1

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices - Assessment Report

Mark Lobo

Department of Psychology, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

MPS251: Psychodiagnostic Lab-I

Dr Uma Krishnan

19 December 2024
 2

Report II - Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices

Introduction

The Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) is a non-verbal intelligence test that

measures abstract reasoning and general cognitive abilities. It was developed by John C.

Raven in 1936 as part of the Raven's Progressive Matrices series. The SPM is widely

recognised for its psychometric properties, demonstrating high reliability and validity. Studies

have reported strong correlations between SPM scores and measures of fluid intelligence.

(John & Raven, 2003)

According to Raven, Raven, and Court (1998)a, 2000, the Raven Progressive Matrices

(RPM) tests assess "general cognitive ability" or, more accurately, eductive or

"meaning-making" ability. "Eductive" is derived from the Latin root "educere," meaning "to

draw out." Five sets of items make up the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), the test's

most basic version. The objects in each set get increasingly more challenging. Despite being

simple once more, the things at the start of each set have a different logic. In turn, the sets get

increasingly challenging. The test-takers get five opportunities to familiarise themselves with

the method of thinking needed to solve the problems through the five sets.

Development of RSPM

While working with geneticist Lionel Penrose on a study that explained the genetic

and environmental roots of mental deficit, J. C. Raven created the SPM (Penrose, 1938). This

required testing of adults and children, and testing had to occur in settings like homes,

workplaces, and schools where there were frequently distracting noises and willing "helpers."

Because scores on multiple abilities were combined into total scores and the individual

subscale scores were too unpredictable to use, Raven found full-length "intelligence" tests

difficult to administer and the results impossible to comprehend. In order to avoid the
 3

necessity for intricate computations to get scores on latent or underlying, "factors" or

variables, he set out to create tests that would be simple to administer, theoretically grounded,

and directly interpretable.

Psychometric Properties of the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)

1. Standardization

The original normative data for the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) were

developed in Britain during World War II by J. C. Raven and his colleagues. As described by

Raven (2000c), the sampling process involved assembling sporadically validated data until

the mid-1970s. Subsequent efforts have led to many international, ethnic, and longitudinal

norms. These norms enable contextualised interpretation of individual and group scores and

are documented in the manual (Raven, 2000b; Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998).

2. Internal Consistency

The SPM’s internal consistency is evaluated using Item Response Theory (IRT). The

test conforms to the three-parameter Rasch model, negating the need for traditional inter-item

correlations. High split-half reliability coefficients, frequently exceeding 0.90 (modal value:

0.91), indicate excellent internal consistency (Court & Raven, 1995; Raven et al., 2000). This

reflects the test’s robust measurement properties, particularly within its five sets of

progressively difficult items.

3. Test-Retest Reliability

Over 120 studies have explored the test-retest reliability of the SPM across various

populations and time intervals (from 1 week to 3 years). These studies vary widely in

methodology and demographics, including Native American and African groups as well as
 4

psychiatric patients. Despite such diversity, well-conducted studies report reliable retest

correlations (≥ 0.85) for intervals of up to one year (Court & Raven, 1995; Raven et al.,

2000).

4. Validity

Establishing the validity of the SPM involves complex conceptual and empirical

analyses. The test aims to measure “eductive ability,” or the capacity to derive meaning from

ambiguity. Challenges in validation include the influence of task relevance, external

constraints, and individual motivations. These factors necessitate ethnographic and

conceptual approaches rather than traditional multivariate analyses (McClelland, 1973;

Messick, 1989, 1995).

Raven, Raven, and Court (1998) emphasise that intelligence, as measured by the

SPM, is context-dependent and influenced by the alignment of test tasks with individual

motivation. Theoretical models highlight that intelligence is an emergent property of group or

cultural dynamics rather than solely an individual trait. Effective validation, therefore,

requires identifying the activities and competencies where individuals demonstrate their

abilities, underscoring the need for nuanced assessment methodologies.

Significant research findings of SPM

Correlations with School Performance

Compared to "intelligence" tests, correlations between the RPM and performance on

achievement and scholastic aptitude tests are typically lower and much more variable,

ranging from extremely low to very high. Correlations generally range from 0.20 to 0.60

when the external criterion is teacher estimations or school grades. Measures of maths and
 5

science proficiency typically show stronger connections than language and general academic

performance.

Neurological and Neuropsychological Correlates

A thorough analysis of the literature pertaining to neuropsychological applications of

the RPM by Court, Drebing, and Hughes (in Raven, 2000b) concludes that "various brain

functions are involved, i.e. visual-perceptual abilities, logical reasoning, concept formation,

integration of processes, etc." This is in contrast to claims in the popular psychological and

scientific press that the neurological basis of 9 in the brain has been localised. Because

multiple cortical regions seem to be involved, localisation becomes challenging. Despite this,

comparing RPM scores to those from other tests can assist in pinpointing the location of brain

damage.

Number of Items and Skills Assessed in SPM:

According to Burke (1958), The Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) consists of 60

items organised into five sets (A to E), with each set progressively increasing in complexity.

Each item requires the test-taker to analyse visual patterns and identify the missing element

from multiple-choice options.

The test evaluates abstract reasoning, emphasising the ability to identify

relationships and patterns among visual stimuli. Additionally, it measures problem-solving

skills, requiring logical analysis to deduce solutions. SPM also assesses fluid intelligence,

defined as the capacity for adaptive and novel reasoning independent of prior knowledge.

These features make SPM a reliable tool for intellectual assessments.

Application of SPM

Clinical Psychology: The SPM is used to assess intellectual abilities and cognitive function

in clinical settings, especially for diagnosing intellectual disabilities, developmental disorders

(such as autism), or cognitive impairments caused by trauma or ageing.

Neuropsychological Testing: It helps evaluate individuals with neurological conditions, like

brain injuries, dementia, or Alzheimer's disease, to determine their cognitive functioning in

abstract reasoning tasks.

Subject Details

Name: D. L.

Age: 21

Date of Birth: 18 June 2003

Gender: Female

Education: Post Graduate Student

Referred by: Dr. Uma Krishnan

Presenting Concerns: Deepika was referred for testing due to academic concerns.

Purpose of Testing: The test was conducted for academic purposes to evaluate the subject's

intellectual capacities and identify any specific cognitive strengths or areas for development.

Behavioural Observations: During the testing session, Deepika appeared relaxed and

maintained focus throughout the process. Her behaviour was cooperative, and she exhibited a

positive attitude towards completing the test.

Test Results

Table 1. Individual results on RSPM

Name​ ​ Raw Score​ ​ Percentile​ Grade​​ Interpretation

DL​ ​ 50​ ​ ​ 78​ ​ II​ ​ Above Average

Table 2. Consistency scores of the client

​ ​ A​ ​ B​ ​ C​ ​ D​ ​ E​ Total

Normal ​ 12​ ​ 11​ ​ 10​ ​ 10​ ​ 7​ 50

Expected

Score

Client Score​ 12​ ​ 10​ ​ 9​ ​ 11​ ​ 8​ 50

Consistency​ 0​ ​ -1​ ​ -1​ ​ 1​ ​ 1​ 0

Score

Test Interpretation

D. L. demonstrated above-average cognitive abilities, as reflected by her raw score of

50 and a percentile rank of 78. Her performance suggests strong abstract reasoning skills and
 8

an aptitude for identifying patterns and solving problems efficiently. The quick completion of

the test further indicates her capacity for rapid cognitive processing and decision-making.

Research literature substantiates that individuals with similar SPM scores often excel

in tasks requiring analytical thinking and adaptability. These strengths can be leveraged to

address her academic concerns and enhance her educational outcomes.

Impression and Recommendation

The test indicates that D. L. possesses an above-average level of intelligence. Her

cognitive strengths suggest she is well-equipped to handle complex academic challenges.

However, to address her academic concerns effectively, the following recommendations are

suggested:

Study Strategies: Encourage using structured study schedules and active learning

techniques, such as summarisation and problem-based learning.

Skill Enhancement: Participate in workshops or courses on advanced reasoning and

analytical skills.

Support Systems: Seek regular academic guidance or mentoring to align her study

efforts with her goals.

Stress Management: Incorporate mindfulness practices or relaxation techniques to

maintain focus and reduce academic stress.

Summary

D. L., a 21-year-old postgraduate student, was referred by Dr. Uma Krishnan to

address academic concerns. The SPM assessment revealed an above-average intellectual

capacity, with a raw score of 50 and a percentile rank of 78. Her quick test completion and

observed focus underscore her strong cognitive potential. Recommendations include

structured study approaches, skill development workshops, and stress management

techniques to enhance her academic performance.

​
 10

References

John, N., & Raven, J. (2003). Raven Progressive Matrices. In Springer eBooks (pp.

223–237). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0153-4_11​

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998a). Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and

vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press;

San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Penrose, L. S. (1938). A clinical and genetic study of 1280 cases of mental defectives (the

'Colchester Survey'). Medical Research Council. Republished by the Institute of Mental

and Multiple Handicaps, 1975.

Slater E. A clinical and genetic study of 1,280 cases of mental defect. Eugen Rev. 1938

Oct;30(3):208–9. PMCID: PMC2985831.

Raven, J. (2000a). Ethical dilemmas. The Psychologist, 13, 404–406.

Raven, J. (2000b). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary scales. Research

supplement no. 3 (2nd ed.): A compendium of international and north American normative

and validity studies together with a review of the use of the RPM in neuropsychological

assessment by Court, Drebing, & Hughes. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press; San

Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Raven, J. (2000c). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and

time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1–48.

Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1995). Manual or Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary

Scales. Section 7: Research and references: Summaries of normative, reliability, and validity

studies and references to all sections. Oxford: Oxford University Press: San Antonio,

TX.: The Psychological Corporation.

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for "intelligence." American

Psychologist, 28, 1-14.

Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of

assessment. Educational Researcher, 18(2), 5–11.

Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50(9),

741-749.

Burke, H. R. (1958). Raven’s Progressive Matrices: A Review and Critical Evaluation. The

Journal of Genetic Psychology, 93(2), 199–228.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1958.10532420