Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Development and Validation of an 18-Item Medium Form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices:

Development and Validation of an 18-Item Medium Form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices: The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) is a widely used measure of general intelligence (g), both across settings and cultures. Due to its lengthy 40-min administration time, several researchers have developed short-form scales, yet these forms typically yield a significantly lower reliability. This article describes the creation of an 18-item short form (APM-18) and its validation in three samples of Southwestern U.S. university students (total N = 633). The APM-18 shows similar psychometric properties to both the previously published 36-item long form and 12-item short form, but retains a reliability estimate closer to the original APM. This, plus the shorter administration time (25 min) relative to the complete APM (40-60 min), makes it useful for time-constrained or mass-testing situations. Keywords general intelligence, Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, culture-fair tests, personality, timed tests The Ravens Progressive Matrices Test, developed by Raven acceptable psychometric properties (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, (1941) as a measure of general intelligence (g), has under- test–retest reliability, convergent validity; see Arthur, Tubre, gone many revisions, ranging from colored versions for chil- Paul, & Sanchez-Ku, 1999, for review). However, this short dren to the standard and advanced matrices for adults of form shows relatively low and variable internal consistency different cognitive levels. The most recent published version (IC). For example, Cronbach’s alphas range from .58 to .66 is the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM; Raven, for short form itself to and .72 to .73 for the 12 short-form Raven, & Court, 1993), which was developed for higher items extracted from the full 36-item version (Arthur & Day, ability adult populations (i.e., college-level and above). This 1994). test is constructed of 36 items of increasing difficulty broken More recently, Hamel and Schmittmann (2006) have into three 12-item sets; in each item, the examinee is asked to argued that the complete 36-item APM can be administered complete a visual pattern by choosing one of eight possible as a 20-min speed test. Scores on this speeded form of the solutions. APM show strong correlations with scores on slower timed Due to its nonverbal format, the APM is purported to be a (40 min, r = .74) and untimed versions (r = .75) of the APM. culturally fair, unbiased measure of fluid intelligence (Cattell, However, these authors failed to report the IC of the Speed 1963), educative ability (J. Raven et al., 1993), or, as we will Test Scale. We also suspect that giving typical adults only 20 refer to it, general intelligence (g; Spearman, 1927), and has min to complete 36 very challenging abstract reasoning shown itself to be especially useful in situations where English problems might impose undue stress. is not an individual’s primary language. As such, the Standard The purpose of the current study was to develop a medium- and Advanced Progressive Matrices have been used exten- form version of the APM that resulted in higher IC than the sively in many applied settings in the United States (e.g., 12-item version (APM-12), but shorter administration time Ackerman, 1992) and across many cultures (Owen, 1992; J. C. than the full 36-item APM (APM-36)—a combination of Raven, 2000; Rushton, Cvorovic, & Bons, 2007). However, the positive aspects of this test are marred by its lengthy Kent State University at Ashtabula, OH, USA administration time (40-60 min), making it difficult to use in 2 The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA time-constrained multivariate research or classroom settings. The University of Arizona, Tucson, USA In answer to these various limitations, Arthur and Day Corresponding Author: (1994) developed a 12-item short form of the APM (which Jon A. Sefcek, Department of Psychology, Kent State University at we call APM-12), with an administration time of 15 min. Ashtabula, 3300 Lake Road West, Ashtabula, OH 44004, USA. Several studies have shown that this 12-item form shows Email: jsefcek@kent.edu Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open features that might be useful for time-constrained and mass- Analyses. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS testing situations. Here, we report the development and con- Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, 1999). Cronbach’s alphas and struct validity of this 18-item scale. bivariate correlations were computed using the PROC CORR procedure. Tests for mean differences between sexes were calculated through t test (PROC TTEST) procedures. Hierar- Study 1: Scale Construction and chical general linear models (GLMs) were tested using Construct Validity PROC GLM. Method Results Participants. A total of 633 students (198 male, 435 female) from three southwestern universities participated in this IC estimates were computed by using Cronbach’s alpha. The study as a partial requirement for experimental course credit. IC of the APM-18 scale yielded moderate reliability (α = The mean age for participants was 20.92, SD = 4.07 (M = .79). This alpha is lower than normative IC reports for the male 20.85, SD = 3.90; M = 20.96, SD = 4.15). Ages APM-36 (α = .84; Forbes, 1964), but higher than those for male female female ranged from 17 to 58 years old (male = 18-41, female = the APM-12 (ranging from α = .58-.66; see Arthur et al., 17-58). 1999). Furthermore, the alpha of the APM-18 was larger than that of the embedded APM-12 (α = .73). Table 1 shows the Measures results for each of the APM-18 items, with respect to their The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short item-total correlations, item difficulties, and scale α of the Form (APM-18). This 18-item short-form version of the overall scale if the item is deleted. As seen, deleting any item APM is printed in a booklet format on 8½″ by 11″ white reduces the overall reliability of the scale, suggesting that all paper, with each test item printed on a separate page. The items should be retained. first four pages of the test booklet contain three example The mean APM-18 score was 9.73, SD = 3.59 (M = male items (Practice Items 1, 5, and 9 from APM-36) to explain 10.43, SD = 3.52; M = 9.41, SD = 3.59), with a male female female the task. range of 18. For the subsample in which completion times The 18 actual test items were derived by adding six items were recorded (n = 175), the mean test completion time was from the longer 36-item version (J. Raven et al., 1993) to 17.5 min (SD = 4.67), with a range of 7 to 25 min; 21% of the Arthur and Day’s (1994) published 12-item version. Arthur participants took longer than 20 min, but no one took longer and Day used Items 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, and than 25 min. In this subsample, there was a significant posi- 35 from the 36-item APM based on a set of three decision tive relationship between the amount of time it took for par- rules, which can be summed up as (a) dividing the APM into ticipants to take the test and their APM-18 score (r = .41, p < 12, three-item sections based on difficulty; (b) taking the .001), but there was no relationship between age and APM- item with the highest item-total correlation for each section; 18 score, or age and time required to complete the test (for and (c) in the case of a tie, including the item that resulted in each r ≤ .03, p ≥ .71). However, for the complete sample (N the largest drop in IC if it was excluded from the full test. = 633), younger participants scored a little higher (age and Following these same rules, we added six more items of APM-18 scores correlated r = −.15, p < .001), and males increasing difficulty—two that were easy (96% and 75% of scored a little higher—sex (female = 0, male = 1) and APM- examinees from the normative sample answered correctly), 18 scores correlated r = .13, p < .001. two that were moderate (50% and 48% of examinees from Hierarchical GLMs were tested to explore whether the the normative sample answered correctly), and two that were apparent differences in male and female APM-18 scores difficult (37% and 32% of examinees from the normative might have been indirectly attributable to the relationship sample answered correctly). These items (2, 20, 22, 24, 34, between age and APM-18 scores. This model defined the and 32) were integrated of difficulty to mimic their presenta- APM-18 score as the criterion variable, with the ordered pre- tion order in the original APM. dictor variables being age and then sex. The hierarchical model was designed to allow age to absorb as much variance Procedure. The new APM-18 test was given in classroom set- as possible, with sex entered into the model only afterward. tings with several examinees at a time. This was done Using this model, both GLMs indicated a significant effect because this test was developed as a measure of g that could for age (F = 15.39, p < .001) and then also for sex after age be used in environments such as classrooms, where there are had been statistically controlled (F = 10.66, p = .001). time limits on research sessions. In one subsample (n = 175), tests were given with no time constraints, but with comple- Discussion tion times recorded, to determine the average time needed for completion. The other two subsamples (n = 232 and n = The results presented here suggest that the APM-18 may 226) were constrained to finish the test within 25 min, with serve as a useful compromise between the lower reliability no individual completion times recorded. APM-12 and the much longer APM-36. The hierarchical Sefcek et al. 3 Table 1. Item-Total Correlations and Item Difficulty for the drawing creativity (Miller & Tal, 2007). In addition, ACT APM-18. scores were collected in this second sample. Item-total correlation % correct Scale α if deleted Method 1 .3228 .9289 .7798 2 .3871 .9021 .7754 Participants. Sample 1 was comprised of 193 students (94 male, 3 .4160 .8483 .7734 99 female) from an introductory psychology course at the Uni- 4 .4957 .8168 .7678 versity of Arizona. Mean age of participants was 19.11, SD = 5 .3896 .8310 .7752 1.62 (M = 19.23, SD = 1.07; M = 19.01, SD = male male female female 6 .3973 .7899 .7747 2.00). Due to the length of time required to administer the APM- 7 .3599 .5861 .7772 18, the Shipley, and the Mill–Hill, 10 participants did not com- 8 .3975 .6019 .7747 plete the Mill–Hill Test. We urged participants to record their 9 .4800 .5071 .7689 SAT, ACT, and GPA scores only if they were certain of them; 10 .4273 .4801 .7726 due to this constraint, many of these scores were also missing. 11 .2512 .3612 .7846 Sample 2 was comprised of 229 students (65 male, 164 12 .3214 .3207 .7799 female) from various undergraduate courses at the University 13 .4188 .4739 .7732 of New Mexico. Mean age of participants was 20.19, SD = 14 .3480 .3175 .7781 3.43 (M = 21.05, SD = 5.01; M = 19.85, SD = 15 .3211 .2401 .7799 male male female female 2.48). Again, we urged participants to record their ACT 16 .3357 .3144 .7789 scores only if they were certain of them, leaving us with ACT 17 .2123 .2101 .7872 scores for only 129 participants. 18 .2734 .1974 .7831 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Measures Form. APM-18. The APM-18 consisted of the same items identi- fied in Study 1. In Sample 1, the form was presented first in GLMs identify both age and sex to be significant predictors a series of measures examining adult intelligence. In Sample of APM-18 scores, with younger individuals and males gen- 2, it was presented in the middle of a questionnaire packet erally scoring higher. These results are consistent with many concerning personality, creativity, sexual behavior, and intel- previous studies looking at general intelligence (e.g., Jackson ligence. & Rushton, 2006). Results of Study 1, however, do not test The SILS. The SILS (Zachary, 1986) is a timed (10 min the convergent validity of this scale relative to other mea- per subscale), 60-item self-report measure that examines sures of intelligence. Study 2 was designed to do this. both verbal intelligence (40 items) and abstract intelligence (20 items). The test is considered appropriate for average Study 2: Convergent Validity English-speaking individuals from 14 to adult ages, who are motivated test takers. Validities and norms published in Study 2 was conducted to assess the convergent validity of the manual were taken from a sample of 322 army recruits. the APM-18 with other measures of intelligence, academic Split-half reliabilities for each subscale are reported as .87 achievement, and personality. To do so, we tested two sepa- for Vocabulary, .89 for Abstraction, and .92 for the total rate subsamples (n = 193 and 229) taken from the Study 1, score. each of which used different criterion measures. In Sample 1, two widely used measures of adult intelligence were used: The MHV-MC. The MHV-MC (J. Raven et al., 1997) is a the Mill–Hill Vocabulary Scale–Multiple Choice Sets A & B 68-item self-administered multiple-choice vocabulary test (MHV-MC; J. Raven, Raven, & Court, 1997), developed to designed to complement the APM-36. Whereas the APM be used in conjunction with the APM-36 as a measure of aimed to measure an individual’s ability to solve novel prob- reproductive ability, that is, the ability to store and retrieve lems and think in novel ways (i.e., fluid intelligence), the Mill– information (J. C. Raven, 1989); and the Shipley Institute of Hill aimed to measure an individual’s ability to recall learned Living Scale (SILS; Zachary, 1986), which is a stand-alone information (i.e., crystallized intelligence). To this extent, it intelligence test comprised of two subscales—Vocabulary, indicates educational attainments, cultural background, and which tests crystallized intelligence, and Abstraction, which familiarity with the test’s language. The Mill–Hill typically tests fluid intelligence. Also, we examined academic perfor- shows split-half reliabilities more than .90 and test–retest reli- mance via self-reported grade point average (GPA) and scho- abilities ranging between .87 and .95 (Raven et al., 1997). lastic aptitude test (SAT) scores. In Sample 2, we examined correlations between APM-18 scores and Big Five personal- Academic performance. Academic performance was mea- ity dimensions assessed with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory sured by self-reported GPAs and SAT scores in Sample 1. (NEO-FFI) Scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and verbal and 4 SAGE Open Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Intelligence in Sample 1 (N = 193). Total Male Female M SD M SD M SD APM-18 10.68 3.25 11.07 3.13 10.31 3.34 Shipley 43.47 6.80 42.96 7.69 43.96 5.82 Shipley Verbal 27.65 5.77 27.29 6.65 27.99 4.80 Shipley Abstraction 31.65 5.04 31.34 5.47 31.94 4.59 Mill–Hill 46.87 6.91 46.51 7.98 47.24 5.68 GPA 3.10 0.59 3.03 0.62 3.17 0.56 SAT 1,140.98 163.66 1,179.32 143.49 1,099.90 174.66 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; GPA = grade point average; SAT = scholastic aptitude test. Indicates mean differences as a function of sex. Sample 2 participants were asked for SAT and ACT scores. please draw an animal that you admire for its strength, grace, A variety of studies have identified moderate to strong cor- speed, or beauty”). Each participant’s responses to each of relations between these academic achievement and aptitude the 14 creativity tasks were scored independently by four rat- measures, and a variety of other traits, including intelligence, ers on a 1- to 5-point creativity scale. The resulting compos- personality, and psychopathology (Barton, Dielman, & Cat- ite verbal creativity and drawing creativity measures showed tell, 1971; Brown, 1994; Dyer, 1987; Mouw & Khanna, high interrater reliability and IC (Cronbach’s alphas = .91 1993). and .90, respectively; Miller & Tal, 2007). NEO-FFI. The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is the Results most widely used measure in research on the Five-Factor model of personality. It is a shortened version of the 240- Sample 1 item Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa IC estimates were computed using Cronbach’s alpha. The & McCrae, 1992), comprised of 60 items that measure five APM-18 showed moderate IC (α = .71), with the embedded global personality factors (12 items per factor): Openness APM-12 yielding a slightly lower value (α = .63). Although to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeable- these internal consistencies are lower than those reported in ness, and Neuroticism. In our version, participants rated Study 1, they are still moderate in strength. degree of agreement with statements about their personali- The mean APM-18 score was 10.68, SD = 3.25 (M = ties and behavioral propensities on a 5-point scale ranging male 11.07, SD = 3.13; M = 10.31, SD = 3.34), with a from −2 (strongly disagree) to 0 (neutral) to +2 (strongly male female female range of 13 (four to 17). There was no relationship between agree). This scale has shown strong IC, with Cronbach’s APM-18 score and age (r = .03, p = .71), or sex (r = .11, p = alphas ranging between .74 to .89, for each factor, and con- .10). Mean scores for each of the measures of intelligence sistent cross-cultural validity (McCrae & Costa, 1997). can be seen in Table 2. Due to the significant sex difference between APM-18 scores in Study 1, mean sex differences on Verbal and drawing creativity tasks. Participants completed all measures in this study were checked via t tests. There six 2-min verbal creativity tasks and eight 1-min drawing were no significant sex differences for any of the intelligence creativity tasks (Miller & Tal, 2007). Because a mating-ori- measures in this sample, except for a moderate male advan- ented mind-set promotes creativity (Griskevicius, Cialdini, tage on self-reported SAT scores (t = −3.00, p = .003). & Kenrick, 2006), participants were asked to complete these Therefore, the remaining analyses were conducted on the full tasks as creatively as possible with the intention of attracting sample rather than by sex. a romantic partner. Examples of verbal tasks included writ- As seen in Table 3, both the APM-18 and embedded ing answers to thought-provoking questions, such as “How APM-12 correlated significantly with most of the other mea- would you keep a marriage exciting after the first couple of sures of intelligence and academic achievement and aptitude years?” “What do you hope the world will be like in a 100 used in this sample. Specifically, both the APM scales cor- years?” and “Imagine that all clouds had really long strings related positively and significantly most strongly with the hanging from them—strings hundreds of feet long. What Shipley Abstraction scale and self-report SAT scores. This is would be the implications of that fact for nature and soci- not surprising as the APM is designed to be a measure of g, ety?” There were two types of drawing tasks, four abstract which may be most easily identified in relation to abstract, (e.g., “Please draw an abstract symbol, pattern, or composi- analytical measures, of which the Shipley abstraction is one, tion that represents your happiness as a child doing a favorite and the SAT contains an analytical subscale. activity”) and four representational (e.g., “In the space below, Sefcek et al. 5 Table 3. Correlations Among APM-18, APM-12, and Other Intelligence and Academic Achievement Measures in Sample 1. Mill–Hill Shipley Abstraction Shipley Vocabulary GPA SAT (n = 183) (n = 193) (n = 193) (n = 175) (n = 144) APM-18 .22* .49* .12 .17* .34* APM-12 (embedded) .26* .47* .16* .12 .32* Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; APM-12 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 12-Item Short Form; GPA = grade point average; SAT = scholastic aptitude test. *p < .05. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Intelligence, Academic Achievement, and Personality in Sample 2 (N = 229). Total Male Female M SD M SD M SD APM-18 9.53 3.57 10.29 3.98 9.23 3.36 Verbal Creativity 2.57 0.46 2.56 0.60 2.57 0.40 Drawing Creativity 2.62 0.68 2.60 0.76 2.63 0.65 ACT (n = 129) 23.16 4.20 23.34 4.21 23.08 4.22 Openness 13.83 10.69 13.94 9.84 13.78 11.03 Conscientiousness 11.44 10.78 10.17 11.00 11.93 10.68 Extraversion 12.68 10.69 12.11 11.22 12.91 10.49 Agreeableness 4.74 11.08 3.77 11.27 5.13 11.01 Neuroticism 2.49 12.02 −1.41 12.20 4.04 11.62 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form. Indicates mean differences as a function of sex. Table 5. Correlations Among APM-18, APM-12, and Other Intelligence, Academic Achievement, and Personality Measures in Sample 2. Verbal Creativity Drawing Creativity ACT O C E A N (n = 225) (n = 225) (n = 129) (n = 224) (n = 226) (n = 221) (n = 223) (n = 225) APM-18 .35* .29* .44* .26* −.16* −.03 −.11 .02 APM-12 .31* .24* .45* .25* −.16* −.03 −.07 .00 (embedded) Note. O = Openness; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; APM-12 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 12-Item Short Form. *p < .05. As seen in Table 5, both the APM-18 and embedded Sample 2 APM-12 scores were significantly positively related to ver- IC estimates were again computed using Cronbach’s alpha. bal creativity (rs = .36 and .32, p < .001, respectively), draw- As in Study 1 and Sample 1 of this study, the APM-18 ing creativity (rs = .34 and .29, p < .001, respectively), and showed moderate reliability (α = .79), whereas the embedded self-reported ACT score (rs = .44 and .45, p < .001, respec- APM-12 again shows slightly lower reliability (α = .74). The tively). In addition, the APM scales were positively related to mean APM-18 score was 9.53, SD = 3.57 (M = 10.29, male Openness (rs = .26 and .25, p < .01, respectively) and nega- SD = 3.98; M = 9.23, SD = 3.36), with a range of male female female tively to Conscientiousness (for each, r = −.16, p < .05), a 1 to 18. There was no relationship between APM-18 score finding consistent with previous research (Ackerman & and age (r = −.03, p = .61), but there was between APM-18 Heggestad, 1997; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003). score and sex (r = .13, p = .04), with males again scoring slightly higher (t = −2.04, p < .05). There were no other sex Discussion differences on the other intelligence measures (for all ts ≥ −1.20, p > .05). Table 4 shows mean scores for the intelli- Each sample in Study 2 used different methods of assessing gence measures and NEO-FFI factors. the convergent validity of the APM-18. Sample 1 focused on 6 SAGE Open relationships between the APM-18 and other standard mea- Arthur, W., Jr., & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. sures of intelligence and academic achievement (e.g., verbal Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394-403. intelligence tests, self-reported GPA, and SAT scores); Arthur, W., Jr., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Sanchez-Ku, M. L. whereas Sample 2 examined the relationship between the (1999). College-sample psychometric and normative data on a APM-18, creativity, self-reported ACT scores, and Big Five short form of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. personality traits. Both studies confirmed that the APM-18 is Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 354-361. related to these measures in a predictable manner. Generally Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1971). The predic- speaking, both the APM-18 and the embedded APM-12 tion of school grades from personality and IQ measures. showed the same pattern of correlations with the other mea- Personality, 2, 325-333. sures used in these studies. However, the higher IC of the Brown, M. W. (1994). Cognitive, interest, and personality variables APM-18 suggests that it may be better at detecting individual predicting first-semester GPA. Psychological Reports, 74, variation in g. 605-606. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, Conclusion 1-22. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Each of the 18 items used in this new APM-18 test was cho- Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory sen to maintain the progressive difficulty of both the long (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological form (APM-36) and the short form (APM-12). Unsurprisingly, Assessment Resources. although the APM-18’s reliability was lower than that of the Dyer, E. D. (1987). Can university success and first-year job per- APM-36, it was higher than that of the APM-12 developed formance be predicted from academic achievement, vocational by Arthur and Day (1994). Furthermore, the patterns of cor- interest, personality and biographical measures? Psychological relation with other measures of intelligence are virtually Reports, 61, 655-671. identical to the APM-12, which has, in previous studies, been Forbes, A. R. (1964). An item analysis of the advanced matrices. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 223-236. shown to mimic the APM-36 results (Arthur & Day, 1994; Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Arthur et al., 1999). Combined with an average administra- Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of tion time of 17.53 min (25 min maximum), these findings romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and suggest that the APM-18 may work well as a compromise for Social Psychology, 91, 52– 66. researchers who want a quite accurate measure of general Hamel, R., & Schmittmann, V. D. (2006). The 20-minute version intelligence in a quite short amount of time. The cross-vali- as a predictor of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices dation in the three samples reported here is an initial attempt Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, to collect normative data for the APM-18. Our results may 1039-1046. generalize only to other college students. However, the Jackson, D. N., & Rushton, J. P. (2006). Males have greater g: APM-18’s short administration time, high IC, reasonable Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17- to validity, and ease of administration by paper and pencil in 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479-486. large college classroom settings make it ideal for behavioral McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a science studies where researchers want a reasonably fast, human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. accurate intelligence score as part of a larger questionnaire Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness battery. and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophrenia Research, 93, 317-324. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs type indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94. Mouw, J. T., & Khanna, R. K. (1993). Prediction of academic suc- Funding cess: A review of the literature and some recommendations. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or College Student Journal, 27, 328-336. authorship of this article. Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and References Individual Differences, 13, 149-159. Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1993). Raven manual: Section complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of ability determinants. 1. General overview. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598-614. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1997). Mill Hill Vocabulary Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal- Scale: 1998 edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press. ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardisation of progressive matrices. British Bulletin, 121, 219-245. Journal of Medical Psychology, 19, 137-150. Sefcek et al. 7 Raven, J. C. (1989). The Raven Progressive Matrices: A review Author Biographies of national norming studies and ethnic and socioeconomic Jon A. Sefcek, PhD, is assistant professor of Psychology at Kent variation within the United States. Journal of Educational State University’s Ashtabula Campus. His research focus is from Measurement, 26, 1-16. the persepctive of Evolutionary Psychology, where he studies per- Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change sonality and individual difference as they relate to human mating. and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, Geoffrey F. Miller is associate professor of Psychology at 1-48. University of New Mexico. His research focuses on evolutionary Rushton, J. P., Cvorovic, J., & Bons, T. A. (2007). General mental psychology in relation to mating behavior, behavior genetics, and ability in South Asians: Data from three Roma (Gypsy) com- applied evolutionary psychology as it related to consumer behavior munities in Serbia. Intelligence, 35, 1-12. and public policy. SAS Institute. (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8, volumes 1, 2, and 3. Cary, NC: Author. Aurelio José Figueredo, PhD, is a professor of Psychology at the Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London, England: University of Arizona. He serves as director of the graduate program Macmillan. in Ethology and Evolutionary Psychology (EEP), and is affiliated Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale: Revised with the graduate programs in Program Evaluation and Research Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Methodology (PERM) and Psychology, Policy, and Law (PPL). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Development and Validation of an 18-Item Medium Form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices:

Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/development-and-validation-of-an-18-item-medium-form-of-the-ravens-2kRCkLqx7A

References (30)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 by SAGE Publications Inc, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses.
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244016651915
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) is a widely used measure of general intelligence (g), both across settings and cultures. Due to its lengthy 40-min administration time, several researchers have developed short-form scales, yet these forms typically yield a significantly lower reliability. This article describes the creation of an 18-item short form (APM-18) and its validation in three samples of Southwestern U.S. university students (total N = 633). The APM-18 shows similar psychometric properties to both the previously published 36-item long form and 12-item short form, but retains a reliability estimate closer to the original APM. This, plus the shorter administration time (25 min) relative to the complete APM (40-60 min), makes it useful for time-constrained or mass-testing situations. Keywords general intelligence, Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices, culture-fair tests, personality, timed tests The Ravens Progressive Matrices Test, developed by Raven acceptable psychometric properties (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, (1941) as a measure of general intelligence (g), has under- test–retest reliability, convergent validity; see Arthur, Tubre, gone many revisions, ranging from colored versions for chil- Paul, & Sanchez-Ku, 1999, for review). However, this short dren to the standard and advanced matrices for adults of form shows relatively low and variable internal consistency different cognitive levels. The most recent published version (IC). For example, Cronbach’s alphas range from .58 to .66 is the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM; Raven, for short form itself to and .72 to .73 for the 12 short-form Raven, & Court, 1993), which was developed for higher items extracted from the full 36-item version (Arthur & Day, ability adult populations (i.e., college-level and above). This 1994). test is constructed of 36 items of increasing difficulty broken More recently, Hamel and Schmittmann (2006) have into three 12-item sets; in each item, the examinee is asked to argued that the complete 36-item APM can be administered complete a visual pattern by choosing one of eight possible as a 20-min speed test. Scores on this speeded form of the solutions. APM show strong correlations with scores on slower timed Due to its nonverbal format, the APM is purported to be a (40 min, r = .74) and untimed versions (r = .75) of the APM. culturally fair, unbiased measure of fluid intelligence (Cattell, However, these authors failed to report the IC of the Speed 1963), educative ability (J. Raven et al., 1993), or, as we will Test Scale. We also suspect that giving typical adults only 20 refer to it, general intelligence (g; Spearman, 1927), and has min to complete 36 very challenging abstract reasoning shown itself to be especially useful in situations where English problems might impose undue stress. is not an individual’s primary language. As such, the Standard The purpose of the current study was to develop a medium- and Advanced Progressive Matrices have been used exten- form version of the APM that resulted in higher IC than the sively in many applied settings in the United States (e.g., 12-item version (APM-12), but shorter administration time Ackerman, 1992) and across many cultures (Owen, 1992; J. C. than the full 36-item APM (APM-36)—a combination of Raven, 2000; Rushton, Cvorovic, & Bons, 2007). However, the positive aspects of this test are marred by its lengthy Kent State University at Ashtabula, OH, USA administration time (40-60 min), making it difficult to use in 2 The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA time-constrained multivariate research or classroom settings. The University of Arizona, Tucson, USA In answer to these various limitations, Arthur and Day Corresponding Author: (1994) developed a 12-item short form of the APM (which Jon A. Sefcek, Department of Psychology, Kent State University at we call APM-12), with an administration time of 15 min. Ashtabula, 3300 Lake Road West, Ashtabula, OH 44004, USA. Several studies have shown that this 12-item form shows Email: jsefcek@kent.edu Creative Commons CC-BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open features that might be useful for time-constrained and mass- Analyses. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS testing situations. Here, we report the development and con- Version 8.2 (SAS Institute, 1999). Cronbach’s alphas and struct validity of this 18-item scale. bivariate correlations were computed using the PROC CORR procedure. Tests for mean differences between sexes were calculated through t test (PROC TTEST) procedures. Hierar- Study 1: Scale Construction and chical general linear models (GLMs) were tested using Construct Validity PROC GLM. Method Results Participants. A total of 633 students (198 male, 435 female) from three southwestern universities participated in this IC estimates were computed by using Cronbach’s alpha. The study as a partial requirement for experimental course credit. IC of the APM-18 scale yielded moderate reliability (α = The mean age for participants was 20.92, SD = 4.07 (M = .79). This alpha is lower than normative IC reports for the male 20.85, SD = 3.90; M = 20.96, SD = 4.15). Ages APM-36 (α = .84; Forbes, 1964), but higher than those for male female female ranged from 17 to 58 years old (male = 18-41, female = the APM-12 (ranging from α = .58-.66; see Arthur et al., 17-58). 1999). Furthermore, the alpha of the APM-18 was larger than that of the embedded APM-12 (α = .73). Table 1 shows the Measures results for each of the APM-18 items, with respect to their The Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short item-total correlations, item difficulties, and scale α of the Form (APM-18). This 18-item short-form version of the overall scale if the item is deleted. As seen, deleting any item APM is printed in a booklet format on 8½″ by 11″ white reduces the overall reliability of the scale, suggesting that all paper, with each test item printed on a separate page. The items should be retained. first four pages of the test booklet contain three example The mean APM-18 score was 9.73, SD = 3.59 (M = male items (Practice Items 1, 5, and 9 from APM-36) to explain 10.43, SD = 3.52; M = 9.41, SD = 3.59), with a male female female the task. range of 18. For the subsample in which completion times The 18 actual test items were derived by adding six items were recorded (n = 175), the mean test completion time was from the longer 36-item version (J. Raven et al., 1993) to 17.5 min (SD = 4.67), with a range of 7 to 25 min; 21% of the Arthur and Day’s (1994) published 12-item version. Arthur participants took longer than 20 min, but no one took longer and Day used Items 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, and than 25 min. In this subsample, there was a significant posi- 35 from the 36-item APM based on a set of three decision tive relationship between the amount of time it took for par- rules, which can be summed up as (a) dividing the APM into ticipants to take the test and their APM-18 score (r = .41, p < 12, three-item sections based on difficulty; (b) taking the .001), but there was no relationship between age and APM- item with the highest item-total correlation for each section; 18 score, or age and time required to complete the test (for and (c) in the case of a tie, including the item that resulted in each r ≤ .03, p ≥ .71). However, for the complete sample (N the largest drop in IC if it was excluded from the full test. = 633), younger participants scored a little higher (age and Following these same rules, we added six more items of APM-18 scores correlated r = −.15, p < .001), and males increasing difficulty—two that were easy (96% and 75% of scored a little higher—sex (female = 0, male = 1) and APM- examinees from the normative sample answered correctly), 18 scores correlated r = .13, p < .001. two that were moderate (50% and 48% of examinees from Hierarchical GLMs were tested to explore whether the the normative sample answered correctly), and two that were apparent differences in male and female APM-18 scores difficult (37% and 32% of examinees from the normative might have been indirectly attributable to the relationship sample answered correctly). These items (2, 20, 22, 24, 34, between age and APM-18 scores. This model defined the and 32) were integrated of difficulty to mimic their presenta- APM-18 score as the criterion variable, with the ordered pre- tion order in the original APM. dictor variables being age and then sex. The hierarchical model was designed to allow age to absorb as much variance Procedure. The new APM-18 test was given in classroom set- as possible, with sex entered into the model only afterward. tings with several examinees at a time. This was done Using this model, both GLMs indicated a significant effect because this test was developed as a measure of g that could for age (F = 15.39, p < .001) and then also for sex after age be used in environments such as classrooms, where there are had been statistically controlled (F = 10.66, p = .001). time limits on research sessions. In one subsample (n = 175), tests were given with no time constraints, but with comple- Discussion tion times recorded, to determine the average time needed for completion. The other two subsamples (n = 232 and n = The results presented here suggest that the APM-18 may 226) were constrained to finish the test within 25 min, with serve as a useful compromise between the lower reliability no individual completion times recorded. APM-12 and the much longer APM-36. The hierarchical Sefcek et al. 3 Table 1. Item-Total Correlations and Item Difficulty for the drawing creativity (Miller & Tal, 2007). In addition, ACT APM-18. scores were collected in this second sample. Item-total correlation % correct Scale α if deleted Method 1 .3228 .9289 .7798 2 .3871 .9021 .7754 Participants. Sample 1 was comprised of 193 students (94 male, 3 .4160 .8483 .7734 99 female) from an introductory psychology course at the Uni- 4 .4957 .8168 .7678 versity of Arizona. Mean age of participants was 19.11, SD = 5 .3896 .8310 .7752 1.62 (M = 19.23, SD = 1.07; M = 19.01, SD = male male female female 6 .3973 .7899 .7747 2.00). Due to the length of time required to administer the APM- 7 .3599 .5861 .7772 18, the Shipley, and the Mill–Hill, 10 participants did not com- 8 .3975 .6019 .7747 plete the Mill–Hill Test. We urged participants to record their 9 .4800 .5071 .7689 SAT, ACT, and GPA scores only if they were certain of them; 10 .4273 .4801 .7726 due to this constraint, many of these scores were also missing. 11 .2512 .3612 .7846 Sample 2 was comprised of 229 students (65 male, 164 12 .3214 .3207 .7799 female) from various undergraduate courses at the University 13 .4188 .4739 .7732 of New Mexico. Mean age of participants was 20.19, SD = 14 .3480 .3175 .7781 3.43 (M = 21.05, SD = 5.01; M = 19.85, SD = 15 .3211 .2401 .7799 male male female female 2.48). Again, we urged participants to record their ACT 16 .3357 .3144 .7789 scores only if they were certain of them, leaving us with ACT 17 .2123 .2101 .7872 scores for only 129 participants. 18 .2734 .1974 .7831 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Measures Form. APM-18. The APM-18 consisted of the same items identi- fied in Study 1. In Sample 1, the form was presented first in GLMs identify both age and sex to be significant predictors a series of measures examining adult intelligence. In Sample of APM-18 scores, with younger individuals and males gen- 2, it was presented in the middle of a questionnaire packet erally scoring higher. These results are consistent with many concerning personality, creativity, sexual behavior, and intel- previous studies looking at general intelligence (e.g., Jackson ligence. & Rushton, 2006). Results of Study 1, however, do not test The SILS. The SILS (Zachary, 1986) is a timed (10 min the convergent validity of this scale relative to other mea- per subscale), 60-item self-report measure that examines sures of intelligence. Study 2 was designed to do this. both verbal intelligence (40 items) and abstract intelligence (20 items). The test is considered appropriate for average Study 2: Convergent Validity English-speaking individuals from 14 to adult ages, who are motivated test takers. Validities and norms published in Study 2 was conducted to assess the convergent validity of the manual were taken from a sample of 322 army recruits. the APM-18 with other measures of intelligence, academic Split-half reliabilities for each subscale are reported as .87 achievement, and personality. To do so, we tested two sepa- for Vocabulary, .89 for Abstraction, and .92 for the total rate subsamples (n = 193 and 229) taken from the Study 1, score. each of which used different criterion measures. In Sample 1, two widely used measures of adult intelligence were used: The MHV-MC. The MHV-MC (J. Raven et al., 1997) is a the Mill–Hill Vocabulary Scale–Multiple Choice Sets A & B 68-item self-administered multiple-choice vocabulary test (MHV-MC; J. Raven, Raven, & Court, 1997), developed to designed to complement the APM-36. Whereas the APM be used in conjunction with the APM-36 as a measure of aimed to measure an individual’s ability to solve novel prob- reproductive ability, that is, the ability to store and retrieve lems and think in novel ways (i.e., fluid intelligence), the Mill– information (J. C. Raven, 1989); and the Shipley Institute of Hill aimed to measure an individual’s ability to recall learned Living Scale (SILS; Zachary, 1986), which is a stand-alone information (i.e., crystallized intelligence). To this extent, it intelligence test comprised of two subscales—Vocabulary, indicates educational attainments, cultural background, and which tests crystallized intelligence, and Abstraction, which familiarity with the test’s language. The Mill–Hill typically tests fluid intelligence. Also, we examined academic perfor- shows split-half reliabilities more than .90 and test–retest reli- mance via self-reported grade point average (GPA) and scho- abilities ranging between .87 and .95 (Raven et al., 1997). lastic aptitude test (SAT) scores. In Sample 2, we examined correlations between APM-18 scores and Big Five personal- Academic performance. Academic performance was mea- ity dimensions assessed with the NEO Five-Factor Inventory sured by self-reported GPAs and SAT scores in Sample 1. (NEO-FFI) Scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992), and verbal and 4 SAGE Open Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Intelligence in Sample 1 (N = 193). Total Male Female M SD M SD M SD APM-18 10.68 3.25 11.07 3.13 10.31 3.34 Shipley 43.47 6.80 42.96 7.69 43.96 5.82 Shipley Verbal 27.65 5.77 27.29 6.65 27.99 4.80 Shipley Abstraction 31.65 5.04 31.34 5.47 31.94 4.59 Mill–Hill 46.87 6.91 46.51 7.98 47.24 5.68 GPA 3.10 0.59 3.03 0.62 3.17 0.56 SAT 1,140.98 163.66 1,179.32 143.49 1,099.90 174.66 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; GPA = grade point average; SAT = scholastic aptitude test. Indicates mean differences as a function of sex. Sample 2 participants were asked for SAT and ACT scores. please draw an animal that you admire for its strength, grace, A variety of studies have identified moderate to strong cor- speed, or beauty”). Each participant’s responses to each of relations between these academic achievement and aptitude the 14 creativity tasks were scored independently by four rat- measures, and a variety of other traits, including intelligence, ers on a 1- to 5-point creativity scale. The resulting compos- personality, and psychopathology (Barton, Dielman, & Cat- ite verbal creativity and drawing creativity measures showed tell, 1971; Brown, 1994; Dyer, 1987; Mouw & Khanna, high interrater reliability and IC (Cronbach’s alphas = .91 1993). and .90, respectively; Miller & Tal, 2007). NEO-FFI. The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is the Results most widely used measure in research on the Five-Factor model of personality. It is a shortened version of the 240- Sample 1 item Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa IC estimates were computed using Cronbach’s alpha. The & McCrae, 1992), comprised of 60 items that measure five APM-18 showed moderate IC (α = .71), with the embedded global personality factors (12 items per factor): Openness APM-12 yielding a slightly lower value (α = .63). Although to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeable- these internal consistencies are lower than those reported in ness, and Neuroticism. In our version, participants rated Study 1, they are still moderate in strength. degree of agreement with statements about their personali- The mean APM-18 score was 10.68, SD = 3.25 (M = ties and behavioral propensities on a 5-point scale ranging male 11.07, SD = 3.13; M = 10.31, SD = 3.34), with a from −2 (strongly disagree) to 0 (neutral) to +2 (strongly male female female range of 13 (four to 17). There was no relationship between agree). This scale has shown strong IC, with Cronbach’s APM-18 score and age (r = .03, p = .71), or sex (r = .11, p = alphas ranging between .74 to .89, for each factor, and con- .10). Mean scores for each of the measures of intelligence sistent cross-cultural validity (McCrae & Costa, 1997). can be seen in Table 2. Due to the significant sex difference between APM-18 scores in Study 1, mean sex differences on Verbal and drawing creativity tasks. Participants completed all measures in this study were checked via t tests. There six 2-min verbal creativity tasks and eight 1-min drawing were no significant sex differences for any of the intelligence creativity tasks (Miller & Tal, 2007). Because a mating-ori- measures in this sample, except for a moderate male advan- ented mind-set promotes creativity (Griskevicius, Cialdini, tage on self-reported SAT scores (t = −3.00, p = .003). & Kenrick, 2006), participants were asked to complete these Therefore, the remaining analyses were conducted on the full tasks as creatively as possible with the intention of attracting sample rather than by sex. a romantic partner. Examples of verbal tasks included writ- As seen in Table 3, both the APM-18 and embedded ing answers to thought-provoking questions, such as “How APM-12 correlated significantly with most of the other mea- would you keep a marriage exciting after the first couple of sures of intelligence and academic achievement and aptitude years?” “What do you hope the world will be like in a 100 used in this sample. Specifically, both the APM scales cor- years?” and “Imagine that all clouds had really long strings related positively and significantly most strongly with the hanging from them—strings hundreds of feet long. What Shipley Abstraction scale and self-report SAT scores. This is would be the implications of that fact for nature and soci- not surprising as the APM is designed to be a measure of g, ety?” There were two types of drawing tasks, four abstract which may be most easily identified in relation to abstract, (e.g., “Please draw an abstract symbol, pattern, or composi- analytical measures, of which the Shipley abstraction is one, tion that represents your happiness as a child doing a favorite and the SAT contains an analytical subscale. activity”) and four representational (e.g., “In the space below, Sefcek et al. 5 Table 3. Correlations Among APM-18, APM-12, and Other Intelligence and Academic Achievement Measures in Sample 1. Mill–Hill Shipley Abstraction Shipley Vocabulary GPA SAT (n = 183) (n = 193) (n = 193) (n = 175) (n = 144) APM-18 .22* .49* .12 .17* .34* APM-12 (embedded) .26* .47* .16* .12 .32* Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; APM-12 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 12-Item Short Form; GPA = grade point average; SAT = scholastic aptitude test. *p < .05. Table 4. Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Intelligence, Academic Achievement, and Personality in Sample 2 (N = 229). Total Male Female M SD M SD M SD APM-18 9.53 3.57 10.29 3.98 9.23 3.36 Verbal Creativity 2.57 0.46 2.56 0.60 2.57 0.40 Drawing Creativity 2.62 0.68 2.60 0.76 2.63 0.65 ACT (n = 129) 23.16 4.20 23.34 4.21 23.08 4.22 Openness 13.83 10.69 13.94 9.84 13.78 11.03 Conscientiousness 11.44 10.78 10.17 11.00 11.93 10.68 Extraversion 12.68 10.69 12.11 11.22 12.91 10.49 Agreeableness 4.74 11.08 3.77 11.27 5.13 11.01 Neuroticism 2.49 12.02 −1.41 12.20 4.04 11.62 Note. APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form. Indicates mean differences as a function of sex. Table 5. Correlations Among APM-18, APM-12, and Other Intelligence, Academic Achievement, and Personality Measures in Sample 2. Verbal Creativity Drawing Creativity ACT O C E A N (n = 225) (n = 225) (n = 129) (n = 224) (n = 226) (n = 221) (n = 223) (n = 225) APM-18 .35* .29* .44* .26* −.16* −.03 −.11 .02 APM-12 .31* .24* .45* .25* −.16* −.03 −.07 .00 (embedded) Note. O = Openness; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; APM-18 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 18-Item Short Form; APM-12 = Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices 12-Item Short Form. *p < .05. As seen in Table 5, both the APM-18 and embedded Sample 2 APM-12 scores were significantly positively related to ver- IC estimates were again computed using Cronbach’s alpha. bal creativity (rs = .36 and .32, p < .001, respectively), draw- As in Study 1 and Sample 1 of this study, the APM-18 ing creativity (rs = .34 and .29, p < .001, respectively), and showed moderate reliability (α = .79), whereas the embedded self-reported ACT score (rs = .44 and .45, p < .001, respec- APM-12 again shows slightly lower reliability (α = .74). The tively). In addition, the APM scales were positively related to mean APM-18 score was 9.53, SD = 3.57 (M = 10.29, male Openness (rs = .26 and .25, p < .01, respectively) and nega- SD = 3.98; M = 9.23, SD = 3.36), with a range of male female female tively to Conscientiousness (for each, r = −.16, p < .05), a 1 to 18. There was no relationship between APM-18 score finding consistent with previous research (Ackerman & and age (r = −.03, p = .61), but there was between APM-18 Heggestad, 1997; Moutafi, Furnham, & Crump, 2003). score and sex (r = .13, p = .04), with males again scoring slightly higher (t = −2.04, p < .05). There were no other sex Discussion differences on the other intelligence measures (for all ts ≥ −1.20, p > .05). Table 4 shows mean scores for the intelli- Each sample in Study 2 used different methods of assessing gence measures and NEO-FFI factors. the convergent validity of the APM-18. Sample 1 focused on 6 SAGE Open relationships between the APM-18 and other standard mea- Arthur, W., Jr., & Day, D. V. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. sures of intelligence and academic achievement (e.g., verbal Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394-403. intelligence tests, self-reported GPA, and SAT scores); Arthur, W., Jr., Tubre, T. C., Paul, D. S., & Sanchez-Ku, M. L. whereas Sample 2 examined the relationship between the (1999). College-sample psychometric and normative data on a APM-18, creativity, self-reported ACT scores, and Big Five short form of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. personality traits. Both studies confirmed that the APM-18 is Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 17, 354-361. related to these measures in a predictable manner. Generally Barton, K., Dielman, T. E., & Cattell, R. B. (1971). The predic- speaking, both the APM-18 and the embedded APM-12 tion of school grades from personality and IQ measures. showed the same pattern of correlations with the other mea- Personality, 2, 325-333. sures used in these studies. However, the higher IC of the Brown, M. W. (1994). Cognitive, interest, and personality variables APM-18 suggests that it may be better at detecting individual predicting first-semester GPA. Psychological Reports, 74, variation in g. 605-606. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, Conclusion 1-22. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Each of the 18 items used in this new APM-18 test was cho- Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory sen to maintain the progressive difficulty of both the long (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological form (APM-36) and the short form (APM-12). Unsurprisingly, Assessment Resources. although the APM-18’s reliability was lower than that of the Dyer, E. D. (1987). Can university success and first-year job per- APM-36, it was higher than that of the APM-12 developed formance be predicted from academic achievement, vocational by Arthur and Day (1994). Furthermore, the patterns of cor- interest, personality and biographical measures? Psychological relation with other measures of intelligence are virtually Reports, 61, 655-671. identical to the APM-12, which has, in previous studies, been Forbes, A. R. (1964). An item analysis of the advanced matrices. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 223-236. shown to mimic the APM-36 results (Arthur & Day, 1994; Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Arthur et al., 1999). Combined with an average administra- Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of tion time of 17.53 min (25 min maximum), these findings romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and suggest that the APM-18 may work well as a compromise for Social Psychology, 91, 52– 66. researchers who want a quite accurate measure of general Hamel, R., & Schmittmann, V. D. (2006). The 20-minute version intelligence in a quite short amount of time. The cross-vali- as a predictor of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices dation in the three samples reported here is an initial attempt Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, to collect normative data for the APM-18. Our results may 1039-1046. generalize only to other college students. However, the Jackson, D. N., & Rushton, J. P. (2006). Males have greater g: APM-18’s short administration time, high IC, reasonable Sex differences in general mental ability from 100,000 17- to validity, and ease of administration by paper and pencil in 18-year-olds on the Scholastic Assessment Test. Intelligence, 34, 479-486. large college classroom settings make it ideal for behavioral McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a science studies where researchers want a reasonably fast, human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. accurate intelligence score as part of a larger questionnaire Miller, G. F., & Tal, I. R. (2007). Schizotypy versus openness battery. and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Schizophrenia Research, 93, 317-324. Declaration of Conflicting Interests Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. personality inventory and the Myers-Briggs type indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94. Mouw, J. T., & Khanna, R. K. (1993). Prediction of academic suc- Funding cess: A review of the literature and some recommendations. The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or College Student Journal, 27, 328-336. authorship of this article. Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices for various groups in South Africa. Personality and References Individual Differences, 13, 149-159. Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Predicting individual differences in Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1993). Raven manual: Section complex skill acquisition: Dynamics of ability determinants. 1. General overview. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 598-614. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1997). Mill Hill Vocabulary Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personal- Scale: 1998 edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press. ity, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardisation of progressive matrices. British Bulletin, 121, 219-245. Journal of Medical Psychology, 19, 137-150. Sefcek et al. 7 Raven, J. C. (1989). The Raven Progressive Matrices: A review Author Biographies of national norming studies and ethnic and socioeconomic Jon A. Sefcek, PhD, is assistant professor of Psychology at Kent variation within the United States. Journal of Educational State University’s Ashtabula Campus. His research focus is from Measurement, 26, 1-16. the persepctive of Evolutionary Psychology, where he studies per- Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change sonality and individual difference as they relate to human mating. and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, Geoffrey F. Miller is associate professor of Psychology at 1-48. University of New Mexico. His research focuses on evolutionary Rushton, J. P., Cvorovic, J., & Bons, T. A. (2007). General mental psychology in relation to mating behavior, behavior genetics, and ability in South Asians: Data from three Roma (Gypsy) com- applied evolutionary psychology as it related to consumer behavior munities in Serbia. Intelligence, 35, 1-12. and public policy. SAS Institute. (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8, volumes 1, 2, and 3. Cary, NC: Author. Aurelio José Figueredo, PhD, is a professor of Psychology at the Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London, England: University of Arizona. He serves as director of the graduate program Macmillan. in Ethology and Evolutionary Psychology (EEP), and is affiliated Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale: Revised with the graduate programs in Program Evaluation and Research Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Methodology (PERM) and Psychology, Policy, and Law (PPL).

Journal

SAGE Open – SAGE

Published: Jun 3, 2016

Keywords: general intelligence; Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices; culture-fair tests; personality; timed tests

There are no references for this article.