellectual abilities are
hereditary and vary significantly among individuals. In his works, Galton presents evidence
that intellectual capacity runs in families, arguing that these differences are crucial both
personally and for society. He believed that each person has a unique combination of
cognitive strengths and weaknesses, which reflects their intellectual profile.

Galton is credited for launching the testing movement in psychology. He pioneered the field
of psychometrics and modern intelligence testing by developing methods to measure
individual differences in sensory and psychological traits. His work, including the creation of
tests for sensory discrimination and the use of statistical techniques to analyse test data, laid
the foundation for quantitative assessment of human abilities. His innovations, along with his
emphasis on the role of heredity and individual differences, paved the way for modern
intelligence testing.
 114

Spearman’s Theory of Intelligence

Charles Spearman's theory of intelligence centres on the concept of general intelligence, often
referred to as the "g" factor. His insights emerged from observing patterns in the performance
of individuals across various cognitive tests. He found that people who excelled on one
mental test tended to perform similarly well on others, indicating a positive correlation in
their scores. This consistency suggested that there was an underlying factor influencing
performance across different cognitive tasks, regardless of their specific content.

Spearman used factor analysis to reveal that individual test items, while showing varying
correlations, generally shared a common factor he termed g, representing overall cognitive
ability. He defined “g” as the capacity to infer and apply relationships from experience. This
encompasses skills like recognizing connections and solving problems.

Furthermore, he introduced the concept of the “s” factor, referring to task- specific abilities in
certain areas like music, dance or painting. (Cicarelli)

Thurstone’s Primary Mental Abilities

Thurstone (1938) challenged the concept of a g-factor. He identified a number of primary

mental abilities that comprise intelligence as opposed to one general factor. The seven
primary mental abilities in Thurstone’s model are:

1. Word Fluency: Ability to use words quickly and fluency in performing such tasks as
rhyming, solving anagrams, and doing crossword puzzles.
2. Verbal Comprehension: Ability to understand the meaning of words, concepts, and
ideas.
3. Numerical Ability: Ability to use numbers to quickly compute answers to problems.
4. Spatial Visualization: Ability to visualize and manipulate patterns and forms in space.
5. Perceptual Speed: Ability to grasp perceptual details quickly and accurately and to
determine similarities and differences between stimuli.
6. Memory: Ability to recall information such as lists or words, mathematical formulas,
and definitions.
 115

7. Inductive Reasoning: Ability to derive general rules and principles from the presented
information.

Later in his research, Thurstone added two more abilities:

8. Deductive Reasoning: Ability to apply general rules to specific situations in order to

draw conclusions logically. This involves reasoning from the general to the specific.
9. Problem Solving: This involves using reasoning and other cognitive skills to find
solutions to complex issues or challenges. It requires both critical and creative
thinking.
Based on these factors Thurstone constructed a new test of intelligence known as ‘‘Test of
Primary Mental Abilities (PMA).’’

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner in his book ‘‘Frames of Mind, The Theory of Multiple Intelligence’’ (1983),
puts forth a new and different view of human intellectual competencies. He argues boldly and
cogently that we are all born with potential to develop a multiplicity of Intelligence, most of
which have been overlooked in our testing society, and all of which can be drawn upon to
make us competent individuals. The potential for musical accomplishments, bodily mastery
and spatial reasoning, and the capacities to understand ourselves as well as others are,
Gardner argues, ‘‘the multiple forms of intelligence that we must add to the conventional—
and typical tested—logical and linguistic skills long called I.Q.’’.

Gardner defines intelligence as a “biopsychological potential to process information that can

be activated in a cultural setting to solve problems or create products that are of value in a
culture” (Gardner, 2000, p.28). Following the work of Thurstone, American psychologist
Howard Gardner proposed that there is no single intelligence, but rather distinct, independent
multiple intelligences exist:

Linguistic intelligence involves the ability to use language masterfully to express oneself
rhetorically or poetically. It includes the ability to manipulate syntax, structure, semantics,
and phonology of language.
 116

Logical-mathematical intelligence involves the ability to use logic, abstractions, reasoning,

and critical thinking to solve problems. It includes the capacity to understand the underlying
principles of some kind of causal system.

Spatial intelligence features the potential to recognize and manipulate the patterns of wide
space (those used, for instance, by navigators and pilots) as well as the patterns of more
confined areas, such as those of importance to sculptors, surgeons, chess players, graphic
artists, or architects.

Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence involves using the body with finesse, grace, and skill. It
includes physical coordination, balance, dexterity, strength, and flexibility. People with high
bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are good at sports, dance, acting, and physical crafts.

Musical intelligence refers to the skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of
musical patterns. It involves the ability to perceive, discriminate, create, and express musical
forms. It includes sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, melody, and tone color. People with high
musical intelligence are good at singing, playing instruments, and composing music.

Interpersonal intelligence involves the ability to understand and interact effectively with
others. It includes sensitivity to other people’s moods, temperaments, motivations, and
desires. People with high interpersonal intelligence communicate well and can build rapport.

Intrapersonal intelligence is the capacity to understand oneself, to have an effective working

model of oneself, including one’s desires, fears, and capacities—and to use such information
effectively in regulating one’s own life. It includes self-awareness, personal cognizance, and
the ability to refine, analyze, and articulate one’s emotional life.

Naturalist intelligence involves the ability to recognize, categorize, and draw upon patterns in
the natural environment. It includes sensitivity to the flora, fauna, and phenomena in nature.
People with high naturalist intelligence are good at classifying natural forms.

Existential intelligence is the ninth type of intelligence suggested as an addition to Gardner's

original theory. He described existential intelligence as an ability to delve into deeper
questions about life and existence. People with this type of intelligence contemplate the "big"
questions about topics such as the meaning of life and how actions can serve larger goals.
 117

Raymond Cattell’s Crystallized and fluid intelligence

Crystallized intelligence and Fluid Intelligence are 2 key components of intelligence, as

proposed by Raymond Cattell.Crystallized intelligence supports fluid intelligence by offering
a base of knowledge that can be used in problem-solving. On the other hand, strong fluid
intelligence aids in grasping new concepts, which in turn enhances crystallized intelligence as
time goes on. Together, they play a vital role in overall cognitive functioning, with each type
impacting the growth and use of the other.

1] Crystallized Intelligence- It refers to the ability to use learned knowledge and experiences.
It involves skills like vocabulary, general knowledge, and applying acquired information in
problem-solving. Crystallized intelligence tends to improve with age as people gain more
knowledge through education and life experiences. It allows us to apply what we’ve already
learned to solve problems.

2] Fluid Intelligence- It refers to the capacity to solve novel problems, reason logically, and
think abstractly, without relying on previously learned knowledge. It is associated with the
ability to identify patterns, solve puzzles, and use problem-solving strategies in unfamiliar
situations. Unlike crystallized intelligence, fluid intelligence tends to peak in early adulthood
and may decline with age. It enables us to adapt to new challenges.

Based on extensive analysis of available factor data from over 460 studies, John Carroll
developed a three-tiered model of cognitive abilities and added them up in a hierarchy. The
model was very closely tied up with the Cattell-Horn theory of crystallized and fluid
intelligence and helped form a new framework-the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of
Intelligence. General intelligence is one of the most important components of the CHC
framework. It includes a number of 16 broad abilities, which comprise factors based in the
brain, such as fluid reasoning, short-term memory, long-term storage and retrieval,
processing speed, reaction and decision speed, and psychomotor speed. Cattell's theory of
crystallized intelligence gave rise to four abilities: i.e., comprehension-knowledge, domain-
specific knowledge, reading and writing skills, and quantitative knowledge. Other abilities
are related to sensory systems and their respective cortical areas, such as visual processing,
auditory processing, olfactory abilities, tactile abilities, kinesthetic abilities, and psychomotor
abilities (Schneider & McGrew, 2012).
 118

Guilford’s Structure of Intellect

Guilford's Structure of Intellect (SOI) Model is a multifaceted framework for understanding

human intelligence. Proposed by J.P. Guilford in the 1950s, the model categorizes intellectual
abilities into a three-dimensional structure (cube), wherein each cube represents an
intersection of operations, contents, and products.

1] Operations- Operations include the mental activities people perform to operate on

information. There are five types of operations that tap different areas of cognition. Cognition
involves perceiving, recognizing, and comprehending incoming stimuli. Memory involves the
preservation of or reception of previously learned information. Divergent Operations require
people to produce or generate multiple responses. Convergent Operations require people to
identify the one right answer, usually following some logic operation. Evaluation is the
determination of whether incoming information is applicable for a certain response and how
well it addresses the characteristics of that response, as well as related values regarding the
give and take of information.

2] Content- This dimension refers to ways in which people process information during their
cognitive activity. Based upon these principles, Guilford categorized this dimension into four
types: figurative, symbolic, semantic, and behavioral. Figurative refers to processing concrete
or visual information such as shapes, forms, diagrams, and awareness of space relationships
and includes abilities related to visual perception; recognizing objects or maps; symbolic
refers to quantitative and logical information including symbols and signs that themselves are
essentially meaningless. This involves such things as mathematical reasoning and
manipulating abstract symbols; semantic contains the information taken in through words or
sentences and what their meanings entail. This takes into consideration the performance in
the comprehension of the language, the vocabulary, and communication; behavioral
orientation perceptual elements of social and personal interactions refer to the understanding
of human behavior, emotions, and social dynamics. This tells something about them: how
they perceive and respond toward interpersonal situations

3] Product- It includes the products or results of an intellectual exercise. Guilford subdivided

this dimension into six categories: Unit-the recognition of an individual concept or element;
Class-grouping of objects with similar attributes, focusing on the ability to classify as well as
recognize similarities or differences; Relation-identifies the relationship between one
 119

category and another or between different units by virtue of recognizing relationships in the
information; System-putting interconnected concepts together into some coherent ideas, with
an understanding of how they work with one another; Transformation-the examining,
changing, or altering of any information through such skills as problem-solving and creative
thinking; Implication-the understanding of any possible outcomes or result, including
prediction or judgment based on the data that were available.

Robert Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence

Robert Sternberg's Triarchic Theory of Intelligence gives us an interesting way to think about
what intelligence means. Instead of seeing it as just one thing, Sternberg breaks it down into
three interconnected aspects: componential (analytical) intelligence, experiential (creative)
intelligence, and contextual (practical) intelligence.

Componential intelligence, or "book smarts," involves analysing information to solve

problems, like breaking down complex math tasks. It includes the meta-component
(overseeing thought processes), the performance component (executing tasks), and the
knowledge component (acquiring information).

Experiential intelligence focuses on creativity and applying past experiences to solve new
challenges, such as an artist using hands-on experience for unique problems. It includes
automation (effortless processing) and novelty (generating new ideas).

Contextual intelligence, or "street smarts," relates to adapting to one's environment and

handling real-life situations effectively, like a manager bridging cultural gaps within a team.

While the Triarchic Theory offers a comprehensive view, it faces criticisms about clarity and
empirical support. Nonetheless, it has practical applications in education and career guidance,
enhancing our understanding of intelligence.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory

The psychologists, Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll, developed the CHC theory
of intelligence. It is a useful framework by which to understand the various cognitive abilities
we each possess. At the top of this framework lies general intelligence, which is basically an
overall measure of how smart or unintelligent someone is and shapes how well they can
perform certain things. Under general intelligence, there are several broad abilities that each
 120

play a unique role. Fluid intelligence (Gf) is about how we solve new problems and think
critically in unfamiliar situations. Crystallized intelligence is the knowledge we have acquired
through experience and education, such as vocabulary and historical knowledge. Quantitative
reasoning, Gq, refers to how we interact with numbers. Reading and writing ability, Grw,
pertains to literacy.

Other important skills are short-term retention (Gsm), or our capacity to hold on to
information for only a little while, and long-term retention and retrieval (Glr), or more
simply, just the ability to memorize and recall knowledge acquired over time. Further, there's
visual-spatial skills (Gv), or the ability to understand and work with information that is
primarily visual in nature, as well as auditory skills (Ga), which essentially give us the sense
of sound and allow us to hear and understand spoken words. Finally, Gs concerns the speed at
which we can perform cognitive tasks.

Each of the broad abilities have specific narrow abilities, which narrow down further into
skills associated with the broad categories. This theory was found to be particularly useful in
education since it made it easier for teachers to more easily spot a student's strengths and
weaknesses. If a teacher determines that a student lacks mastery in certain areas, he or she
may aid them in learning those skills more effectively. In general, the CHC theory provides a
clearer view of how different cognitive skills work in arranging work in a coherent way,
making the insights about intelligence and learning in daily life more meaningful.

History of Intelligence Testing

Intelligence testing has a long and fascinating history, beginning with early practices in
ancient China over 3,000 years ago. By the 7th and 8th centuries, the Imperial Court had
developed assessments focused on speaking, writing, and reasoning, laying the groundwork
for modern evaluations. Other civilizations, like ancient Greece and medieval universities,
also created methods to assess intellectual skills. However, it was in the 19th century that
more formal approaches to measuring intelligence began to emerge, influenced by key
figures such as Jean Esquirol, Edouard Seguin, and Francis Galton.

Esquirol, a French physician, made important distinctions between mental retardation and
emotional disturbances, proposing a hierarchy of retardation and emphasizing the role of
language in assessing intelligence (Esquirol, 1838). His ideas continue to inform testing
today. Seguin also focused on individuals with mental disabilities, emphasizing sensory and
 121

motor skills through tools like the Seguin Form Board, which influenced later nonverbal
assessments (Seguin, 1846). Meanwhile, Galton, an English biologist, connected sensory
abilities to intelligence, creating tasks to measure reaction time and sensory discrimination
and introducing the concept of inherited intelligence, thus laying a foundation for modern
intelligence testing (Galton, 1869).

In the late 19th century, James McKeen Cattell, who studied under Galton, brought
intelligence testing to the United States. He coined the term "mental test" and highlighted the
importance of standardized procedures to ensure consistency (Cattell, 1890). This shift
allowed intelligence testing to become a more systematic field.

The early 1900s saw Alfred Binet and his colleagues develop innovative tests that focused on
higher mental processes rather than just sensory skills. Their Binet-Simon Scale, created in
1905, aimed to identify children in need of educational support in Paris schools. Binet's
approach, which assessed multiple aspects of intelligence and compared individual abilities to
age-based norms, set a new standard (Binet & Simon, 1905).

The Binet-Simon Scale was revised in 1911 to include adult testing and was adapted in the
United States, leading to the Stanford-Binet Scale introduced by Lewis Terman in 1916. This
adaptation popularized the intelligence quotient (IQ), calculated by dividing mental age by
chronological age and multiplying by 100 (Terman, 1916). The Stanford-Binet test
underwent several revisions, including a significant update in 2004, and shifted from a
traditional ratio IQ to a deviation IQ format, using a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
16.

In 1939, David Wechsler introduced the Wechsler-Bellevue Scale, which offered a new
perspective on intelligence by providing three distinct scores: verbal IQ, performance IQ, and
full-scale IQ (Wechsler, 1939). Wechsler’s tests balanced verbal and nonverbal tasks,
distinguishing them from the Stanford-Binet format, and they have remained influential in the
field.

Group intelligence testing gained prominence during World War I, with the need to classify
over 1.5 million U.S. recruits. A committee led by Robert M. Yerkes developed the Army
Alpha (for literate recruits) and Army Beta (for illiterate or non-English-speaking recruits)
tests. These quick assessments laid the groundwork for many group intelligence tests in
educational settings (Yerkes, 1921).
 122

Post-war, group tests became common in schools, viewed as more reliable than teacher
evaluations for identifying student abilities. By 1923, numerous group tests were being used
across schools, workplaces, and prisons. Their efficiency in testing large groups with
standardized scoring made them appealing (Thorndike, 1923).

Interest in group intelligence testing surged again in 1958 following the launch of Sputnik,
prompting concerns over educational standards. The National Defense Education Act funded
initiatives to test schoolchildren and identify exceptional students, leading to developments
like optical scanning for scoring (Lindquist, 1955). The National Merit Scholarship program
was established in 1958 to recognize outstanding high school students, fueling ongoing
interest in intelligence testing.

Today, intelligence tests are widely used in various settings. Schools are the largest users,
employing group tests at preschool and kindergarten levels to assess readiness and throughout
elementary to high school to group students and identify exceptional cases. Individual tests,
administered by trained clinicians, are crucial in psychological and educational assessments.
The Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 mandated individual testing for
special education placements, although recent revisions have emphasized alternative
assessment methods (U.S. Department of Education, 1975).

Intelligence testing remains essential in adult settings, including businesses, mental health
facilities, and correctional institutions. Group tests are favored for their efficiency, while
individual tests allow for tailored assessments, especially beneficial for individuals with
learning disabilities or emotional challenges.

In India, intelligence testing has also been a significant focus, with a long history of research
and development. Sinha (1983) noted its popularity, while Harper (1960) reported that around
40% of test development work related to intelligence.

Pioneers like Dr. Rice standardized the Binet-Simon Test in Urdu and Punjabi, and
Mahalanobis introduced group tests in Bengali in 1934 (Mukherjee, 1993). Despite these
advancements, many adapted tests have been criticized as mere translations of Western
instruments, lacking cultural context (Sinha, 1983).

The National Library of Educational and Psychological Tests (NLEPT) is crucial in

cataloging intelligence tests, revealing that most are available in Hindi and intended for group
 123

settings (Srivastava, Tripathi, & Misra, 1996). However, school counselors often rely on a
limited selection, like Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, and report dissatisfaction with
their effectiveness, frequently supplementing tests with other methods such as teacher
evaluations (Srivastava et al., 1996).

Research shows a strong link between intelligence and academic performance, influenced by
socioeconomic factors (Gupta, Mukherjee, & Chatterjee, 1993; Sudhir & Muraleedharan-
Pillai, 1987). Studies on gifted students reveal varied findings regarding personality traits
compared to average students (Chaudhari & Ray, 1992; Gautam & Singh, 1992).

Despite these findings, there's a growing recognition of the need for more culturally sensitive
approaches in intelligence assessment. Many existing studies lack the rigor and cultural
understanding necessary to grasp intelligence within the Indian context (Kulkarni & Puhan,
1988; Mukherjee, 1993).

In conclusion, while intelligence testing has a rich history in India, there is a pressing need
for a more culturally attuned approach that recognizes both universal aspects of intelligence
and the unique characteristics of Indian society (Das & Thapa, 2000). This shift could lead to
more meaningful assessments that reflect the diverse experiences and values of students in
India.

Other tests measuring intelligence

Wechsler Scales

The Wechsler intelligence tests comprise a series of standardized assessments designed to

evaluate cognitive abilities across different age groups.

For children aged 6 to 16, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V) offers a
similar assessment framework. It includes indices such as VCI and WMI, along with the
Visual Spatial Index (VSI), which assesses visual-spatial reasoning, and the Fluid Reasoning
Index (FRI), which evaluates problem-solving and abstract thinking abilities. These indices
allow educators and psychologists to identify cognitive strengths and weaknesses in children,
facilitating the development of personalized educational strategies and interventions tailored
to individual learning needs.
 124

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-IV) is specifically

designed for younger children aged 2 to 7 years. This assessment measures early cognitive
abilities through playful and engaging tasks. It includes the Verbal Comprehension Index
(VCI), which evaluates language understanding; the Visual Spatial Index (VSI), which
focuses on manipulating visual information; the Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), which assesses
early problem-solving skills; the Working Memory Index (WMI), measuring memory
retention and manipulation; and the Processing Speed Index (PSI), which evaluates how
quickly children can complete tasks. Together, these assessments provide crucial insights into
a child's cognitive development and can inform early intervention strategies.

Overall, the Wechsler tests are widely recognized tools that offer valuable insights into
cognitive functioning across various age groups. By identifying specific areas of strength and
weakness, these assessments guide educators, psychologists, and clinicians in developing
tailored interventions that enhance learning and support cognitive development in both
children and adults

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5)

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition (SB5), is a comprehensive assessment

tool designed to measure cognitive abilities in individuals aged 2 to 85. It evaluates several
key areas, including fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial
processing, and working memory. The test incorporates both verbal and non-verbal tasks to
assess problem-solving skills, vocabulary and general knowledge, numerical reasoning,
spatial understanding, and the ability to hold and manipulate information.

Typically, the administration of the SB5 takes between 45 to 90 minutes, and it yields a Full
Scale IQ score along with scores for each cognitive domain. This assessment is widely used
in educational and clinical settings to identify learning disabilities, giftedness, and various
cognitive strengths and weaknesses. While the SB5 is a thorough and effective tool, it
requires trained professionals for accurate administration and interpretation of the results.

Raven's Progressive Matrices

Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM) is a non-verbal intelligence test that measures fluid
intelligence—the ability to solve new problems and recognize patterns without relying on
 125

prior knowledge. It consists of geometric patterns with a missing piece, and the test-taker
selects the correct piece from multiple options.

RPM is used across different age groups and cultural backgrounds but is not completely
culture-free, as familiarity with abstract reasoning can vary by education and environment. It
is widely applied in educational and clinical settings for assessing general cognitive ability.

Cattell's Infant Intelligence Scale

Cattell's Infant Intelligence Scale is a developmental assessment tool designed for children
aged 2 to 30 months. It measures intellectual development through motor tasks, such as
reaching, manipulating objects, and responding to stimuli. These tasks reflect early cognitive
abilities, offering a glimpse into a child’s developmental progress. The scale is used by
psychologists and pediatricians to evaluate a child's intellectual trajectory at an age when
more traditional cognitive testing is not feasible.

The primary purpose of the scale is to predict future cognitive abilities and detect any
developmental delays early on. By identifying potential challenges, caregivers and specialists
can intervene with appropriate educational or developmental strategies, ensuring the child
receives necessary support. This early intervention can have a significant impact on
improving long-term cognitive and developmental outcomes for children.

Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC-II):

The KABC-II is a comprehensive test that evaluates cognitive abilities in children and
adolescents between the ages of 3 and 18. It is designed to measure different aspects of
learning and cognitive processing, making it particularly useful for identifying strengths and
weaknesses in both typical and atypical learners, including those with learning disabilities,
intellectual disabilities, or giftedness.

Key Features:

Sequential Processing: Measures the ability to solve problems in a step-by-step

manner.

Simultaneous Processing: Assesses the ability to integrate and organize information in

parallel.
 126

Learning: Evaluates how well a child learns and retains new information.

Planning: Tests the ability to strategize and plan effectively.

Knowledge: Measures general knowledge acquired through education and experience.

The KABC-II emphasizes cognitive processing over traditional IQ measures, making it more
culturally fair and appropriate for children from diverse backgrounds. It can be scored using
either a neuropsychological model or a psychometric model, depending on the purpose of the
assessment.

Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT-2):

The KBIT-2 is a shorter, more streamlined test that provides a quick and reliable assessment
of verbal and non-verbal intelligence. It is suitable for people aged 4 to 90+ and takes about
20 minutes to administer, making it ideal for situations where a full-scale intelligence test is
not practical.

Components:

Verbal IQ: Assesses verbal knowledge, word definitions, and verbal reasoning. This
includes tasks like word definitions and riddles.

Non-Verbal IQ: Measures problem-solving abilities without relying on language.

This section includes tasks like matrices and visual-spatial problem solving.

The KBIT-2 is often used for screening purposes or as a supplement to other

evaluations when a more detailed cognitive assessment is needed. It is commonly used in
educational, clinical, and research settings

Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities

The Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities is a comprehensive assessment tool

that measures a wide range of cognitive functions. It evaluates both broad cognitive abilities
and specific skills. Among the abilities measured are long-term retrieval, which assesses how
well individuals can store and recall information over time; processing speed, which
evaluates the efficiency with which tasks can be completed; fluid reasoning, which examines
the ability to solve novel problems and identify patterns; comprehension-knowledge,
 127

reflecting general knowledge and verbal understanding; and short-term memory, which tests
the capacity to hold and manipulate information in the mind over brief periods. These
assessments are frequently used in educational, clinical, and research contexts to identify
cognitive strengths and weaknesses, aiding in the diagnosis of learning disabilities and
guiding intervention strategies.

The Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System (CAS2) is grounded in the PASS model of
cognitive processing, which focuses on four key domains: planning, attention, simultaneous
processing, and successive processing. Planning involves executive functions related to
problem-solving and decision-making. Attention measures the ability to focus and sustain
concentration while ignoring distractions. Simultaneous processing assesses the ability to
integrate multiple pieces of information at once, which is critical for visual-spatial tasks and
comprehending complex ideas. Successive processing examines the ability to understand
information in a sequential manner, which is essential for language-based tasks such as
reading and following directions. The CAS2 emphasizes executive processes, making it
particularly effective in identifying cognitive deficits associated with attention disorders and
learning disabilities.

METHOD

a) Participant details

The participant, SK, a 21-year-old female undergraduate, took the test on 24 th September,
2024. The participant described to be in a good mood.

b) Description of the test

The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) was developed by Raymond Cattell in 1920. The
test has been revised regularly since then. The test is a non-verbal measure of intelligence. It
is designed in a way which tries to minimise the use of language, cultural climate and
educational level and perceives relations in shapes and figures. It can be administered
individually or in a group. There are three scales in the Cultural fair series, Scale 1, Scale 2,
and Scale 3. The scales have various forms. The scales are formed according to various
populations. The major difference between these scales is the difficulty level of the items.
 128

Scale 1: It was designed for children of 4-8 years of age. It can also be used
with older, mentally handicapped individuals. Other tests have 4 subtests
whereas this test has 8 subtests hence it's different from other tests.

Scale 2: It was designed for children who are as young as eight years and
equally appropriately with older children and most adults. It has 4 subtests.

Scale 3: It was designed for people of 13 or 14 years onwards. It also has 4

subtests.

In this test, SCALE 3 FORM A is used. It has 4 subsets; Series, Classification,

Matrices, and Conditions (Topology). There are a total of 50 items, in the form of
figures in the test and the participants have to choose their answer from a set of
optional figures. The age range is 13 years onwards. The item format type is multiple-
choice with no negative marking.

In Test 1 - Series, the individual is presented with an incomplete progressive series and
the task is to select from the choices provided. In Test 2 - Classification, the individual
has to correctly identify two figures which are in some way different from three others.
In Test 3 - Matrices, the individual’s task is to accurately complete the design or
matrix presented at the left of each row. In Test 4 - Conditions (or Topology), the
individual’s task is to select from the five choices provided, the one which duplicates
the conditions given in the far left box.

Test Subtest Number of Items Time Allotted

Test 1 Series 13 3 minutes

Test 2 Classification 14 4 minutes

Test 3 Matrices 13 3 minutes

Test 4 Conditions (or Topology) 10 2 ½ minutes

Total 50 12 ½ minutes

1. Norms
 129

Scale 3 of CFIT was standardized on 3140 high school students, equally divided.
among freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. and young adults in a stratified
job sample young adults of USA. Norms for various age groups at 6 month intervals
are given. The norm tables yield a standardized IQ score, which using another table is
converted into equivalent percentile ranks. CFIT III incorporates standard deviation of
24 IQ points. The standardization group for Scale 2 consists of 4,328 males and
females sampled from varied regions of the United States and Britain.

2. Validity

The concept validity of the culture fair test scale 2 was found to 0.85 with a full test,
0.81 for a short form test, and these scores were validated using a corpus of 660 males
and females (students and job corpus groups). The concrete validity of the culture fair
test scale 2 is found to be 0.77 in a full test and 0.70 for a short form test, the sampled
use to reach these validity values are 523 males and females (students and adults)The
concept validity of the CFIT Scale 3 test was found to be 0.92 with a full test (A+B)
and 0.85 with a short form test, this was validated using a sample of 702 male and
female students.The concrete validity of the CFIT test scale 3 is 0.69 and 0.66 in a full
test and a short form test respectively the sample used was 673 males and
females(students and young adults)

3. Reliability

The consistency over items of the CFIT scale 2 test is 0.87 and 0.76 for the full and
short form test respectively, the sample that produced this outcome consisted of 3999
males and females (elementary, junior high, high school students, and other adults
through age 60)The consistency over parts of the CFIT scale 2 test is 0.80 and 0.67
for the full and short form test respectively, the sample that produced this outcome
consisted of 832 males and females (elementary, junior high, high school students, job
corps groups)The consistency over time of the CFIT scale 2 test is 0.84 and 0.73 for
the full and short form test respectively, the sample that produced this outcome
consisted of 650 males and females (elementary and junior high school students)The
consistency over items for the CFIT Scale 3 is 0.86 and 0.74 for the full and short
form test respectively, the sample used was 1477 males and females (high school and
college students)The consistency over parts for the CFIT Scale 3 is 0.82 and 0.70 for
 130

the full and short form test respectively, the sample used was 402 males and females
(high school students)The consistency over time for the CFIT Scale 3 is 0.82 and 0.66
for the full and short form test respectively, the sample used was 1323 males and
females (high school and college students)

4. Scoring

Scoring-The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT), developed by Raymond B. Cattell, is

designed to assess an individual’s fluid intelligence in a way that minimises cultural,
language, and educational biases. By focusing on non-verbal tasks the CFIT seeks to provide
a fair measure of cognitive abilities that are not reliant on prior knowledge. CFIT has 3
scales: Scale 1 for 4-8 years old and for older adults with disability with 8 subtests, scale 2
for 8 years to older adults with 4 subtests and scale 3 from 13 onwards with 4 subtests. Each
scale is structured to match the age-related cognitive development, ensuring that the
assessment is appropriate and accessible for each age group. This non-verbal test includes
subtests focusing on abstract reasoning and problem-solving.

The CFIT’s scoring process begins with the calculation of a raw score, which is
simply the count of correct answers. Each correct response typically contributes one
point toward the raw score. For example, if an individual correctly answers 30 out of
40 items, their raw score is 30. Once the raw score is obtained, it is then converted to
a sten score by comparing it to normative data based on age-appropriate samples. This
sten score typically uses a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, allowing an
individual’s performance to be compared against the normative population. Sten
scores facilitate comparison across different populations and help to account for age-
related differences in cognitive abilities.

Additionally, the CFIT scores are often represented in percentiles. A percentile score
indicates the percentage of individuals in the normative sample who scored lower than
a given test-taker. For instance, a score in the 75th percentile suggests that the
individual scored higher than 75% of the normative sample, providing a
straightforward understanding of where they stand relative to their peers. This scoring
method allows for a nuanced interpretation that is accessible to both researchers and
clinicians.
 131

5. Interpretation

CFIT scores are interpreted based on IQ ranges , given below is the IQ ranges given
below:

IQ Range IQ Classification

130+ Very Superior Intellectual Functioning

120–129 Superior Intellectual Functioning

110–119 Above average Intellectual Functioning

90–109 Average Intellectual Functioning

80–89 Below average Intellectual Functioning

70–79 Borderline Impairment in Intellectual

Functioning

50–69 Mild Impairment in Intellectual

Functioning

35–49 Moderate Impairment in Intellectual

Functioning

20-34 Severe Impairment in Intellectual

Functioning

Below 20 Profound Impairment in Intellectual

Functioning

6. Advantages and disadvantages of the Test

Advantages

i) Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) was developed to measure fluid intelligence
without cultural or educational biases. One of the primary advantages of CFIT is its
ability to assess innate cognitive ability more accurately than traditional IQ tests,
which often rely on language and cultural knowledge. According to Cattell (1971), the
test focuses on problem-solving skills that are universal across cultures, such as
 132

pattern recognition, spatial reasoning, and abstract thinking, making it an effective

tool for cross-cultural research (Cattell, 1971).

ii) Another advantage is its potential to reduce the influence of socioeconomic factors.
Research by Bouchard (2004) indicates that CFIT helps mitigate the biases caused by
differences in educational backgrounds, making it more inclusive for individuals from
various socio-economic statuses (Bouchard, 2004). This inclusivity has made CFIT
particularly useful in diverse settings, such as international schools and multicultural
workforces.

iii) Furthermore, Jensen (1980) highlights that CFIT is beneficial when assessing
individuals with limited language skills or non-native speakers, as it avoids verbal and
culturally loaded questions. The non-verbal nature of the test makes it accessible to
individuals who might struggle with traditional intelligence assessments due to
language barriers (Jensen, 1980).

Disadvantages

i) Despite these advantages, CFIT has faced criticism. One of the main disadvantages
is that while it seeks to eliminate cultural biases, some residual cultural influences
may still persist. Nisbett et al. (2012) argue that factors such as test-taking strategies,
familiarity with visual puzzles, and previous exposure to abstract reasoning tasks can
still vary across cultures, potentially affecting performance (Nisbett, 2012).

ii) Another drawback is the narrow focus of the test. Sternberg (2004) suggests that
CFIT primarily measures fluid intelligence and may not adequately capture other
important dimensions of intelligence, such as crystallised intelligence, which involves
knowledge accumulated from experience. As a result, the CFIT might provide a
limited view of a person's overall cognitive abilities (Sternberg, 2004).

iii) Additionally, bias from test anxiety and unfamiliarity with test formats can
disproportionately affect individuals who have not been exposed to similar types of
assessments before. Raven (2000) notes that while the test aims to be fair,
unfamiliarity with certain types of non-verbal puzzles might still create an advantage
 133

for test-takers who have had prior exposure to similar tasks, thus impacting the overall
fairness (Raven, 2000).

7. Application of the Test

CFIT is essential for identifying children in educational settings who might need
further help or enrichment. By emphasising nonverbal thinking skills, the test gives
teachers information about their students cognitive strengths and shortcomings.
Because of this, teachers can adapt their teaching methods to better suit the needs of
each student. High-potential students, for example, can be given more difficult
material, while those who struggle can obtain specialised help. In the end, by giving
every student the chance to succeed, CFIT develops a more equal learning
environment.

For those with neurological disorders, learning difficulties, or developmental

problems, CFIT is a useful tool in psychology for assessing cognitive function.
Physicians can use the findings to modify treatment regimens, make well-informed
diagnoses, and track cognitive changes over time. This is especially crucial for
comprehending how cognitive functioning may change as people move through
different phases of life or in response to interventions. Additionally, by investigating
the connection between fluid intelligence and different cognitive or behavioural
outcomes.

By evaluating applicants' problem-solving and adaptability skills, two essential

qualities in today's fast-paced workplaces, CFIT assists organisations in hiring and
developing new employees. By integrating CFIT into their hiring procedures,
companies can more effectively find people who have high cognitive abilities and are
likely to succeed in their positions. This improves team dynamics as well as overall
work performance since workers with high fluid intelligence are able to overcome
obstacles and work well with others.

8. Recent Researches

Hays and Smith, (1980) explored the use of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT)
and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R) to assess
intellectual abilities in a sample of 116 juvenile delinquents from three ethnic groups:
 134

White (n = 41), Black (n = 46), and Mexican-American (n = 30). Significant

differences were found among the groups in the WISC-R Full Scale, Verbal,
Performance, and Culture Fair IQ scores. Pearson correlations between WISC-R and
CFIT scores for the combined groups were significant, ranging from .58 to .64,
indicating a strong relationship between the two measures. The results suggest that the
CFIT provides an effective screening tool for intellectual ability, helping to more
equitably assess IQ across different ethnic groups. The study emphasizes the need to
use both the CFIT and WISC-R for a comprehensive evaluation of intellectual
capacity, particularly in ethnic minority populations, to ensure a more accurate and
culturally fair assessment of intelligence.

Another research by Colom and Garcia-Lopez looks at the increase in fluid

intelligence using the Culture-Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) among 4,498 Spanish
high school students and graduates over 20 to 23 years. The results show a clear rise
in fluid intelligence scores, with students increasing by an average of 6 IQ points and
graduates by 4 IQ points. This suggests that younger students are improving more in
their cognitive abilities compared to graduates. The study highlights the importance of
using solid tests like the CFIT to get an accurate picture of these changes.

While earlier research indicated that increases in crystallised intelligence (like

knowledge from education) don’t necessarily show a gain in overall intelligence, this
study suggests that fluid intelligence (the ability to solve new problems) is indeed
improving.

Karmakar et al. (2016) conducted a study to explore the difference in male and female
IQ scores and the relation between Intelligence, height, weight and BMI. Stratified
random sampling method was used to select 209 ninth grade students (112 boys and
97 girls) from secondary schools of the Purulia district, West Bengal, India as the
representative sample of this study. He used Cattell’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test to
evaluate the IQ scores. The survey method was used to collect the data which was
then exposed to analytical tools such as mean, SD and ANOVA and correlation. The
mean IQ scores for female were found to be significantly lower than that for male.
The study showed a significant relation between intelligence and height and weight
such that an increase in the average height and weight due to nutrition is accompanied
 135

by improved IQ scores. However no significant relation was observed between IQ and

BMI.

Troche, Wagner, and Schweizer (2016) aimed to understand how the Culture Fair
Test (CFT) works, focusing on the "item-position effect"—the idea that where a
question appears in a test might affect performance. For example, questions later in a
test might be harder due to fatigue or learning from earlier items.

When they accounted for this effect, they discovered that the CFT-20R measured two
distinct types of reasoning rather than just one. This revealed that the test was more
complex and accurate in assessing inductive reasoning than traditional methods
suggested. Their findings emphasize the importance of question order in test design
and how it can influence results, helping improve the way intelligence tests, especially
culture-fair ones, are interpreted.

The study focused on the Culture Fair Intelligence Test CFT 1-R, a key assessment
tool for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in Germany. It aimed to determine the
measurement invariance of the test results for two groups: 138 students in special
schools and 166 students with LD in inclusive educational settings. Using Item
Response Theory (IRT) with a non-iterative approach suitable for smaller datasets, the
analysis included tests for Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and assessments for
global and local model violations. The findings confirmed that the CFT 1-R
demonstrated measurement invariance between the two educational contexts,
indicating that the test is equally valid for both groups. This supports the CFT 1-R as
a reliable assessment tool for students with LD across different educational settings,
ensuring fairness in evaluations and interventions.

The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) Scale 3 Form A measures fluid intelligence
using nonverbal tasks like pattern recognition, matrices, and series completion to
minimize cultural and linguistic biases. It is designed for individuals aged 14 and
above, including adults with average to superior intelligence. A 2019 study at an
Indonesian teacher training institute used this test to assess the intelligence of
prospective teachers. Results showed that 57% of participants had average IQs, while
smaller percentages fell into categories such as smart (4.3%) or borderline (2.4%).
 136

This research highlights CFIT’s usefulness in identifying cognitive abilities fairly

across diverse backgrounds, particularly in educational settings

The Structure of Working Memory and Its Relationship with Intelligence in Japanese
Children

The study was authored by a group of researchers: Yoshifumi Ikeda, Yosuke Kita,
Yuhei Oi, Hideyuki Okuzumi, and Silvia Lanfranchi. It was published in 2023 in the
Journal of Intelligence, a peer-reviewed academic journal. This study examines the
link between working memory and intelligence in Japanese children, contributing to
research in cognitive psychology and intelligence testing, especially within cross-
cultural contexts, building on prior research that highlights the close association
between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence (Conway et al., 2003). This
study is based on Baddeley's working memory model (2000), which includes aspects
such as the central executive, phonological loop and spatial sketchpad, all
fundamental in fluid intelligence tasks (Engle et al.,1999). Working memory is a
strong predictor of academic success and problem-solving abilities, according to
earlier research (Alloway et al., 2010). This study applies similar findings to a non-
Western population and emphasises the need of taking cultural factors into account
when administering cognitive tests.

The research also acknowledges the role of culturally fair tests, like Cattell’s Culture
Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT), in minimising biases (Cattell, 1987), The study’s focus
on Japanese children adds to the growing body of cross-cultural research on
intelligence, supporting the view that working memory is a universal indicator of
cognitive ability across diverse populations (Nisbett et al., 2012).

C. Administration of the test

1. Materials used

Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) Test Booklet Scale 3 Form A, Answer
sheet for Scale 3 Form A, manual, scoring key for Scale 3 From A, stopwatch.

2. Precaution
Creating a suitable test environment is essential for ensuring that participants
can perform at their best. Establish a distraction-free and comfortable setting
 137

with controlled temperature conditions. A quiet space free from interruptions

allows test takers to focus on the tasks. A comfortable environment should be
set up as factors like extreme temperatures can negativity impact performance.
Informed consent is another important component of ethical testing
procedures. Test administrators should obtain consent from participants after
explaining its procedures, and the confidentiality of their responses.
Participants need to understand how their data will be used and the importance
of their contribution to the research or assessment being conducted. Providing
clear instructions is essential for guiding participants through the testing
process. Administrators should articulate the instructions in straightforward
language and allow participants to ask questions.

Clarity reduces anxiety and helps participants understand what is expected of

them. It’s important to follow the procedures laid out in the testing manual.
Keeping things consistent helps ensure that every participant has the same
experience, which is crucial for getting reliable and valid test results. This
standardization includes the order of tasks, how long each section takes, and
how scores are given, all of which help make the results trustworthy Keeping
track of time is another critical aspect of administration. A stopwatch should
be used to track time efficiently, ensuring that participants have an equal
amount of time to complete each section. This attention to timing helps
maintain the test’s integrity and fairness, allowing for an accurate comparison
of results across participants. Confidentiality is essential for ethical testing.
Participants need to know that their answers and results will be kept private,
which helps them feel safe and encourages them to be honest. Keeping
responses confidential strengthens the testing process and builds trust between
the administrators and the participants. Participants should know that they can
leave the test at any time if they feel uncomfortable. This openness allows
them to make informed decisions about their participation and supports ethical
values like autonomy and respect. It’s important to create a safe and
supportive environment for participants during the testing process
 138

3. Instructions
Put down your pencil and I will tell you a little about what you are going to do. In
these booklets, there are four tests which are like four different games or puzzles.
There are no words in them only drawings. Each of the test has some examples for
you to practice on so that you see how to do it.

First, we will look at the examples together and then you will be asked to go
ahead on your own. Some of the questions at the end of each test may be quite
hard to do. But, try as many as you can. Even when you are not sure, mark the
answers you think might be right rather than none. It is perfectly alright to guess if
you do not know the answer. You do not loose points for wrong guesses and you
might guess right.

Please do not turn any page until I tell you. You are to mark all your answers on
the answer sheet and not the test booklet. On top of your answer sheet please write
your Initials, your DOB, your Age as well as your Gender. Then we will go over
the examples togther and you will have the chance to mark some answers to
practice.

Do you have any questions?

Shall we begin?"

Hereafter, instructions from the Culture Fair Intelligence Test Manual Scale 3
Form A were followed.

4. Conduction Procedure

The conduction of the test started with the test takers consent to administer the
test on them after which rapport was built with the test taker. Before proceeding
with the main task, the test taker’s informed consent was obtained. All required
materials, including booklets, answer sheets, and timers, were prepared in
advance. The testing area was arranged to minimise distractions, with appropriate
lighting and ventilation. The test-taker was seated in a manner that ensured
privacy and allowed them to focus on their tasks independently. They were given
 139

a brief explanation of the test's purpose. The instructions were clearly

communicated, emphasising the need to work independently and within the
allotted time limits for each section. Sample questions were provided to ensure the
test taker understood the format. The scales of the test were explained to the test
taker thoroughly after which the test taker was asked whether they had any doubt
about the test. A timer was used by the administrator to keep track of time.The
time taken was noted after completion of the test. Certain post-task questions were
asked. The participant was thanked for their participation and was debriefed
regarding the test. The test-taker's confidentiality was strictly maintained. Personal
information and individual test scores were securely stored.

5. Observation
During the test, the participant showed a high level of concentration and focus as
she worked through the items. She approached each question carefully analyzing
the patterns and relationships presented.

6. Reaction to the Test

After completing the test, the participant expressed a sense of accomplishment and
relief, noting that she found the tasks both stimulating and challenging. She
mentioned that the test pushed her to think critically and engage deeply with the
material.

RESULTS

Table 6.1
Participant’s score on each subtests of Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT)

Tests Raw Score

Test 1: Series 9

Test 2: Classification 7

Test 3: Matrices 7

Test 4: Conditions (Topology) 4

 140

This table lists the raw scores of the participant for each subtest of the Culture Fair
Intelligence Test (CFIT). The participant scored the highest on the series subtest, followed by
the classification subtest and the lowest on the matrices and conditions subtest.

Table 2
Participant’s Total Score, IQ score, IQ Range, IQ Interpretation, Percentile

Total Score 27

IQ Score 116

IQ Range 110-119

IQ Interpretation Above Average

Percentile 84

The participant achieved a total score of 27, corresponding to an IQ score of 116, which falls
within the 110-119 range. This places them in the "Above average intellectual functioning"
category, with a percentile rank of 84, meaning they performed better than 84% of the
population.

DISCUSSION

Intelligence is defined as the global capacity of a person to act purposefully, to think

rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment. (Wechsler,1944)

The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) is a non verbal intelligence test developed by
psychologist Raymond Cattell in 1940 to measure cognitive abilities without the influence of
cultural and environmental factors. CFIT consists of three scales. Scale 1 has 8 subtests
designed for children aged 4-8 years and older adults with disabilities. Scale 2 includes 4
subtests for children aged 8 and older, as well as adults. Scale 3, Form A was administered to
the participant. These tests may be administered individually or in groups.

As shown in Table 1, the participant achieved the highest score of 9 on Test 1, called Series,
where the individual was given an incomplete progressive matrix and had to choose the
option that best completes the series. This can suggest that the participant may have strong
pattern recognition abilities. On Test 2 titled Classification, the participant had to correctly
 141

identify two figures which were in some way different from three others. On this test, she
scored 7. On Test 3, titled Matrices, the task was to correctly complete the design or matrix
presented at the left of each row. She scored 7 on this test as well. This indicates that the
participant may have a good categorical reasoning and the ability to identify relationships
and patterns among different items. The lowest score was 4, which was on Test 4, titled
Conditions (Topology). Here, the participant had to select, from the 5 choices provided, the
one which duplicates the conditions given in the far left box. The score suggests that the
participant may struggle with understanding spatial relationships or more abstract forms of
reasoning that require manipulating objects mentally.

As shown in Table 2, norm table e participant achieved a total score of 27. This raw score
was converted to a standard IQ score using Table 5.3, Form A, referring to the age norm of
15.9-adults. The result was an IQ of 116, placing the participant in the 110-119 range,
indicating an above-average IQ on the CFIT according to WHO standards. The IQ score was
then converted into a percentile using the same table, where the participant ranked in the 84th
percentile, meaning she performed better than 84% of other participants.

It’s important to recognize that the CFIT is not a comprehensive and holistic measure of
intelligence. It only assesses cognitive abilities and is nonverbal, making it a limited
evaluation. Additionally, it cannot be used as a reliable predictor of job performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For a more comprehensive assessment of the participant’s cognitive abilities, I recommend

using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV). The WAIS-IV assesses multiple
areas of intelligence like Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory,
and Processing Speed. The WAIS-IV is more comprehensive because it assesses both verbal
and non-verbal abilities, providing a clearer picture of the participant’s overall intellectual
functioning.

CONCLUSION
 142

With an IQ score of 116 falling within the range of 110-119, the participant demonstrates
high average intellectual functioning and has an 84th percentile rank which means that she
performed better than 84% of individuals who took the same test.
 143

REFERENCES

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed, pg. 35). Prentice-Hall,
Inc.

Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905). Methods of Measuring the Intelligence of Young Children.
L'Année Psychologique, 12, 191-244.

Bouchard, T. J. (2004). Genetic influence on human psychological traits. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 148-151.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Culture Fair Intelligence Test: Manual. Champaign, IL: Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1960). Handbook for the Culture Fair Intelligence Test,
Scale 3. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, A. K. S. (1986). The Culture Fair Intelligence Test: Manual for
the Administration and Scoring of CFIT. Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing.

Cattell, R. B., & Cattell, H. E. P. (1973). Measuring Intelligence with the Culture Fair
Tests. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Chavan, D., & Kamble, D. (2019). Relationship between intelligence and leadership of
secondary school students: A study. Horizons of Holistic Education, 6(2), 52-60.

Ciccarelli, S. S., & White, J. N. (2017). Psychology, Global Edition: Vol. Fifth Edition.
Pearson Higher Ed. (pp. 320)

Ciccarelli, S. S., & White, J. N. (2018). Psychology (5th ed, pg. 318-320). Pearson.
 144

Colom, R., & Garcia-Lopez, O. (2003). Secular gains in fluid intelligence: Evidence from
the culture-fair intelligence test. Journal of Biosocial Science, 35(1), 33–39.
doi:10.1017/S0021932003000336

Esquirol, J. E. (1838). De l'Intelligence (translated to English as On Intelligence). In J. L.

M. W. M. M. H. A. H. V. (Eds.), The Psychology of Intelligence: A Brief Historical
Overview. New York: Harcourt.

Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment:

Theories, Tests, and Issues. The Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (2000). Intelligence: Assessment and measurement. In

R. J. Sternberg & K. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 375-424). Cambridge
University Press.

Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences.
London: Macmillan.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill Companies.

Hays, J. R., & Smith, A. L. (1980). Comparison of WISC-R and Culture Fair Intelligence
Test Scores for Three Ethnic Groups of Juvenile Delinquents. Psychological Reports,
46(3), 931-934. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3.931

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve (pp. 1-2). Free Press.
Ikeda, Y. et al. (2023). The structure of working memory and its relationship with
intelligence in Japanese children. Journal of Intelligence, 11(8), 167.
doi:10.3390/jintelligence11080167.

Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. The Free Press.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
(2nd ed.). Pearson.
 145

Karmakar, T., Paul, A., Mondal, A., & Saha, B. (2016). Intelligence in relation to height
and weight among secondary school students. American Journal of Educational Research,
4(16), 1145-1148.

McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV. Riverside Publishing.

Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., &
Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments.
American Psychologist, 67(2), 130-159.

Norrish, J. M. (1997). The use of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test with intellectually
gifted adolescents: A critical review. Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 134–140.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.2.134

Raven, J. (2000). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and
time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1-48.

Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.). Riverside Publishing.

Roid, G. H., & Ledbetter, M. F. (1979). The validity of Culture Fair Intelligence Test,
Scale 2 in assessing cognitive abilities. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
39(4), 899-902.

Sattler, J. M. (1982). Assessment of Children: Behavioral, Social, and Clinical

Foundations. San Diego, CA: Sattler Publishing.

Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of Children: Cognitive Foundations. San Diego, CA:

Sattler Publishing.

Sternberg, R. J. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist, 59(5), 325-338.

Terman, L. M. (1916). The Measurement of Intelligence: An Introduction to the Binet-

Simon Scale. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
 146

Troche, S. J., Wagner, F. L., & Schweizer, K. (2016). Testing psychometric properties of
the CFT 1-R for students with special educational needs. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 301-311. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000367

Vane, J. R., & Motta, R. W. (1984). The History of Group Intelligence Testing in the
United States: 1917-1977. Educational Psychologist, 19(1), 7-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461528409529239

Wechsler, D. (1939). The Measurement of Adult Intelligence. New York: The

Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th ed.). Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th ed.). Pearson.

Yerkes, R. M. (1921). Psychological Examining in the U.S. Army. Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office.
Post-Task Questions

1) How was your experience with the test?

It was overall good.

2) Did you find anything discomforting throughout the test period?

No.

3) Have you done a test like this before?

No.

4) Was the test easy or difficult for you? Which one? Why?
I found the Test 1 to be the easiest and Test 3 and 4 to be a bit difficult. This was because it
felt confusing.

5) What do you think the test measures?

Maybe, some cognitive ability.

6) How would you describe your experience while giving the test?
It was quite normal.

7) Is there anything you want me to explain you?

No.