Intelligence

Khushi Verma

21/973

Department of Psychology, Kamala Nehru College

BA (HONS) Psychology

Dr. Shivani Datta

June 30, 2022

 Intelligence

Aim

To assess the Spearman’s g-factor of General Intelligence (Educative Ability) of the

participant using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matric (RSPM).

Basic Concepts

Intelligence

Intelligence can be understood as the ability to acquire knowledge, thing and reason

effectively and to deal adaptively to the environment.

According to Sternberg & Kaufman (1998) and Weschler (1975), intelligence is the ability to

learn from one’s experiences, acquired knowledge and use resources effectively in adapting

to new situation on in solving problems. Oxford Dictionary explains intelligence as the power

of perceiving, learning, understanding and knowing. Binet defined intelligence as the ability

to understand well, reason well and judge well. According to Weschler, intelligence can be

defined as the global and aggregate capacity of an individual to think rationally, act

purposefully and to deal effectively with his environment. Gardener and Sternberg have

suggested that an intelligent individual not only adapts to the environment but also actively

shapes it. According to Robert Sternberg, intelligence is the ability to adapt, to shape and to

select environment to accomplish one’s goals and those of one’s society and culture.

According to the APA dictionary, intelligence is the ability to derive information, learn from

experiences, adapt to the environment, understand and correctly utilize thought and reason.

According to H.G. Wells, intelligence is a general capacity of an individual consciously to

adjust his thinking to new requirements. According to Anastasi, intelligence is not a single,

unitary ability, but rather a composite of several functions. The term denotes that

combination of abilities required for survival and advancement within a particular culture. It

is the ability to plan and structure one’s behaviour with an end in view as described by J.P.
Das. Jean Piaget propounded that intelligence is assimilation to the extent that it incorporates

all the given data of experiences within its framework and intelligence constantly modifies

itself to adjust into new elements. The psychometric approaches express the individual’s

performance in terms of a single index of cognitive abilities. On the other hand, information

processing approach describes the processes people use in intellectual reasoning and problem

solving.

Theoretical Perspective

Theories of Intelligence have evolved through a succession of various models. Four of the

most important paradigms have been-

 Psychometric

 Cognitivism

 Contextualism

 Biological sciences

Psychologists have used two major approaches in the study of intelligence according to

Sternberg (2008). The first approach is psychometric approach which attempts to map

structure of intelligence and to discover the kind of mental competencies that underlie task

performance.

Charles E. Spearman was a British psychologist, who was born on 10 September 1863 in

London, England. He is the pioneer of a popular statistical method ‘factor analysis’ and is

also known for his work on ‘Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient’ and his ‘two-factor

theory of intelligence’ which was proposed in 1904. Spearman stated that various mental

traits are not independent of each other, and there exists a common factor in all the cognitive

abilities of the person, he called this common factor a general factor or “g” factor. He

proposed that intelligence consists of two factors, i.e., the “g” factor (general ability) and the

“s” factor (specific ability), where the “g” factor is involved in every general mental ability
task of the person, and the “s” factor is responsible for only the specific intellectual abilities

of the person. The specific abilities of a person may be drawing interference, coding abilities,

mathematical abilities, and so on. According to Spearman, every individual is born with a

different level of the “g” factor, and the greater the “g” factor, the greater are the chances that

the person will succeed in various aspects of life, whereas the “s” factor is not inborn, people

acquire this factor through experiences and from their surrounding environment. The “g”

factor is shared with every other cognitive or intellectual activity of the person, but the “s”

factor is not shared with different intellectual activities, it’s specific to a particular activity.

Spearman’s two-factor theory can be applied in the education sector to analyse the

intellectual abilities of children. The “g” factor is inborn and can’t be improved, but the

performance of the students can be improved by developing their “s” factors. The schools

should organize various academics and sports activities to improve the specific abilities of the

students.

Raymond B. Cattell is credited with the development of the theory of fluid and

crystallized intelligence which was developed further with John Horn. The theory of fluid

intelligence challenges the idea of generalized intelligence factor (known as g), which

contends that intelligence is a single construct. Instead, Cattell contended that there are two

independent intelligence factors: “fluid” or gf intelligence, and "crystallized”

or gc intelligence. Fluid intelligence refers to the ability to reason and solve problems in

unique and novel situations, while crystallized intelligence refers to the ability to use

knowledge acquired through past learning or experience. When we use fluid intelligence, we

aren’t relying on any pre-existing knowledge. Instead, we are using logic, pattern recognition,

and abstract thinking to solve new problems. We use fluid intelligence when we encounter

novel, often nonverbal tasks, such as math problems and puzzles. It also plays a role in the

creative process, as when someone picks up a paintbrush or starts plucking on a piano with
no prior training. When you use crystallized intelligence, you reference your pre-existing

knowledge: facts, skills, and information you learned in school or from past experience.

You utilize crystallized intelligence when you encounter tasks that require the use of

previously acquired knowledge, including verbal tests in subjects like reading comprehension

or grammar. Given its reliance on the accumulation of knowledge, crystallized intelligence is

typically maintained or even increased throughout one's lifetime. Although fluid and

crystallized intelligence represent two distinct sets of abilities, they can and often do work

together. For example, when cooking a meal, you use crystallized intelligence to understand

and follow the instructions in a recipe, and use fluid intelligence when modifying spices and

other ingredients to suit your tastes or dietary requirements.

In 1993, John Carroll (1916 - 2003) published "Human cognitive abilities: A survey of

factor-analytic studies", which outlined his hierarchical, Three-Stratum Theory of cognitive

abilities. The theory is based on a factor analytic study of correlation of individual

differences variables from measures including psychological tests, school marks, and

competence ratings. The factor analysis suggests three layers or strata, with each layer

attempting to account for the variation in factor loadings at the next lower level. Thus, the

three strata are defined as representing narrow, broad, and general cognitive ability. General

(Stratum III): General intelligence factor, Broad (Stratum II): fluid intelligence,

crystallised intelligence, general memory and learning, broad visual perception, broad

auditory perception, broad retrieval ability, broad cognitive speediness and processing speed,

Narrow (Stratum I): 69 narrow abilities, each related to a specific Stratum II domain.

Carroll suggests that the distinction between level and speed factors may be the broadest

taxonomy of cognitive tasks that can be offered. Carroll distinguishes his hierarchical

approach from taxonomic approaches such as Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model (three-

dimensional model with contents, operations, and products).

The next which is known is Cognitive Self Approach, which studies the specific thought

process that underlie mental competencies.

The triarchic theory of intelligence proposes that there are three distinct types of

intelligence: practical, distinct, and analytical. It was formulated by Robert J. Sternberg, a

well-known psychologist whose research often focuses on human intelligence and creativity.

The triarchic theory is comprised of three sub theories, each of which relates to a specific

kind of intelligence: the contextual sub theory, which corresponds to practical intelligence, or

the ability to successfully function in one’s environment; the experiential sub theory, which

corresponds to creative intelligence, or the ability to deal with novel situations or issues; and

the componential sub theory, which corresponds to analytical intelligence, or the ability to

solve problems. The componential sub theory explains that there are three primary

mechanisms that people use to solve problems:

 Meta-components, or executive components, allow people to choose the best plan of

action for solving a given problem based on one's skillset.

 Performance components let people actually effectuate their plans using their

existing skills and knowledge.

 Knowledge-acquisition components are the strategies that people use to gain new

skills that let them solve similar problems in the future.

Although these components are important in all kinds of intelligence, they are most

commonly associated with analytical intelligence.

Further three kinds of problem-solving theories are:

 Practical intelligence: Sternberg called one’s ability to successfully interact with the

everyday world practical intelligence. Practical intelligence is related to the contextual

sub theory. Practically intelligent people are especially adept at behaving in successful

ways in their external environment.

  Creative intelligence: The experiential sub theory is related to creative intelligence,

which is one’s ability to use existing knowledge to create new ways to handle new

problems or cope in new situations.

 Analytical intelligence: The componential subheory is related to analytical

intelligence, which is essentially academic intelligence. Analytical intelligence is used

to solve problems and is the kind of intelligence that is measured by a standard IQ test

Sternberg observed that all three kinds of intelligence are necessary for successful

intelligence, which refers to the ability to be successful in life based on one’s abilities,

personal desires, and environment.

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences was first presented in 1983 by Howard Gardner, a

psychologist, when he published his book Frames of Mind. He declared that learning

occurred through many types of intelligences, and that people had various levels of each.

Gardner proposed that there are eight intelligences, and has suggested the possible addition of

a ninth known as "existentialist intelligence."

1. Verbal-linguistic intelligence (well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the

sounds, meanings and rhythms of words)

2. Logical-mathematical intelligence (ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and

capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns)

3. Spatial-visual intelligence (capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize

accurately and abstractly)

4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (ability to control one’s body movements and to

handle objects skillfully)

5. Musical intelligences (ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber)

6. Interpersonal intelligence (capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods,

motivations and desires of others)

7. Intrapersonal (capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs

and thinking processes)

8. Naturalist intelligence (ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other

objects in nature)

9. Existential intelligence (sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human

existence such as, “What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How did we get

here?”
Gardner’s theory has come under criticism from both psychologists and educators. These

critics argue that Gardner’s definition of intelligence is too broad and that his eight different

"intelligences" simply represent talents, personality traits, and abilities. Gardner’s theory also

suffers from a lack of supporting empirical research.

Types of Intelligence Tests

The Intelligence test is a series of tasks designed to measure the capacity to make

abstractions, to learn, and to deal with novel situations.

The most widely used intelligence tests include the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test and

the Weschler Scales.

The Binet-Simon Scale was developed by Alfred Binet and his student Theodore Simon in

1905, it consisted of 30 short tests arranged in ascending order off difficulty. The first

Stanford revision of the Binet-Simon scales, prepared by Terman and his associates at

Stanford University, was published in 1916 (Anastasi, 1982). As of 2004, the scale had been

revised five times—in 1937, 1960 (with a scoring change of this version in 1973), 1986, and

2003. The Stanford-Binet scale tests intelligence across six areas: general intelligence,

knowledge, fluid reasoning, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working

memory. These areas are covered by ten subtests that include activities measuring both verbal

and non-verbal intelligence. Activities include verbal absurdities, picture absurdities, verbal

analogies, form patterns, procedural knowledge, sentence and word memory, position and

direction, early reasoning, and quantitative reasoning. The Stanford-Binet intelligence scale is

used as a tool in school placement, in determining the presence of a learning disability or

a developmental delay, and in tracking intellectual development. In addition, it is sometimes

included in neuropsychological testing to assess the brain function of individuals with

neurological impairments.
Like most intelligent tests, the Stanford-Binet correlates highly with performance in nearly all

academic courses, but its correlations are highest with the predominantly verbal courses, such

as English and History (Anastasi, 1982). There is an assurance that Stanford-Binet measures

abilities that increase with age during childhood and adolescence in our culture.

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) intelligence quotient tests are the primary

clinical instruments used to measure adult and adolescent intelligence which was developed

by David Wechsler, who believed that intelligence was made up of different mental abilities

rather than a single general intelligence factor. The original WAIS Form I was published in

February 1955, as a revision of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale. The fourth edition

of the test (WAIS-IV) was released in 2008 by Pearson. The latest edition is the Wechsler

Adult Intelligence Scale- Revised (WAIS-R), published in 1981. It comprises of eleven

subsets. Six of them constitute the Verbal Scale and five of them Performance Scale.

Culture and Intelligence

Intelligence cannot be fully or even meaningfully understood outside its cultural context.

Work that seeks to study intelligence contextually risks the imposition of an investigator's

view of the world on the rest of the world. Moreover, work on intelligence within a single

culture may fail to do justice to the range of skills and knowledge that may constitute

intelligence broadly defined and risks drawing false and hasty generalizations. Studies of

performances by people, especially children, in different cultures suggest that the strengths of

individuals across cultures are not necessarily well represented by conventional intelligence

tests. For example, in some cultures, knowledge of herbal medications used to combat

parasitic illnesses, or knowledge of hunting and gathering, or knowledge of how to

effectively ice fish, can be more important to assessing intelligence than scores on a

standardized test. Eskimo children may know how to navigate across the frozen tundra in the

winter without obvious landmarks, yet they may not be able to attain high scores on
conventional intelligence tests. Some of those who would score highly on such tests would be

unable to do such navigation, to their peril. There is no such thing as a culture-free test of

intelligence, and there probably is no test that is genuinely culture-fair either. At best, tests

should be culture-relevant, measuring the cognitive and other skills relevant to effectively

adapt to particular cultures. These skills are likely to be partially but not fully overlapping

across cultures. Thus, intelligence needs to be understood in its cultural contexts, not

divorced from such contexts.

Uses of Intelligence Tests

 These tests can be helpful in engaging individual’s potential, academics and

otherwise.

 These tests can also help in checking vocational fitness.

 The tests are used in educational settings in identification of the proficiency level of

the student and can also serve as a basis for classification and grading.

 Intelligence tests are also used to compare individual’s performance with others.

 Various tests are being used for recruitment and selection purposes.

 Intelligence tests may also help in identification of individuals with some form of

learning difficulties.

 Another important application is detection of intellectual deficiencies for clinical and

other purposes.

Limitations of Intelligence Tests

 It is extremely difficult to design intelligence test that is independent of a person’s

culture or learning process. Experts and test designers have struggled for several

decades to remove the bias that tends to be present in this tool. Even when there are

progressive matrices used to avoid issues with language ability, the mainstream tests
 still require individuals to have an average knowledge of the language involved with a

solid foundation of general information that they can use.

 Use of labels such as “gifted or talented” can develop unrealistic self-concept about

people and lead them to a place where they feel superior and look down to others.

 The intelligence tests only measure one form of intelligence and this can not become

the foundation of the entire learning process. There are multiple forms of intelligence

and people can be gifted in numerous ways, including the creative aspects like kinetic,

musical, intrapersonal intelligence. They are just as essential to the human experience

as mathematics and verbal skills.

 Intelligence tests are normed on students with relatively privileged backgrounds and

experiences, and this creates a bias in scoring. These norms put students from higher

income families at an advantage over students from lower income families, because

the advantaged students have more access to resources and enriching experiences.

 The information and results of intelligence tests are used inconsistently throughout

societies. Each test provides different results, therefore, one the procedure of one test

can not be applied on other tests as well to identify gifted traits of an individual.

 When the intelligence tests are conducted in schools, then it leads to identifying the

individuals with highest and lowest scores and then segmenting them to make the

teaching process easier. This segmentation doesn’t provide them the opportunity to

learn from one another and create an unfriendly environment in school.

History and Description of RSPM

The Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was developed by J Raven, J.C. Raven and

H.C. Court. It consists of 60 non-verbal, multiple-choice items divided into 5 sets A, B, C, D

and E each comprising of 12 problems. The test was constructed to measure the eductive

component of g, as defined in Spearman’s theory of intelligence. The problems are simpler in

the beginning and become more and more difficult as one proceeds towards the last item

that’s why it is called progressive. It is the most common and popular test administered to

groups ranging from 5 years olds to the elderly. The original form of the matrices was first

published in 1938. This test measures abstract intelligence of an individual. In each test item,

the subject is asked to identify the missing item that completes a pattern. Many patterns are

presented in the form of a 4x4, 3x3, or 2x2 matrix, giving the test its name.

The tests were developed for research purposes, because of their independence of language

and reading and writing skills, and the simplicity of their use and interpretation, they quickly

found widespread practical application. For example, all entrants to the British armed forces

from 1942 onwards took a twenty- minute version of the SPM.

The matrices have three different forms namely:

 Standard Progressive Matrices- These are appropriate for children and teens ages 6

– 16. There are 5 sets of 12 items each (e.g., A1 through A12, 60 in total), with items

within a set becoming increasingly difficult, requiring ever greater cognitive capacity

to encode and analyse information. All items are presented in black ink on a white

background. These were the original form of the matrices first publishes in 1938.

 Coloured Progressive Matrices- It is basically designed for younger children, the

elderly, and people with moderate learning disabilities, this test contains sets A and B

from the standard matrices, with a further set of 12 items inserted between the two, as

set AB. Most items are presented on a coloured background to make the test visually

stimulating for participants.

 Advanced Progressive Matrices- The advanced form of the matrices contains 48

items, presented as one set of 12 (set I), and another of 36 (set II). Items are again

presented in black ink on a white background, and become increasingly difficult as

 progress is made through each set. These items are appropriate for adults and

adolescents of above-average intelligence.

In each set the first problem is as nearly as possible self-evident. The following problems

become progressively more difficult. 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 missing

pieces to complete a pattern and to be sufficiently long to assess s person’s maximum

capacity to form comparisons and reason by analogy without being unduly exhausting.

Theoretical Rationale

Over forty studies dealing with the reliability of the SPM have been reported in the literature.

They cover very wide range, many cultural groups and clinical as well as normal populations.

Results have been summed up in the table below:

Age Range (years) SPM Retest Reliability MHV Retest Correlation between
Reliability SPM and MHV
Scores
13+ -1 .88 .87 .57

Under 30 .93 .97 .60

30-39 .88 .91 .51

40-49 .87 .98 .45

50 and over .83 .90 .44

The concurrent and predictive validities of the SPM vary with the age, sex, the homogeneity

of the sample and the conceptual relevance of the criterion to which the SPM will be related

and the quality of its assessment.

For English speaking children and adolescents, reliable correlation of SPM with the Binet and

Weschler Scales range from .54 to .86 (Raven, 1948; Taibl, 1951; Banks and Sinha, 1951).
Some American studies with adults have yielded very high correlations between SPM and

WAIS scores (Burke and Bingham, 1966; Sheppard et al, 1968).

Uses of RPM

Besides its acceptance as a culture-reduce test suitable for individuals from diverse social and

cultural background, Raven’s Matrices are also accepted as a test of choice for individuals

with ID, or deprived linguistic background (Kline, 2000).

Procedure

This will include the material required, arrangement of material, rapport formation, collecting

the preliminaries, administration of the test, precautions while taking the test, introspective

report, behavioural observation and scoring of the test. This is explained in the following

section.

Preliminaries

Name- XYZ

Age- 18 years

Gender- Female

Course- BA Programme

Place of conduction- College

Time of conducti- 37 minutes

Date of conduction- 27.06.2022

Material Required

The following materials are required to conduct the test:

 RSPM Test Booklet

 RSPM Response Sheet

 RSPM Manual

 RSPM Scoring Key

  Stationary

Precautions

 The room should be well lit and well ventilated.

 There should not be any noise in the room.

 The seating arrangement should be comfortable.

 There is no time limit however, time of start and finish were noted.

 Instructions should be made clear to the respondent.

 No item should be left unanswered.

 Proper rapport should be established before starting the test.

Introspective Report

Rapport Formation
The subject was called to the room and was made to sit comfortably. A friendly conversation

was held by asking her about her schooling, her parents, friends and her interests in general.

When the respondent felt at ease, she was asked if she was ready for the test to begin. After

an affirmative answer from her, she was given the following instructions.

Instructions

The tester opens the book at the first illustration and say:

“At the top it says Set A and you have a column A here, on your scoring form. This is A1.

You see what it is. The upper part is a pattern with a bit missing. Each of the bits below is the

right shape to fit the space but they do not all complete the pattern. Number 1 is quite the

wrong pattern, number 2 and 3 are wrong- they fit the space but they are not the right pattern.

What about number 6? It is the right pattern but it does not go all over. Put your finger on the

one that is quite right.”

“Yes number 4 is the right one so the answer to A1 is 4- write 4 here, against number 1 in

column A on your scoring form. Do not turn over yet.

“On every page in your book there is a pattern with a bit missing. You have to decide each

time which of the bits below is the right one to complete the pattern above. When you have

found the right bit you write the number of it down on your scoring form against the number

of the pattern. They are simple at the beginning and get harder as you go on. There is no

catch. If you pay attention to the way the easy ones go you will find the later ones less

difficult. Try each in turn, from the beginning right to the end of the book. Work at your own

pace. Do not miss any out. Do not turn back. Se how many you can get right. You can have

as much time as you like. Turn over and do the next one.

The right one if course is number 5. See that you have written the figure 5 against number 2

in column A on your form. Go on like that by yourself until you get to the end of the book.”

Arrangement of Material
Before the respondent entered the room; all the necessary arrangements were done. The test

book and a separate response sheet along with a pen were ready on the table. A comfortable

seating position was also made ready for the subject. When all these necessary arrangements

were made, the respondent was called in.

Administration

After arranging the materials for the test, respondent was called in the room and was made

comfortable. As the instructions were given, the test material was provided to the respondent

and they were asked to fill in the necessary details. The tester ensured that the instructions

were clear and understood. After the test was completed, an introspective report was taken

then her answer sheet was taken for scoring. Finally, the teste was thanked for his/her

participation.

Scoring

Scoring is done by hand, with the help of a scoring key. Right answers are given 1 mark and

wrong answers are given zero. Then all the marks for each column are added. Thereafter, a

single score is obtained by adding the total scores of the five columns. The percentile score

and grade corresponding to this are noted down from the manual for analysis.

Discrepancy score- The difference between the score a person obtains on each set and that

normally expected for his total score is called Discrepancy Score shown numerically as 0, -1,

+2, -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 expected at its face value as a consistent estimate of his general capacity

for intellectual activity. However, for general purposes the total score appears to be relatively

valid even when discrepancies of more than 2 points occur in the break up.

Results

Table 1:

Depicting the discrepancy scores of participant’ on the 5 sets of RSPM.

 Sets A B C D E

Obtained 11 11 10 11 4

Expected 12 11 9 10 5

Discrepancies 1 0 -1 -1 1

Table 2:

Depicting overall raw scores, nature of discrepancy score, percentile score, and grade.

Overall Raw Score 47

Nature of Discrepancy Score

Percentile Score

Grade III+

Interpretation

The purpose of study was to assess the Spearman’s g-factor of General Intelligence (Eductive

Ability) of the participant using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matric (RSPM). 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, see 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. The person’s total score provides an index of his intellectual

capacity. The test is often useful to describe the scale as a test of observation and clear

thinking.

The response for the teste has been as per the rules. According to the manual, the discrepancy

scores were checked to establish consistency in responses and to rule out guess work. The

overall score was then converted to percentile point using a normative table. The detailed
interpretation of the respondent’s performance on each of the five sets and the overall

summative scores is given below.

History of participant

The participant was 18 old female. She was born and brought up in Delhi only sine her birth.

She comes from a nuclear family where there are 4 people in the house. Her mother is a

working woman and father is a business man. She has a sibling, a younger brother. She 2

generally likes to play basketball and badminton. She is also trying her hands into painting as

a leisure activity. She is an adventurous and fun-loving person.

The overall summative score of the participant is 47 as can be seen in Table 2, which

corresponds to a percentile point of 75 and a grade of III.

Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to assess the Spearman’s g-factor of General Intelligence

(Educative Ability) of the participant using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matric (RSPM).

The participant obtained an overall score of 47 with a corresponding percentile of 75 and a

grade of three which falls above the upper quartile indicating that she is intellectually

average.
References

Atikson & Hilgard. ( 2009). Introduction to Psychology ( 15th edition).Wadsworth Cengage

Learning

Ciccarelli, S.K.,& White, J.N. ( 2015). Psycholgy ( 4TH edition). Person Edition.

J Raven, J.C. Raven and H.C Court 1936, Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices

Misra, G.,R. (2016).Psychology ( Indian Subcontinent edition). Pearson Education.

Passer, M.W., & Smith, R.E. ( 2008). Psychology: The scinece of mind and behaviour (4th

edition). McGraw-Hill Higher Education