Talk:Raven's Progressive Matrices

Link to "non verbal intelligence" is unrelated
The link to "non verbal intelligence" does not work properly in that one gets taken to an entry on "non verbal" which has nothing to do with intelligence. I don't know how to put it right.

In that context there should be a reference to:

McCallum, R. S. (Ed.) (2003), Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment (pp. 223-240). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Additional material
Folks—I've just adding an 'Under construction' template, because I'm gradually trying to fill out this article a little bit. Just to explain what I'm up to, over the next few days I plan to add extra information on:


 * The proximity of Raven's Matrices to 'g' in multidimensional scaling.
 * The factors that appear to underlie solution rates on specific items in RM.
 * The rules that Carpenter et al.  suggest can be used to solve Raven's Matrices items.

I may also pick up on the current comments about racial differences in RM scores, and on sex differences. This is a controversial area though, and still under considerable debate, so I'll try to tread carefully... Do please shout or edit if there's anything that you reckon needs discussion, or if I add anything that seems too strong! – ''Stuart. '' (Sjb90 |  talk) 16:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A picture of some matrices should definitely be included in this article. There are some in the wikimedia commons, can someone please add one/a few? If they are copyrighted, a 'fair use' inclusion should not be hard to justify. Arcades (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've went and added an example I found on Wikimedia Commons. MaesterTonberry (talk) 23:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * might be worth adding a simple description of how and why the example’s answer is what it is - e.g. does the “pattern” simply match left to right? Or does the matrix column influence the answer? And so on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.136.108.246 (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Critiques and responses
I've removed this section as the 'critiques' seem to have little to do with RPM but rather its use in the wider debate of race and intelligence (which we already have an article on). If anyone wants to incorporate discussion on the culture fairness of the test itself I'd be fine with that but this article shouldn't be hijacked to serve a different debate. MaesterTonberry (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says that the test uses multiple choice but in the example it shows only the 3x3 matrix and not the multiple choices, so the example is not typical or valid. Rocketcount (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree (nearly 10 years later!); the example should also show the available choices. Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

deleted this
"The explanation (note: for differences in test results from varying ethnic groups) has to be sought elsewhere. And the implications for such things as educational and social policy are dramatic."

This does not belong in an article on Wikipedia.

Felix 77.176.195.73 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceiling
Does anyone know what the ceiling of this test is? I think it should be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.205.2 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Most common and most popular
I am going to boldly delete this sentence "It is the most common and popular test administered to groups ranging from 5-year-olds to the elderly" from the article as it is untrue and not what the reliable sources say. If someone reverts it fine. Then we can discuss it. Harrow1234 (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Good catch. The sentence as written is indeed inaccurate. For anyone who doesn't feel like downloading the source, the relevant quote is: The Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM) test is one of the best known and most popular nonverbal group tests. Although used primarily in educational settings, the Raven is a suitable test anytime one needs an estimate of an individual’s general intelligence. Only the SAT Reasoning Test, Wechsler, and Binet tests are referenced more in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. One may administer the RPM to groups or individuals, from 5-year-olds to elderly adults. As an alternative to cutting, I'd suggest editing the text to read: "It is one of the most popular tests of nonverbal ability, and can be administered to individuals or groups ranging from 5 years of age to the elderly." Generalrelative (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * great thanks Generalrelative I chose not to remove it before talking about it first and getting other opinions. Can we reword this a bit then based on what it actually says in the source? Harrow1234 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your version sounds good. Could we say "one of the most widely used" rather than "most popular"? Most widely used can then be be verified by the quote in that source "Only the SAT Reasoning Test, Wechsler, and Binet tests are referenced more in the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Harrow1234 (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes that sounds good to me. Generalrelative (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"eductive" or "educative"?
The introductory paragraph has this: "This format is designed to measure the test taker's reasoning ability, the educative ("meaning-making") component of Spearman's g (g is often referred to as general intelligence)." However, the second paragraph under Problem structure has this: " … he set about developing simple measures of the two main components of Spearman's g: the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity (known as eductive ability) … " I believe that the intro para is incorrect, and "educative" should be "eductive". Anyone agree with me? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC) I have the thesis in front of me. The word is "eductive". I have tried to change it in the article but cannot find out how to do so. Please will someone do so for me.
 * His 1936 Masters thesis was titled: "Mental tests used in genetic studies: The performance of related individuals on tests mainly educative and mainly reproductive." e.g. here? But Pearson says this here: "A measure of eductive ability – the ability to make sense and meaning out of complex or confusing data; the ability to perceive new patterns and relationships, and to forge (largely non-verbal) constructs which make it easy to handle complexity." And I guess they ought to know. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't deduce a more accurate (not to mention currently-used) root here than educe? Note there is no form of educe or deduce used in the meaning-making article, and that is used to show the meaning of the word in the lead. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)