The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a shortened version of the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) under an item response theory framework (the one- and two-parameter logistic models). The shortened Raven SPM was administered to N = 453 cognitively healthy adults aged between 24 and 83 years. The IQ point estimates that were obtained under the one- and two-parameter logistic models were very similar (r = .97), but the two-parameter logistic-based test version had a higher measurement precision. The results showed that older age and being female were associated with a lower Raven SPM test performance. A user-friendly computer program was provided to facilitate the scoring and norming of the shortened Raven SPM under the different frameworks.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
AbadF. J.ColomR.RebolloI.EscorialS. (2004). Sex differential functioning in the Raven’s advanced progressive matrices: Evidence for bias. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1459-1470.
3.
AldertonD. L.LarsonG. E. (1990). Dimensionality of Raven’s advanced progressive matrices items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 887-900.
4.
BelsleyD. A.KuhE.WelschR. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York, NY: Wiley.
5.
BockR. D. (1972). Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika, 37, 29-51.
6.
BockR. D.MislevyR. J. (1982). Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment. Applied Psychological Measurement, 6, 431-444.
De BieS. E. (1987). Standaardvragen 1987: Voorstellen voor uniformering van vraagstellingen naar achtergrondkenmerken en interviews [Standard questions 1987: Proposal for uniformization of questions regarding background variables and interviews]. Leiden, Netherlands: Leiden University Press.
9.
DrasgowF.LissakR. (1983). Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 363-373.
10.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
FolsteinM. F.FolsteinS. E.McHughP. R. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
12.
HambletonR. K.JonesR. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their application to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 535-556.
13.
HambletonR. K.SwaminathanH.RogersH. J. (1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
HoijtinkH.BoomsmaA. (1996). Statistical inference based on latent ability estimates. Psychometrika, 61, 313-330.
15.
JollesJ.HouxP. J.Van BoxtelM. P. J.PondsR. W. H. M. (1995). Maastricht aging study: Determinants of cognitive aging. Maastricht, Netherlands: Neuropsych Publishers.
16.
LambertsH.WoodM. (1987). ICPC. International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
17.
LuI. R. R.ThomasD. R.ZumboB. D. (2005). Embedding IRT in structural equation models: A comparison with regression based on IRT scores. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 263-277.
18.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19.
LynnR.IrwingP. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481-498.
20.
MetsemakersJ. F. M.HöppenerP.KnottnerusJ. A.KockenR. J. J.LimonardC. B. G. (1992). Computerized health information in the Netherlands: A registration network of family practices. British Journal of General Practice, 42, 102-106.
21.
MitrushinaM. N.BooneK. B.RazaniJ.D’EliaL. F. (2005). Handbook of normative data for neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22.
RavenJ. (2000). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 1-48.
23.
RavenJ. C. (1938). Progressive matrices: A perceptual test of intelligence. London, England: H. K. Lewis.
24.
RavenJ. C. (2006). Raven Standard Progressive Matrices: Handleiding [Raven Standard Progressive Matrices: Manual]. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
25.
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
26.
RizopoulosD. (2006). Ltm: an R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17, 1-25.
27.
RoussosL.StoutW. F. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355-371.
28.
SpearmanC. E. (1927). The abilities of man. London, England: Macmillan.
29.
StraussE.ShermanE. M. S.SpreenO. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests. Administration, norms and commentary (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
StrenzeT. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, 401-426.
31.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1976). International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). Paris, France: Author.
32.
Van BreukelenG. J. P.VlaeyenJ. W. S. (2005). Norming clinical questionnaires with multiple regression: The pain cognition list. Psychological Assessment, 17, 336-344.
33.
Van der ElstW.van BoxtelM. P. J.van BreukelenG. J. P.JollesJ. (2005). Rey’s verbal learning test: Normative data for 1855 healthy participants aged 24-81 years and the influence of age, sex, education, and mode of presentation. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 11, 290-302.
34.
WainerH.ThissenD. (1987). Estimating ability with the wrong model. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 339-368.
