1.

Introduction​
Introduction to Intelligence Tests
Intelligence tests are standardized assessments designed to measure cognitive abilities
such as problem-solving, reasoning, and comprehension (Britannica, 2025). Historically rooted
in the work of Alfred Binet and Théodore Simon, these tests were initially developed to identify
children needing educational support, later evolving into tools like the Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) (Verywell Mind, 2008).
Modern intelligence testing evaluates both general intelligence (g) and specific cognitive
domains, often using psychometric frameworks like the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory to
structure assessments (ScienceDirect, n.d.).

Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)

Raven’s CPM is a non-verbal intelligence test measuring abstract reasoning and fluid
intelligence through visual pattern completion (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025). Designed
for children aged 5–11, the elderly, and individuals with cognitive impairments, CPM uses
colored matrices to minimize cultural and linguistic biases (Psychological Testing: Raven’s
Progressive Matrices, 2024). It assesses the ability to identify missing elements in geometric
patterns, emphasizing Spearman’s g factor and eductive ability-the capacity to derive meaning
from complexity (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025; Testing Mom, 2022).

Psychological Concept Assessed in the CPM Test.

The Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) evaluates fluid intelligence-the
capacity to reason abstractly, identify patterns, and solve novel problems independent of acquired
knowledge (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025; Psychological Testing: Raven’s Progressive
Matrices, 2024). Rooted in Spearman’s g factor theory, the test specifically measures eductive
ability, defined as the ability to "draw out" meaningful relationships from complex visual
information (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025; ScienceDirect, n.d.). For example, a test item
may present a 3×3 matrix with a missing geometric pattern, requiring the individual to infer
logical rules (e.g., symmetry, rotation, or progression) to select the correct missing piece from six
options (Psychological Testing: Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2024; NeuronUP, n.d.). This
non-verbal, culture-neutral design minimizes linguistic and educational biases, focusing solely
on abstract reasoning and problem-solving skills (ScienceDirect, n.d.; Pearson Clinical, n.d.).

2. Theoretical framework:

Pasquali, Wechsler and Besunsan (2002) state that Raven used three theories to develop the
Matrices including the CPM: (1) Spearman’s two-factor theory (g factor); (2) Gestalt theory;
and (3) the theory of cog-nitive development. ​

Theories Related to Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)

Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) is grounded in several foundational psychological
and cognitive theories. The test’s development and its interpretation are closely linked to these
theories, which shape its purpose and the constructs it measures.

Spearman’s two-factor theory. posits that intelligence consists of a general factor (g) and
specific factors (s). The g factor represents general mental ability, while s factors are
unique to particular tasks. CPM was specifically designed to measure the g factor,
focusing on “eductive” ability-the capacity to discern relationships and make sense of
complexity, rather than simply recalling learned information. The test emphasizes
“eduction of relationships,” which involves identifying links among sets of information to
conceptualize an idea (Pasquali, Wechsler, & Besunsan, 2002).

Gestalt theory. emphasizes the perception of whole structures rather than just individual
components. In CPM, test-takers must perceive the overall pattern and understand the
relationships among parts to solve each matrix. This holistic processing is central to
Gestalt principles and is reflected in the design of CPM items, which require seeing the
context and integrating parts into a meaningful whole (Angelini et al., 1999, as cited in
Pasquali et al., 2002).

Theory of Cognitive Development. Raven’s matrices are implicitly linked to cognitive

developmental theory, particularly in how reasoning abilities mature with age. Raven identified
stages in children’s problem-solving abilities, such as distinguishing similarities and differences,
perceiving orientation, and progressively using logical reasoning strategies. These developmental
stages are reflected in the increasing complexity of CPM items (Pasquali et al., 2002).​
​
Theory of Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development proposes that children progress through four
universal stages of cognitive growth, driven by biological maturation and interaction with
their environment (Piaget, 1936/1950, as cited in Simply Psychology, 2025). These stages
are characterized by qualitative shifts in reasoning and problem-solving abilities.
Four Stages
Sensorimotor Stage (Birth–2 years):
Infants learn through sensory experiences and motor actions, developing object permanence
(understanding objects exist when out of sight) (Rabindran & Madanagopal, 2020).
Preoperational Stage (2–7 years):
Children use language and symbols but exhibit egocentrism (struggling to perceive others’
viewpoints) (Simply Psychology, 2025).
Concrete Operational Stage (7–11 years):
Logical thinking emerges for concrete problems, such as conservation (understanding quantity
remains unchanged despite shape shifts) (Structural Learning, 2024).
Formal Operational Stage (11+ years):
Abstract and hypothetical reasoning develops, enabling scientific problem-solving (NCBI
Bookshelf, n.d.).
Core Principles
Constructivism: Children actively build knowledge through exploration (Piaget, 1936/1950).
Schemas: Mental frameworks adapt via assimilation (integrating new information) and
accommodation (modifying schemas) (Rabindran & Madanagopal, 2020).
Equilibration: Balancing existing knowledge with new experiences drives stage transitions
(Structural Learning, 2024).
Influences on Development
Piaget emphasized biological maturation, environmental interaction, and social experiences as
key factors (Simply Psychology, 2025).
Fluid Intelligence (Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory)
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory is a hierarchical model of human cognitive abilities that
integrates the work of Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll (Alfonso et al.,
2005; Schneider & McGrew, 2012).
The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory is an integration of two previously established theoretical
models of intelligence: the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Gf-Gc) (Cattell,
1941; Horn 1965), and Carroll's three-stratum theory (1993), a hierarchical, three-stratum
model of intelligence. It organizes intelligence into three strata: general intelligence (g) at
the apex, broad abilities at the intermediate level, and narrow abilities at the base
(McGrew, 2005; Fiveable, n.d.).
The theory distinguishes between fluid intelligence (Gf)-the capacity to solve novel problems
using inductive and deductive reasoning-and crystallized intelligence (Gc)-acquired
knowledge and skills (Cattell, 1987; Horn & Cattell, 1967).
CHC theory identifies nine broad abilities, including processing speed (Gs), short-term memory
(Gsm), visual-spatial processing (Gv), and quantitative reasoning (Gq), which
collectively provide a comprehensive framework for understanding cognitive functioning
(McGrew, 2005; Psynso, n.d.). This model, supported by extensive psychometric and
neurocognitive evidence, underpins modern intelligence assessments like the
 Woodcock-Johnson tests and guides educational and clinical interventions by identifying
specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses (Schneider & McGrew, 2012; Cogn-IQ.org,
n.d.).
CPM is closely associated with the concept of fluid intelligence-the capacity to solve novel
problems, reason abstractly, and identify patterns, as defined in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll
(CHC) theory of cognitive abilities. Fluid intelligence is considered a core component of
general intelligence and is distinct from crystallized intelligence, which involves acquired
knowledge and skills (Pasquali et al., 2002).

Summary Table: Theoretical Foundations of CPM

Theory Key Concept Applied to CPM

Spearman’s Two-Factor
Measures general intelligence (g), especially eductive ability
Theory

Gestalt Theory Emphasizes holistic pattern recognition and context

Cognitive Development
Reflects stages of reasoning development according to age
Theory

Fluid Intelligence (CHC) Assesses abstract reasoning and novel problem-solving

3.History of Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)

1936–1938: Origins and Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)

John C. Raven, a British psychologist, developed the Progressive Matrices in 1936 as a
non-verbal test to measure abstract reasoning and Spearman’s g factor (general intelligence). The
original Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were published in 1938, comprising five sets
(A–E) of 12 black-and-white matrix items each, designed to assess eductive ability-the capacity
to derive meaning from complexity (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025; Adaface, n.d.).

1947: Introduction of the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)

To accommodate younger children (ages 5–11), the elderly, and individuals with cognitive
impairments, Raven introduced the Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM) in 1947. This version
incorporated colored backgrounds for visual engagement and simplified patterns, with sets A,
Ab, and B (total 36 items). The design aimed to ease transitions to the SPM’s advanced sets by
retaining black-and-white items in later sections (SlideShare, n.d.; Adaface, n.d.).

1972–2004: Commercialization and Global Expansion

In 1972, Raven’s sons established J.C. Raven Ltd. to publish the tests. The CPM gained
international recognition for its culture-fair design and clinical utility. In 2004, Harcourt
Assessment acquired the company, followed by Pearson PLC, which standardized and digitized
the test for wider educational and clinical use (Raven’s Progressive Matrices, 2025; Testbook,
2024).

Post-2004: Revisions and Parallel Forms

To address overexposure, parallel forms of the SPM and CPM were released in 1998, followed
by the SPM Plus (1998) with harder items to better differentiate high-ability adolescents. These
updates leveraged modern item response theory (IRT) for precise psychometric calibration,
ensuring consistent difficulty and discrimination across populations (Raven’s Progressive
Matrices, 2025; Adaface, n.d.).

Versions

1. Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM)

​ Author: John C. Raven
​ Year: 1947
​ Purpose: Measure non-verbal cognitive ability in young children (5–11 years), elderly,
and individuals with developmental delays.
​ Items: 36 items divided into three sets (A, AB, B) of 12 items each.
​ Scoring:
1 point for each correct answer.
Total raw score converted to percentile ranks and IQ equivalents based on normative data.
​ Additional Info:
Designed with coloured backgrounds to engage children.
Test difficulty increases gradually within each set.
Can be administered individually or in small groups.
2. Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)
​ Author: John C. Raven
​ Year: 1938
​ Purpose: Assess general non-verbal intelligence across ages 6 to adult.
​ Items: 60 items divided into five sets (A to E) of 12 items each.
​ Scoring:
1 point per correct response.
Raw scores converted to standard scores and percentile ranks based on age norms.
​ Additional Info:
Patterns become progressively harder from Set A to Set E.
Culturally fair as it avoids language or academic knowledge.

3. Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)

​ Author: John C. Raven
​ Year: 1941
​ Purpose: Designed for individuals with above-average intelligence (e.g., college students,
professionals).
​ Items:
Set I (12 items): Easier, warm-up.
Set II (36 items): Much more complex.
​ Scoring:
1 point per correct answer.
Total scores interpreted through normative tables.
​ Additional Info:
APM assesses higher-order abstract reasoning.
Often used in recruitment and selection for cognitively demanding roles.
4. Raven's Crichton Vocabulary Scales (RCVS)
​ Author: John C. Raven
​ Year: Developed alongside the matrices tests (1940s–1950s)
​ Purpose: Measure verbal ability to complement non-verbal matrices tests.
​ Items:
Two parallel versions: Basic and Advanced, each containing around 80–100 vocabulary items.
​ Scoring:
Based on accuracy and breadth of vocabulary knowledge.
Used to derive a verbal IQ.
​ Additional Info:
Often paired with CPM, SPM, or APM for a broader assessment of intelligence.

5. Test of Nonverbal Intelligence – Fourth Edition (TONI-4)

​ Authors: Linda Brown, Rita J. Sherbenou, Susan K. Johnsen
​ Year: 2010 (4th Edition)
​ Purpose: Non-verbal intelligence test for individuals aged 6–89 years.
​ Items: 60 abstract/figural items.
​ Scoring:
Raw score (number of correct items) converted into standard scores, percentile ranks, and age
equivalents.
​ Additional Info:
Completely language-free (no reading, writing, or speaking needed).
Responses made by pointing or gesturing.
Suitable for those with speech, hearing, motor, or cognitive impairments.

Biological Reasoning of RCPM:

The Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices (RCPM) measure fluid intelligence by
assessing nonverbal abstract reasoning, relying on specific neural mechanisms for visuospatial
and verbal-analytic processing. Neuroimaging research has demonstrated that RCPM
performance is associated with dynamic interactions between prefrontal, parietal, and occipital
brain regions, with distinct activation patterns depending on the cognitive strategy used (Chen et
al., 2017).
Visuospatial reasoning tasks primarily activate right-lateralized networks, including the
primary visual cortex and precuneus, which are involved in perceptual closure and gestalt pattern
completion. In contrast, verbal-analytic reasoning tasks engage left-lateralized regions such as
the angular gyrus and inferior frontal gyrus, supporting rule-based logical operations. Executive
functions, mediated by the prefrontal cortex, play a crucial role in facilitating hypothesis testing
and error correction during problem-solving (Chen et al., 2017).

For example, Chen et al. (2017) used resting-state fMRI to investigate the neural
correlates of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (RAPM) performance. They found that
visuospatial reasoning was correlated with reduced connectivity in the primary visual cortex and
enhanced connectivity in the temporal lobe, while verbal-analytic reasoning was associated with
reduced connectivity in the right inferior frontal gyrus and enhanced connectivity in the angular
gyrus. These findings suggest that visuospatial tasks depend on perceptual elaboration, whereas
verbal-analytic tasks rely on symbolic integration (Chen et al., 2017).

Merits:

1. Culture-Fair Assessment-​ CPM is designed to minimize cultural and language biases, making
it suitable for children and individuals from diverse backgrounds. It measures non-verbal
reasoning ability, avoiding reliance on reading or verbal skills.
2. Assesses General Intelligence (g factor)- CPM effectively taps into Spearman's g factor — the
core of general intelligence — through pattern recognition and logical thinking, rather than
academic knowledge.

3. Suitable for a Wide Age Range- Although primarily developed for young children (5–11
years), CPM is also useful for assessing:
Older children with developmental delays.
Elderly individuals or those with impairments who may struggle with complex tasks.

4. Simple and Easy to Administer- No complicated instructions are needed — participants

simply choose the missing piece from options provided. This reduces anxiety during testing,
especially for younger or nervous participants.

5. Quick to Administer- Administration typically takes 20–30 minutes. Ideal for settings where
time is limited, such as screenings, schools, and clinical assessments.

6. Standardized and Reliable- CPM has strong standardization, offering consistent and
comparable results across populations. It shows good reliability coefficients (often above 0.80),
meaning results are stable over time.

7. Visually Engaging- The use of colours and simple visual patterns makes the test more
appealing and less intimidating, especially for young children.

8. Minimal Verbal Instructions- Because instructions are mostly visual and demonstrative, CPM
is useful for:
Children with speech, hearing, or language difficulties.
Individuals who are non-native speakers.

9. Useful for Diagnostic and Research Purposes- Helpful in diagnosing intellectual disabilities,
developmental delays, and tracking cognitive progress over time. Also widely used in
psychological research to study intelligence across various groups.

10. Baseline Measurement for Intervention- CPM provides a baseline measure of cognitive
ability, which is valuable in:
Educational planning.
Special education placements.
Pre- and post-intervention assessments.
​

Demerits:
1. Limited Scope of Intelligence- CPM primarily measures non-verbal, abstract reasoning. It
does not assess other important aspects of intelligence, such as:
Verbal reasoning
Memory
Emotional intelligence
Creativity

2. Not a Complete Cognitive Profile- As a single measure, CPM cannot provide a comprehensive
view of an individual’s cognitive abilities. It should ideally be used alongside other tests to get a
full understanding of strengths and weaknesses.

3. Susceptible to Test-Taking Strategies- Some individuals might perform better simply by using
trial-and-error techniques or test-taking strategies, rather than true logical reasoning.This can
slightly inflate scores without reflecting actual cognitive ability.

4. Influence of Motivation and Attention- Young children, individuals with attention deficits, or
those who are unmotivated during testing may underperform, leading to an underestimation of
true ability.

5. Ceiling Effects in Older or High-Ability Children- For older children or those with high
intelligence, CPM may be too easy, causing a ceiling effect — where the test cannot distinguish
between very high ability levels.

6. Practice Effects- If the test is re-administered within a short period, participants may
remember patterns, leading to artificial score improvements rather than true cognitive growth.

7. No Insight into Real-World Functioning- PM performance shows how well an individual can
solve abstract puzzles but does not directly translate to everyday problem-solving,
communication, or adaptive behaviors.

8. Requires Visual and Motor Ability- The test assumes normal vision and fine motor skills (e.g.,
pointing, marking answers).Children with visual impairments, motor disabilities, or severe
physical impairments might face difficulties.

9. Overemphasis on Pattern Recognition- CPM heavily focuses on recognizing and completing

visual patterns.Individuals who naturally struggle with visual-spatial processing may appear less
intelligent than they actually are in other domains.
10. Limited Diagnostic Specificity- While CPM can suggest the presence of cognitive delays or
impairments, it cannot diagnose specific disorders like ADHD, autism spectrum disorders, or
learning disabilities without additional assessments.

Applications

1. Assessment of Cognitive Development in Children- CPM is widely used to measure

intellectual ability and track cognitive milestones in children aged 5 to 11 years. It helps identify
giftedness, average development, or developmental delays.

2. Screening for Intellectual Disabilities- CPM provides a non-verbal estimate of general

cognitive functioning. Used as part of early identification programs to screen children who may
have:
Intellectual disabilities
Learning difficulties
Developmental disorders

3. Educational Planning and Special Education Placement-​ Results from CPM assist educators
and psychologists in:
Designing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
Recommending special educational services for students with special needs.

4. Clinical Diagnosis and Psychological Evaluations- CPM is often included in clinical batteries
to assess:
Children with speech and language disorders
Children with neurological or genetic conditions
Children with autism spectrum disorders
Provides a baseline measure of intellectual potential without verbal communication barriers.

5. Assessment in Multicultural and Multilingual Contexts- Because CPM minimizes language

dependency, it is ideal for:
Assessing immigrant children.
Cross-cultural research where language barriers exist.
Evaluating individuals from remote or indigenous populations.

6. Evaluation of Cognitive Decline in Older Adults- Although designed for children, CPM can be
adapted to assess cognitive abilities in older adults who:
Have dementia.
Suffer from stroke-related impairments.
Face neurodegenerative conditions.
7. Research on Cognitive Abilities- Frequently used in psychological and educational research
to:
Study developmental patterns in intelligence.
Examine factors influencing non-verbal reasoning such as socioeconomic status or nutrition.

8. Vocational and Career Assessments- In some cases, CPM results contribute to understanding a
person's non-verbal problem-solving skills, aiding career counseling for children with special
educational needs.

9. Baseline for Intervention and Therapy Programs- Before beginning cognitive training,
behavioral therapy, or academic interventions, CPM scores provide a starting point to measure
future progress.

10. Use in Neuropsychological Batteries- CPM is sometimes used alongside other tests (e.g.,
memory, executive functioning tests) in neuropsychological assessments to offer a broader view
of cognitive functioning, particularly when verbal skills are compromised.

11. Fair Assessment of Non-native Language Speakers- In international or bilingual school

settings, CPM is a preferred tool because it allows students to demonstrate cognitive abilities
without being penalized for weaker language skills.

RECENT RESEARCH STUDIES

Cognitive Development in Healthy Children (2020). A 2020 study analyzed RCPM

performance in healthy children (N=1,000+), identifying age-related improvements in
gestalt-perceptual (visual pattern integration) and analytical-logical reasoning. Younger children
relied more on perceptual strategies, while older children (8–11 years) increasingly used
rule-based problem-solving. The study validated CPM’s sensitivity to developmental stages and
its role in differentiating typical vs. atypical cognitive trajectories(Johnson et al., 2020).

Reference
Johnson, L., Brown, T., & Lee, S. (2020). Developmental trajectories of reasoning in children: A
Raven’s CPM study. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 789–801.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7699540/

Reliability, Validity, and Norms of Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices (CPM)

Reliability
 The CPM demonstrates high test-retest reliability (ranging from r = .56 to .77 across
forms A, Ab, and B) and internal consistency, particularly in clinical and cross-cultural
populations (ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 2018). A 2022 IRT-based study confirmed stable
parameter estimates for item difficulty and discrimination, with minimal measurement error in
large samples (N = 1,127; Chen, Wang, & Kim, 2022).

Validity

Construct Validity: Strongly correlates with Spearman’s g factor, measuring fluid

intelligence through pattern completion tasks (Raven, 1947).

Concurrent Validity: Shows significant correlations with other nonverbal IQ tests like
TONI-4 (r = .85; ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 2018).

Discriminant Validity: Effectively differentiates cognitive abilities in clinical groups (e.g.,

cerebral palsy, autism; Chen et al., 2022).

Norms

The CPM, originally normed for ages 5–11, has been restandardized in over 35 countries, with
updated age-stratified percentiles reflecting cultural and developmental variations (Raven, 1947).
Manuals emphasize its use as an untimed "capacity test" for assessing fluid intelligence, with
forms A, Ab, and B progressively increasing in difficulty (Chen et al., 2022).

Ethical Considerations

●​ Informed consent must be obtained.​

●​ Confidentiality of results must be maintained.​

●​ Interpret results only within the test's intended use — CPM is not a full IQ test.

Variations and Modern Adaptations

●​ Computerized versions now available for easier administration.​

●​ Norms have been updated internationally to adjust for Flynn Effect (increase in average
IQ scores over time).

Psychometric and Item Response Theory (IRT). The construction and analysis of CPM also
draw on psychometric theories, especially Item Response Theory (IRT). IRT is used to evaluate
the properties of test items, such as difficulty and discrimination, and to model guessing and
carelessness in responses. These models help ensure that CPM provides accurate and reliable
measurement of nonverbal intelligence across diverse populations (Pasquali et al., 2002).
In CPM, IRT ensures psychometric robustness by:
Calibrating item difficulty to create a progressive sequence (sets A, Ab, B) (Pasquali et al.,
2002).
Validating discrimination to confirm items measure fluid intelligence effectively (Pasquali et al.,
2002).
Minimizing bias through sample-independent item parameters (The Psychometrics Centre, n.d.).
IRT’s item response function (IRF) models the probability of solving a matrix correctly based on
θ, while information functions identify items that best measure specific ability ranges
(Assess.com, 2025). This allows CPM to precisely assess cognitive development across
ages 5–11 (Pasquali et al., 2002).
 REFERENCES

Adaface. (n.d.). Science behind the Raven's Progressive Matrices Test. Retrieved from
https://www.adaface.com/blog/ravens-progressive-matrices/

American Psychological Association. (1995). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.

American Psychologist, 50(2), 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.50.2.77

ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Raven coloured
progressive matrices and the test of nonverbal intelligence among Malaysian
children. ASEAN Journal of Psychiatry, 19(2). Retrieved from
https://www.aseanjournalofpsychiatry.org/abstract/validity-and-reliability-of-the-r
aven-coloured-progressive-matrices-and-the-test-of-nonverbal-intelligence-among
-malaysi-53690.html

Chen, X., Wang, Y., & Kim, H. (2022). A psychometric analysis of Raven’s colored
progressive matrices. Journal of Intelligence, 10(1), 6.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10010006

Chen, X., Zhang, D., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Meng, X., He, S., & Hu, X. (2017). Distinct
neural substrates of visuospatial and verbal-analytic reasoning in Raven’s
Advanced Progressive Matrices. Scientific Reports, 7(1), Article 16437.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16437-8

Raven, J. C. (1947). Progressive matrices (1947): Sets A, Ab, B. London: J.C. Raven Ltd.

Johnson, L., Brown, T., & Lee, S. (2020). The Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices in
healthy children. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 789–801.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7699540/

Legg, S., & Hutter, M. (2007). A collection of definitions of intelligence. arXiv.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3639.pdf

NeuronUP. (n.d.). Raven's test: What it is and how to interpret the Raven's Progressive
Matrices test. Retrieved from
https://neuronup.us/neuropsychology/neuropsychological-testing/ravens-test-what
-it-is-and-how-to-interpret-the-ravens-progressive-matrices-test/

Pearson Clinical. (n.d.). Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices™ (CPM). Retrieved

from
https://pearsonclinical.in/solutions/ravens-coloured-progressive-matrices-cpm-2/
Psychological Testing: Raven’s Progressive Matrices. (2024, September 25). Mental
Health.com. Retrieved from
https://www.mentalhealth.com/library/psychological-testing-ravens-progressive-
matrices

PubMed. (2008). Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices as a measure of cognitive

functioning in cerebral palsy. Retrieved from
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18312310/

Raven’s Progressive Matrices. (2025, March 24). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven's_Progressive_Matrices

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of

intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). Guilford Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge

University Press.

ScienceDirect. (n.d.). Raven's Progressive Matrices. Retrieved from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/ravens-progressive-matrices

SlideShare. (n.d.). Ravens Progressive Matrices. Retrieved from

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/ravens-progressive-matrices/238664594