Ravens APM Item Banked Manual Part 1

MANUAL
PART 1
RAVENSTM
PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
Copyright 2015 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved

Warning: No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
copyright owner.
Pearson, TalentLens, Raven's Progressive Matrices and the logo are trademarks in
the US and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).
Adobe and Adobe Acrobat are trademarks of Adobe Systems, Inc.
Table of content
Introduction ....................................................................................... 5
A brief history of intelligence.............................................................. 5
Measuring intelligence ....................................................................... 9
Development of Ravens Progressive Matrices .................................... 11
Usefulness of intelligence measures .................................................. 12
Predicting performance ............................................................ 12
General testing considerations ......................................................... 16
Range of application ....................................................................... 16
Selection ................................................................................ 16
Career Guidance and Development ............................................ 17
User responsibilities ........................................................................ 17
Administration ................................................................................ 18
Before the assessment ............................................................. 18
During the assessment............................................................. 21
After the assessment ............................................................... 22
Scoring and Reporting ...................................................................... 23
T-scores ........................................................................................ 23
Percentiles ..................................................................................... 24
Interpretation ...................................................................................... 25
Descriptive information ................................................................... 25
Predictive information ..................................................................... 26
Integrating Ravens APM results into an overall assessment.......... 27
Feedback ........................................................................................... 29
Verbal feedback .............................................................................. 31
Before the feedback session ..................................................... 31
During the feedback session ..................................................... 31
After the feedback session ........................................................ 33
Written feedback ............................................................................ 34
Sources of Best Practice Information ............................................... 36
References ........................................................................................ 38
Appendix Online administration ....................................................... 44
3
Copyright 2015 Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
4
Introduction
This manual, Part 1 Users guide, provides guidelines and recommendations for trained
users of the computerized version of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) 23
item (short form) within the work and organizational context. First, the theoretical
background of intelligence and Ravens Matrices is outlined along with the purpose and
areas of applications within the work and organizational setting. This is followed by
guidelines concerning testing conditions including group- and individual administration as
well as supervised and unsupervised administration. And last, scoring and interpretation
is discussed together with general recommendations for best practice.
A brief history of intelligence

In the past 100 years, the work to define, measure, and untangle the nature of the
construct of intelligence has engaged researchers, theorists, and scholars from diverse
fields of psychology as well as other disciplines. Although it is not possible to cover all
aspects of this research area in detail, there are some important milestones in the history
of intelligence research that are of great importance for the emergence and development
of the Ravens Matrices.
In the 1880s, Francis Galton, a younger cousin of Charles Darwin, began measuring
the ability to distinguish sensory impressions by studying relatively simple functions, such
as reaction-time and sensory discrimination. Galton noted that there were measurable
differences between individuals in these abilities and suggested that differences were due
to hereditary factors (Jensen, 1998). Galton applied the label mental ability as a basic
concept for all cognitive processes.
During roughly the same time period, an alternate approach to measuring intelligence
was developed by the French psychologist Alfred Binet (18571911) and his colleagues.
Binet was skeptical of the attempts to assess intelligence using only sensory measures
and together with his graduate student Theodore Simon (18371961) he started to develop
a battery of scales (Binet & Simon, 1905a; 1905b; 1905c) with the aim of assessing the
degree to which French schoolchildren were developmentally delayed compared to their
peers. Binet and Simone found that scales applying an inductive approach assessing more
5
complex abilities such as imagination, verbal fluency, memory, and judgment were more
effective in discriminating between high and low performing students compared to the
simple sensory measures. Binet and Simons intelligence scales had great impact and is
said to have formed the basis of modern IQ tests.
In 1904, the English researcher Charles Edward Spearman (18631945) noted that tests
measuring academic abilities such as arithmetic, reading, and spelling tended to correlate
highly and he argued that these correlations could only be explained if there were some
underlying common or general factor in mental or cognitive ability. Spearman (1904)
defined a two-factor theory posting the existence of a general intelligence factor, a g factor,
and the plurality of specific factors. He assumed that every intelligence factor consisted of
these two components: the general factor and a specific component required to solve the
specific problem (e.g., a numerical problem). In his work, Spearman (1927a) continued to
examine various markers of intelligence, initially using school grades as indicators, and
found that all of them not only had positive correlations with each other but also that
all markers were positively correlated with the assumed general factor. These empirical
results provided support both for Spearman's theory of g and for Galton's assumption
of a basic "mental ability". Although Spearman was the first to suggest a general factor
of intelligence, Holzinger and Swineford (1939) were the first to propose a hierarchical
structure of intelligence with a general factor at the top and several uncorrelated specific
ability factors below.
Another theory of intelligence, which has found wide acceptance among cognitive
ability researchers is the Cattell-Horn model. Cattell (1941; 1943) was, along with other
distinguished researchers such as Louis Leon Thurstone (18871955) and Joy Paul Guilford
(18971987), skeptical to the generalizable nature of g. Cattell proposed that intelligence
consists of two broad but distinct types of intelligence, fluid and crystallized, rather than
one unitary construct such as Spearmans g.
Fluid intelligence, gf, represents a novel or abstract problem solving capability and is
believed to have a physiological basis. According to Cattell (1987, p. 97) the label reflects
the constructs fluid quality of being directable to almost any problem. The term fluid is
meant to imply that this type of intelligence is not tied to any specific habits or sensory,
motor, or memory area (Cattell, 1987, p. 138). According to Flanagan and Ortiz (2001)
fluid intelligence refers to the mental operations that a person uses when facing new tasks
that cannot be performed automatically and include recognition and concept formation,
understanding of implications, problem solving, extrapolation, reorganization or transformation of information.
6
In contrast, crystallized intelligence, gc, is associated with learned and acculturated

knowledge. That is, gc is a result of learning and knowledge acquired over ones lifetime.
Cattell (1987, p. 138) defines gc as complex, acquired abilities, in the form of high-level
judgmental skills in particular perceptual and motor areas. The term crystallized is meant
to imply that their expression is tied to a series of particular areas (Cattell, 1987, p.
139) or that they have become frozen in a specific shape of what was once fluid ability
(Cattell, 1987, p. 140).
According to Cattells (1971; 1987) Investment Theory, gf causes gc and more specifically; individuals have a fixed amount of gf that they can choose to invest in, or apply
to, learning in specific crystallized skills. Cattell also argues that although individuals
choose where to invest their gf, a person who demonstrates high ability in one crystallized area is likely to also be high in other areas. Thus, crystallized abilities will tend to
exhibit a positive manifold. As such, Investment theory postulates that gc arises and
has its particular form as a result of investing a general capacity, gf, in suitable learning
experiences (Cattell, 1987, p. 146). A measure of an individuals current gc level is thus
a function of and dependent upon his or hers prior, historical, level of gf and of common
learning investments (time, interest, and memory) (Cattell, 1987).
Schweizer and Koch (2001) revisited Investment Theory by proposing a revision to
Cattells model. These authors propose that learning mediates the influence of fluid intelligence on crystallized intelligence (p. 66). Specifically, they argue that gf impacts learning,
which controls the transfer of knowledge to permanent memory (p.66,) suggesting that
it is through learning that gc is created. Although Cattells Investment Theory is fairly
straightforward, it is difficult to test it empirically. The empirical studies conducted of
Cattells Investment theory have shown mixed results and must be regarded as less than
conclusive.
The fact that gf and gc are correlated is interpreted differently, depending on what
theoretical perspective is applied. Traditional gfgc theorists choose not to extract the
general factor, reflecting their view that g is merely a statistical artifact and not a meaningful psychological construct (Hunt, 2000). Most g theorists view this as evidence for the
higher level construct of g (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005). Cattell viewed the g factor
as synonymous with historical gf. Consistent with this line of reasoning, some researchers
(e.g., Gustafsson, 1984; Undheim, 1981a, 1981b;) have argued that the characteristics of
the g factor as described by Spearman (1904; 1927) agree so well with the characteristics
of the gf factor as described by Horn and Cattell (1966), that g and gf should be considered
to be one and the same factor (Kvist & Gustafsson, 2008, p. 423). Following this argument,
7
several scholars (Gustafsson, 1984, 1988, 1994, 2002; Keith, 2005; Reynolds & Keith, 2007;
Undheim & Gustafsson, 1987) have presented evidence suggesting that gf is perfectly
related, or equivalent, to g.
In 1993, the American psychologist John Bissell Carroll (19162003) published Human
Cognitive Abilities in which he outlined a three-stratum model that in many ways is analogous to the gfgc theory proposed by Cattell and Horn. Overall, the two models are very
similar regarding the definition and position of gf and gc (at stratum II in the Carroll-model)
along with working memory and processing speed. The primary difference is Carrolls
argument for the existence of a general factor, or g factor, at stratum IIIthus, superordinate over the broad stratum II and the narrow stratum I abilities (for gf e.g., matrices
and verbal analogies, and for gc e.g., vocabulary).
As mentioned, Carroll (1993) is not alone in his belief that both theory and empirical
evidence suggest the presence of a general factor of intelligence. Despite the number of
researchers following Spearman (1904; 1927) who have advocated the existence of a g
factor (Jensen, 1998; Gottfredson, 1997; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; 1998; 2004; Ree &
Earles, 1991), there has been a continuous debate regarding what the g factor represents
(Kvist & Gustafsson, 2008).
A definition of general intelligence proven to be useful in applied psychology is the one
presented by Gottfredson (1997), first published as an editorial in the Wall Street Journal
(1994) that was signed by a number of colleagues.
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability
to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly
and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test
taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our
surroundings catching on, making sense of things, or figuring out what to do. (p.13)
General mental ability does not represent a narrow academic intelligence, but will
manifest itself in almost any realm of activity that involves active information processing.
Though Spearman (1904) labeled this general ability factor the g factor, some later
scholars have used general mental ability, cognitive ability, and intelligence to refer to the
same construct. The preferred label is likely to depend on context. In work and organizational psychology and particularly within the branch of personnel selection, general mental
ability is often considered the most suitable expression. The term cognitive ability is usually
associated with clinical psychology and the term intelligence is often, for historical reasons,
negatively charged. Regardless of which label is used, the underlying construct is the same.
8
Although Spearmans g factor and the hierarchical model have been criticized, accumulated research has provided solid evidence for the robustness and soundness of the
hierarchical model and for the relevance of the g factor (Carroll, 1993). There is broad
consensus in the scientific community concerning the hierarchical structure of intelligence,
the existence of the general factor, and the definition of the construct. Currently, the
most dominating perspective is perhaps to consider g as a latent variable that causes the
correlations between different measures of cognitive ability. Thus, most g theorists do not
deny the existence of gf and gc; however they maintain that gf and gc are merely different
kinds of indicators of the higher-order latent variable g.
More modern competing theories (e.g., Gardner, 1993; Guilford, 1988; Sternberg, 1985)
have certainly not been absent, but suffer for the time being, from the lack of convincing
empirical support (Jensen, 1998) and despite the development of new statistical methods
and theories invented to reject g factor, empirical studies have shown that the g factor
more or less exist in all item types included in cognitive test batteries (Thorndike, 1987).
Measuring intelligence
As for many areas of psychology, research and knowledge about intelligence have been
largely intertwined with and dependent upon the progress of measurement. Development
of new methodological approaches and statistical analyses within intelligence research
has made a significant contribution to many areas of research within the social sciences.
From the perspective of measurement, support for Spearmans two-factor theory was
an expression of the common variance contained in the indicators. This inferred that tests
using different types of indicators, thus different item types, all required different degrees
of the g factor and an almost endless variety of items are capable to measure g because
the g factor is found in all types of problem solving. Spearman refer to this as "indifferences
of the indicator item that includes verbal, spatial and numerical information all measure
the g factor to a certain degree implying that the g-factor is generalizable to all problem
solving.
However, the fact that all item types of cognitive measures capture certain amounts
of the g factor does not imply that indicators such as gf and gc does not capture specific
variance of value or meaning. Viewing gf and gc as different indicators of g means they
are assigned unique properties, such as their predictive validities of for example job
performance that will be discussed below, and that they traditionally are represented by
different item types.
gf is usually assessed with items of a nonverbal or graphical format such as syllogisms,
concept formation, number, letter and figure series, and mental rotation and matrices such
9
as the Ravens Matrices and the Differential Aptitude Test. However, verbal items such as
analogies can also be used to assess gf if the word pairs contain simple words that are
familiar to the population of respondents (Cattell, 1987; Jensen, 1998).
gc is typically measured with verbal items, particularly those assessing vocabulary such
as the Mill Hill Vocabulary Scales. This further clarifies that gc tests measure how well and
to what extent a person has learned a wide variety of things in the past.
Note that if the aim is to actually assess the full construct of g, thus not to merely to
obtain an indication of the level of g, a range of item types needs to be applied in order to
cover the wide range spectrum of cognitive abilities incorporated in the latent variable g.
The larger and more diverse the number of indicators are used, the more construct valid
will be the final estimate of g. Usually this is done by administering a battery of tests that
includes item types measuring gf and gc as well as spatial (e.g., puzzle) and numerical (e.g.,
arithmetic) items. One example of such a battery of test is the Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (Wechsler, 2008).
Though all cognitive measure item types capture certain amounts of the g factor it
is important to know what type of item is the most effective indicator of g? Research
categorizing items in various types of problems (e.g., verbal, spatial and numerical) and
analyzing them with factor analysis shows items (regardless of type) that capture the g
factor most successfully are those that challenge the ability to see hidden connections, fill
in gaps where information is missing, see relationships between objects, and find points
of contact between characters that differ. The abilities or type of problem solving that
Spearman labeled "eduction of relations and correlates" measure gf. Cattell, Feingold, and
Sarason (1941) found that measures of gf display the highest loading on general intelligence
factor, i.e., are highly g-saturated.
These items are based on both inductive and deductive problem solving and demand
that the individual mentally manipulate symbols, words, or numbers into a logical context.
These items are different from indicators such as to utter words or to write multiplication
tables, in that in the latter type of items measure learned skills and acquired knowledge
and thus are significantly poorer indicators of the g factor.
To measure his g-factor (Cattells gf ), Spearman invented a problem solving test that
was completely non-verbal. The items included in the test were based on simple geometric
shapes and Spearman labeled this a matrix relationship test. When conducting factor
analyses on the matrixes together with other measures of reasoning, it was found that the
figures showed high loadings on g factor (Fortes, 1930; Line, 1931). By this, an item format
based on perceptually logical reasoning with reduced sensitivity to cultural variations was
invented.
10
Development of Ravens Progressive Matrices

According to John Raven (1941), Ravens Progressive Matrices (RPM) were developed to
provide a non-verbal series of tests, suitable for measuring intelligence (p. 137). As
mentioned, at this point in time, the concept of intelligence corresponded to Spearmans
eductive ability (making meaning out of confusion, developing new insights, going beyond
the given to perceive what is not immediately obvious, evaluating complex information,
finding solutions to novel problems where prior knowledge a cannot be applied) that he
labeled the g factor. The empirical support for this theoretical aim has been and still is
massive. Factor-analytic studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the RPM are one of
the best single indicators of g available (e.g., Llabre, 1984; Snow, Kyllonen, & Marshalek,
1984; Spearman, 1927a; 1927b; Vernon, 1942), and, as a reliable indicator of the g factor,
the test has been shown to predict performance on a range of measures and with different
populations.
Currently, different versions of the RPM have been in use for almost 80 years. The initial
series of the RPM, the Standard Progressive Matrices, SPM, was first published in 1938. The
SPM item format had, with its nine-figure determinants, resemblance with the item-format
in the test mentioned above developed by Spearman, but with the significant difference
that, whereas Spearman asked people to identify the rule exemplified, they were now asked
to find a missing figure. The term progressive matrices was used as each problem in the
test is really the mother or source of a system of thought, while the order in which the
problems are presented provides training in the method of working.
The series Advanced Progressive Matrices, APM, were initially developed in 1941 to cater
for higher abilities. APM was developed to measure middle-to-high intellectual capabilities
and is better suited for individuals with higher levels of education. Numerous versions,
parallel versions and updates, have been published since the publication of the first version.
One of the major revisions included the re-sequencing and shortening of the APM from 48
to 36 items in 1962. The latest revision of the APM is the development of a computerized
item-banked short version. This development work is described in Part 2 of this manual.
At present, Ravens Progressive Matrices is one of the most used intelligence tests in the
world. A brief search at APAs PsychINFO database yielded 592 scientific publications with
the descriptor advanced progressive matrices raven (search made February 2014). Note
also that the frequent use of Ravens Progressive Matrices imply that general conclusions
concerning the relationship with for example job performance often is based on single
studies and/or meta-analyses based on data from Ravens Progressive Matrices (e.g.,
Postlethwaite, 2011).
11
Usefulness of intelligence measures

What can be concluded is that the Raven matrices measure what Cattell labeled historical
gf, which corresponds largely to Spearmans theoretical definition of g. This is supported
empirically by the fact that, compared to other indicators such as gc, gf constitutes the
most effective indicator of g. However, empirical support for a meaningful g factor and the
knowledge that gf is the most effective indicator of g does not provide information about
the practical usefulness and financial utility of such measures.
To start with, measuring intelligence in isolation is rarely the purpose of the quest.
Rather, to what extent g and gf, and thus scores on Ravens Matrices, are related to
real-world outcomes such as academic performance, training performance, and job performance is of greater interest and is more useful in practice. So, for what purposes can
and should we use these measures? What are their areas of application? What conclusions
about other and future behaviors can be drawn from scores on these measures? Answers to
these questions and drawing such conclusions inevitably requires the making of predictions.
Shifting focus from defining and measuring intelligence for the purpose of describing
to the aim of prediction of different criteria serves as a new framework for evaluating
the usefulness of intelligence measures. For prediction of job performance in personnel
selection for example a full measures of g, usually by individual administration of extensive
and time-consuming test-batteries, does not necessarily serve its purpose. The financial
gain of increased job performance due to the marginal increased validity of measuring the
whole g, is likely to be less compared to the cost of doing the assessment. This explains
the relevance of applying effective indicators of g in practice.
Predicting performance
Individual differences in intelligence have proven to predict a range of criteria from several
different areas of psychology, including clinical and educational settings and contribute significantly to explaining differences between people in many vital areas of life (Gottfredson,
1997a; Hemmingsson, Melin, Allebeck, & Lundberg, 2006; Jensen, 1998; Neisser, 1996).
Since the publication of Spearmans paper, General Intelligence, Objectively Determined
and Measured in 1904, more than a century of empirical research has demonstrated the
pervasive influence of cognitive ability in such various areas as academic achievement,
occupational attainment, delinquency, socioeconomic status, racial prejudice, divorce, and
even age of death (Gottfredson, 1997a; Jensen, 1998).
Spearmans (1927) formulation of the original g theory included the assumption that
the g factor should influence performance on a wide range of tests and tasks. Research
12
has, as mentioned, shown that the g factor is present in all types of cognitive item types
(Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger, McGue, & Gottesman, 2004) and regarding external criteria,
the pattern is similar.
A recently published meta-analysis has estimated the relationship between intelligence
and two of the most commonly investigated criteria: academic performance and job training.
Academic performance is mainly measured as grade point average and job training, defined
as the acquisition of skills, concepts, or attitudes that results in improved performance in
an on-the-job environment (Goldstein, 1980, p. 230), as grades from exams. The result
shows that g, gc and gf predict performance in academic settings and training at the job
(Postlethwaite, 2011). The fact that all three intelligence factors show convincing predictive
validity is dependent upon that acquisition and mastery of new knowledge and skills are
a major focus for both performance criteria.
Within the work and organizational domain, general job performance is probably the
most frequently used criteria. The theoretical model of job performance that has gained
the strongest empirical support and is the most widely accepted and utilized (Aguinis,
2008), is hierarchically organized with the construct of general job performance as the
highest order and most generalizable factor located at the apex of the performance taxonomy. The general factor of job performance is defined as scalable actions, behavior and
outcomes that employees engage in or bring about that are linked with and contribute
organizational goals (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000, p. 216) thus, represents a very broad
and general construct. The general factor is an aggregation of the three primary job
performance domains located at the level below (Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2005),
namely task performance, contextual performance, and avoidance of counterproductive
work behaviors (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). The concept of general job performance reflects
the overall contribution of each employee to the organization, as it takes core task effectiveness, positive contribution to the social and psychological climates, and the absence
of destructive and counterproductive behaviors into consideration. As such, general job
performance concerns the expected combined value of an employees employment-related
productive and unproductive behaviors at an organization over a certain period of time.
Job performance is traditionally measured with objective performance based measures
(e.g., if objective goals are met) or by measuring work behavior using supervisor ratings
(e.g., task performance).
The fact that individuals differ in levels of job performance makes it essential for the
survival and effectiveness of organizations, and applicants, to identify and hire the highest
performers. Identifying the factors that predict job performance is critical and research
13
indicates that a great deal of the variation between individuals in levels of job
performance can be explained by individual differences in g (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
Meta-analytic findings indicate that measures of g effectively predict job performance
in a variety of different tasks, jobs, organizations, and occupations, and countries, which
contributes to its universal importance to job performance (Salgado & Anderson, 2003;
Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, de Fruyt, & Rolland, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter,
1998).
The relationship between g and job performance has been found to be linear, which
implies that higher levels of g are consistently related to higher levels of job performance
and that there is no point where a higher level of general mental ability is negatively related
to job performance (Sackett, Borneman, & Connelly, 2008).
The validity of g tends to increase with job complexity. In 1984, Hunter and Hunter
published their controversial results confirming that job complexity has an effect on the
predictive validity and confirmed the controversial hypothesis that g predicts performance
even in low-complexity jobs. The predictive validities were estimated the validities for lowcomplexity jobs to the 0.20s, medium-complexity jobs in the 0.50s, and high-complexity
jobs in the 0.70s (Hunter & Hunter, 1984). More recently, development of meta-analysis
and a new methodology for correction of range restriction has made it possible to estimate
the predictive validity more accurately. In this research the validity of g for low-complexity
jobs is estimated to 0.39, for medium-complexity jobs to 0.66, and for high-complexity jobs
to 0.73 (Hunter, Schmidt, & Le, 2006). At present, no other single measure of individual
differences reaches this level of predictive validity for job performance. Also notice that
research looking at employees who have been in their jobs for some time has shown that
the effect of g does not decline with experience, with it still being predictive of performance
up to 12 years into a job (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004).
Regarding gf and gc, the most important and general conclusion to be drawn is that
both indicators predict job performance, and that they together with g are more effective
predictors than any other single measure of individual differences. A closer look reveals
that gf seem to be an effective predictor primarily in jobs with medium (the majority of
jobs) and especially high complexity levels and a less effective predictor of low complexity
jobs (Postlethwaite, 2011). Thus, high complexity jobs seem particularly reliant on gf.
The exploration of why g, gf, and gc, respectively, predict performance to different
extents, is explained by the identification of learning as the proximal determinant of
overall job performance. Acquisition of job knowledge (learning) has shown to mediate the
relationship between g and job performance (Borman, Hanson, Oppler, Pulakos, & White,
1993; Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986). More specifically, meta-analytic findings show
14
that individuals with a high level of g and especially gc are more proficient at acquiring
knowledge about the job, learning from experience, and utilizing this knowledge, performing better than individuals with lower levels of g and gc (Postlethwaite, 2011). Empirical
evidence support the notion that gf, compared to g and gc, in general show slightly lower
correlations with job and academic performance and training performance, but, is the most
efficient predictor of job performance in jobs of high complexity. This imply that imply
that in high complexity jobs, previously acquired knowledge (gc) is not applicable to the
same extent the increased complexity in itself in combination with the creation of novel
problems likely explains the increased importance of gf.
In general, research shows that gf decreases with age while gc is stable across age. This
is explained by the fact that as people age, they increasingly view problems not as novel
challenges (gf ), but as recognizable patterns that they have previously encountered (gc).
This implies that for personnel selection, gf tests may under-predict the performance of
older workers. On the other hand, the limited time to acquire and develop their gc would
for example be at risk of under-predicting the performance of younger workers.
Time passed and age is inevitably to some extent connected to work experience, a
factor that practitioners often have great faith in and usually assign significant importance
when predicting future job performance of candidates. Hunter and Hunter (1984) however,
showed that the relationship between work experience and job performance is estimated
to only .18. Previous work experience does thus not appear as a strong predictor of job
performance and is a significantly weaker compared to g.
15
General testing considerations
Range of application
APM measures fluid intelligence which in turn is the most efficient indicator of g - general
intelligence, relevant to problem solving and job performance across jobs, roles, and
complexity levels. Ravens APM is suitable for use in a variety of organisational contexts,
including selection, development and career counselling across commercial, industrial
and public sector organisations.
Ravens APM is a restricted psychometric instrument and should be used only by
professionals who are appropriately trained in the use of ability measures in an occupational
context. A trained test user has the knowledge and skills to decide whether a test is
appropriate for use and to administer and interpret scores appropriately.
In choosing to use Ravens APM, test users should be satisfied that the test is relevant
and appropriate to each situation. This will depend on the purpose of testing and the group
being assessed. In the following, guidance concerning the relevance and suitability of using
Ravens APM in the context of selection, development, and career guidance is provided. How
to interpret and use the test scores in different applications is provided later in this section.
Selection
Tests of general intelligence have been shown to be the most effective single predictor
of job performance and training success (e.g. Salgado et al., 2003; Robertson & Smith,
2001; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; 2004). This means that by using such a test, more informed
decisions on a candidates probable ability level regarding performance on the job and
in training programs can be achieved, reducing poor selection decisions. Ravens APM
can be used in various ways in a selection process; for initial screening to identify high
potential candidates either unsupervised via the internet or under supervision at the
administrators premises, or for use in combination with other assessments (e.g., as part
of an assessment centre). No matter at what stage Ravens APM is used in a selection
process, before use organisations should ensure that the test is relevant and appropriate
16
to use. There are three key aspects to consider when deciding if Ravens APM is a suitable
measure for the purpose:
1.
Is an assessment of general intelligence, g, relevant?
2.
Is fluid intelligence the most efficient indicator of g?
3.
If so, is the Ravens APM relevant in terms of difficulty level and the
group to be tested? For example, note that the APM was developed to
differentiate between people of higher intellectual ability, while the SPM was
designed to cover the widest possible range of mental ability and to be
equally useful with people at all levels of ability.
Career Guidance and Development

In career guidance, the purpose of using APM is to provide individuals with information they
need to make realistic occupational decisions. The test can be used to develop an
awareness of potential and explore occupational awareness. Ravens APM allows individuals
to develop an awareness of their potential; their ability to see complex and abstract patterns, think logically and find solutions to novel problems.
In a development context, Ravens APM can be helpful in better understanding a
persons underlying potential and in an outplacement and career guidance context, the
APM might be appropriate for someone facing redundancy, a change of circumstances, or
seeking an alternative role or profession. The purpose of the assessment process is to
provide a wide perspective on suitable career paths, help develop an awareness of their
own potential, and to help individuals to choose options which best suit their abilities.
User responsibilities
Professional and ethical guidelines are available to support the use of high quality assessment results (in which tests can be the only part or one out of several parts in a larger
assessment), which corresponds to the expectations of clients buying an assessment, the
service provider delivering the assessment, assessment administrators, and assessment
participants. For example, the international standard ISO 10667 (2011) functions as practical guidance for clients, service providers and assessment administrators involved in
assessment delivery processes. It describes their respective obligations and responsibilities
before, during and after the assessment process. It also provides guidance on the rights
and responsibilities of assessment-participants and others involved in assessment procedures, including recipients of the assessment results. This worldwide standard contains
additional useful information and requirements for the delivery of assessment services
17
and the following recommendations for administration, interpretation etc., is based upon
the ISO 10667 standard among others.
Administration
The Ravens APM can be administered online or in paper and pencil format. Regardless
of the administration mode, consider the general testing conditions before administration
of the test. To obtain valid and reliable results, the test administrator must ensure that
conditions are explicitly and clearly regulated between the client and the service provider
before closing an agreement and that conditions are met before, during and after the
assessment.
Before the assessment

The service provider must ensure that the organisations assessment process complies
with international and local professional standards and practices. Though some guidelines
and recommendations may not be required for assessment participants in all countries,
Pearson TalentLens follows the ISO 10667 standards for using psychological assessment
in the work and organizational domain. The ISO 10667 states that in relation to the use of
personal identifiable data, informed consent shall be obtained from the respondent before
an assessment is taken. An informed consent form is a written statement explaining the
type of assessment instrument to be administered, the purpose of the evaluation, the type
of data being collected, and specifies who will have access to the data. A respondents
consent, that he or she has been informed of the specifics and agrees to participate, is
traditionally considered collected after informing the respondent about the above and he
or she gives consent by proceeding with the testing session.
The testing session must be standardized to provide respondents with the same opportunity for doing well. It is advised to follow instructions closely. Do not change the
standardized administration procedures without consulting an expert, as a nonstandardized procedure may invalidate test results.
Making Accommodations
It is the clients and/or service providers responsibility to find out about disabilities among
assessment participants and to accommodate special requirements. Contact Pearson
TalentLens for advice if you are unsure about making accommodations. The client and/or
service provider is responsible for providing reasonable accommodations for examinees
with special needs to take the test comfortably. Reasonable accommodations may in-
18
clude, but are not limited to, modifications to the test environment (e.g., desk height) and
medium (e.g., having a reader read questions to the assessment participant) (Principles
for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures, 4th ed., 2003). In situations
where an examinees disability is not likely to impair his or her job performance, but may
hinder the examinees performance on the Ravens APM, the organization may want to
consider waiving the test or de-emphasizing the score in lieu of other application criteria.
Interpretive data as to whether scores on the Ravens APM are comparable for examinees
who are provided reasonable accommodations are not available at this time due to the
small number of examinees who have requested such accommodations. The Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 requires an employer to reasonably accommodate the
known disability of a qualified applicant provided such accommodation would not cause
an undue hardship to the operation of the employers business.
Preparing for an administration involves several aspects. Test administrators should
take the test themselves to become familiar with the assessment, complying with all
directions. This enables the administrator (and/or service provider) to explain the nature
of the assessment to the participants, why it is being used, the conditions under which
the participants will be assessed, the nature of any feedback they will receive, how and
why information from different assessments will be combined or integrated for decision
making (if this is applicable).
The testing environment should have good lighting; comfortable seating; adequate
desk or table space; comfortable positioning of the computer screen, keyboard and mouse
(when administering online) and freedom from noise and other distractions. Maintaining a
pleasant and professional attitude also encourages respondents cooperation.
Respondents may ask questions about the assessment before they begin. Clarification
of what is required and confirmation that respondents understand the requirements is
appropriate.
Always try to engender a friendly, but purposeful atmosphere to put respondents at ease
and enable them to work at their best. Start with an informal introduction to the testing
session and introduce yourself. Tell examinees:
Who you are
Your relationship to the organization
The purpose of the test
How results will be used
Who will have access to the results
How the results will be stored (data protection)
19
What will happen after the testing
The logistics of the testing session: breaks, fire alarms expected, duration,
the location of toilets etc.
Give respondents the opportunity to ask questions. Ensure that all mobile phones and
electrical equipment are turned off and all respondents are ready to start the session. At
the start of the session, ask respondents to maintain silence for the duration of the test.
Online administration
In the following, the online administration will be the focus. For guidance regarding administration of the paper and pencil version please contact your local TalentLens team for
instructions.
Online administration of Raven's APM requires the respondent to be able to handle a
mouse and keyboard to navigate the screens. The test administrator should, as much as
possible, ensure that the online administration does not negatively affect the respondents
test performance.
Online administration c a n be supervised or unsupervised and may be administered
to a group or individually. Awareness of advantages and disadvantages of both supervised
and unsupervised administration is a pre-requisite for ensuring valid and reliable test
scores.
Supervised administration
In general, supervised administration of the Ravens APM is preferred due to the possibility
for the administrator to ensure standardization of the testing session and the reliability
and validity of the assessment. Supervised administration also provides the participant
with the opportunity to ask questions, get clarifications, and become accommodated on
the before, during and after administration. The supervised version can be used to verify
scores from an unsupervised testing.
Unsupervised administration
Unsupervised online testing can be the most convenient approach in the early stages of
selection or development. Time and cost is significantly reduced when respondents can
take the test in their own location without the need for travel, which adds time and cost to
the process. Because the item-banked version of Ravens APM delivers a set of 23 matrices
randomly selected from a pool (or item bank) of 92 matrices, it is not possible for the
answer key to be known in advance.
20
However, when unsupervised testing is used it is strongly recommended that respondents are retested under secure supervised conditions later in the assessment process.
If a respondent did try to cheat, the second testing would show whether their ability was
at the required standard or not. In addition, when respondents know they will be retested
they are much less likely to attempt to cheat when they take the test in the first instance.
Note that each respondent is to be informed about the retesting-procedure before the
assessment process start.
In the case of retesting, note that scores always differ somewhat from one test administration to another. This is not regarded as an indicator of shortcomings on part
of the assessment this is to be expected given the pre-requisites of all psychometric
assessments. The standard error of measurement provides an estimate of how much
scores can be expected to differ.
Please note that there are a number of issues with the use of unsupervised tests,
particularly when used in high stakes settings, i.e., for selection purposes. For example, for
the respondent to take Ravens APM as reliably as possible, it is important that he or she is
in an undisturbed environment during testing which makes it possible for the respondent
to perform at his or her maximum level of performance. It is not appropriate to complete
the Raven's APM in public environments, such as a caf or when riding the bus. This and
other issues have been raised and discussed by various experts in the field and a number
of guidelines for the use of unsupervised testing have been published, see for example:
International Test Commission:

http://www.intestcom.org/_guidelines/guidelines/index.html
The British Psychological Societys (BPS) Psychological Testing Centre:

http://ptc.bps.org.uk/ptc/guidelines-and-information
The administrator must ensure that each respondent has sufficient ability to assimilate
the instructions before administration begins.
During the assessment

Though the instructions for completing the assessment online are presented on-screen,
it is important to develop and maintain rapport with respondents. The administrator is
responsible for ensuring that respondents understand all requirements and interact with
the assessment interface appropriately. In appendix A, detailed instructions on how to
administer Ravens APM online, both for groups and individuals, are provided and in the
following general information is outlined.
21
If any respondents have routine questions after the assessment has started, try to
answer the questions without disturbing the other respondents. However, if respondents
have questions about the interpretation of an item, they should be encouraged to respond
to the item as they best understand it.
The Ravens APM begins with a set of four practice items with an answer and explanation.
Although un-timed, allow up to three minutes for completion of the practice set. Online
respondents have 40 minutes to complete all 23 items in Part 1. Part 1 automatically goes
into time out at the end of 40 minutes. Respondents have 2 minutes to complete the 2
items in Part 2. Part 2 automatically goes into time out at the end of 2 minutes. During
each part of the assessment, respondents have the option of skipping items and returning
to them later if time remains. If respondents finish Part 1 of the assessment before the
40-minute time limit has expired, they may review their answers, or move on to Part 2.
Please note that the Part 2 experimental items are not included in the paper and pencil
version of the test.
If a respondents computer develops technical problems during the assessment, the
administrator should move the candidate to another suitable computer location if possible
and log back into the system as before. If the technical problems cannot be solved by moving to another computer location, the administrator should contact Pearsons TalentLens
Technical Support for assistance.
After the assessment

At the end of the assessment session, thank each respondent for his or her participation
and check the computer station to ensure that the assessment is closed. Note that scoring
will not occur and the assessment will stay in In Progress status until the respondent
has completed the assessment.
Make sure that the respondent is informed of how the process will continue concerning
if, when, how and what feedback will be provided, how data will be stored and used etc.
22
Scoring and Reporting
Scoring is automatic. Following online administration (supervised or unsupervised, individual or in group), the administrator receives an automatic profile report that is available a
few seconds after the assessment respondent completes the test. The report is available
through the portal and Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to open the report. The
administrator may view, print, and/or save the test takers report.
The item-banked format implies that there is extremely low probability that two set
of items will identical. Each set of items or administration is thereby almost unique.
The minor variations in difficulty between the set of items are taken into account by the
IRT-based (Item Response Theory) scoring algorithms, which allow adjusting for the
exact difficulty level of the items each respondent complete. This approach ensures
the equivalence between the set of items and improves the accurateness of measurement
at the individual level although the meaning of the traditional raw score is not usable. The
report contains the respondents percentile score and t-score that are based upon a
comparison to the chosen norm group.
T-scores
The t-scores are most frequently used with ability measures. The t-score scale has an
average score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher scores indicate the probability
of higher performance. When scores are normally distributed approximately 68% of the
respondents will score between t-scores of 40 and 60. The advantage of t-scores is that
they represent an even scale that is, the difference between scores of 70 and 80 is the
same as the difference between scores of 45 and 55. In addition, it is possible to apply the
standard error of measurement to a t-score to allow for a band of error around a score.
It is possible to add and subtract t-scores and to correlate them with other measures.
Generally, t-scores should be used with caution in feedback to untrained people, including
the respondent, as they can be difficult to comprehend without some understanding of
statistics.
23
Percentiles
Usually, providing feedback on test scores presented in percentiles has the advantage
of being more readily understood. The percentile score indicates the standing of the
respondent relative to individuals in the norm group. The percentile score indicates the
proportion of the norm group who possess less of the ability than the respondent. For
example, if a respondents score is at the 75th percentile of a given norm group, it means
that the respondent scored higher than or equal to 75% of the people in the norm group.
A score above the 90th percentile is considered well above average in comparison to the
norm group, above the 70 is considered above average, above the 30th average and
th
above the 10th below average. Scores at the 10th percentile or lower are considered well
below average. Percentiles differ from for example T scores in that they are not equal
units. They show the relative position or ranking of each respondent in comparison to the
norm group, but do not illustrate the amount of difference between scores. In a normal
distribution, cases will be clustered more closely at the centre of the distribution than at the
extremes. Differences at this mid-point are more exaggerated and those at the extremes
are relatively understated. For this reason it is not appropriate to sum or correlate
percentiles with other scores.
All Ravens APM scores are confidential and the security of assessment materials
(e.g., access to online assessments) and protection of copyright must be maintained by
authorised professionals and results such as reports should be stored in a secure location
accessible to authorised professionals only. It is unethical as well as poor assessment
practice to allow assessment score access to individuals who do not have a legitimate
need for the information.
24
Interpretation
Information generated by most assessment tools, tests included, can be divided into two
categories: descriptive information and predictive information. The two categories require
specific conditions and define how results, scores, can and should be interpreted and used,
and what conclusions can be drawn as well as what kind of decisions can be made from
an assessment score.
Descriptive information
Descriptive information provides general information about a person regarding the underlying construct upon which the score is an indicator. Descriptive information is either
relative to a norm group, normative, or by the person himself as a reference point, ipsative.
What type of information a score is aimed at providing is built in when developing the
assessment. Ravens APM scores are normative descriptive information.
Comparing an individuals score to a norm group provides relative meaning. An individual
with an average score on Ravens APM is likely to more easily engage in clear thinking,
extract meaning out of confusion and ambiguity, and find solutions to novel problems
compared to those with a lower score in the normative group. The same individual, however, is likely to less easily engage in clear thinking, extract meaning out of confusion and
ambiguity, and find solutions to novel problems compared to those with a higher score in
the normative group. Interpretation of performance is dependent upon the norm group
used for the comparison. This type of interpretation is appropriate when its purpose is to
describe an individuals abilities in relation to another group of people (norm-group) and
make comparisons between individuals regarding an ability or trait measured.
The person interpreting an individuals scores must understand the limitation of this
type of information and provide feedback to the respondent that is meaningful and understandable. For example, comparing results to a specific norm-group with a highly skewed
distribution (high mean value) and restricted range (low standard deviation) may result in
describing an individuals scores as reflecting very low ability in comparison. The level of
a score is relative to a groups distribution (mean value and standard deviation) of scores.
25
Often, specific norm-groups, such as a group of managers within a specific industry,

are used in order to assign additional meaning to a score. The individual mentioned above
who had a score classified as average compared to a norm-group representing normal
population will likely end up with a low score if the norm-group is replaced with a normgroup of highly educated managers (higher mean value). For descriptive reasons this might
be illustrative and serve its purpose but it also requires that the interpreter understands
the limitation of this type of information and that feedback to the respondent
remains meaningful and understandable. For example, feedback on results compared to
a specific norm-group that have a highly skewed distribution (high mean value) and
restricted range (low standard deviation) may result in feedback on very low ability in
comparison to a norm-group that the candidate has difficulty relating to.
The level of a score is thus dependent upon the group of comparison; it is relative
and will change if the norm-group changes to a group with a different distribution (mean
value and standard deviation) of scores. The question arising from this is of course if this
specific individual has a low or an average level of intelligence. As it has been outlined
above, it depends upon what norm group is used for comparison, and the interpreter of
assessment scores needs to be aware of these issues.
Predictive information
Most individual assessment processes however are intended to provide information which
aid decision-making: selection decisions, promotion, participation in professional training
programs, relocation and so on, which all require the making of predictions about future
performance and behavior. Decision-making is in general based upon a rank-ordering of
individuals. Descriptive information does not automatically provide this type of information
although it is often presented and perceived as if specific norm-groups can and do provide
this type of information.
Rather, what is needed when the aim is to predict is to have an established relationship,
manifested in a correlation, between the test scores and the phenomenon one wants to
predict, thus the criteria. As mentioned previously, traditional criteria within the domain
of work and organizational psychology are general job performance, more specific types
of performance or behaviors, or achievement in a particular profession. For Ravens APM,
measuring fluid intelligence which serves as an efficient indicator of general intelligence,
g, this relationship is thoroughly empirically established (see previous section Usefulness
of intelligence) and since this relationship is strong, linear and positive (which is not the
case with other measures of individual differences), interpretation and conclusions about
26
performance from scores is fairly straightforward; higher score infer the probability of
higher performance, both at work and in training. At the individual level this corresponds
to the logic that a person with a higher score is likely to perform at a higher level compared
to someone with a lower score.
Integrating Ravens APM results into an overall assessment

Despite the position of g to predict job performance and matrices as the most effective
indicator of g, using Ravens APM as the single predictor is a rare situation in practice.
Usually, information representing multiple predictors is collected by using several different
methods and integrated to provide an overall assessment of the respondent upon which the
decision is based. Sometimes the predictors stem from a single method, e.g. a cognitive
ability test providing scores on multiple factors or personality assessments which generate
scores on multiple personality factors, and sometimes the predictor scores are generated
from multiple methods (e.g., interview, assessment center, test) each contributing with
single or multiple predictors.
Based on the fact that scores from Ravens APM traditionally is integrated with other
predictor scores and that the integration of data has proven to be very important when
predicting future behavior and performance for the purpose of decision making, it is
important to be aware of how this type of integration should be done in order to maximize
the quality (validity) of the decisions made and thus the financial utility of using the Ravens
APM in such a setting.
Integration of data (predictor scores) can be done applying one of the two opposite
approaches; intuitively or mechanically. The intuitive approach is by far the most common method in practice (Vrieze & Grove, 2009). This approach integrates data into an
overall assessment by the practitioners using hers/his subjective, professional skills. In the
mechanical approach, the integration of predictor scores is based upon a predetermined
mathematical formula that specifies how each predictor score should be weighted, and
this formula is then used to weigh the pieces of information in exactly the same way for
each candidate.
The mechanical interpretation differs from the intuitive with respect to several key
aspects: the relative importance that each attribute is given is predetermined, explicit
and transparent, free from subjective elements, and the result is completely reproducible,
given that the same information is the basis. Most important however is that research for
a long time has provided convincing evidence that the mechanical approach is clearly
superior to the intuitive approach for prediction based decision making (e.g., Freyd, 1926;
Sawyer,
27
1966; Grove, Zald, Lebow, Snitz, & Nelson, 2000). Job performance and academic criteria
is not an exception (Kuncel, Klieger, Connelly, & Ones, 2013). When integrating scores from
the Ravens APM with other prediction scores into an overall assessment for such purposes,
a mechanical approach is recommended (The Design and Delivery of Assessment Centres,
2015; ISO 10667, 2011).
28
Feedback
It is important to notice that there are not always existing local mandatory guidelines
or legislation regulating the existence, the content, the format of delivery, or to whom
feedback on test scores is to be given. This implies that the questions regarding if, how,
about what, and to whom feedback on test results are to be provided is traditionally
regarded as the responsibility of the client and/or service provider/test administrator and
influenced by local tradition and perception of good practice. There are many standards
and policy documents with guidelines on providing feedback and the following important
aspects should be carefully considered.
The question of if feedback on test scores is to be given could be regarded controversial,
but there are situations when feedback on test scores is not needed, is irrelevant, or the
respondent doesnt want it. However, there are situations in which the process of giving
feedback is the main purpose of testing; for example, in development and career guidance,
feedback is an essential component. Consider that feedback should be presented as an
offer to the candidate, not a "mandatory" element of being assessed.
When the decision is to provide feedback, the question of what the feedback should
contain arises. The content and scope of the feedback should be guided by the purpose
of testing. If the purpose of the testing is clear, that is a good starting point to determine
what the feedback should contain. It is more likely that the candidate's expectations will
be met and the risk of giving irrelevant (including perceived irrelevant) feedback will be
minimized. Consider that feedback appropriate in a particular situation or under certain
circumstances may be inappropriate in another.
If the purpose of testing is development and career guidance, feedback on test scores
is highly relevant. Feedback on all parts of the assessment, of which test scores usually is
one part, is likely to be useful. Testing and feedback aimed at increasing self-awareness and
personal development often are characterized by broader and more general descriptions
of abilities and characteristics, and delivered in the mode of a conversation. If the purpose
concerns issues around communication and cooperation, the descriptive feedback should
circle around how the test result(s) are central to those specific domains of interest. During
29
the feedback conversation, give the candidate the opportunity to reflect on the test results
and the potential impact the results may have.
If the purpose is selection, feedback on test score(s) is relevant if the test score contributes
to the selection decision. When test scores are integrated into an overall assessment for
prediction-based decision-making, feedback on the overall assessment or notification of
the decision also is reasonable. In a personnel selection context, it is not always possible, relevant, or appropriate to provide extensive feedback of descriptive character. The
principle of "the more the better" may overwhelm many job applicants who are undergoing
a number of assessment processes when applying for a job. Again, the purpose of the
testing should define what feedback is relevant to the candidate.
If feedback is to be given, the content and scope of the assessment usually determines
or strongly guides how the feedback can and should be delivered. In the context of development and career guidance, feedback is often delivered in personal conversation
between the test administrator and the candidate, while high volume testing, usually in
the initial phase of a selection process is usually followed by written feedback sent to the
candidate. This is due to the fact that the number of applicants can be very large, which
precludes personal feedback (both by phone and face-to-face).
The question of who should get feedback might seem self-evident because feedback is
strongly related to the candidates. There are, however, situations where for example
the test administrator represents a client, thus an organization. Feedback to organizations
can include oral and/or written feedback on the group and/or individual level. These
circumstances should be specified in advance, regulated among the stakeholders, and
communicated to relevant parties including candidates.
In summary; regardless of if and how feedback is given and to whom, the stakeholders,
including the participants, shall be informed of the circumstances regarding feedback
before the assessment starts. When feedback on test performance is given, written or
oral face to face or over the phone, the information given should be fair, accurate and
understandable. Any questions the respondents may have should be clearly answered.
Providing feedback to the respondents can be a sensitive process as some people have
emotional reactions to information about their strengths and weaknesses. In the following,
guidelines for oral and written feedback on Ravens APM results are outlined.
30
Verbal feedback
The most common way for providing feedback is likely to be a face-to-face, verbal feedback
session. The following best practices list recommendations on preparing for the feedback
session, what content to discuss, and concrete proposals on how to express the test results
during the session.
Before the feedback session

In preparation for feedback, the qualified person providing feedback should:
Consult the test log to establish if there were any problems or interruptions
that may have affected test performance. Interpretation of test scores assumes
standardisation of test conditions, fair and accurate assessment rely on this.
Ensure that scores are translated into the appropriate standard scores or percentiles using a relevant norm group and if Ravens APM has been administered
online, retrieve the standardized report.
Get familiarized with the results and specify the main points you intend to bring
up during the feedback conversation.
Ensure that the feedback session may be carried out at a suitable location and
set up the appointment with the candidate.
During the feedback session
Initiate the feedback session by welcoming the respondent and introducing yourself and the purpose of the feedback session. Make sure that the respondent is
aware of the purpose of the feedback session and its duration. It is also useful
at this stage to reassure the respondent of the confidentiality of test scores and
the feedback discussion. Say for example;
Good morning. I am the HR Manager at ABC Consulting and Im here today
to discuss your test results with you. I will describe the test you completed
and why it was used as part of the recruitment process, find out more about
your experience of completing the test, explain the scoring process, talk you
through your test score and then at the end theyll be opportunities to ask
questions. Well have around 20 minutes to go through the process.
Your test scores and anything discussed in this session will remain strictly
confidential.
Are there any questions at this stage?
31
Ensure the respondent has a clear understanding of the relevance and purpose
of using the Ravens APM in the context it has been used describe the relevance of the scores for the purpose in which they are being used. When used in
a selection process, say, for example;
You recently completed the Ravens APM as part of the selection process.
Ravens APM consists of progressive matrices that non-verbally assess the
general cognitive ability which is manifested in the ability to reasoning with
abstract content, making meaning out of complex information, and drawing
accurate conclusions. These behaviours are crucial to performance on the
job and will be required from you in the current role. The score on Ravens
matrices serves as a strong indicator of this ability.
Ask the respondent about the testing experience. Say for example;
Before we move onto test scoring, it would be helpful for me to be able to
understand your experience of the test session and testing in general. How
did you find completing the test? What experience do you have of completing
tests like this?
Explain the function of a norm group, describe the norm group, why it has been
selected, and why it is relevant for the purpose. Say for example;
A score on the test based on your responses to each question was calculated.
In order to help interpret the result, the score was compared to the scores
of a large group of people that had also completed the test. This comparison
group is often referred to as a norm group and care is taken to ensure the
most appropriate norm group is chosen for comparison purposes. For the
purpose of this assessment, a broad representative group from the working
population was chosen to reflect the work-based context of this process.
Explain the function and role of percentiles. Say for example;

A percentile score is calculated, highlighting the percentage of the norm
group sample a respondent scored higher than or equal to. For example, if a
respondents score is at the 75th percentile of a given norm group, it means
that the respondent scored higher than or equal to 75% of the people in the
group. A percentile score of the 30th indicates a candidate scored higher
than or equal to 30% of the norm group sample and so on.
32
Inform the respondent about how she/he performed in the test by describing
her/his results in relation to the comparison (norm) group(s). Say for example;
Compared with the broad based representative group from the working population who have completed this test, your score was at the 80th percentile.
That is you did better than 80% of the other respondents who took it. Only
20% of the respondents did better than you.
Or
Compared with others who have applied for the position of underwriter in
this organisation, your score was at the 45th percentile. That is you did better
than 45% of other respondents who have taken the test for this purpose.
When giving descriptive feedback, it may be useful and appropriate to compare the
respondents score to a range of norms to provide context and ensure the respondent fully
understands. For example, a respondents score may be classified as well-below average
compared to banking applicants, but average compared to a general population. Without
this additional feedback, the respondent may be confused about the meaning of their test
score and their level of ability.
Make the respondents aware of measurement error and its implications on test scores.
Say, for example;
No test score provides a perfectly accurate measure of your ability and test
scores should therefore be seen as indicators of your ability rather than an
exact measurement.
In general, provide relevant information about the test, describe the group to which the
respondents score is being compared, and describe performance in relation to that group.
Phrase feedback at the appropriate level for the respondents knowledge of psychometric
assessment and the Ravens APM. Do no use technical terms or jargon excessively. Put the
respondent at ease and provide him or her the opportunity to ask questions.
After the feedback session

Ensure that the feedback lived up to the expectations of the respondent and that she or
he feels that the feedback was given in a way and contained what was expected. If the
respondent expresses that he or she lacks some aspect of feedback, try to accommodate
this request. Also ensure that the respondent is informed of how the process will continue
and that she/he has the contact information needed if there are additional questions.
33
Written feedback
When providing written feedback, the aim should be to create and promote the same
experience for the respondent as when giving oral feedback. Although there are circumstances which limit the accessibility to the test administrator (not face-to-face) and thus
the opportunity to ask questions on the spot, written feedback has the benefit of being
standardized and thus equal to all respondents.
The following are suggested structures and content for written feedback. This structure
and content entails the minimum amount of information you should share with a respondent
and detailed information regarding the specific context for testing needs to be added.
Please note that if you have access to standardised, online generated feedback reports
for candidates, you should use those primarily.
You recently completed the Ravens APM as part of the selection process and in the
following you find feedback on the results.
What does Ravens APM measure?
Ravens APM is a long-established and highly regarded measure of the major component
of general cognitive ability: the ability to think logically and solve unfamiliar tasks and
problems without prior knowledge or reference to previously learned skills. Traditionally
this ability is called fluid intelligence.
Fluid intelligence differs from the other major general cognitive component crystallized
intelligence, which is the ability to draw upon prior knowledge, experience and learned
skills to solve problems.
Both crystallized and fluid intelligence levels contribute to an individuals overall level of
general ability. The ability to demonstrate requisite levels of both is increasingly important
in a wide variety of roles in the modern workplace.
How to interpret your result
Your performance score is expressed in percentiles. A percentile expresses the amount
of people in the selected norm group (comparison group) that you have scored equal to
or higher than. Please note that the percentile score is relative and thus highly dependent
upon the selected norm group you were compared against.
Please note that assessment scores inevitably entail a certain amount of measurement
error which decreases the certainty of the results. This needs to be taken into consideration
when interpreting the results.
Overall, the higher your score on the Raven APM, the more likely it is that you are able
34
to solve unfamiliar tasks and problems without the need to draw upon prior knowledge or
experience.
Your result:
Norm reference group:
Implications of the test score/continued process:
Reminder of confidentiality of scores:
Contact information:
35
Sources of Best Practice Information
There are multiple available documents and literature providing guidance on assessment
delivery in general and psychological testing in particular. In this manual the standards
and guidelines recommended for best practice share the common notion of being evidence
based. Being informed of scientific findings should be the nature of work and organizational
psychology including the delivery of individual assessments such as the Ravens APM. Note
that standards, in comparison to guidelines and principles, provide the level of appropriateness for best practice. Several standards apply the term shall indicates a minimum
requirement for practice while should indicates a desirable one.
One important global standard upon which other local standards are based, and more
will likely follow when being revised, is the ISO 10667 International standard on Assessment
Service Delivery. The ISO 10667 relates to the delivery of assessments used at the individual, group, and organizational levels and aims to promote good practice and to encourage
clear documentation of the working relationship between clients and service providers.
It functions as practical guidance for both clients and service providers involved in the
assessment delivery process in which scores from Ravens APM can be one source of information. The ISO 10667 describes the obligations and responsibilities of clients and service
providers before, during and after the assessment process and provides guidance on the
rights and responsibilities of assessment-participants and others involved in assessment
procedures, including recipients of the assessment results. As such, the ISO 10667 has
global and general applicability and is useful for all stakeholders in an assessment context.
In addition, there are several other documents that the user may wish to consult. Some
are general and applicable across geographies while some combine general standard and
guidelines with local applications. Some documents concern specifics such as technical aspects of test quality, others concern specific applied contexts such as personnel selection,
and some are general guidelines regulating processes surrounding individual assessment.
Recommended source documents available in English are:
36
International Guidelines For Test Use (International Test Commission, 2000)
On http://www.intestcom.org/guidelines/ this and additional guidelines for psychological testing can be found and downloaded.
EFPA Review model for the description and evaluation of psychological tests, Version
3.41: Test review form and notes for reviewers (European Federation of Psychologists
Associations, 2005)
European test user standards for test use in work and organizational settings, Version
1.92 (European Federation of Psychologists Associations, 2005).
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research

Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement
in Education, 1999)
Principles for the Validation and use of Personnel Selection procedures (Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2003).
The Code of Good Practice for Psychological Testing (British Psychological Society,
2012)
Psychological Testing: A User's Guide (British Psychological Society, 2012)
The Design and Delivery of Assessment Centres (British Psychological Society, 2015)
Data Protection and Privacy Issues Relating to Psychological Testing in EmploymentRelated Settings (British Psychological Society, 2012)
Guidelines for Educational and Psychological Testing (Canadian Psychological

Association, 1987)
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, 1978)
Note that for local statutes and legal proceedings that influence an organizations obligations, the user is referred to their local governing authority and to appropriate documents
outlining such documents and providing guidance for best practice.
37
References
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The
same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3060.
Aguinis, H. (2008). Performance management (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, P.L. 110325.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905a). Sur la necessite detablir un diagnostic scientifique des etats
inferieurs de lintelligence. LAne Psychologique, 11, 163190.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905b). Mthodes nouvelles pour la diagnostic du niveau intellectuel
des anormaux. LAne Psychologique, 11, 191244.
Binet, A., & Simon, T. (1905c). Application des methods nouvelles au diagnostic du niveau
intellectuel chez des enfants normaux et anormaux dhospice et decole primaire.
LAne Psychologique, 11, 245336.
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., Oppler, S. H., Pulakos, E. D., & White, L. A. (1993). Role of
early supervisor experience in supervisor performance. Journal of Applied psychology, 78, 443449.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing [Abstract].
Psychological Bulletin, 38, 592.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40,
153193.
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cattell, R.B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. New York: NorthHolland.
Cattell, R. B., Feingold, S. N., & Sarason, S. B. (1941). A culture-free intelligence test
II: Evaluation of cultural influence on test performance. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 32, 81100.
Data protection and privacy issues relating to psychological testing in employment-related
38
settings (2012). Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society.

EFPA Review model for the description and evaluation of psychological tests, Version
3.41: Test review form and notes for reviewers (2005). Brussels, Belgium: European
Federation of Psychologists Associations.
European test user standards for test use in work and organizational settings, Version
1.92 (2005). Brussels, Belgium: European Federation of Psychologists Associations.
Flanagan, D.P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessments. New York:
Wiley.
Fortes, M. (1930). A new application of the theory of neogenesis to the problems of mental
testing. Doctoral dissertation. University of London.
Freyd, M. (1926). The statistical viewpoint in vocational selection. Journal of Applied
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple Intelligences: The theory in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Goldstein, I. L. (1980). Training in work organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 31,
229272.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence,
24, 79132.
Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus
mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 1930.
Guidelines for educational and psychological testing (1987). Ottawa, ON: Canadian
Psychological Association.
Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure of intellect model. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 48, 14.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities.
Intelligence, 8, 179203.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive abilities.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, vol. 4
(pp.3571). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (1994). Hierarchical models of intelligence and educational achievement.
In A. Demetriou & A. Efklides (Eds.), Intelligence, mind and reasoning: Structure and
development. (pp.45-70). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland/Elsevier.
Gustafsson, J.-E. (2002). Measurement from a hierarchical point of view. In H. I. Braun,
D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and
educational measurement (pp. 7395). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39
Hemmingsson, T., Melin, B., Allebeck, P., & Lundberg, I. (2006). The association between
cognitive ability measured at ages 18-20 and mortality during 30 years of follow-up
a prospective observational study among Swedish males born 194951. International
Journal of Epidemiololgy, 35(3), 665670.
Holzinger, K., & Swineford, F. (1939). A study in factor analysis: The stability of a bifactor
solution. Supplementary Educational Monograph, no. 48. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized
intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57, 253270.
Hunt, E. (2000). Lets hear it for crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences,
12, 123129.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 7298.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range
restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings, Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 594612.
International Test Commission (2001). International Guidelines for Test Use. International
Journal of Testing, 1(2), 93114.
ISO 10667 (2011). Assessment Service Delivery Procedures and methods to assess
people in work and organizational settings. Part 1: Requirements for the client. Part
2: Requirements for service providers.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g Factor. The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger
Publisher.
Johnson, W., Bouchard, T. J., Krueger, R. F., McGue, M., & Gottesman, I. I. (2004). Just
one g: Consistent results from three test batteries. Intelligence, 34, 95107.
Keith, T. Z. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.),
Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed.) (pp.
581614). New York: Guilford Press.
Kvist, A. V., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and the
general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell's Investment
theory. Intelligence, 36, 422-436.
Kuncel, N. R., Klieger, D. M., Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2013). Mechanical versus clinical
data combination in selection and admissions decisions: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98, 10601072.
40
Line, W. (1931). The growth of visual perception in children. British Journal of Psychology
Monograph Supplements, 15.
Llabre, M. M. (1984). Standard Progressive Matrices. In D. J. Keyser, R. C. Sweetland (Eds.),
Test Critiques, Volume 1. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
Neisser, U. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77101.
Postlethwaite, B. E. (2011). Fluid ability, crystallized ability, and performance across multiple domains: a meta-analysis. Doctoral thesis, University of Iowa.
Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures (4th ed.). (2003).
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Division 14 of the
American Psychological Association). Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology.
Psychological Testing: A users guide (2012). Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological
Society.
Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence. London: H. K.
Lewis.
Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardisation of Progressive Matrices. British Journal of Medical
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g.
Personnel Psychology, 44, 321332.
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2007). Spearman's law of diminishing returns in hierarchical
models of intelligence for children and adolescents. Intelligence, 35, 267281.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing
approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 6680.
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, S. B. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American
Psychologist, 63, 215227.
Salgado, J. F., & Anderson, N. (2003). Validity generalization of GMA tests across countries
in the European community. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 117.
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., & De Fruyt, F. (2003). International
validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European community metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 56, 573605.
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., De Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2004).
A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in
the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 10681081.
41
Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological

Bulletin, 66, 178200.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal model of processes determining job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 8992.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in
personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research
findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262274.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work:
Occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986). Impact of job experience and
ability on job knowledge, work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 432439
Schweizer, K., & Koch, W. (2002). A revision of Cattells Investment Theory: Cognitive
properties influencing learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 5782.
Snow, R. E., Kyllonen, P. C., & Marshalek, B. (1984). The typography of ability and learning correlations. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the Psychology of Human
Intelligence, (Volume 2, pp. 47-103). New York: MacMillan.
Spearman, C. E. (1904). General intelligence, objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201293.
Spearman, C. (1927a). The abilities of man. London, United Kingdom: MacMillan.
Spearman, C. (1927b). The nature of intelligence and the Principles of cognition (2nd ed.).
London, United Kingdom: MacMillan.
Standards for educational and psychological testing (1999). American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement
in Education. Washington, WA: American Educational Research Association.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
The code of good practice for psychological testing. (2012). Leicester, United Kingdom:
British Psychological Society.
The design and delivery of Assessment centres. (2015). Leicester, United Kingdom: British
Psychological Society.
Thorndike, R. L. (1987). Stability of factor loadings. Personality and Individual Differences,
8, 4, 585586.
42
Undheim, J. O. (1981a). On intelligence II: A neo-Spearman model to replace Cattell's

theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22,
181187.
Undheim, J. O. (1981b). On intelligence IV: Toward a restoration of general intelligence.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 22, 251265.
Undheim, J. O., & Gustafsson, J. E. (1987). The hierarchical organization of cognitive
abilities: Restoring general intelligence through the use of linear structural relations
(LISREL). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 22, 149171.
Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (1978). Federal Register, 43, pp.
3829038315.
Vernon, P. E. (1942). The reliability and validity of the Progressive Matrices Test. London,
United Kingdom: Admiralty Report, 14(b).
Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings
of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and
error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108131.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 216226.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (4th ed.; WAISIV). San Antonio,
Texas: Pearson.
Vrieze, S. I., & Grove, W. M. (2009). Survey on the use of clinical and mechanical prediction
methods in clinical psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40,
525531.
43
Appendix Online administration
General conditions
The Ravens APM can be administered online, supervised or unsupervised, and is suitable
for group as well as individual administration. For online administration, the test administrator needs these instructions and each participant needs access to a computer with
internet connectivity and a mouse. Respondents do not need pencils or scratch paper for
online administration of Ravens APM. Supervised online testing is the recommended mode
of administration. The following instructions apply to group and individual administration.
Supervised Testing: Individual and Group
Before testing
Start with scheduling the testing session. Consider the duration of the session, the number
of people to be tested, book an appropriate room, trained test administrators and additional
invigilators. For supervised group administration, a ratio of at least 20:1 examinees to
invigilators/proctors is recommended.
Before inviting respondents to a test session, ensure that the organization has sufficient
test credits and computers for the number of examinees. Contact Pearson TalentLens
customer service if you need to order online tests.
Make sure that the room is suitable for testing consider size, space, layout, lighting,
temperature, noise and possible distractions. In group administrations, seat respondents
apart and not directly opposite each other to avoid cheating and distraction. Ensure that
potential disturbances are minimized, e.g., phones are turned off and Testing in Progress
signs are used.
Make sure that all computer equipment is working and that the candidates have been
added to the system and prepare log in. This can function as a register and detail any
reasonable adjustments to be made for respondents with disabilities, as well as any unusual
occurrences.
44
During testing
Welcome all respondents and do a formal introduction of yourself and TalentLens.com
Make sure all examinees are seated at their computers and initiate the testing session
by asking the respondent(s) to turn to the screen where the Ravens APM log in page is
displayed, by saying;
To sign on please enter your name and email address in the boxes provided,
and then click submit.
When all respondents have signed on, say;
The onscreen directions will take you through the entire process, which
begins with a welcome page and some general questions about you. After
you have completed these questions, the test will begin. In total, you have
42 minutes to complete 25 items and the testing will automatically go into
time out at the end. The testing session ends a few more general questions
about yourself.
While all respondents are completing the general questions, ask;
Do you have any questions before you click next to start the assessment?
Answer any questions the respondent may have and ensure all respondents have completed the onscreen general questions and are ready to begin the test.
Please begin the test.
If any respondents have routine questions after the assessment has started, try to
answer the questions without disturbing the other respondents. However, if respondents
have questions about the interpretation of an item, they should be encouraged to respond
to the item as they best understand it.
If a respondents computer develops technical problems during testing, move the respondent to another suitable computer location and log back into the system as before. If
the technical problems cannot be solved by moving to another computer location, contact
Pearson TalentLens for assistance.
After testing
At the end of the assessment session, thank each respondent for her/his participation and
check the computer station to ensure that the assessment is closed. Note that scoring
will not occur and the assessment will stay in progress status until the respondent has
completed the assessment.
45
Unsupervised testing
If Ravens APM is administered online in an unsupervised setting:
Ensure you have the correct email address for the respondent and send them invitations to the testing session, include information of how to contact the test administrator for questions.
Inform the respondent(s) about the process of before, during and after the testing,
including the format and content of feedback if this is to be provided and requested
by the respondent.
If the unsupervised testing will be followed by a supervised testing at a later stage

(recommended) in the process, the respondent(s) should be informed.
Go to your online account for the email invitation template. Inform them of the nature
of the test, including how and why it is being used, the date, time, location and what
they are required to bring with them (e.g., some testing centres require personal
identification to be checked).
46

Ravens APM Item Banked Manual Part 1

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ravens APM Item Banked Manual Part 1

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MANUAL

Copyright 2015 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved

A brief history of intelligence

In contrast, crystallized intelligence, gc, is associated with learned and acculturated

Development of Ravens Progressive Matrices

Usefulness of intelligence measures

General testing considerations

Is an assessment of general intelligence, g, relevant?

Is fluid intelligence the most efficient indicator of g?

Career Guidance and Development

Before the assessment

Who you are

Your relationship to the organization

The purpose of the test

How results will be used

Who will have access to the results

How the results will be stored (data protection)

What will happen after the testing

International Test Commission:

The British Psychological Societys (BPS) Psychological Testing Centre:

During the assessment

After the assessment

Scoring and Reporting

Often, specific norm-groups, such as a group of managers within a specific industry,

Integrating Ravens APM results into an overall assessment

Before the feedback session

During the feedback session

Explain the function and role of percentiles. Say for example;

After the feedback session

Sources of Best Practice Information

International Guidelines For Test Use (International Test Commission, 2000)

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research

Psychological Testing: A User's Guide (British Psychological Society, 2012)

Guidelines for Educational and Psychological Testing (Canadian Psychological

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Equal Employment Opportunity

settings (2012). Leicester, United Kingdom: British Psychological Society.

Sawyer, J. (1966). Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychological

Undheim, J. O. (1981a). On intelligence II: A neo-Spearman model to replace Cattell's

Appendix Online administration

Supervised Testing: Individual and Group

If the unsupervised testing will be followed by a supervised testing at a later stage

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen