STIMULUS MATERIAL

A series of cards (matrices) with tasks of increasing complexity. This test is intended for children from 4-5 years old (series A cards), 6-8 years old (AB series cards) and up to 10 years old (B series cards). To solve the problem, children need to find the principle by which this matrix is ​​built and choose the correct answer from the options proposed below.

Instructions

Look carefully at the picture. You need help fixing a damaged rug, and to do this you need to find a patch that does not differ in design from this rug. There are different options below, choose the right one.

Carrying out the test

Children are sequentially presented with matrices in order of increasing complexity, starting with series A and ending with a series corresponding to the child’s age. Although there is practically no limit on the decision time, it is important to determine the child’s reaction time, that is, the time interval between receiving the instruction and answering. If the child finds it difficult to choose the correct option, a hint with a detailed explanation of how to solve this problem is possible. This hint does not reduce the objectivity of the test as the level of difficulty increases. If the child answers quickly but incorrectly, you can make the task easier by covering half of the pictures offered for choice.

First of all, the number of correct answers is counted (each 1-point solution is worth 1 point), then the sum of the points received and their percentage of the total number of answers. In accordance with the percentage of correct answers, five levels of intellectual development of children are distinguished:

1st level(over 95%) - particularly highly developed intelligence;

2nd level(75-94%) - above average intelligence;

3rd level(25-74%) - average intelligence;

4th level(5-24%) - below average intelligence;

Level 5(below 5%) - intellectual defect. In addition to the level of intellectual development of children, the Raven test makes it possible to analyze the process of solving a problem.

The speed of the child’s response (reaction time) allows us to identify impulsive children, that is, children who respond without thinking, almost immediately after they hear the instructions. The reaction time of such children is 15-20 seconds. A large number of incorrect answers (up to 50%) are associated not with intellectual difficulties, but with impaired attention, low concentration, and also with the inability to plan their activities. These defects, while not actually defects in thinking, can significantly reduce a child’s performance at school, and therefore it is very important to identify them in time and, if possible, correct them. Reducing the field of view helps reduce the spread of attention, and therefore the number of correct answers increases when we cover three of the six options offered for analysis. When working with such children, it is necessary to specifically highlight the main stages of orientation and the sequence of operations necessary For correct solution to the problem. It is possible to attach specially drawn activity diagrams that will also help the child organize it.

Analysis of the process of solving tasks in the Raven test also helps to identify the learning ability of children, which often corresponds to their abilities. So, for children who find it difficult to complete the first, fairly easy tasks, it is necessary to explain the way to solve them. If children immediately grasp the adult’s explanations and quickly learn to solve problems of this type, they can transfer the learned technique to more difficult, final tasks. Therefore, the general low level of work of these children (as well as the errors they made in other tests, in particular in the Kogan test) is associated not with an intellectual defect, but with a low level of knowledge, which can be easily corrected during training.

Sometimes children cope well with the first tasks, but do not solve more difficult ones, despite the help of an adult. In this case, we can talk about their low learning ability and the need for more attention from adults, more complete and lengthy explanations of new material.

Thus, in the Raven test it is important not only to calculate the total number of correct answers, but also to find out which tasks the child solved - only the first ones or the last ones too.

Description of the technique

Raven Progressive Matrices are designed to determine the level of mental (intellectual) development of subjects aged from 4.5 to 65 years and older. Raven's matrices can be used on samples of subjects with any linguistic composition and sociocultural background, with any level of speech development.

Since three variants of Raven matrices are known, it should be noted that each of the variants is intended for carrying out diagnostic work with a certain contingent of subjects.

Age limits of applicability of Raven's Progressive Matrices

Variants of the Raven's test	Subject population
Color progressive matrices	4.5 - 9 years; subjects with abnormal development; rehabilitation studies of people over 65 years of age
Standard Progressive Matrices	children from 8 to 14 years old; adults from 20 to 65 years old
Advanced Progressive Matrices	subjects with above average intellectual abilities

History of the creation of the technique

The test was proposed by L. Penrose and J. Raven in 1936. R. p. m. were developed in accordance with the traditions of the English school of intelligence, according to which the best way to measure the g factor is the task of identifying relationships between abstract figures. The best known are two main variants of R. p.m.: black-and-white and color matrices. In developing tests that would be useful tools for identifying genetic and environmental causes of intellectual disabilities, J. Raven consciously set himself the task of creating tests that would be theoretically justified, clearly interpretable, simple to administer and process, and suitable for both laboratory and and for field experiments, and those conducted at home, in schools, in production and associated with time restrictions.

Theoretical (methodological) foundations

The Raven's Progressive Matrices test is a non-verbal intelligence test and is based on two theories developed by Gestalt psychology: the theory of perception of forms and the so-called “theory of neogenesis” by Charles Spearman.

According to the theory of form perception, each task can be considered as a specific whole, consisting of a number of elements interconnected with each other. It is assumed that initially there is a global assessment of the matrix task, and then the implementation of analytical perception with the subject highlighting the principle adopted when developing the series. At the final stage, the selected elements are included in a holistic image, which helps to detect the missing image detail. Ch. Spearman's theory deepens the considered provisions of the theory of perception of forms. As the experience of many years of research shows, the data obtained using the Raven test are in good agreement with the indicators of other common tests: Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, ShTUR, Vygotsky-Sakharov. Raven's progressive matrices are designed to determine the level of mental development in children of mental age (grades 1-4 of a public school). Raven's matrices can be used on subjects with any linguistic composition and sociocultural background, with any level of speech development.

Color progressive matrices

Test structure

The color version of Raven's Progressive Matrices (for children and the elderly) consists of three series (A; Ab; B), differing in level of complexity. Each series contains 12 matrices with missing elements. Thus, the test subject is offered 36 tasks to work on.

The subject is presented with drawings with figures interconnected by a certain relationship. One figure is missing, and below it is given among 6 other figures. The subject’s task is to establish a pattern that connects the figures in the figure and indicate (name) the number of the desired figure from the proposed options.

Colored progressive matrices are used for children aged 4.5 to 8 years (regardless of their intellectual characteristics), the elderly and people with intellectual disabilities.

Since color matrices are intended for use with children and the elderly, in order to maintain the steady interest of the subject (especially a child) throughout the entire examination procedure and to avoid the negative impact of fatigue, each task must be very clearly designed and neatly presented so that it is enjoyable look.

Procedure

In Russia, the procedure for presenting Colored matrices was modified in comparison with Standard matrices, and, accordingly, a different system of differentiated assessment of task completion was developed. Therefore, next we consider two systems for presenting and assessing the performance of test tasks, described by N. Semago and M. Semago.

It is advisable to use a modified version of conducting and recording results to distinguish between different forms of mental retardation, determine the level of current development, and identify the peculiarities of the formation of a child’s cognitive activity, which, in fact, increases the differential diagnostic value of the technique.

The modification is based on taking into account the child’s ability to use various types of help (clarification, stimulating help, organizing help, teaching help) to solve intellectual problems.

A modified version of conducting and recording results (by T.V. Rozanova to identify the level of development of the cognitive sphere, as well as T.V. Egorova’s version, tested on children with mental retardation) is used only for color progressive matrices.

The experience of using a modified version of conducting and recording results in relation to preschool children has shown that, on the one hand, focusing the child’s attention on the error of his decision leads to a decrease in the child’s positive attitude towards the examination process, and on the other hand, it allows for the development of reflexive processes. Therefore, the modified version is not recommended for use in working with children characterized by increased anxiety, low levels of self-esteem and aspirations, and reduced motivation to achieve success.

Regardless of the chosen method, it is advisable to record the results and responses of the subject on a special form.

The use of Raven's Colored Matrices involves only individual work with subjects. Unlike Standard black-and-white matrices, the subject’s work with Color matrices is not limited to a certain time. In some cases, you can stop the test subject from completing the test if 5 consecutive tasks are completed incorrectly.

Standard option

The execution time of each matrix individually and all matrices as a whole is not recorded.

It is necessary to draw the child’s attention to the first matrix (A1) and, pointing to the upper part of the figure, pay attention to the fact that a piece has been “cut out” from it.

Instruction 1A

“Look (the top figure is indicated), you see, a piece has been cut out of this picture.”

For children of preschool age or, in the opinion of a psychologist, with intellectual disabilities and difficulties in understanding instructions, the explanation of the method of further work may have a more pronounced, “visual” character.

For example, you can say: “A rug with a hole,” “A pattern that was cut,” etc.

Then it should be shown that the cut out pieces are at the bottom, that they all have the right shape, but only one of them “really” fits (fragments are shown in turn in the following sequence: 1, 2, 3, 6). At the same time, the diagnostician explains why these fragments do not “really” fit.

Instruction 1B

“You need to select a piece from these (run your hand along all the fragments located at the bottom of the matrix) that matches the drawing. Only one of the pieces is correct, suitable. Show me which one."

For older children, the word “piece” can be replaced with the word “fragment” or “element of the picture.”

If the child points to an incorrect fragment, then the explanation continues until the essence of the task is understood by the child. Thus, training occurs on the matrix A 1. Often such training is not required, and sometimes it is enough just to ask the child which piece (fragment) will be the only suitable one.

Next, the child is shown the following matrix (A 2) and asked to find a suitable piece. In case of an incorrect answer, they return to training on the Ab matrix. When working with matrix A 2, the diagnostician only briefly repeats the task: “Find the appropriate piece,” pointing to the empty space at the top of the matrix. If, in this case, matrix A 2 is performed incorrectly, then the child, without giving a negative assessment, is asked to complete matrices A 3, A 4, A 5. If the child is not able to complete the first five tasks of series A, the results are considered unreliable and the work is stopped, even if it is obvious that the reason for the failure is a pronounced negative reaction. If the proposed tasks are successfully completed, the work continues, but the child is not informed about the mistakes he made.

Upon completion of series A, the following instructions are given: “There is a different drawing here, but you still need to find the missing piece (part) in order to correctly complete the picture (all the fragments located at the bottom of the matrix are circled with your hand). Which one is right?

When working with the remaining tasks of the AB and B series, the diagnostician does not repeat the instructions each time, but can stimulate the child by approving his work.

Modified version

The child is indicated by the communicative means available to him about the absence of a piece in the “mat” depicted at the top of each matrix, and is asked to find a suitable “piece” among the six located at the bottom of the same page of the test notebook. This modification also assumes that the first task in series A is used as a training task.

If a child makes a mistake in task A 1, the diagnostician reviews possible solutions with him and finds out why fragment 4 is correct. The remaining 35 tasks are used for testing, that is, without teaching assistance. In case of an erroneous answer to each of the following matrices, the specialist gives additional instructions in the form of stimulating assistance: “No, incorrect, think again.” The same is said to the subject if the second attempt was also unsuccessful. If the third attempt does not give the correct solution, the child’s attention can be drawn to the visual conditions of the problem (to the figures, parts and their relative position, to the direction of the lines, etc.), but extensive training is not carried out.

Processing the results

When analyzing a child’s performance on Colored Progressive Matrices, quantitative assessment certainly plays a leading role.

Standard option

The standard research procedure involves a binary rating system. The child’s answers are noted on the registration form in accordance with the numbers of the presented matrices. If the keys match the child’s answer (the number of the fragment he or she has chosen), the following is assigned:

• 
  1 point if the number of the key and the child’s answer coincide (correct choice of fragment);
• 
  0 points if the number of the key and the child’s answer do not match (incorrectly selected fragment).

The number of points scored in each series is calculated, as well as the total amount of points for all matrices.

In the overall assessment of the effectiveness of implementation, matrix A 1 is not taken into account or is taken into account as correctly completed.

Modified version

The effectiveness of the modified version is assessed as follows:

• 
  the correct answer on the first attempt is scored 1 point (entered in the “1 choice” column);
• 
  on the second attempt - 0.5 points (entered in the “2nd choice” column);
• 
  on the third attempt - 0.25 points (entered in the “3rd choice” column);
• 
  an incorrect answer after the third attempt and additional analysis is scored 0 points.

The total result for each choice in each series is noted in the corresponding column of the protocol. The final result of successful completion is equal to the sum of points received for solving tasks of all three series (excluding the completion of matrix A 1), it is entered in the corresponding column of the protocol.

In the same way, the total value from the second and third attempts is calculated, which is noted in the corresponding section of the protocol. The number of solved tasks (from three attempts) of the matrices An, A w AB p, B 8 -B 12 is summed up and entered into the protocol.

The success rate (SR - success rate) for solving matrix problems can be expressed in both absolute and relative units (percentage).

where X is the total amount of points received by the child when solving tasks of all three series on the first or third attempt.

The total number of points received for solving 35 matrices is the main indicator reflecting the level of development of visual-figurative (perceptual-effective) thinking.

The number of solved analogies (regardless of the number of attempts) (matrices: A 11, A 12, AB 12, B 8 -B 12) can be taken into account when differentiating children with learning difficulties, as well as in the situation of delimiting partial forms of immaturity of cognitive activity and total underdevelopment .

A separate calculation of the amount of “additional” points received for solving tests on the second and third attempts can be considered as a reflection of the characteristics of voluntary attention or the characteristics of the child’s impulsivity. The number of tests solved on the second and third attempts can also be considered as a characteristic of the “zone of proximal development” in its classical interpretation.

Key

№ tasks	Serie A	Series AB	Serie B
1	4	4	4
2	5	5	1
3	1	1	3
4	2	6	6
5	6	2	5
6	5	5	4
7	1	4	1
8	3	3	3
9	4	2	2
10	2	3	5
11	3	1	2
12	6	6	6

Interpretation of results

Based on the psychological interpretation of each series of tasks, it is possible to identify those characteristics of thinking that are most and least developed in the subject.

Ravenna test

The technique is designed to study non-verbal intelligence and the logic of imaginative thinking. The subject is presented with drawings with figures interconnected by a certain relationship. One figure is missing, and below it is given among 6-8 other figures. The test subject’s task is to establish a pattern that connects the figures in the drawing, and on the questionnaire indicate the number of the desired figure from the proposed options.

The test consists of 60 tables (5 series). Each series of tables contains tasks of increasing difficulty. At the same time, the type of tasks becomes more complex from series to series.

In the series A - the principle of establishing relationships in the structure of matrices was used. Here the task is to supplement the missing part of the main image with one of the fragments given in each table. Completing the task requires the subject to carefully analyze the structure of the main image and detect the same features in one of several fragments. Then the fragment is merged and compared with the environment of the main part of the table.

Serie B- built on the principle of analogy between pairs of figures. The subject must find the principle according to which the figure is constructed in each individual case and, based on this, select the missing fragment. In this case, it is important to determine the axis of symmetry, according to which the figures in the main sample are located.

Series C- built on the principle of progressive changes in the figures of the matrices. These figures within the same matrix become more and more complex, and their development seems to be continuous. The enrichment of figures with new elements is subject to a clear principle, having discovered which, you can select the missing figure.

Serie B- built on the principle of regrouping figures in a matrix. The subject must find this regrouping occurring in horizontal and vertical positions.

Series E is based on the principle of decomposing the figures of the main image into elements. The missing figures can be found by understanding the principle of analysis and synthesis of figures.

Guidelines for conducting the test

Instructions : The test is strictly regulated in time, namely: 20 minutes. In order to keep time, it is necessary to strictly ensure that before the general command: “Start the test,” no one opens the tables or peeps. After 20 minutes, a command is given, for example: “Close tables for everyone.” The purpose of this test can be said as follows: “All our research is carried out exclusively for scientific purposes, so you are required to be conscientious, deeply thoughtful, sincere and accurate in your answers. This test is designed to clarify the logic of your thinking.”

After this, take the table and open the 1st page for everyone to see: “One figure is missing in the figure. On the right there are 6-8 numbered figures, one of which is the desired one. It is necessary to determine the pattern that connects the figures in the figure and indicate the number of the desired one figures on the sheet that was given to you" (can be shown using one sample as an example).

During the completion of test tasks, it is necessary to control that respondents do not cheat from each other. After 20 minutes, give the command: “Close the tables for everyone!

Collect forms and tables for them. Make sure that the number of the person being examined is written in pencil in the right corner of the registration form.

Interpretation of results (keys)

The correct solution to each task is worth one point, then the total number of points is calculated for all tables and for individual series. The resulting overall indicator is considered as an index of intellectual strength, mental productivity of the respondent.

Indicators of task completion for individual series are compared with the average statistical results: the difference between the results obtained in each series and the control ones, obtained by statistical processing in the study of large groups of healthy subjects and, thus, regarded as expected results, is calculated. This total difference - the coefficient of variability - allows us to judge the reliability of the results obtained (this does not apply to mental pathology).

The resulting total indicator according to a special table is converted into an intelligence coefficient (see the manual in another file) or the percentage of correct answers is calculated.

At the same time, according to a special scale for the general indicator, expressed as a percentage, 5 degrees of intellectual level are distinguished:

1st degree - more than 95% - high intelligence;

2nd degree - 75-94% - above average intelligence;

3rd degree 25-74% - average intelligence;

4 degree - 5-24% - below average intelligence;

Grade 5 - below 5% - defect.

ANSWER FORM

Full name (No.) ___________________________________________________

Date of completion _______________________

Job No.

Stimulus material for the Ravenna method

Raven's colored progressive matrices

The color version of Raven's Progressive Matrices is intended for examining children from 5 to 9 years old.

Instructions for conducting a survey of preschool children using Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices
The procedure for individual testing using Raven's Progressive Matrices is extremely simple. Unlike many other tests, there is no need to strictly adhere to any special verbal instructions. The basic requirements are, first, to ensure that subjects understand what they are supposed to do and how. Secondly, the procedure adopted in this survey should be ensured in accordance with generally accepted standards so that the data obtained can be compared with normative ones.

When using the book form of the test, it is impossible to see what the matrix will look like with this or that fragment inserted into its cutout, which may result in some children not being very responsible about the task. Therefore, it is important to make sure each time that the child has looked carefully at the drawing and that he is convinced that the fragment he indicated is the only one that correctly complements the matrix.

The person administering the test must have the following materials: instructions, a copy of the test booklet. It is not allowed to make any notes in the test booklet with the CPM. During the preliminary conversation, enter information about the subject on the answer form, making sure that the specified age corresponds to the date of birth.

Open the booklet on the first task A1.
- Look here.
Point to the top shape
- You see that a piece has been cut out of this picture. Each of these pieces below...
Point to each of the fragments in turn
- ...has the right shape to fill the cutout, but only one of them fits the design. Number 1 has the correct shape, but the wrong pattern. Number 2 has no pattern at all. Number 3 is completely wrong. Number 6 is almost correct, but it doesn't fit here.
Point to the white spot on fragment number 6.
- Only one of the pieces is correct. Show which one is suitable to complement the drawing.
If the subject does not point to the correct fragment, continue the explanation until the essence of the task is fully understood.
Go to task A2.
- Now show me a piece that will fit here.
If the subject cannot cope, show him task A1 again, and then again ask him to solve task A2. If the task is completed correctly, proceed to task A3, working according to the same scheme.
Moving on to task A4, before giving the subject the opportunity to think and point to one of the fragments, say...
- Look carefully at these pieces.
Point your finger at each of the fragments in turn.
- Only one of these pieces is suitable to complete the drawing. Be careful. First look at each of these six pieces.
Again, point to each of the six fragments.
- Now point to a piece that will fit here.
Indicate in the picture the place where the fragment should fit.
When the subject points to one of the fragments, regardless of the correctness of his answer, say...
- Does this piece really fit here?
If the subject says “yes,” accept his choice with approval, regardless of whether it is correct or incorrect. If he wants to change his choice, tell him...
- Fine. Then point to the correct piece,
Regardless of the correct answer, ask again...
- Is this one suitable?
If the subject is satisfied with his decision, accept his choice regardless of correctness, but if it seems to you that he is still in doubt, ask...
- Well, which of the pieces, in your opinion, is really correct?
Please mark the number of your final choice in the appropriate section of the form.
Present task A5 in the same way as task A4.
At any stage of testing between A1 and A5, task A1 can be used again to show the subject once again what needs to be done, followed by asking him to try the corresponding task again. If the test taker cannot cope with tasks A1 - A3, he should switch to the tablet form of the test.
If these five tasks are solved, move on to task A6.
- Look carefully at this drawing. Which of these pieces...
Point to each fragment in turn.
- ... fits here?
Point to the empty space that needs to be filled.
- Be careful, there is only one suitable piece. Which? If you're really sure you've found the right piece, point to it.
Write down your final answer.

As future assignments are presented, continue to use the same instructions as long as they are needed.
If your child is worried about small imperfections in the drawings, reassure him that it is not something to worry about. If your child gets stuck on a particular task, encourage him to move on and see if he can cope with the next tasks, and then return to the task that caused difficulty.
If you find it necessary, you can invite the child to simply guess the answer, since “guesses are sometimes correct.”

Having completed Series A, present the first task of Series AB, again pointing in turn to each of the three shapes on the matrix and to the space to be filled.
- You see how they are located. So. So. So. What should happen here? Which piece fits here? Be careful. Look at each of them in turn. There is only one correct one. Which?
When performing tasks from AB1 to AB5, after the child pointed to one of the fragments, correct or incorrect...
- Is it really suitable to complement the drawing?
Point to the design on the die and the cutout in it.
As before, if the subject answers “yes,” accept (and record) their choice with approval. If the child wants to change his choice, proceed as in Series A and accept his final choice.
When completing the sixth task, the child should not be asked whether he made the right choice. Just tell me...
- Look carefully at the picture.
Point in turn to each shape on the matrix and to the space to be filled.
- Be careful, only one of these pieces correctly completes the picture.
Point to each of the fragments in turn.
- Which one?
Record your final choice on the form, either by writing the number of the selected fragment next to the task number, or for an easy counting form, crossing out the number of the selected answer with one short line.
If an error was made or the subject wishes to change their answer, cross out the number previously written down and then write down the number of the final choice. When working on the Easy Count worksheet, cross out the canceled answer with another line.
Do not attempt to erase incorrectly marked answers. The same guidelines can be used for the rest of Series AB and B tasks as long as it is appropriate.

Tablet form of test booklet. Serie A.
Download booklets Series A, AB, B in PDF format

Assessment and interpretation

Scoring.
One point is awarded for each correct answer. Be careful not to lose any blank or used forms, as each one contains a key for scoring the test.
If the subject makes mistakes in the first five problems of Series A, then he cannot be considered to have understood the idea of ​​the problem. The scores obtained under these conditions, as a rule, must be considered unreliable, despite the fact that the total score may turn out to be more than ten due to solving problems by randomly guessing the correct answer among six alternative options.

When using a tablet form of dough, some children, after they have placed the correct piece of dough in place, worry that it does not fit into the cutout quite well and want to change it. For this reason, and also because “smart” children want to play with test material, it is advisable to ask the child why he moves or moves the fragment. If necessary, the test task can be explained again so that the child understands that first of all it is necessary to put the correct fragment in place, and then, after trying others, return the correct one to its place and that minor discrepancies between the fragment and the cutout do not matter. If children are unable to express their judgments in words, this does not mean that they cannot solve the problem intuitively. A correct decision should never be recorded as a “mistake” if the child cannot explain it. In contrast, incorrect answers corrected through trial and error provide significant psychological information, although they are usually not included in the overall test score for reasons of rigor in interpreting a given child's percentile scores on the normative chart. In those cases, however, when the child consciously discovered and corrected his mistake, the finally inserted fragment can be taken into account.

When the test is administered individually in book form, the portion that the test taker indicates as his/her final choice is scored as “correct” or “incorrect.”
When book form is used for self-testing or group testing using open-ended answer sheets, anyone who writes more than one digit against any item number should be told to cross out all but one. If this is discovered after the testing procedure is completed, only the last number on the right is considered, regardless of whether the other answers are true or false.
When using the Easy Count sheet, test takers must be shown how to correct errors by crossing out an X for incorrect answers and leaving a single short line through the number of their final choice.

Inconsistencies and errors.
When the book form of the test is used, inconsistency in the distribution of a test taker's scores can be assessed by subtracting his score on each series from the scores expected for the same total score.

Presentation of results
The most adequate way to interpret the significance of the overall assessment received by an individual is to correlate it with the relative frequency, expressed as a percentage, with which this assessment is received by subjects of the same age group. The advantage of this method over others is that it does not use any a priori assumptions about the development of intellectual abilities in childhood, such as ideas about its uniform or symmetrical distribution. For practical purposes, it is convenient to consider certain percentages of the population and group respondents' scores accordingly. This allows the respondent to be assigned to one or another group according to the score received.

LEVEL I. “Super intelligent” if the score is equal to or greater than 95% for a given age group.
LEVEL II. “Intellectual capabilities are clearly above average” if the score is equal to or greater than 75%; II+, if the score is equal to or greater than 90%.
LEVEL III. “Average intelligence” if the score is between 25% and 75%; III+ if the score is higher than the median or 50%; III-, if the score is lower than the median.
LEVEL IV. “Intellectual capabilities are clearly below average” if the score is equal to or less than 25%; IV- if the score is equal to or less than 10%.
LEVEL V: “Significant decline in intelligence” if the score is equal to or less than 5% for the appropriate age group.

It is convenient to present the overall score, the consistency of the assessment and the achieved level of development in the following form:
Total score 24
Inconsistencies -1,0,+1
Level II+
Number of errors: Normal

Psychology of General Abilities Druzhinin Vladimir Nikolaevich (Doctor of Psychology)

Progressive matrices by J. Raven

J. Raven was a student of Charles Spearman. In 1936, he, together with L. Penrose, proposed the Progressive Matrices test to measure the level of development of general intelligence. According to Spearman, the best way to determine intelligence is to test abstract relationships. The test items are based on Gestalt theory and Spearman's theory of intelligence. It is assumed that the subject initially perceives the task as a whole, then identifies patterns of change in the elements of the image, after which the selected elements are included in the whole image and the missing part of the image is found.

Abstract geometric figures with an internal pattern organized according to a certain law were chosen as the material (see Fig. 16).

Three main versions of the test were constructed: 1) a simpler color test intended for children from 5 to 11 years old, 2) a black and white version for children and adolescents from 8 to 14 years old and adults from 20 to 65 years old, 3) a version of the test , designed in 1977 by J. Raven in collaboration with D. Court and intended for individuals with high intellectual achievements. The last option includes not only a non-verbal, but also a verbal part.

The test can be carried out both with a time limit for completing tasks, and without a limit (at the request of the researcher).

The color version of the test uses three series, differing in difficulty level. Each series contains 12 matrices. The second option consists of 5 series (A, B, C, D, E) of 12 tasks each, arranged in increasing difficulty. The difficulty of the tasks increases from series A to series E. The subject completes the first 5 tasks of series A with the help of an experimenter, the rest - independently. The subject must choose the correct answer from 6-8 proposed ones. The number of answer options increases as the difficulty of the series increases.

Raven assumed that during the test the subject learns and completing the previous task prepares him to perform the subsequent, more difficult one.

In the series A the subject must complete the missing part of the image. He must demonstrate the ability to differentiate elements and identify connections between gestalt elements, as well as complete the missing part of the structure, comparing it with samples.

In the series IN the subject must find analogies between pairs of figures, differentiating their elements.

When performing a series WITH you need to solve the problem by determining the principle of changing figures vertically and horizontally.

In the series D It is required to determine the pattern of permutation of figures horizontally and vertically.

Series E to solve it, it requires analyzing the figures of the main image and composing the missing figure in parts.

For each correct solution, 1 point is assigned, the number of correct solutions in each series and the total number of points are calculated, which are converted either into standard scores (stans) or into a standard IQ coefficient. Based on the batch results, a “variability index” is also calculated. There are distributions of the number of correct solutions by series, obtained from a standardization sample, corresponding to the total score. The tabular distribution is compared with that obtained during testing of the subject, and the differences between the expected and empirical estimates are summed up without taking into account the sign. The “variability index” characterizes the reliability of the results and is aimed at identifying subjects who solved tasks by guessing or feigned a low result (who did not solve simple problems).

The normal value of the index is 0-4; with a value of 7, the subject’s answers are considered unreliable.

As noted earlier, this interpretation can hardly be considered the only possible one. Our research shows that the solution to the Raven test is probabilistic in nature, since a lack of interest in simple tasks and an incorrect understanding of the task (provoked by the test material itself) lead to the fact that the test taker, while solving complex tasks, can make a mistake in simple ones.

Raven's test reliability ranges from 0.70 to 0.89; the average difficulty of test items is 0.32; correlation with school success (assessment of academic performance) – 0.72. The correlation with IQ according to the D. Wechsler test (WAIS) is 0.70-0.74 (adults) and 0.91 (children 9-10 years old), with arithmetic tests - up to 0.87. Our research has shown that the Raven test is not metrologically flawless.

Tasks D12 and E8 are designed so poorly that the probability of their correct solution (0.13 and 0.14) does not exceed the significant probability of solving this task by chance (p = 0.125). The tasks either contain the wrong idea, or the form of the material makes it possible for the test subject to make logical constructions that were not intended by the developer.

In the EY task, in addition to the correct answer option (No. 6), there are two (No. 1 and No. 2), the frequency of which subjects choose is statistically significantly higher than the probability of a random answer.

For task C12, the estimate of the probability of choosing the correct answer (No. 2) exceeds the limit of statistical significance, but the estimate of the probability of choosing the false option (No. 4) significantly exceeds the probability of the correct choice.

That is, the very structure of an incorrectly constructed task leads the subject to a false answer. This state of affairs is a consequence of the conflict between two theories that are eclectically based on the test: perceptual (Gestalt theory) and the theory of general intelligence. The perceptual characteristics of the task prevent the subject from performing a consistent logical analysis of it. Thus, it is not the strategy “from the whole to the details” that comes into conflict with the strategy “from the details to the whole,” but the perceptual pattern contradicts the logical one.

According to Yusupov’s model, the number of tasks in a level test should not exceed 7, and in the Raven test there are 60 of them (in the abbreviated version - 30). The test is clearly informationally redundant. Basic tasks that reliably differ in difficulty level can only be considered: B8, A12, C4 (or D6), D8 (or D10, or E2), C8, E6, EY, E12.

The number of easy tasks in the Raven test is excessively large - they account for almost half of all test tasks. Moreover, there is no correspondence between empirical and standard item difficulty (n = 0.543).

To assess the complexity of a task, we proposed a modified complexity indicator:

where n is the number of people who solved the test task, N is the total size of the standardization sample.

In the first section of the chapter it was already mentioned that the version of calculating the test score proposed by the test authors does not justify itself and should be replaced with a more reliable one, taking into account the empirical complexity of the task.

The success of the test, as we have established, depends both on the level of development of “speed intelligence” and on the cognitive ability that determines the solution of complex tasks.

Perhaps the second factor is based on the differentiation of an individual’s cognitive experience, associated with such features of intelligence as cognitive complexity, conceptual development, and verbal competence.

Factorization of the correlation matrix of the application of the Raven test, a test for the diagnosis of cognitive “simplicity-complexity” (author A. G. Shmelev) and the “Concepts” test (for generalization of concepts) showed that two independent factors are distinguished - non-verbal and verbal, having equal weight, but the technique for generalizing concepts is included in the nonverbal factor.

Factor analysis of the intercorrelation matrix of seven techniques (cognitive simplicity-complexity test, Raven's test, Concepts technique, Eysenck test, etc.) revealed 3 equally significant factors: non-verbal - perceptual (maximum load on the Raven's test), speed intelligence (maximum load - test Eysenck and Geometric Generalization Test) and the Verbal Competence Factor (positive loading on the Concepts Test and the Cognitive Simplicity Index). At the same time, a negative and significant loading of this factor on Raven’s test was found. Consequently, the more complex and differentiated the cognitive experience of the subject, the more successfully he solves the Raven test, which requires analytical work, and the worse he copes with tasks on conceptual generalization.

The differentiation of cognitive structures is one of the main parameters of intelligence that determines the success of solving analytical thinking problems, including in the Raven test.

From the book Holotropic Consciousness author Grof Stanislav

From the book History of Psychology. Crib author Anokhin N V

21 PROGRESSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS IN THE USA In the second half of the 18th century. The struggle of the American colonies against the subordination of England began. This determined the main shifts in the ideological life of the country.1. A strong educational movement is rising with its apology

From the book Teach Yourself to Think! by Buzan Tony

PROGRESSIVE READING METHODS: EVER FASTER AND FASTER In addition to the general advice given above, some readers may find the following information useful, which, however, usually accompanies the work of a qualified

From the book Ariadne's Thread, or Journey through the Labyrinths of the Psyche author Zueva Elena

PROGRESSIVE “MEMORY CARDS” Based on the content of the previous chapters and taking into account that the brain perceives information better if it is structured in such a way as to “slip” like a coin into a machine, and also taking into account the measuring ability of the brain

From the book Club of Psychological Fighters. Fuck fear author Ivanov Alexey Alekseevich

Parental matrices In the transmission of “moral heritage”, the second signaling system is involved - speech - word. Hence the “pedigree”. And speech, like the unique design of a human hand, is different for everyone. Moreover, the first signal system in the original sense

From the book Shadows of the Mind [In Search of the Science of Consciousness] by Penrose Roger

Ritual of burning the “matrix of fear” Get alone. Make sure that no one disturbs you and that nothing interferes with you. Choose a suitable place (the kitchen is also suitable). Turn on meditative music or remain in silence - do what is comfortable for you. For burning

From the book The Self-Liberating Game author Demchog Vadim Viktorovich

From the book Transpersonal Psychology. New approaches author Tulin Alexey

7. Scenario of the information-quantum matrix To begin with, it is important to note that the word “matrix” means the womb, i.e. that which bears, feeds, crystallizes one or another form of reality.91 There are many ways of modeling and accumulation

From the book Areas of the Human Unconscious: Evidence from LSD Research [with drawings from patients!] author Grof Stanislav

Basic perinatal matrices Grof's map of consciousness consists of an empirical spectrum of extraordinary states of consciousness. Grof identifies the first, biographical level, which includes various traumatic events in a person’s life after birth. In the center