ADVANCE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

Aim- To assess the intelligent of the participant using advance progressive matrices by J. C.
Raven.

Introduction
The term intelligence refers to individuals’ abilities to understand complex ideas, to adapt
effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of
reasoning, to overcome obstacles by careful thought. Intelligence is a key construct employed to
know how individuals differ from one another. It also provides an understanding of how people
adapt their behavior according to the environment they live in. Psychological notion of
intelligence is quite different from the common sensical notion of intelligence. The oxford
dictionary explains intelligence as the power of perceiving, learning, understanding, and
knowing. Early intelligence theorists also used these attributes in defining intelligence. Alfred
Binet was one of the first psychologists who worked on intelligence. The first definition of
intelligent was given by Binet & Simon in 1905. They defined “intelligence in terms of
judgment, practical sense, initiative, and adaptability.” Wechsler, whose intelligence tests are
most widely used, understood intelligence in terms of its functionality, i.e. its value for
adaptation to environment. He defined it as “the global and aggregate capacity of an individual to
think rationally, act purposefully, and to deal effectively with her/his environment.” Other
psychologists, such as Gardner and Sternberg have suggested that an intelligent individual not
only adapts to the environment, but also actively modifies or shapes it.

Types of intelligence-
• Analytical Intelligence- It is aligned with academic problem solving and computations.
• Creative Intelligence- the Ability to produce new products, ideas, or inventing a new, novel
solution to a problem.
• Crystallized Intelligence- It is characterized by acquired knowledge and the ability to retrieve
it.
• Cultural Intelligence- It is the ability with which people can understand and relate to those in
another culture.
• Emotional Intelligence-The ability to understand emotions of other people and being
empathetic.
• Fluid Intelligence- The ability to see complex relationships and solve problems in an abstract
way.

Measurement of Intelligence
Mental age – the first attempt to measure intelligence was made by Binet. He used the concept of
mental age (MA) which refer to an individual’s level of mental development related to
environment in which the individual lives. According to him, a bright child has a mental age
(MA) above his chronological age (CA) while a dull child has an MA below his CA.
Intelligence quotient(IQ)- in the year 1911, Williams Stern suggested that in order to better
understand the intellectual abilities in quantitative form , it is desirable to convert the level of
mental development(MA) into a ration or quotient by converting the MA and CA quantities into
proportional ratio values.
The average score on an IQ test is 100. These labels are often given for IQ scores:

 1 to 24: Profound mental disability

 25 to 39: Severe mental disability
 40 to 54: Moderate mental disability
 55 to 69: Mild mental disability
 70 to 84: Borderline mental disability
 85 to 114: Average intelligence
 115 to 129: Above average or bright
 130 to 144: Moderately gifted
 145 to 159: Highly gifted

Theories of intelligence
• Sternberg’s theory of intelligence- He believed that intelligence is comprised of three
different abilities-
(A) Analytic intelligence- The ability to try solving familiar problems using strategies
that manipulate the elements of a problem or relationship among the elements. For example-
comparing, analyzing.
(B) Creative Intelligence- Ability of solving new kinds of problems that requires us to
think about the problem and its elements in a new way. For example- inventing, designing.
(C) Practical Intelligence- The ability to try to solve problems that apply what we know
in everyday context.
• Spearmen’s Theory of intelligence- According to him, intelligence is comprised of two
factors that is- General ability and Specific ability. The performance of an individual is
determined by the sum total of the G factor and the S factor. The general ability is universally
inborn ability whereas the specific ability is learned and acquired in the environment.
• Gardner’s Theory of Intelligence- He originally identified seven intelligences but has
since expanded that number to eight. His 8 intelligences are- Linguistic, Logical Mathematical,
Spatial, Bodily Kinesthetic, Musical, Interpersonal, Interpersonal, and Naturalist. He argued that
traditional paper and pencil tests do not adequately measure some aspects of intelligence that are
relevant in everyday life.
• Thurston’s Theory of intelligence - He came out with the group theory (1937) saying
that intelligence is a cluster of abilities. Each of these primary factor is said to be relatively
independent of others. He pointed out that there are seven primary mental abilities and later on
added two more- Verbal comprehension factor, word fluency factor, numerical fluency factor,
memory fluency factor, perpetual speed factor, inductive reasoning factor, spatial visualization
factor, deductive reasoning factor and problem solving factor
. • Guildford’s theory of intelligence- He developed a model of intelligence (1966) using
factor analysis - tries to draw all possible combinations. He suggests that are three basic
parameter doing which any intellectual activity takes place- Operations, content and products.
• Castell’s fluid - crystallised intelligence theory- He also used factor analysis and
discovered two major factors - fluid intelligence i.e. the nonverbal and cultural free form of
intelligence and crystallized intelligence i.e. what one has already learned through the investment
of fluid intelligence in cultural settings.

Review of literature

Bors and Vigneau (2001) conducted a research to assess the effect of practice on performance on
Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices using a sample which included 67 participants (39 men
and 28 women). RAPM was conducted on the sample on three occasions. The results indicated
an improvement in total scores across the three occasions. It was noted that subjects changed
both correct and incorrect responses from the previous occasion. The number of items left
unanswered was found to have no relation to both APM score and the amount of gain in score
made across occasions. Thus, this indicated that improvement reflected that practice led to
learning which further increased the score rather than any acquisition of a strategy or increased
retention of item-specific information.
The study conducted by Saw et al (2004) was to evaluate the association between intelligence
and myopia in children. Cycloplegic refraction and ocular biometry parameters, including axial
length, vitreous chamber depth, lens thickness, anterior chamber depth, and corneal curvature
were obtained in 1204 Chinese school children aged 10 to 12 years from three schools who were
participants in the Singapore cohort study of the risk factors for myopia (score). Intelligence
quotient (iq) was assessed using the nonverbal raven standard progressive matrix test. After
controlling for age, gender, school, parental myopia, father’s education, and books read per
week, myopia (spherical equivalent [se]) of at least −0.5 d was associated with high nonverbal iq
(highest quartile) versus low iq (lowest quartile) (odds ratio = 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–
3.4). Controlling for the same factors, children with higher nonverbal iq scores had significantly
more myopic refractions (−1.86 d for children with nonverbal iq in the highest quartile compared
with −1.24 d for children with nonverbal iq in the lowest quartile; p = 0.002) and longer axial
lengths (24.06 mm versus 23.80 mm; p = 0.022). Nonverbal iq accounted for a greater proportion
of the variance in refraction compared with books read per week. Nonverbal iq may be an
independent risk factor of myopia, and this relationship may not be explained merely by
increased reading (books per week) among myopes. An interesting observation is that nonverbal
iq may be a stronger risk factor for myopia compared with books read per week. The complexity
of the relationships between nonverbal iq, reading, and myopia warrant additional studies to
clarify any cause–effect relationship
McKay et al. (2006) conducted a study to examine the effects of stereotype threats on the Raven
Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) scores of African Americans. Stereotype threat is a
situational predicament in which people are or feel themselves to be at risk of conforming to
stereotypes about their social group. It was proposed that a significant Race x Test Diagnosticity
Condition interaction would occur in which the mean difference in intelligence test scores
between African Americans and Whites (favoring the latter group) would be largest when the
test was framed as a measure of intelligence, and smaller when framed as non-indicative of
intelligence. The results indicated a marginally significant Race x Test Diagnosticity Condition
interaction.
Kong et al. (2015) conducted a study to investigate whether mother's and father's education
independently affect general fluid intelligence in emerging adulthood at both the behavioral
(assessed by RAPM) and neural (assessed by whole-brain correlation analysis) level. Results
indicted that behaviorally, mother's but not father's education accounted for unique variance in
general fluid intelligence in emerging adulthood. Neutrally also, regional gray matter volume
(rGMV) in the medial PFC was related to both mother's education and general fluid intelligence
but not father's education. Thus, mother's education proves to be a more important determinant
of general cognitive ability in emerging adulthood than father's education.
The current study by Thirus, j. Et al (2016) investigated the effects of relational frame theory
(rft) based training on mathematical and logical skills. A sample of 21 swedish high school
students attending first grade and second grade were assigned to either training (n= 10) or no-
training conditions (n=11). Measures of performance on mathematical tests, raven's standard
progressive matrices (spm), and relational responding tasks were taken prior to and after training.
For 8-10 weeks, the experimental group trained using smart, an online multiple exemplar
training program for enhancing relational skills. No significant differences between the groups
were found on mathematical performance. A significant increase on spm performance was
observed for the experimental group.

Description of the tools

Theoretical Background
 The test was drafted in 1943 for use by British in war office selection boards. In 1947 the
revised test was published for general use as a non -verbal test of intellectual efficiency, forming
a comparison between the figures and developing a logical method of reasoning developed by
J.C Raven. It consists of two sets. In set -I there are 12 questions. These are designed for the
person to get an understanding of the test required for conducting of the set -II successfully. In
set-II there are 36 questions, the complexity and difficulty increases. Therefore, set -I is
considered as a practice test before conducting the set-II.
Versions- The matrices are posed in three different forms for participants of different ability-
(i) Standard Progressive Matrices- These are the original form of the matrices published
in 1938. The booklet comprises 5 sets (A to E) of twelve items each with items within
a set becoming increasingly difficult to encode and analyses information. All items
are presented in clack ink or white background.
(ii) Colored Progressive Matrices- Designed for younger children, elderly and people
with moderate or severe learning. This set contains set-A & B from the standard
matrices with a further set of 12 items inserted between the two as set Ab. Most items
are present on a colored background to make the test visually stimulating for
participants.
(iii) Advanced Progressive Matrices- The advanced set of matrices contains 48 items in
total, one set of 12 and another of 36. Items are again presented in black ink on a
white background and become increasingly difficult as progress is made through each
set. These are items are appropriate for adults and adolescents of above average
intelligence.

Reliability
The internal consistency reliability estimate for the advances progressive matrices (APM) total
raw score was .87 in the standardization sample of 462 individuals. This reliability estimate for
the revised APM indicated that the total raw score on the APM possesses good internal
consistency reliability as provided in the guidelines of the u.s. department of labor (1999) for
interpreting a reliability coefficient.

Validity
Content validity

The APM has been widely used for decades as a measure of educative ability – “the ability to
evolve high-level constructs which make it easier to think about complex situations and events”.
In an employment setting, evidence of the content-related validity of the APM should be
established by demonstrating that the jobs for which the APM is to be used require the problem
solving skills measured by the assessment.
Convergent validity

Evidence of convergent validity is provided when scores on an assessment related to scores on

other assessment that claims to measure similar traits or constructs. Years of previous studies on
the APM supports its convergent validity.

Method 

Demographic details-

Name- Shalini
Age- 26
Gender- Female
Educational Qualification-Post Graduated
Occupational Background- employed

Material Required
Advance progressive matrices Questionnaire

Advance progressive matrices Manual

Response sheet

Paper

Pen

Administration of the Test 

Rapport Formation –

The subject was called to the testing room. The participant was made to sit comfortably. The
participant was engage in a formal communication to make her feel relaxed. Once it was
 ensured that she is relaxed, the test was introduced to her. The instruction for the test were
given to participant. The participant was assured that their result would remain confidential.

Instructions –

“Please sit comfortable and listen to me carefully. I will be presenting you with two sets of
question Set 1 and Set 2. The Set 1 consists of 12 items whereas Set 2 has 36 items. Each
question has eight alternatives options and you are requested to identify the missing elements
that completes the pattern. Please make sure that you complete the entire test”

Introspective Report 

“The test was a bit lengthy! The last ones were really difficult. I began with a lot of
excitement but the last questions were really stressful”

Observational Report

“The participant was looking quite comfortable initially during set- I comparison to the set-
II because in set 2 she was facing a little problem in solving question”

Scoring of the test

Advance Progressive Matrices have two components, set 1 consists of 12 problems
and the 2 set -consists of 35 problems divided into five options (A, B, C, D, and E) of
diagrammatic puzzles exhibiting serial change in two dimensions simultaneously. For every
correct answer 1 score will be given and for every wrong answer 0 score will be awarded. In
set 1 the participant should score 5 or more than 5 to start with set 2. The most satisfactory
way of assessing the significance of a person’s total score is to identify the percentage of a
number of reference groups of the same birth cohort who obtain lower or higher scores. The
development of intellectual capacity in childhood is necessarily uniform or distributed
symmetrically. It is practically more convenient to consider a certain population and to
group people’s score accordingly. In the same way it is possible to classify the intellectual
capacity of a child according to the scores given below;
• “Intellectually Superior” if the score lies at/above 95th percentile

• “Above the average” in intellectual capacity if a score lies at/above the 75th

percentile

• “Intellectually average” if the score lies 50th

 • “Below average” in intellectual capacity if the score lies at/above the 50th

percentile.

Procedure

The participant was called in the room, she were made to sit on a chair. A formal rapport
was established to make her comfortable. Preliminary information was taken from them.
Participant was debriefed about the test and given instructions to do the test. The participant was
made assured about the confidentiality and privacy of the responses given by them. After taking
consent from the participant pen, and Advance Progressive Matrices booklet were provided to
them. Beginning time and finishing time were noted. A time gap of 15minutues was given in
between conduction of set I and set II. After the entire test was completed, introspective report
was taken from the participant. Responses were scored and interpreted as per the guidelines of
the APM Manual.

Result

Scores SET 1 SET 2

RAW SCORES 9 18

PERCENTILE SCORES 50 25

Discussion
The aim was to assess the intelligence of an individual using Raven’s Advanced Progressive
Matrices. Intelligence refers to ability to learn, understand and or deal with new situations. APM
can be used for different purposes, in educational occupational selection. It is a non- verbal
multiple choice questions comprising of two sets- set I and set II. Set -I consists of 12 questions
used for introducing the test and to familiarize the participant with the test. Set -II contains 36
questions which gets difficult as the participant moves forward with the questions. This test can
be performed by anyone above the age of 12 years to 70 years.
The test was administrated on 22 years old female participant. The participant scored a raw score
of 9 on set I. The percentile corresponding to the raw score is 50. As the participant scored raw
score of more than 5 on set I she was eligible to perform the set ii. The second set comprised of
36 items in which the participant scored a raw score of 18 on set ii and the percentile
corresponding to it is 25. The participant’s scores are an average on either of the sets which
implies that she may possess the ability to partially solve a complex problem and reasoning’s.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that participant has an average level of intelligence as she scored a 50th
percentile in set I and a 25th percentile in set- II. The subject obtained a raw score of 9 out of 12
and in set II she scored 14 out of 36 which is converted into percentile.

Reference

Bors, D. & Vigneau, F. (2001). The effect of practice on Raven's Advanced Progressive
Matrices. Learning and Individual Differences - LEARN INDIVID DIFFER. 13. 291-312.
10.1016/S1041-6080(03)00015-3.

Saw, S.M. et al (2004). IQ and the Association with Myopia in Children. Investigative
Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2004, Vol.45, 2943-2948.

McKay, P., Doverspike, D., Bowen-Hilton, D. & Martin, Q. (2006). Stereotype Threat Effects on
the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Scores of African Americans1. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology. 32. 767 - 787. 10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2002.tb00241.x.

Kong, F., Chen, Z., Xue, S., Wang, X. &, Liu, J. (2015). Mother's but not father's education
predicts general fluid intelligence in emerging adulthood: Behavioral and neuroanatomical
evidence. Hum Brain Mapp. ;36(11):4582-91. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22934. Epub 2015 Aug 25.
PMID: 26304026; PMCID: PMC6869811.
Appendix
Answers: