Methods for Classifying Errors on the Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices Test

Although many psychometric tests, like Raven’s Progressive Matrices, are commonly evaluated according to total score, additional variables can lend insight into the underlying cognitive processes. We examine conceptual errors on the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) test. We present a complete classification of error types on the SPM using a two-kind coding scheme, yielding � 95% inter-rater reliability. We also examine how to extract error data from a computational model, and we present a method for measuring errors through systematic ablation to create a “population” of models whose performance can be examined as a group. We present a preliminary analysis of error patterns on the SPM from typically developing individuals, individuals diagnosed with autism, and a computational model called ASTI. We discuss what the error patterns suggest regarding cognition on the SPM and routes towards improving the ASTI model.

[1]  Bruno Facon,et al.  An item analysis of Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices among participants with Down syndrome. , 2010, Research in developmental disabilities.

[2]  D. B. Bromley,et al.  Primitive forms of response to the Matrices test. , 1953, The Journal of mental science.

[3]  David Thissen,et al.  INFORMATION IN WRONG RESPONSES TO THE RAVEN PROGRESSIVE MATRICES , 1976 .

[4]  Emily Farran,et al.  Item and error analysis on Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices in Williams Syndrome. , 2011, Research in developmental disabilities.

[5]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Modeling Multiple Strategies for Solving Geometric Analogy Problems , 2012, CogSci.

[6]  David Chan,et al.  Verbal overshadowing effects on Raven's advanced progressive matrices: Evidence for multidimensional performance determinants , 1995 .

[7]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales , 1962 .

[8]  J. Horner,et al.  Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices: Interpreting Results Through Analysis of Problem-type and Error-type , 1980 .

[9]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Fractal Analogies for General Intelligence , 2012, AGI.

[10]  J. L. Ellis,et al.  A Rasch analysis of Raven’s standard progressive matrices , 2000 .

[11]  J. Raven,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF POSITIONAL FACTORS ON THE CHOICE OF ANSWERS TO PERCEPTUAL INTELLIGENCE TESTS , 1939 .

[12]  Adele E. Howe,et al.  How evaluation guides AI research , 1988 .

[13]  Christopher Jarrold,et al.  Raven's matrices performance in Down syndrome: evidence of unusual errors. , 2004, Research in developmental disabilities.

[14]  Maithilee Kunda,et al.  Thinking in Pictures as a Cognitive Account of Autism , 2011, Journal of autism and developmental disorders.

[15]  A. Forbes AN ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE ADVANCED MATRICES , 1964 .

[16]  C. E. Bethell-Fox,et al.  Adaptive reasoning: Componential and eye movement analysis of geometric analogy performance ☆ , 1984 .

[17]  M. W. Molen,et al.  Error analysis of raven test performance , 1994 .

[18]  Laurent Mottron,et al.  The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence , 2007, Psychological science.

[19]  T. Zeffiro,et al.  Enhanced visual processing contributes to matrix reasoning in autism , 2009, Human brain mapping.

[20]  Maithilee Kunda,et al.  A computational model for solving problems from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices intelligence test using iconic visual representations , 2013, Cognitive Systems Research.