Coloured Progressive Matrices

Introduction

1. The Author: John Carlyle Raven

The Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) was developed by British psychologist

John Carlyle Raven. Raven’s work was heavily influenced by his mentor, Charles Spearman,
who proposed the two-factor theory of intelligence. Raven aimed to create a test that could
measure the "eductive" component of intelligence -the ability to think clearly and make sense
of complexity independent of language or cultural background. (Raven, 2000). Later, the test
was revised and standardized by J. C. Raven, and J. H. Court, making it widely applicable
across different age groups and cultures.

2. What is Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM)?

Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) is a non-verbal intelligence tests that assesses an

individual’s ability to reason, perceive relationship and solve problems involving abstract
figures. The test consists of a series of visual patterns or matrices, each with one part missing.
The examinee must identify the correct missing piece from the given alternatives by
understanding the underlying pattern or rule.

RPM is designed to measure fluid intelligence, which refers to the capacity to think
logically and solve new problems independent of acquired knowledge, language, or formal
education.

The term "Progressive" refers to the fact that the tasks start easy and become
increasingly difficult as the test taker progresses. Each item presents a visual pattern (a
matrix) with a missing part that the participant must identify from several options.

3. Forms of the RPM

The Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RPM) are categorized based on their difficulty
level and the population they are intended to measure. While they all follow the same logic
finding the missing piece of a pattern their complexity varies significantly. Thus, Raven’s test
exists in three primary forms, tailored to different populations:

●​ Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)

●​ Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)
●​ Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM)

Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)

​The SPM is the original version of the test, first published in 1938.

​Design: It contains 60 items divided into five sets (A, B, C, D, and E) of 12 items each. The
matrices are printed in black and white.

Nature of Items: Early items involve simple pattern completion, Later items require
multiple-rule reasoning, Emphasizes perception of relationships and logical analysis

Measures: Fluid intelligence, General reasoning ability, Non-verbal problem-solving skills

Purpose: It is intended for the general population, ranging from children aged 9 to adults
aged 80. It measures "average" intellectual capacity and is frequently used in schools and
workplace recruitment. (Raven, 2000).

​Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM)

The APM is a high-level version of the test used to differentiate between people (12 to 68+
age range) of superior intellectual ability.

​Design: It consists of 48 items (Set I with 12 items for practice and Set II with 36 items for
the actual assessment). Like the SPM, it is in black and white.

Nature of Items: Requires advanced logical reasoning, Demands integration of several

abstract rules simultaneously, Minimal chance of guessing due to high complexity

Purpose: It is used primarily for university students, executives, and individuals who score in
the top 20% of the population on the Standard version. It is designed to be very difficult to
avoid a "ceiling effect" (where a smart person gets every answer right and their true limit isn't
found). (Pearson Clinical, 2021).
Coloured Progressive Matrices

The Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) is a non-verbal assessment tool developed by J.C.
Raven to measure "eductive ability"—the capacity to perceive patterns, identify relationships,
and make sense of complex information without relying on language or prior academic
knowledge. It is a modified version of the Standard Progressive Matrices, specifically
adapted for populations where the standard test might be too difficult or insufficiently
engaging. (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998)

Key Distinctions of the CPM:

●​ Visual Engagement: the CPM items are presented against brightly coloured
backgrounds. This is intended to stimulate interest and reduce the "task resistance"
often seen in younger children or those with cognitive impairments.
●​ Logical Structure: It consists of 36 items divided into three sets (A, Ab, B).

Set A: Focuses on the ability to perceive "wholeness" and continuous patterns.

Set Ab: Requires the ability to perceive discrete figures as related wholes.

Set B: Measures the ability to think in analogies and understand the relationship between
different parts of a pattern.

●​ The inclusion of Set Ab is a unique feature of the CPM, designed to bridge the gap
between simple pattern completion (Set A) and higher-level analytical reasoning (Set
B).
●​ Clinical Utility: It is considered a "culture-fair" test, meaning it minimizes the
influence of a participant's cultural, ethnic, or educational background on their final
score.

Target Age Group:

●​ Children: Ages 5 to 11 years.

●​ Elderly Populations: For clinical use in assessing neurodegenerative conditions like
dementia.
 ●​ Special Populations: Individuals with hearing impairments, physical disabilities, or
moderate to severe learning difficulties where verbal testing is not feasible. (Pearson
Clinical, 2021).

History

[Link] "Eductive" Logic

· ​ ​Raven’s work was based on Charles Spearman’s two factor theory (General
Intelligence). He believed intelligence had two main components:

· ​ ​Reproductive Ability: Remembering and using information you’ve already learned

(like vocabulary).

· ​ ​Eductive Ability: The ability to make sense of chaos, see patterns in new information,
and "draw out" (educe) meaning.

· ​ The Concept of "Education": Raven sought to create a "pure" measure of g by

focusing on eductive ability—the ability to find meaning in confusion and generate
new insights without relying on previous knowledge (crystallized intelligence).

· ​ Raven developed the first experimental versions of the matrices using hand-drawn
geometric shapes, aiming for a test that was "culture-fair" and independent of
language.

II. The Birth of the Standard Version (1938)

· ​ Before the Coloured version, the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) was released.

· ​ It was soon discovered that the SPM was too difficult for children under age 8 and
adults with severe cognitive impairment. They often became discouraged by the
stark, repetitive black-and-white patterns, leading to "random guessing."

III. The Development of the CPM (1947 – 1956)

1. The Experimental Phase (1948)

The CPM began as an experimental "Board Form" of the test.

 · ​ Initial Composition: It consisted of Sets A and B from the Standard Progressive
Matrices (SPM), plus 15 new intermediate problems.

· ​ Target Group: It was tested on 291 children (ages 5 to 10) in Dumfries, Scotland.

· ​ Findings: Researchers found that for very young children, the "Board Form" (using
movable pieces) was more engaging and better at showing the "nature of the
problem" than the printed "Book Form."

2. Item Analysis and Refinement

To ensure the test was both reliable and had a smooth progression of difficulty, a detailed
item analysis was conducted:

· ​ Problem Selection: 39 initial problems were analyzed. Researchers plotted the

percentage of correct choices against total scores.

· ​ Trimming: Three problems from Set Ab were removed because they showed
fluctuating trends rather than a consistent increase in difficulty as the total score
increased.

· ​ Final Structure: The remaining 12 problems were rearranged by difficulty. This

resulted in the final version of 36 problems divided into three sets: A, Ab, and B.

3. Key Versions (Forms) of the CPM

· ​ Board Form -Problems are presented as boards with a missing piece; the child
chooses from physical, movable blocks.

· ​ Book Form -A printed version on brightly coloured backgrounds to hold a child's

attention.

· ​ Parallel Form -Introduced in 1998, this version uses new items that match the logic
and difficulty of the "Classic" version exactly. Preventing "coaching" or
memorization and providing a valid re-test option.

4. Validation and Standardisation

Development didn't stop at creating the questions; it required rigorous statistical proof:
 · ​ 1949 Standardisation: A representative sample of 608 children (and another 627 who
had moved or were in special schools) was used to establish "norms" or average
scores.

· ​ Cross-Test Correlation: The CPM has a high correlation (0.80 to 0.90) with other
established tests like the Terman-Merrill and Crichton Vocabulary Scale, proving it
effectively measures general intelligence.

IV. Expansion and Global Use (1960s–1990s)

​The CPM became a global standard because it could be used anywhere without translation.

· ​ ​The Crichton Vocabulary Scale: To fulfil Spearman’s theory that intelligence has two
parts, the CPM was paired with the Crichton Vocabulary Scale to measure
"reproductive" (acquired) knowledge alongside "eductive" (fluid) reasoning.

· ​ ​The Flynn Effect: During this period, researchers discovered that CPM scores were
rising globally by about 3 points per decade, leading to the regular update of "norms"
(the average scores for each age group).

​V. Modern Evolution (1998–Present)

· ​ ​1998 Parallel Form: To combat "test sophistication" (people becoming familiar with
the classic items), a Parallel Form was developed. These are new items that are
mathematically identical in difficulty to the originals but use different patterns.

· ​ ​The Digital Era (Raven’s 2): By 2020, the CPM was integrated into the Raven’s 2.
This version uses an "item bank" on tablets to ensure no two children see the exact
same sequence of items, making the test more secure and easier to score instantly.

Theoretical Background

Spearman’s Two factor theory:, specifically targeting the "eductive" component of g, which
is the ability to extract meaning from complexity and identify relationships within novel
patterns (Raven, 2000). While Spearman’s theory acknowledges specific abilities (s), the
RCPM is designed to minimize these—such as verbal fluency or mathematical training—by
using non-verbal, visual-spatial puzzles that require raw "mental energy" to solve.
Consequently, a high performance on the RCPM reflects a robust capacity for logical
reasoning and mental clarity, serving as a practical application of Spearman's belief that a
single underlying factor governs universal cognitive efficiency (Spearman, 1927).

In the context of the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM), Gestalt perceptual
theory explains the cognitive mechanism used to solve each puzzle, as the test requires the
brain to organize fragmented visual inputs into a unified "whole" (Gestalt). Success on the
RCPM depends on the test-taker's ability to apply principles such as closure, where the mind
instinctively fills in the missing piece of a pattern, and continuity, where the eye follows the
logical flow of lines and shapes across a matrix. Analyzing RCPM performance through this
lens reveals that the test does not merely measure abstract reasoning, but specifically
evaluates perceptual organization—the capacity to move beyond "local" details to perceive
the "global" structure of a problem.

The Principle of Progressive Difficulty is the structural theory underpinning the RCPM,
designed so that the test itself acts as a training manual for the brain. This "progressive"
approach arranges puzzles in an increasing order of complexity, allowing the test-taker to
develop the mental strategies required for later, harder problems by solving the earlier,
simpler ones. As a person moves through the three sets—A, Ab, and B—the cognitive
demand shifts from basic perceptual completion (Gestalt) to sophisticated analogical
reasoning (eduction), ensuring that the final score reflects not just static knowledge, but the
ability to learn and adapt to new logical rules in real-time.

Raymond Cattell’s theory of intelligence, most notably articulated in his seminal work
"Abilities: Their Structure, Growth, and Action" (1971), posits that general intelligence is
bifurcated into two primary components: Fluid Intelligence (G_f) and Crystallized
Intelligence (G_c). Fluid intelligence refers to the biological, innate capacity to solve novel
problems and identify abstract patterns—measured effectively by non-verbal tests like
Raven's CPM—and is known to peak in early adulthood before gradually declining (Cattell,
1963). Conversely, Crystallized intelligence is the product of "investing" fluid ability into
cultural and educational experiences, resulting in an accumulated store of knowledge and
verbal skills that typically remains stable or increases across the lifespan. This dual-model
framework, often referred to as the Gf-Gc theory, laid the essential groundwork for the
modern Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) hierarchy, which remains the most empirically supported
taxonomy of cognitive abilities in contemporary psychology (McGrew, 2009).

Evaluation of the Test

Merits:
1. Culture-fair and language-independent

●​ CPM is a non-verbal test that relies on visual pattern completion rather than
language.
●​ This minimizes linguistic and educational bias, making it suitable for ESL learners,
immigrants, and individuals with speech or language impairments (Raven, Raven, &
Court, 1998)

2. Strong theoretical foundation

●​ CPM is grounded in Spearman’s general intelligence (g) and is widely regarded as a

measure of fluid intelligence.
●​ Its focus on reasoning and problem solving supports strong construct validity within
mainstream intelligence theory (Raven et al., 1998).

3. Easy and efficient administration

●​ CPM has simple instructions, short administration time, and straightforward scoring.
●​ The use of coloured stimuli helps sustain attention in young children and individuals
with reduced concentration (Raven et al., 1998).

4. Clinical usefulness in special populations

●​ CPM is effective for individuals with neurological, motor, or speech impairments,

where verbal testing is impractical.
 ●​ Its use in children with cerebral palsy supports its role in neuropsychological and
rehabilitation settings (Pueyo et al., 2008).

Demerits
1. Over-reliance on a single total score

●​ Standard CPM interpretation is based on one total score, assuming all items measure
the same ability.
●​ This approach ignores qualitative differences in cognitive processing across items
(Antoniou et al., 2022).

2. Culture-fair but not culture-free

●​ Cross-cultural and longitudinal studies show performance varies with education,

familiarity with abstract symbols, and societal factors.
●​ Interpretation therefore requires appropriate and updated norms (Raven, 2000;
Brouwers et al., 2009).

3. Practice and retest effects

●​ Repeated exposure to matrix problems can improve performance through familiarity

and strategy learning.
●​ This may inflate scores on reassessment and reduce accuracy over time (Bors &
Vigneau, 2003).

4. Vulnerability to guessing

●​ The multiple-choice format allows correct answers by chance, especially in younger

or low-ability individuals.
●​ Guessing can artificially inflate scores and distort ability estimation.

5. Vulnerability to careless responding

 ●​ High-ability individuals may miss easy items due to inattention, anxiety, or low
motivation.
●​ This can lead to underestimation of true cognitive ability.

6. Ceiling effects in higher-ability groups

●​ CPM was designed primarily for younger or lower-ability populations.

●​ As a result, it may not adequately differentiate among higher-ability children or older
adolescents (Raven et al., 1998).

Applications of the Test

1. Assessment of intelligence in young children

●​ CPM is specifically designed for children between 5 and 11 years, with items
arranged in increasing difficulty across Sets A, Ab, and B.
●​ It is widely used to assess early reasoning and problem-solving abilities in preschool
and primary-school children (Raven, 1956; Kuroda, 1959).

2. Cross-cultural assessment of intelligence

●​ CPM is well suited for cross-cultural use because it relies on abstract, non-verbal
patterns rather than culturally specific language or knowledge.
●​ Studies have shown comparable performance patterns across different countries,
supporting its application in culturally diverse populations (Rimoldi, 1948; Raven,
1956; Kuroda, 1959).

3. Assessment of individuals with limited language abilities

●​ Due to its simple instructions and non-verbal response format, CPM can be
administered to individuals who speak or understand very little language.
 ●​ This makes it useful for assessing intelligence in linguistically diverse populations
where verbal tests may be inappropriate or misleading (Raven, 1956; Kuroda, 1959).

4. Use with individuals with physical or speech impairments

●​ CPM places minimal demands on speech and fine motor responses, especially when
administered in the Board Form.
●​ It is therefore applicable for individuals with physical disabilities, speech
impairments, or motor limitations, where traditional intelligence tests are difficult to
administer (Raven, 1956; Kuroda, 1959).

5. Clinical assessment of individuals with intellectual or neurological difficulties

●​ CPM can be used to assess individuals who are intellectually subnormal or mentally
deteriorated, as it does not rely on formal education or verbal skills.
●​ Its engaging format often results in better cooperation compared to other intelligence
tests (Kuroda, 1959).

6. Supplementary use alongside other intelligence tests

●​ CPM is frequently used in combination with other measures such as vocabulary or

standardized intelligence tests.
●​ Raven recommended pairing CPM with a vocabulary scale to separately assess
reasoning ability and cultural attainment, providing a more complete cognitive profile
(Raven, 1956; Kuroda, 1959).

7. Research tool for studying reasoning and cognitive processes

●​ Each CPM item is designed to elicit specific forms of reasoning, making the test
useful in experimental and psychometric research.
●​ Factor-analytic studies have shown that CPM items tap common reasoning factors as
well as spatial and perceptual components (Rimoldi, 1948; Kuroda, 1959).
Research Studies

PAPER 1 : The Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices in Healthy Children: A Qualitative

Approach.​
Author: Daniela Smirni 2020​
Published by : Brain Sciences

Objective:
The study aimed to identify the cognitive processes involved in children’s performance
on Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices by analyzing item clusters rather than relying on
total scores.

Method:​
The study employed a cross-sectional design in which Raven’s Coloured Progressive
Matrices were administered to children, and performance was analyzed using item-level
cluster analysis rather than relying solely on total scores.

Sample:​
The sample included typically developing children aged approximately 6–11 years,
with children having neurological or developmental disorders excluded.

Key Findings:

●​ The findings indicated that CPM performance reflects multiple cognitive processes
and is not unidimensional.
●​ Early items relied mainly on visuo-perceptual abilities, whereas later items required
greater attention and reasoning.
●​ Age-related progression was evident, with older children performing better on more
complex reasoning items.
●​ Analysis of item clusters provided more meaningful information about children’s
cognitive functioning and helped identify specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

Conclusion:​
The study concluded that Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices assess multiple
cognitive abilities in children and that a cluster-based, qualitative approach allows for a more
accurate and a better understanding of cognitive development than total scores alone.
PAPER 2 : A normative and reliability study for the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices
for primary school aged children from Victoria, Australia
Author: Sue M. Cotton et al. (2005)
Published by- Personality and Individual Differences

Purpose:​
The study aimed to establish age-based normative data and examine the reliability of
Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) for primary-school–aged children in Victoria,
Australia, to support accurate assessment of non-verbal reasoning in this population.

Method:​
A cross-sectional design was used in which children completed the full CPM.
Reliability was evaluated through internal consistency and split-half reliability analyses.
Normative data were generated by calculating percentile scores for six age groups, allowing
comparison of individual performance relative to same-age peers.

Sample:​
The sample consisted of 618 typically developing children aged 6.0 to 11.9 years,
recruited from several primary schools. Gender representation was balanced. Children with
identified neurological or developmental disorders were excluded to ensure the norms
reflected typical cognitive development.

Key Findings:​
The CPM showed strong internal consistency and split-half reliability across all age
groups. Age-based percentile norms were established, and overall performance patterns were
consistent with previously reported normative data, suggesting stability of the measure over
time. Item-level analyses indicated that some items contributed little to overall reliability,
suggesting the assessment could potentially be shortened without substantially affecting
measurement quality.

Conclusion:​
Raven’s CPM appears to be a reliable and valid measure of non-verbal reasoning in
primary-school children. The provision of age-specific norms offers meaningful benchmarks
for interpretation, while item-level findings highlight the value of looking beyond total scores
to better understand children’s cognitive performance.

Administration

Aim:
To assess the general intelligence that includes the visuoperceptual and problem solving
ability in the participant using CPM (Raven J.C, 1956)

Sociodemographic Details:
Name:
Age:
Gender:
Education:
Date of Assessment:

Materials Required:
●​ Progressive Matrices Booklet
●​ Response sheet
●​ Pencil and eraser
●​ Wooden screen
●​ Stopwatch

Procedure

Instructions:

Set A: Problems A1 to A5

●​ DO: Open the booklet to problem A1. Point to the upper figure.
●​ SAY: "Look at this. You see, it is a pattern with a piece cut out of it. Each of these pieces
below [point to each in turn] is the right shape to fill the space, but only one of them is the
right pattern."
●​ DO: Point to the options.
 ●​ SAY: "Number 1 is the right shape, but is not the right pattern. Number 2 is not a pattern at
all. Number 3 is quite wrong. Number 6 is nearly right, but is wrong here [point to the white
piece in Number 6]."
●​ SAY: "Only one is right. Point to the piece which is correct to complete the pattern."
●​ DO: If the subject points to the wrong piece, continue the explanation until the nature of the
problem is grasped.
●​ DO: Turn to A2.
●​ SAY: "Now point to the piece which goes in here."
●​ DO: If they fail, redemonstrate A1 and try A2 again. If correct, proceed to A3, A4, and A5
using similar guidance.
●​ SAY (at A4/A5): "Look carefully at these pieces... Only one of these pieces is right to
complete the pattern. Be careful... Which one is it? Is that the right one?"
●​ DO: Record the final choice on the answer sheet.

Set A: Problems A6 to A12

●​ SAY: "Look at the pattern carefully. Now which of these pieces... goes in here? Be careful,
only one is right. Which one is it? Be sure you find the right one before you point to it."
●​ DO: Record the answer. Give the same instructions for remaining items as long as they serve
a useful purpose.

Set Ab and Set B

The transition to these sets follows the same logic but with less active coaching.

●​ DO: At the end of Set A, demonstrate the first problem of Set Ab.
●​ SAY: "You see how it goes. That. That. That. What will this one be? Point to the right one of
these to go here. Be careful. Look at each one in turn. Only one is right. Which one is it?"
●​ DO: For problems Ab1 to Ab5, if the person points to a piece, ask: "Is that the right one to
complete the pattern?"
●​ DO: If they say "yes," accept and record it. For the sixth problem (Ab6) onwards, do not ask
if the choice is right; simply say: "Which one is it?"
●​ GUIDANCE: If the subject gets stuck, suggest they move on and come back later. If they are
hesitant, encourage them by saying: "As guesses are sometimes correct, ask the person to
guess."

Precautions

Scoring and Interpretation:

 Scoring of the Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) was conducted in
accordance with the test manual. Each item was scored dichotomously, with one point
awarded for each correct response, yielding a total raw score. The raw score was converted to
an equivalent Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) score using the conversion table
provided in the manual and subsequently referenced to Indian norms (Delhi sample) to obtain
a percentile rank appropriate to the examinee’s chronological age.
If the converted SPM score falls between two percentile ranges, the exact percentile
rank is calculated using interpolation.

First, the following formula is applied:

A / B = Unit C
Where:
●​ A = Difference between the two percentile values
●​ B = Difference between the two corresponding raw scores

Next, the difference between the converted SPM score and the lower limit score of
the percentile range is calculated. This value is multiplied by Unit C. The obtained product is
then added to the lower limit of the percentile range. The final value is rounded off to derive
the percentile rank, which is used for interpretation.

Example:
CPM raw score obtained = 36
Relevant percentile range = 25th–50th percentile

From the norms:

Lower percentile = 25
Upper percentile = 50
Lower percentile score = 31
Upper percentile score = 40

Thus,
A = 50 − 25 = 25
B = 40 − 31 = 9
Unit C = 25 / 9 = 2.77

Difference between converted SPM score and lower percentile score:

36 − 31 = 5

Interpolation value:
5 × 2.77 = 13.85
Add to lower percentile:
25 + 13.85 = 38.85
Rounded off percentile rank = 39th percentile
Interpretation: A percentile rank of 39 falls within the Intellectually Average range,
corresponding to Grade III classification.

Interpretation was based on percentile ranks, as recommended in the manual, allowing

for age-sensitive comparison with normative peers. The CPM assesses eductive ability,
reflecting non-verbal reasoning and the capacity to perceive relationships and derive meaning
from complex visual patterns. In line with manual guidelines, results were interpreted within
a broader clinical context, with consideration given to behavioural observations and relevant
psychosocial factors, and were not treated as a standalone indicator of overall intellectual
functioning.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Table CPM27
Table to Convert Coloured and Standard Progressive Matrices Raw Scores

Raw Scores Raw Scores

CPM SPM CPM SPM

0 0 18 17

1 1 19 19

2 2 20 20
 3 3 21 21

4 4 22 22

5 5 23 24

6 6 24 26

7 7 25 27

8 8 26 29

9 9 27 30

10 9 28 32

11 10 29 35

12 11 30 36

13 12 31 39

14 13 32 41

15 14 33 44

16 15 34 48

17 16 35 52

36 57 extrapolations

Table SPM17
Standard Progressive Matrices
Smoothed 1992 Norms for Delhi (India) North Zone in the Context of 1979 British Data

AGE IN YEARS (MONTHS)

11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15
 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½

10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15
(9) (0) (3) (9) (0) (3) (9) (0) (3) (9) (0) (3) (9) (0) (3)

to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to

Percentile 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15
(2) (11) (8) (2) (11) (8) (2) (11) (8) (2) (11) (8) (2) (11) (8)

UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK

95 50 46 51 52 47 53 54 48 54 55 49 56 57 50 57

90 48 45 49 50 46 51 52 47 53 54 48 54 55 49 55

75 44 37 45 46 39 47 49 41 49 50 44 50 51 45 51

50 40 31 41 41 33 42 43 35 44 45 38 46 47 40 47

25 34 20 36 37 23 38 39 25 41 42 28 42 42 31 42

10 29 14 31 31 14 32 33 14 35 36 15 36 36 16 36

5 24 12 25 26 12 27 28 12 29 30 12 33 33 12 33

n 187 39 164 164 92 174 185 143 180 196 164 189 191 131 171

Interpretation Table

GRADE I or “intellectually superior”, if a score lies at or above the 95th

percentile for people of the same age group.

GRADE II “definitely above the average in intellectual capacity”, if a score lies

at or above the 75th percentile. (It may be designated II+ if it lies at
or above the 90th percentile.)
 GRADE III “intellectually average”, if a score lies between the 25th and 75th
percentiles. (It may be designated as III+, if it is above the 50th
percentile, and III-, if it is below it.)

GRADE IV “definitely below average in intellectual capacity”, if a score lies at

or below the 25th percentile. (It may be designated IV-, if it lies at or
below the 10th percentile.)

GRADE V “intellectually impaired”, if a score lies at or below the 5th percentile

for that age group.

Results Table
Scores of the Participant on the Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM)

Raw Score on CPM Converted SPM Percentile Interpretation

Scores

Behavioural observation:

Discussion:
Link with theories and appropriate research.

Summary
 References

Antoniou, F., Spanoudis, G., Demetriou, A., & Kazi, S. (2022). Revisiting the structure of

Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Evidence from cognitive and developmental

analyses. Intelligence, 90, Article 101608.

[Link]

Bors, D. A., & Vigneau, F. (2003). The effect of practice on Raven’s Advanced Progressive

Matrices. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(3), 291–312.

[Link]

Brouwers, S. A., Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven’s

Progressive Matrices scores across time and cultures. 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]

Cotton, S. M., Kiely, P. M., Crewther, D. P., Thomson, B., Laycock, R., & Crewther, S. G.

(2005). A normative and reliability study for the Raven’s Coloured Progressive

Matrices for primary school aged children from Victoria, Australia. Personality

and Individual Differences, 39(4), 647–659.

[Link]
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.

Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171–191.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Praeger.

Kuroda, Y. (1959). A study of the Raven Coloured Progressive Matrices in Japanese children.

Japanese Journal of Psychology, 30, 199–210.

Pearson Clinical Assessment. (2021). Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Raven’s 2: Technical

and interpretive guidance. Pearson Clinical.

Pueyo, R., Junqué, C., Vendrell, P., Narberhaus, A., Segarra, D., & Caldú, X. (2008). Raven’s

Coloured Progressive Matrices as a measure of cognitive functioning in cerebral

palsy. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 52(5), 437–445.

[Link]

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

time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48.

Raven, J. C. (1956). Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices. H. K. Lewis.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and

Vocabulary Scales. Oxford Psychologists Press.

Rimoldi, H. J. A. (1948). Factor analysis of the Raven Progressive Matrices. Psychometrika,

13(4), 211–220.

Smirni, D., Precenzano, F., Ruberto, M., & Quatrosi, G. (2020). The Raven’s Coloured

Progressive Matrices in healthy children: A qualitative approach. Brain Sciences,

10(11), Article 877. [Link]

Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. Macmillan.