The Raven's progressive matrices: change and stability over culture and time.

By J. Raven. Cognitive Psychology, 2000

1,494 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c33f68726ac6173e31be6be4e42056804ea91a2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign language learning (2012, methodology): “The 18 odd-numbered items from set II of this test (Raven, 2000) were presented for both groups at pretest.”
Construct Validity of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices for African and Non-African Engineering Students in South Africa (2004, methodology): “tests are the Raven’s Colored Progressive Matrices, the Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, and the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices (Raven, 2000).”
Beyond intelligence: a meta-analytic review of the relationship among metacognition, intelligence, and academic performance (2018, methodology): “…measured via multiple tests (e.g., vocabulary, inductive reasoning, verbal analogies, linear syllogisms, number speed, and working memory) or a specific type of intelligence measured via a particular test, such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices, which measure fluid intelligence (Raven 2000).”
Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher When You Recruit One? (2008, methodology): “Each set of items becomes progressively more difficult, requiring greater cognitive capacity to encode and analyze (Raven 2000).”
Gender Differences in Risk Aversion: Do Single-Sex Environments Affect Their Development? (2013, methodology): “These authors collected three measures of cognitive skills: a nonverbal IQ test (Raven’s matrices), a test of the ability to plan (the ‘Hit 15’ task), and a quantitative literacy (or numeracy) test. In their analysis they reported only the impact of IQ (Raven’s matrices) but they note that ”
Self-efficacy Feelings Moderate Implementation Intention Effects (2010, methodology): “In each of the three blocks, they worked on analytic reasoning tasks (see below; Advanced Progressive Matrices, Set II, Raven, 1976, 2000).”
Empathy, sex and fluid intelligence as predictors of theory of mind (2013, positive): “A standard version of the Raven progressive matrices (RPM) was used as a measure of FI (or g factor; Raven, 2000).”
Boosting scholastic test scores by willpower: The role of implementation intentions (2007, background): “Even though the RAPM test is considered to be rather valid and reliable (Raven, 2000), self-efficacy strengthening implementation intentions managed to improve participants’ test performance on the spot.”
A long-term rise and recent decline in intelligence test performance: The Flynn Effect in reverse (2005, background): “The effect has been seen most prominently in so-called fluid tests of intelligence, i.e., tests requiring educative reasoning to a logical conclusion from given, usually abstract, information such as is presented in Raven s Progressive Matrices (Raven, 2000).”
Stratified Rule-Aware Network for Abstract Visual Reasoning (2020, neutral): “Besides, no viable rule can be found along the columns 1938; Carpenter, Just, and Shell 1990; Raven 2000; Kunda, McGreggor, and Goel 2013; Stranneg ˚ ard, Cirillo, and Str ¨ om 2013) is one of the highly accepted and well-studied tools to examine the ability of abstract reasoning, which is believed…”
Is creativity without intelligence possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis (2016, methodology): “We used different operationalizations and measurements of intelligence and creativity across the studies as Raven Matrices (Raven, 2000; Studies: 1–3) or the Baddeley Grammatical Reasoning Test (Baddeley, 1968; Hunt, 2010; Studies 4 and 6).”
Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect (2008, methodology): “A first limitation, as pointed out by Raven (2000), is that many studies involve simply the comparison of mean scores, often using scaled and IQ scores such as those calculated in the Wechsler Intelligence tests.”
Improved matrix reasoning is limited to training on tasks with a visuospatial component (2013, methodology): “The Raven's tests were designed tomeasure the unidimensional construct, Gf (Raven, 2000; van der Ven & Ellis, 2000).”
Measuring Risk Literacy: The Berlin Numeracy Test (2012, methodology): “3 Fluid intelligence tests such as Raven’s Standard or Advanced Progressive Matrices tend to be more time consuming yet also confer considerable beneﬁts in terms of psychometric rigor and cross-cultural fairness (Raven, 2000).”
A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices (2018, methodology): “Thus, he focused on two indicators of intelligence: “educative ability” and “reproductive ability” (Raven, 2000, p. 2) as measures of intelligence in RAVEN.”