Raven’s Progressive Matrices 2 - Clinical Edition
Introduction
Raven’s Progressive Matrices is a widely used, non-verbal test of general cognitive
capacity, especially for abstract reasoning and problem-solving (Raven, 2000., Raven et al.,
1998). The central aim was to develop a battery that minimises the influence of language,
schooling, and cultural background so that people from diverse populations could be measured
on a more equal footing (Raven, 2000).
Origin of the Test
It was developed in the 1930s by J. C. Raven, based on Spearman's original theory that
performance on different mental tasks depends on a common underlying general intelligence
factor, usually calledg(Raven 2000., Spearman, 1927).The first ever formal publication of this
test was in 1938 with the name “Standard Progressive Matrices” (SPM), which consisted of 60
items divided into five sets (A-E) of 12 items each in ascending order of difficulty.
Purpose and Rationale
Raven’s Progressive Matrices is used to assess general cognitive capacity, independent of
spoken or written language (Raven, 2000; Raven et al., 1998). A key assumption is that by using
abstract visual patterns instead of vocabulary or academic content, RPM reduces cultural and
educational bias, giving a relatively fairer index of reasoning across individuals with different
backgrounds (Raven, 2000). Each item invites the person to look for regularities in the matrix,
infer the organising rules, and apply those rules systematically to select the correct missing piece,
which means the test taps pattern recognition, rule induction, working memory, and sustained
attention (Carpenter et al., 1990; Raven et al., 1998). Practitioners choose RPM because it is easy
to administer, suitable for both individuals and groups, and supported by extensive norms that
allow scores to be interpreted meaningfully (Raven et al., 1998; Raven, 2000). Overall, it is
intended to measure non‑verbal reasoning and fluid aspects of intelligence (Carpenter et al.,
1990; Raven, 2000).
Development of the Test
The initial development of this test began in the 1930s when John C Raven wanted to
assess the eductive reasoning and reproductive ability, parts of Spearman’s general intelligence
theory. He also wanted to create a tool that was independent of language or the requirement of
formal schooling (Raven, 2000; Spearman, 1927). Before dividing the test into 5 sets, it involved
creating numerous candidate items and then systematically studying their difficulty. In this way,
the test could be designed in an ascending order of difficulty, presenting problems in a clear
progression from simple to complex reasoning demands (Carpenter et al., 1990; Raven et al.,
1998). Eventually, the Standard Progressive Matrices were crafted for children, adolescents, and
adults using black-and-white matrices that gradually became more and more difficult (Raven et
al., 1998; Raven, 2000). Coloured Progressive Matrices were introduced when this test spread in
school and clinic circles, with more engaging coloured designs intended for younger children and
f or people with learning or communication difficulties (Raven et al., 1998). For high‑ability
adolescents and adults, the Advanced Progressive Matrices was developed, including more
demanding items that place greater strain on reasoning and working memory (Raven, 2000).
Across all editions, standardised administration and straightforward scoring systems were
established, allowing raw scores to be converted into age‑based normative scores and percentiles
(Raven et al., 1998; Raven, 2000).
Psychometric properties of the test
RPM has earned its place in assessment largely because its psychometric evidence is
strong (Raven, 2000; Brouwers et al., 2009). Studies report high reliability, with internal
consistency coefficients around 0.90, suggesting that the items work together to measure a
coherent construct of non‑verbal reasoning (Raven, 2000). Validity estimates are also substantial,
with coefficients of about 0.86 when RPM scores are compared with broader intelligence criteria,
supporting the view that it indexes general cognitive ability (Raven et al., 1998). Extensive norm
tables, extending to around 80 years of age, make it possible to convert raw scores into
age‑referenced standard scores and percentile ranks (Raven et al., 1998; Raven, 2000).
Current application of the test
Today, RPM is used in many real‑world settings because it combines practical
convenience with solid measurement qualities (Raven, 2000; Brouwers et al., 2009). In schools
and educational services, it helps teachers and psychologists get a clearer picture of a student’s
non‑verbal reasoning strengths, guide placement decisions, and contribute to the evaluation of
learning difficulties or high ability, especially when heavy language demands might be unfair
(Raven et al., 1998; Raven, 2000). In workplaces and organisational consulting, RPM may form
part of broader aptitude batteries used to anticipate success in roles where people must learn
quickly, solve novel problems, or cope with complex information (Brouwers et al., 2009).
Researchers also rely on RPM in studies of intelligence, development, and cross‑cultural
differences because it can be administered efficiently to individuals or groups and compared
across diverse populations (Raven, 2000; Brouwers et al., 2009). Even so, modern authors
caution that, despite its non‑verbal format, RPM cannot be completely isolated from cultural,
motivational, or situational influences (Raven, 2000; Brouwers et al., 2009).
Later developments of the test
Later work on RPM has tried to understand what people actually do when they solve its
problems and to keep the test up to date for different populations (Carpenter et al., 1990;
Brouwers et al., 2009). According to cognitive analyses, performance is not a single,
straightforward skill but rather reflects processes including learning rules, storing partial answers
in working memory, and testing theories about how the pattern is constructed (Carpenter et al.,
1990). Even nonverbal exams are susceptible to context, according to a meta-analytic study that
has looked at how factors like motivation, anxiety, and prior testing exposure might affect scores
(Brouwers et al., 2009). The goal of manual updates and updated norm tables is to improve
interpretation across age groups and cultures while maintaining the traditional matrix structure
(Raven et al., 1998; Raven, 2000).
im- To assess the general cognitive ability of thesubject using Raven’s Progressive Matrices
A
(RPM) 2 - Clinical Edition.
Method-
a) Subject :
Name :
Age:
Gender:
Education:
b) Materials required :
1. Raven’s 2 Manual
2. For each participant - one Test Booklet, one Answer Sheet, pencils with erasers
3. An extra Test Booklet and Answer Sheet for the examiner to provide directions
4. Stopwatch or other timing device
5. Scoring template (if hand scoring is preferred)
c) Procedure :
dministration -The examinee was greeted, seatedand provided with the materials they
A
needed. It was ensured that they recorded their name, test date and birth date on the
answer sheet. They were informed not to mark on the Test Booklet. The test was
administered in a well-lit, quiet, well-ventilated room that was free from distractions and
outside interruptions. The following instructions were given at the beginning of the test.
I nstructions -“Write only on the Answer Sheet andnot on the Test Booklet. Fill in the
circle of your response on the Answer Sheet only. Change a response by erasing it, then
fill in the circle for the new response. Double check the Test Booklet item number with
the Answer Sheet item number when marking a response, and do not mark in the blue
box on the bottom of the Answer Sheet.”
d) Precautions:
1. The testing environment was quiet, and the participant was made to sit in an
environment free from distractions or external interruptions.
2. Proper rapport was established to ensure the participant was comfortable and
motivated.
3. The subject was instructed clearly to mark answers only on the answer sheet and
not on the test booklet.
4. All materials were prepared and checked beforehand to ensure smooth
administration.
5. The subject was monitored throughout the test to ensure they followed the
instructions correctly and avoided skipping items.
6. The time limits for each section were strictly adhered to and monitored using a
stopwatch (__ minutes)
7. The subject was reminded to check item numbers carefully to avoid mismatched
responses.
8. No hints, feedback, or assistance regarding answers was provided during the test
administration.
9. The examiner also avoided giving any cues (verbal or non-verbal) that could
influence the subject’s responses.
10.Necessary breaks were allowed only as per standardised testing guidelines and
without discussing any test content.
11.The subject’s physical and emotional state was observed to ensure that fatigue,
anxiety, or discomfort did not affect performance.
e) Scoring :
The scoring was done by following the steps below.
1. C
alculating the Test Age - the examinee’s test age was calculated to obtain the
derived scores by subtracting his or her birth date from the test date. For these
computations, all months are assumed to have 30 days, and ages are not rounded
up to the nearest month or year. For example, the age of 8 years 11 months 26
days is not rounded up, and scores are derived according to the age of 8 years 11
months, even though the examinee is nearly nine years old. The test age was
recorded in the blank area below the Test Date and Birth Date boxes.
2. T
otal Raw Score (TRS) - Referring to the answer key for each item set, sum the
total number of correct responses that appear in the circles and the total on the
Answer Sheet in the appropriate section. For ages 4:0 - 8:11 and 80:0 - 90:11, sum
items A, B and C (maximum total raw score = 36) and for ages 9:0 - 79:11, sum
items set B, C, D and E (maximum total score = 48). Table 2.6 also provides an
answer key for each item set if the scoring template is not available or when the
Test Booklet is used to record responses.
3. A
bility Score (AS) - The ability score is based on the item sets administered (e.g.,
sets A-C or sets B-E). Using Table A.1, find the appropriate Paper From item set
that the examinee was administered and determine the ability score that
corresponds to her or his total raw score. Enter the ability score on the Answer
Sheet in the appropriate section.
4. S
tandard Score (SS) - Standard Scores are based on the examinee’s test age and
her or his ability score. Find the examinee’s test age (year and month) at the top of
Table A.2, locate the examinee’s ability score (AS) and read across to the
appropriate age column to the left to determine the standard score. Enter the
standard score on the Answer Sheet in the appropriate section.
5. C
onfidence Interval (CI) - Table A.2 provides the critical values needed to
establish confidence intervals at the bottom of each age-appropriate column.
Calculate the confidence interval range by adding and subtracting the critical
value to the standard score, based on selecting either the 90% or 95% confidence
level. Enter this range on the Answer Sheet in the appropriate section.
6. P
ercentile Rank (PR), Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE), Stanine/Standard Nine
(STA), and Descriptive Classification (DC) - Table A.3 provides the percentile
rank, NCE, Stanine and Descriptive Classification that corresponds to each
obtainable standard score. Locate the examinee’s standard score and read across
to the appropriate column to determine the percentile rank, NCE, stanine, and
descriptive classification. Enter these numbers on the Answer Sheet in the
appropriate sections.
7. A
ge Equivalent (AE) - Age equivalents are only available for ages 4:00 - 19:11.
Use Table A.4 to determine the examinee’s age equivalent that corresponds to her
or his ability score. Enter this value on the Answer Sheet in the appropriate
section.
References
Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven’s
Progressive Matrices scores across time and place.Learning and Individual Differences,
19(3), 330–338.[Link]
Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A
theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test.
Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431.[Link]
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time.
Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48.[Link]
Raven, J. C., Raven, J., & Court, J. H. (1998).Manualfor Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales. Oxford Psychologists Press.
Spearman, C. (1927).The abilities of man: Their natureand measurement. Macmillan.
[Link]