Using the advanced progressive matrices (Set I) to assess fluid ability in a short time frame: An item response theory-based analysis

Psychological Assessment

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 892-900

  Chiesi, Francesca ^a   Ciancaleoni, Matteo ^b   Galli, Silvia ^a   Primi, Caterina ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORENCE   (Italy)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Differential item functioning; Fluid ability; Item response theory; Raven's progressive matrices; Short form

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADVANCED PROGRESSIVE MATRICES SET I; AGE; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELEMENTARY STUDENT; FEMALE; FLUID ABILITY; GENDER; HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; ITEM RESPONSE THEORY; MALE; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; RATING SCALE; RELIABILITY; SCHOOL CHILD; THEORY; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE; INTELLIGENCE TESTS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84874457231     PISSN: 10403590     EISSN: 1939134X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027830     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30-60. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.30
2. Arthur, W., & Day, D. (1994). Development of a short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 394-403. doi:10.1177/0013164494054002013
3. Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/117765/Item%20Response%20Theory%20-%20F%20Baker.pdf
4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
5. Bors, D. A., & Stokes, T. L. (1998). Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Norms for the first-year university students and the development of a short form. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 382-398. doi:10.1177/0013164498058003002
6. Bouma, A., Mulder, J., & Lindeboom, J. (1996). Neuropsychologische diagnostiek: Handboek [Neuropsychological assessment: Manual]. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
7. Brouwers, S. A., Van der Vijver, F. J. R., & Van Hemert, D. A. (2009). Variation in Raven's progressive matrices scores across time and place. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 330-338. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.006
8. Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 309-321. doi:10.1177/014662169501900401
9. Caffarra, P., Vezzadini, G., Zonato, F., Copelli, S., & Venneri, A. (2003). A normative study of a shorter version of Raven's progressive matrices 1938. Journal of Neurological Sciences, 24, 336-339. doi:10.1007/s10072-003-0185-0
10. Chiesi, F., Ciancaleoni, M., Galli, S., Morsanyi, K., & Primi, C. (2011). Item response theory analysis and differential item functioning across age, gender and country of a short form of the Advanced Progressive Matrices. Learning and Individual Differences. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.007
11. Chiesi, F., & Primi, C. (2009). Recency effects in primary-age children and college students using a gaming situation. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 4, 3, 259-274. Retrieved from www.iejme.com
12. Chiesi, F., Primi, C., & Morsanyi, K. (2011). Developmental changes in probabilistic reasoning: The role of cognitive capacity, instructions, thinking styles and relevant knowledge. Thinking & Reasoning, 17, 315-350. doi:10.1080/13546783.2011.598401
13. Çikrikçi-DemUniversal-GreekwithMathPi.-1.H9251rtasli, N. (2000, September). A study of Raven Standard Progressive Matrices Test's item measures under classical and item response model. Paper presented at 31st European Mathematical Psychology Congress, Graz, Austria.
14. Colom, R., Florez-Mendoza, C., & Rebollo, I. (2003). Working memory and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 33-39. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00023-5
15. Colom, R., & Garcìa-Lopez, O. (2002). Sex differences in fluid intelligence among high school graduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 445-451. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00040-X
16. Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. B. (2002). A latent variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30, 163-183. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00096-4
17. Court, J. C. (1983). Sex differences in performance on Raven's Progressive Matrices. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 29, 54-74.
18. de Ayala, R. J. (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
19. Doll, E. A. (1917). A brief Binet-Simon scale. Psychological Clinic, 11, 197-211.
20. Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309-331. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
21. Evers, A. (2011, July). Testing practices and attitude towards tests and testing: The results of a global survey. Paper presented at the 12th European Congress of Psychology, Istanbul, Turkey.
22. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure? Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171-191. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171
23. Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (1996). Processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence: Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science, 7, 237-241.
24. Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (2000). Relationships among processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence in children. Biological Psychology, 54, 1-34. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(00)00051-X
25. Gallini, J. K. (1983). A Rasch analysis of Raven item data. Journal of Experimental Education, 52, 27-32.
26. Georgiev, N. (2008). Item analysis of C, D and E Series from Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices with item response theory two-parameter logistic model. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 4, 3. Retrieved from http://www.ejop.org/archives/category/volume4/vol4-no3
27. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
28. Hambleton, R. K. (1989). Principles and selected applications of item response theory. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 147-200). New York, NY: Macmillan.
29. Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30. Hamel, R., & Schmittmann, V. D. (2006). The 20-minute version as a predictor of the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 1039-1046. doi:10.1177/0013164406288169
31. Handley, S., Capon, A., Beveridge, M., Dennis, I., & Evans, J. St. B. T. (2004). Working memory, inhibitory control and the development of children's reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 10, 175-195. doi:10.1080/13546780442000051
32. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
33. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kokis, J. V., MacPherson, R., Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2002). Heuristic and analytic processing: Age trends and associations with cognitive ability and cognitive styles. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83, 26-52.
35. Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary school. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 441-451. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.08.001
36. Lynn, R., & Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481-498. doi:10.1016/j.intell .2004.06.008
37. Mackintosh, N. J., & Bennett, E. S. (2005). What do Raven's Matrices measure? An analysis in term of sex differences. Intelligence, 33, 663-674. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2005.03.004
38. Muñiz, J. (2009, July). The role of EFPA in setting standards for tests and test use. Paper presented at the 11th European Congress of Psychology, Oslo, Norway.
39. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers. User's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
40. Nathaniel-James, D. A., Brown, R. G., Maier, M., Mellers, J., Toone, B., & Ron, M. A. (2004). Cognitive abnormalities in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychosis of epilepsy. The Journal of the Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 16, 472-479. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16.4.472
41. Orlando, M. (1997). Item fit in the context of item response theory (Doctoral dissertation). Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and Engineering, 58(04), 2175.
42. Pearson & TalentLens. (2007). Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (Version. 2.0). San Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.talentlensindia.com/Reports/Ravens_SPM_Development.pdf
43. Pind, J., Gunnarsdottir, E. K., & Johannesson, H. S. (2003). Raven's standard progressive matrices: New school age norms and a study of the test's validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 375-386. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00058-2
44. Primi, C., & Chiesi, F. (2011, February). The role of relevant knowledge and cognitive ability in gambler fallacy. Paper presented at the 7th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education, Rzeszów, Poland. Retrieved from http://www.cerme7.univ.rzeszow.pl/WG/5/CERME_Primi-Chiesi.pdf
45. Raju, N. S. (1998). DFITD4: A Fortran program for calculating dichotomous DIF/DTF [Computer program]. Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute of Technology.
46. Raju, N. S. (1999). Some notes on the DFIT framework. Chicago, IL: Illinois Institute of Technology.
47. Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardization of progressive matrices. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 19, 137-150. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1941.tb00316.x
48. Raven, J. C. (1962). Advanced Progressive Matrices. London, England: Lewis.
49. Raven, J. C. (2000). The Raven's Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0735
50. Raven, J. C. (2008). Matrici progressive di Raven [Standard Progressive Matrices]. Florence, Italy: Giunti Organizzazioni Speciali.
51. Raven, J. C., Prieler, J., & Benesch, M. (2005). A replication and extension of the item-analysis of the standard progressive matrices plus, together with a comparison of the results of applying three variants of item response theory. WebPsychEmpiricist. Retrieved from http://wpe.info/papers_table.html
52. Raven, J. C., & Raven, J. (Eds.). (2008). Uses and abuses of intelligence: Studies advancing Spearman and Raven's quest for nonarbitrary metrics. Unionville, NY: Royal Fireworks Press.
53. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven manual section 4: Advanced Progressive Matrices. Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
54. Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Standard Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
55. Schermelleh-Engel, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness of fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23-74.
56. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102-111. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
57. Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York, NY: Macmillan.
58. Stanovich, K. E. (2006). Fluid intelligence as cognitive decoupling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29, 139-140. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06359031
59. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
60. Stone, C. A., & Zhang, B. (2003). Assessing goodness of fit of item response theory models: A comparison of traditional and alternative procedures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 40, 331-352. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.2003.tb01150.x
61. Thissen, D. (1991). MULTILOG user's guide. Chicago, IL: SSI.
62. Thissen, D. (2001). IRTLRDIF: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in item response theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning (Version 2.0b) [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/Universal-GreekwithMathPi.-1.H11011dthissen/dl.html
63. Thissen, D., Steinberg, L., & Wainer, H. (1998). Use of item response theory in the study of group differences in trace lines. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. doi:10.1007/BF02291170
65. Van der Elst, W., Ouwehand, C., van Rijn, P., Lee, N., van Boxtel, M. P. J., & Jolles, J. (2011). The shortened Raven Standard Progressive Matrices: Item response theory-based psychometric analyses and normative data. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191111415999
66. van der Ven, A. H. G. S., & Ellis, J. L. (2000). A Rasch analysis of Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 45-64. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00177-4
67. Wechsler, D. (2006). WISC-III. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Terza Edizione-Manuale [WISC-III. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third edition-Handbook]. Florence, Italy: Organizzazioni Speciali.
68. Yuan, K., Steedle, J., Shavelson, R., Alonzo, A., & Oppezzo, M. (2006). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and science learning. Educational Research Review, 1, 83-98. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2006.08.005
69. Zaaiman, H., van der Flier, H., & Thijs, G. D. (2001). Dynamic testing in selection for an educational programme: Assessing South African performance on the Raven Progressive Matrices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 258-269. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00178