| Raven's Progressive Matrices |
Shopping Matrices |
Website Links For Ravens |
Information AboutRaven's Progressive Matrices |
|
Raven's Progressive Matrices (often referred to simply as '''Raven's Matrices''') are , giving the test its name. VERSIONS The matrices are offered in three different forms for participants of different ability:
In addition, so-called 'parallel' forms of the standard and coloured progressive matrices were published in 1998. This was to address the problem of the Raven's Matrices being too well-known in the general population. Items in the parallel tests have been constructed such that average solution rates to each question are identical for the classic and parallel versions. An extended form of the standard progressive matrices, Standard Progressive Matrices Plus, was published at the same time, offering greater discrimination among more able young adults. UNDERLYING FACTORS According to their author, Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary tests measure the two main components of general intelligence (originally identified by Spearman): the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity, which is known as eductive ability (from the Latin root "educere", meaning "to draw out") and the ability to store and reproduce information, known as reproductive ability. Adequate standardization, ease of use (without written or complex instructions), and minimal cost per person tested are the main reasons for its widespread international use in most countries of the world. It appears to measure a type of reasoning ability which is fundamental to making sense out of the "booming buzzing confusion" in all walks of life. It has among the highest predictive validities of any test in most occupational groups and, even more importantly, in predicting social mobility, the level of job a person will attain and retain. As a test of individuals it can be quite expensive . However, the per person cost can be much lower, because the test booklets are re-usable and that can be used up to 50 times each. The authors of the manual recommend that, when used in selection, RPM scores are set in the context of information relating to Raven's framework for the assessment of competence. Some of the most fundamental research in cognitive psychology has been carried out with the RPM. The tests have been shown to work - scale - measure the same thing - in a vast variety of cultural groups. Two remarkable, and relatively recent, findings are that, on the one hand, the actual scores obtained by people living in most countries with a tradition of literacy - from China, Russia, and India through Europe to Kuwait - are very similar at any point in time. On the other hand, in all countries, the scores have increased dramatically over time ... such that 50% of our grandparents would be assigned to special education classes if they were judged against today's norms (see Flynn Effect ). Yet none of the common explanations - access to television, changes in education, changes in family size etc. - hold up. The explanation seems to have more in common with those put forward to explain the parallel increase in life expectancy ... which has doubled over the same period of time. John Carlyle Raven first published his Progressive Matrices in the United Kingdom in 1938 . His three sons established Scotland -based test publisher J C Raven Ltd. in 1972 . In 2004 , Harcourt Assessment, Inc. a division of Harcourt Education acquired J C Raven Ltd. TEST BIAS Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrice has been used to test people in countries around the world. Rushton, Skuy and Bons, who support a theory of race differences in intelligence due to genetic causes, rather than environmental or cultural factors, have written that Raven's presents no cultural bias when used to test Black Africans, Whites and East Indians. They suggest that there is no truth in the assertion that the low mean scores obtained in some groups arise from a general lack of familiarity with the way of thought measured by the test. Steven F. Cronshaw, Leah K. Hamilton, Betty R. Onyura and Andrew S. Winston published a response to Rushton, Skuy and Bons in 2006 in which they challenged the methodology that had been employed, especially the use of "non-equivalent groups in test samples". ''Case for Non-Biased Intelligence Testing Against Black Africans Has Not Been Made: A Comment on '' International Journal of Selection and Assessment 14 (3), 278–287. NOTES REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|