1

RSPM MANUAL
Retyped by Tanjima Rahman.

The Standard Progressive Matrices, Sets A, B, C, D, and E, is a test of a person's capacity at the time of the
test to apprehend meaningless figures presented for his observation, are the relations between them,
conceive the nature of the figure completing each system of relations presented, and, by so doing,
develop a systematic method of reasoning.

The scale consists of 60 problems divided into five sets of 12. In each set, the first problem is as nearly as
possible self-evident. The problems which follow become progressively more difficult. The order of the
tests provides the standard training in the method of working. The five sets provide five opportunities for
grasping the method and five progressive assessments of a person's capacity for intellectual activity. To
ensure sustained interest and freedom from fatigue, the figures in each problem are boldly presented,
accurately drawn, and, as far as possible, pleasing to look at. The scale is intended to cover the whole
range of intellectual development from the time a child is able to grasp the idea of finding a missing piece
to complete a pattern, and to be sufficiently long to assess a person's maximum capacity to own
comparisons and reason by analogy without being unduly exhausting or unwieldy. The scores obtained by
adults tend to cluster in the upper half of the scale, but there are enough difficult problems to differentiate
satisfactorily between them.

Everyone, whatever his age, is given exactly the same series of problems in the same order and is asked
to work at his own speed, without interruption, from the beginning to the end of the scale. As the Order of
the problem provides the standard training in the method of working, the scale can be given either as an
individual, a self-administered, or as a group test. A person's total score provides an index of his
intellectual capacity, whatever his nationality or education. The contribution which each of the five sets
makes to the total provides a means of assessing the consistency of the estimate and the psychological
significance of discrepancies in the test results.

From published correlations between children.'s scores on Progressive Matrices and tests of reading,
spelling, and elementary arithmetic, the scale appears to justify this claim, although conclusions based on
score correlations can never be accepted uncritically.

It is often useful to describe the scale as a test of observation and clear thinking. By itself it is not a test
of "general intelligence" and it is always a mistake to describe it as such. Each problem in the scale is
really the "mother" or "source" of a system of thought hence the name "Progressive Matrices". The scale
has the re-test reliability varying, with age, from 0.83 to 0.93. It correlates 0.86 with the Ternan-Merril
scale and has been found to have a "g" saturation of 0.82.

Young children, mentally defective persons, and very old people are not expected to solve more than the
problems in Sets A and B of the scale and the easier problems of Sets C and D. where reasoning by
2

analogy is not essential. After they can no longer solve the problems, they may still choose the correct
answer for other reasons. For normal adults, Sets A an. B provide little more than training in the method of
working. If an adult is allowed only a limited time and does not complete the easy problems of Sets D and
E before stopping, the total estimate is not necessarily valid. When the 1938 scale was constructed these
limitations were known. In practice, as an untimed capacity test and even as a 20-minute "speed" or
"efficiency" test, the results have been found to be more reliable and psychologically meaningful despite
the difficulty. It must, however, be kept in mind that the scale is intended to span the whole range of
intellectual development, rather than to differentiate clearly between individual persons.

For comparative purposes, the Standard Scale is now used internationally, and no general revision of it
has yet appeared necessary. In 1947 a small correction was made to the original item B 8, to improve its
absolute order of difficulty and effective problematic range. In the same year, two derivatives of the
standard scale were also prepared for further experimental work and comparative studies. In 1956 the
problems constituting the 1938 series were rearranged to give a more uniform probit distribution. The
alternatives between which choice had to be made were also rearranged to give a more uniform
distribution of common and uncommon errors of judgment. No other change has been made in the scale,
and in no case has the original position of the correct solution to a problem been changed. At the same
time the two 1947 derivatives of the standard scale were revised and rearranged, one for routine use with
young children and for clinical work.; the other as a test of intellectual efficiency suitable for use with
adults of average or more than average intellectual capacity.

DIAGNOSTIC USE OF THE PROGRESSIVE MATRICES AND THE MILL HILL

VOCABULARY SCALES.

There are obvious advantages in using the Progressive Matrices and the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales
together in place of a single test of "general intelligence". The Matrices test can provide a valid means of
assessing a person's capacity for clear thinking and accurate intellectual work. The Vocabulary test
indicates the general information he has acquired up to the present and his command of the English
language. To this extent the latter indicates where a person must begin any course of training he wishes
to pursue or work he will have to undertake; while the former indicates the rate at which he may be
expected to progress:

NORMS AND RE-TEST RELIABILITY

The Progressive Matrices and the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale have been standardized together for
representative samples of British people, 6. to 65 years of age.. 5 The high re-test. reliability of the Mill Hill
Vocabulary Scale (Table VI) reflects the fact that people normally recall information without difficulty once
it has been acquired. The lower re-test reliability of the Matrices Test Table VI) r: reflects the fact that the
output of intellectual activity tends to fluctuate more with age. In general, the re-test reliability and the
intercorrelations between the Matrices and Vocabulary tests tend to be the lowest of all with very young
children and very old people.
3

Under normal conditions, after maturity is reached, scores on the Vocabulary test tend to remain relatively
constant, at least up to the age of 65. Scores on the Matrices test reach their maximum somewhere about
the age of 14, remain relatively constant for about 10 years; and then begin to decline slowly, with
remarkable uniformity.

Physical or mental illness does not seriously affect the re-test reliability of the Matrices or Vocabulary
tests. In the relatively few cases where it does, the cause has usually been traced to temporary toxic
effects or to permanent brain damage.

Senile dementia does not appear to be a normal effect of aging, but rather a pathological condition
occurring more frequently as age advances. It appears to affect a person's recall of acquired information
as well as his present output of the intellectual activity. Both functions would also appear to fluctuate
more in cases of dementia than they do under normal conditions.

The norms for the Progressive Matrices Scale, given in tables III, IV, and V, like the norms given in the
Guide to Using the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale, are arranged so that a person's score on each test usually
falls into the same grade. If, for example, a person aged 30 scores 54 or more on the Matrices test, he
may be expected to obtain a score in the neighborhood of 76 on the Mill Hill Vocabulary scale. If, then, his
Matrices score places him in Grade I, he should also be in Grade I, or at least in Grade II, according to his
Vocabulary score. In the majority of cases, this holds true. When it does, if each test performance is
internally consistent, we can infer that both tests have operated effectively and that the results indicate
with some accuracy the person's present level of mental development and normal rate of progress.
Usually, the two results also agree, closely with the person's "intelligence" assessed in other ways.

***It should be unnecessary to point out that this does not apply if some other vocabulary test has been
used.

The precise significance of any observed discrepancy between a person’s Matrices and Vocabulary
grades can only be determined by further inquiries. It can however be assumed that a Vocabulary grading
lower than the Matrices arises when a person has not received, or for some reason has not been able to
acquire, the general information and command of the English language his intellectual capacity warrants.
On the other hand, it can be assumed that a Matrices grading lower than the Vocabulary arises when a
person is suffering from fatigue, temporary intellectual impairment, has deteriorated mentally, or has for
some reason excessively directed his available mental activity to the acquisition of verbal knowledge.

Discrepancies in grades between the two tests should always be investigated. A discrepancy of one grade
may or may not be significant, particularly if the person's score on one test happens, as in the example
quoted, to lie at or near the percentile point separating two grades. A discrepancy of two or more grades
always indicates the need for a further investigation designed to elucidate its psychological significance.
The particular significance to be attached to such a discrepancy can often be assessed more accurately if
the Coloured Matrices are used as an individual test. It is therefore discussed more fully in the Guide to
Using the Coloured Matrices, Sets A, Ab, B.
4

MENTAL DEVELOPMENT

Mental development in childhood appears to take the form of distinct, rather rapid, intellectual
maturations, more like salmon leaps in the stream of life than the equally arranged rungs on a ladder.
Convenient as the latter hypothesis may be for the purpose of quantitative assessment and mathematical
computation, it does not seem to correspond to any psychological reality in the life of the child. It is
therefore absurd to expect the results to conform at all close to this hypothesis and is misleading to
construct a test or to weigh the results obtained on the basis of any prior assumption of this kind.

Following up on earlier mental development, between the ages of 8 and 11 years there appears to be an
almost complete transformation in a child's processes of reasoning. Before it has occurred, a child can
comprehend little more than the kind of problem presented in Sets A and B of the standard Matrices
scale. His vocabulary tends to be limited, and his education largely depends on practical work and visual
aids. Afterwards, a child is able not only to form comparisons and reason by analogy, but also to adopt
this way of thinking as a consistent method of reasoning, He progresses without difficulty from the
problems constituting Sets A and B of the Matrices test to the problems constituting Sets C, D. and E.

He is able to grasp the meanings of abstract words. He profits more from available educational
opportunities, and there is a marked steady increase in his Vocabulary test score.

This apparently decisive stage in intellectual maturation distinguishes the intellectually immature person
from the person of normal, or more than normal, intellectual ability. It also appears to be one of the
earliest to decline in later life, the one apt to be seriously impaired as the result of organic dysfunction.
Racial studies indicate that this is partly at native endowment of the individual, and partly the result of
environmental influences and cultural opportunities, at least to the extent that in the absence of
stimulation, the consistent development of logical reasoning, tends to remain latent or to develop
somewhat later in life. It has also been found that a person's social relations affect the use he makes of
his opportunities, and the mental abilities he tends as a result to develop.

The Coloured Progressive Matrices, Sets A, A, B, in the form of a printed book, or as boards and moveable
pieces, are arranged for the Psychological assessment of mental development up to the state of
intellectual maturation. It is also particularly suitable for assessing mental development in the presence
of physical handicaps. After intellectual maturation, the standard 1938 scale, or in certain cases, the
advanced Progressive Matrices, Sets I and II, are more appropriate.

INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND EFFICIENCY

A person's maximum capacity for clear thinking has been found to vary with health and to improve with
practice less than his speed of accurate intellectual work. For anthropological, genetic, and clinical
studies, an untimed "capacity" test is, therefore, more useful than a test in which a person is working
against time. For vocational guidance and occupational selection, on the other hand, a "speed" or
"efficiency" test is sometimes more appropriate. For the former, therefore, the Standard Scale is more
useful. For the latter, and especially for the guidance or selection of people wishing to pursue higher
5

technical courses of training, Progressive Matrices Sets I and II are more discriminating. It is also more
useful for the study of mental fatigue and its effects on quick, accurate judgment.

Before the age of 11, a child's ability to form comparisons and reason by analogy are often too recent in
intellectual achievement for it to be exercised with a consistent degree of efficiency. In all cases of this
kind, the Standard Scale used as an untimed tool, is the more appropriate form to employ.

Experimental work with Progressive Matrices, Sets I and II, is still in progress. We need to determine more
exactly its re-test reliability at different ages, and its sensitivity to fluctuations in intellectual output. We
need to know more exactly the relationship between intellectual "capacity" and intellectual "efficiency",
and the degree to which each becomes a consistent and reliable factor in the nature of intellectual work.
We also need to determine the value of Sets I and II as a means of diagnosing temporarily impaired
intellectual efficiency. The information obtained will lead to revisions of this test and derivatives from it,
which can be used satisfactorily alone and in batteries with other tests, for diagnostic work, for vocational
guidance or occupational selection, and for the purpose of research.

References to the Bibliography indicate the available data concerning the diagnostic use of the
Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill Vocabulary scales. They include reports both supporting and at
variance with the hypotheses advanced to bring the existing information together into a coherent body of
knowledge. Opinions must be modified as data become available, and reports of published or
unpublished investigations to this end will always be welcome. The history of mental testing and the uses
and limitations of mental tests are briefly discussed in Part III of "Human Nature, its Development,
Variations and Assessment". For information concerning the psychological theory on which the
Progressive Matrices and the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales are based, users are advised to read this book.
The book also discusses the consistency, re-test reliability, and psychological validity of mental tests in
relation to the ways in which the tests are presented, their sensitivity to fluctuations in the mental
functions assessed, and their resulting practical usefulness for assessing individual differences in, and
variations of, mental activity in health and illness. Such questions are not discussed in the Guides to using
either the Progressive Matrices or the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales. They provide only the standard
procedures for administering and marking the tests.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING PROGRESSIVE MATRICES

Sets A, B, C, D, and E
THE INDIVIDUAL TEST

Particulars of the person to be tested are filled in on the record form. The person giving the test opens the
book at the first illustration, A. 1, and says: "Look at this(pointing to the upper figure). It is a pattern with a
bit taken out. Bach of these bits below (he points to each in turn) is the right shape to fit the space but
they do not all complete the pattern". He explains why numbers 1,2 and 3 are wrong and why number 6 is
nearly right. He then says: "Point to the piece which is quite right". If the person does not point to the right
piece he continues his explanation until the nature of the problem to be solved is clearly grasped.
The person giving the test explains that on every page there is a pattern with a part left out, and says: "All
you have to do is to point each time to the bit which is the right one to complete the pattern." As he turns
to illustration A.2. he says "They are simple at the beginning and get harder as you go on. If you pay
attention to the way the easy ones go, you will find the later ones less difficult. Just point to the piece
6

which completes the pattern. Now carry on at your own pace. See how many you can get right. You can
have as much time as you like. There is no need to hurry. Be careful. “

The person giving the test records the number of the piece pointed to in each test in the appropriate place
on the record form. He sees that the pages are turned over one at a time. If necessary, he guides the
person's attention to each problem in its standard order. Apart from this, he gives no assistance in the
method of working, as the standard order in which the problems are presented provides the necessary
training.

RECORDS AND MARKING

When the series is given as an individual test, the person recording results enters on the form the number
of each piece pointed to. If a person points to more than one piece, the piece he finally points to counts as
right or wrong. If a person given the group test enters more than one number against any item in the
scale, he must be told to cross out all but the right one. If the mistake is not observed until after the test is
over, the number on the extreme right only is considered, whether the other numbers are right or wrong.

The standard record form is arranged so that it can be quickly and accurately marked by superimposing a
stencil marking key.

A person's score on the scale is the total number of problems he solves correctly when he is allowed to
work quietly through the series from the beginning to the end.

By subtracting from a person's score on each of the five sets the score normally expected on each set for
the same total score on the scale, the consistency of his work can be assessed. The score to be expected
is given in TABLES I OR II. The difference between the score a person obtains on each set and that is
normally expected for his total score can be shown numerically as follows:-

Discrepancies: 0, -1,+2,+1.

If a person's score on one of the sets deviates by more than 2, his total score on the scale cannot be
accepted at its face value as a consistent estimate of his general capacity for intellectual activity. For
general purposes, the total score appears to be relatively valid even when discrepancies of more than 2
points occur in the breakup.

In a certain proportion of cases, a person selects the right figure by chance. When a person is allowed to
complete the whole of the scale, the number of chance selections will be proportional to the number of
problems in which he fails. People who obtain low scores have a proportionately greater number of
successes by pure chance. To this extent, low total scores are always less consistent and reliable than
high scores.

The most satisfactory method of interpreting the significance of a person's total score is to consider it in
terms of the frequency with which a similar score is found to occur amongst people of his own age. This
method shows at once his intellectual capacity relative to other people of his own age and the frequency
with which one should expect to find people of similar capacity. It has the advantage that a prior
7

assumption is made that in childhood the development of intellectual capacity is necessarily uniform, or
that at maturity it is necessarily distributed symmetrically throughout the general population.

For practical purposes, it is convenient to take certain fixed percentages of the population and to group
people as their scores fall between them. In this way, it is possible to classify a person according to the
score he obtains as:-

GRADE

I or "intellectually superior" if his score lies at or above the 95th percentile for people of his
age.
II or "definitely above the average in intellectual capacity", if his core lies at or above the 75th
percentile;
II + or if his score lies at or above the 90th percentile.
III or "intellectually average", if his score lies between the 25th and 75th percentiles;
III +, if his score is greater than the median or 50th percentile for his age;
IV definitely below average in intellectual capacity
IV- if his score lies at or below the 10th percentile
V "intellectually defective" if his score lies at or below the 5th percentile for his age group.

The necessary percentile scores for the individual and group tests between the ages of 6 and 65 are
shown in TABLES III, IV, and V. The individual test appears to introduce emotional factors which are less
operative when a person is allowed to work quietly at his own speed. The self-administered or group test
appears to provide a more reliable sample of a person's output of intellectual activity during the test.
People over 30 years of age can be graded I, II, III, or IV, but there is at present insufficient data to
distinguish between people who are; Grade IV. and those who are Grade IV or Grade V.
The consistency of an estimate, the total score obtained, the time required and the grade reached are
conveniently summarized as follows:-

Total score … … … 46 Discrepancies.. 0,+1,-2, +2, -1

Grade … … … … III+ Time ... … … … … 38 minutes.

For reasons already given, the Standard Progressive Matrices Scale does not differentiate very clearly
between young children, or between adults of superior intellectual capacity. It cannot be given
satisfactorily with a time limit and takes up to 45 minutes to complete. Those appear to be the chief
critics of the scale. Neither shortening the test, making it longer, dividing it, making it continuous, nor
re-arranging the problem overcomes them, without limiting the usefulness of the scale as a whole. By
using the appropriate derivative of the 1930 scale it is however possible to overcome each of those
limitations separately.

In Tables III, IV, and V, the median score at each age is shown in heavy type.
8

Figures in italics have been interpolated for smooth working. One person in 20 may be expected to obtain
a score at or above the 95th percentile point. Similarly, one person in 20 may be expected to obtain a
score at or below the 5th percentile point. One person in 10 may be expected to obtain a score at or above
the 90th percentile point, and one in 10 at or below the 10th percentile point. One person in 4 may be
expected to obtain a score at or above the 75th percentile point, and one in 4 at or below the 25th The
score obtained by one person in every two may be expected to fall between the 25th and 75th percentile
points.
Too few dull people over 30 have, as yet, been tested for the 5th and 10th percentile points to be
accurately determined.