Hogrefe Testsystem 4

SUMMARY
MANUAL SAMPLES
INFORMATION

IST Intelligence Structure Test

D. Liepmann, A. Beauducel, B. Brocke, S. Horn

Hogrefe Ltd. The Test People, Oxford

Overview
The Test

The IST is an intelligence test battery based on the structural model of intelligence.

The battery measures Verbal, Numerical and Figural intelligence. Each area of intelligence is
assessed through three subtests.

The Verbal Intelligence sub-tests are Sentence Completion, Verbal Analogies

and Similarities.
The Numerical Intelligence subtests are Numerical Calculations, Number
Series and Numerical Signs.
The Figural Intelligence sub-tests are; Figure Selection, Cubes and Matrices.

The inclusion of three sub-tests in each area means several different types of item are used
to measure each area. Thus the battery avoids the error of simply equating one particular
type of item with an individual area of ability.

When all nine sub-tests are administered, an overall score on reasoning is computed along
with separate scores for each ability area and the subtests within that area.

This version of IST contains the verbal, numerical and figural /spatial ability modules. The
following additional components of the complete battery are currently being developed for
the UK edition:

verbal memory,
figural memory,
logical thinking,
figural-visual knowledge,
numerical knowledge,
general knowledge.

The complex structure on which the battery is based is reported in Beauducel, Brocke and
Liepmann (2001) and Liepmann, Beauducel, Brocke and Amthauer (2007). The full battery
also differentiates fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence. The IST thus allows
intellectual abilities to be assessed in a contemporary and well-differentiated manner.
Description of the scales or characteristics

1. The item groups Sentence Completion, Analogies and Similarities serve to

assess Verbal Intelligence:

Sentence Completion (SC): each item is a sentence with a word missing. The task is to
choose (from five given alternatives) the word that correctly completes the sentence.

Analogies (VA): The respondent must identify the relationship between two words and then
apply the rule governing the relationship by choosing (from among 5 possible alternatives)
a word that shows a similar relationship to another given word.

Similarities (VS): From a group of six words, the task is to choose those two words for
which there is a common collective term.

2. The item groups Calculations, Number Series and Numerical Signs are used to
assess numerical intelligence.

Calculations (CA): These items require mathematical operations with real numbers. They
are presented in a nonverbal manner in order to eliminate as far as possible any verbal
components.

Number Series (NS): In each item, a series of numbers formed according to a specific rule
are presented. The task in each case is to find the next number in the series.

Numerical Signs (SI): In these items, an equation using rational numbers is presented from
which the mathematical operators have been omitted. The items are solved by choosing
correctly from the four basic mathematical operators (add, subtract, divide, multiply).

3. The item groups Figure Selection, Cubes and Matrices are used to assess
figural-spatial intelligence.

Figure Selection (FS): In each item geometrical shapes are shown, together with some
pieces resulting from cutting up one of the shapes. The task is to identify which of the whole
shapes can be produced by fitting together the pieces.

Cubes (CU): Pictures of cubes are presented with only 3 of the 6 faces visible. Each item
shows one of the original cubes after it has been rotated through space. The task is to
identify which cube has been rotated.

Matrices (MA): In each of these items a set of figures arranged according to a particular rule
is shown. The task is to choose from a set of possible answers, the one figure that conforms
to this rule.

4. Scoring:

The nine task scales can be aggregated in order to get three scales: Verbal
Reasoning (SC+VA+VS), Numerical Reasoning (CA+NS+SI), and Figural
Reasoning (FS+CU+MA).
A Reasoning total scale is formed by the aggregation of all the nine tasks.
 Population-based norms; associated with items
Population-based norms; calculated

Derived/calculated score
(x) Dealing with missing values:
(0) ignore them
(1) use regression to estimate an answer
(2) use the middle scale point as answer
(3) use a defined score as answer
Characteristics Form A Form B
SC Sentence Completion (0) (0)
VA Verbal Analogies (0) (0)
VS Verbal Similarities (0) (0)
CA Calculations (0) (0)
NS Number Series (0) (0)
SI Numerical Signs (0) (0)
FS Figure Selection (0) (0)
CU Cubes (0) (0)
MA Matrices (0) (0)
Verbal Intelligence

Numerical Intelligence

Figural Intelligence

Reasoning Total

VR Verbal Retentiveness (0) (0)

FR Figural Retentiveness (0) (0)
Retentiveness Total

Reasoning (gf)

Knowledge (gc)

Verbal Knowledge (0) (0)

Numerical Knowledge (0) (0)
Figural Knowledge (0) (0)
Knowledge Total

Area of application

For selection and assessment of individuals aged 15 to 60 years. The battery can be
administered individually or in a group setting.

Norms
The total normative sample consisted of 1894 cases. The sample came from England
(London and Leeds), Ireland and Wales. It comprised male and female schoolchildren,
apprentices, students and professionals from various fields.

Normative sample breakdown by age (N=1894)

Age N Percent
under 16 354 18.7
17 - 18 244 12.9
19 - 20 427 22.5
21 - 25 330 17.4
26 - 30 152 8.0
31 - 40 211 11.1
41 and older 176 9.3
Norm Form A Form B
Total Age Neither gender- nor medium- Age Neither gender- nor medium-
Sample, by groups specific groups specific
age
from 15 to N = 354 from 15 to N = 354
16;11 yrs. 16;11 yrs.
from 17 to N = 244 from 17 to N = 244
18;11 yrs. 18;11 yrs.
from 19 to N = 427 from 19 to N = 427
20;11 yrs. 20;11 yrs.
from 21 to N = 330 from 21 to N = 330
25;11 yrs. 25;11 yrs.
from 26 to N = 152 from 26 to N = 152
30;11 yrs. 30;11 yrs.
from 31 to N = 211 from 31 to N = 211
40;11 yrs. 40;11 yrs.
from 41 to N = 176 from 41 to N = 176
65;11 yrs. 65;11 yrs.

Total Sample Age Neither gender- nor medium- Age Neither gender- nor medium-
groups specific groups specific
from 15 to N = 1894 from 15 to N = 1894
65;11 yrs. 65;11 yrs.

Psychometric properties
More details on psychometric properties are given in the full manual (in press) from which
the following tables are taken. The tables are numbered as in the full manual, to assist
cross-reference.

Reliability

Tab. 4.1: Reliability estimates for Scales and Overall Score

Reliability estimates
Scale
Cronbach's Alpha split half
Verbal Reasoning .86 .87
Numerical Reasoning .95 .96
 Figural Reasoning .88 .89
Reasoning .95 .96

SC - Sentence Completion
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .24 .24 .25 .83 .83 .84
2 .23 .22 .24 .88 .87 .89
3 .16 .20 .12 .80 .78 .82
4 .24 .19 .27 .69 .72 .66
5 .23 .23 .22 .78 .76 .79
6 .16 .16 .16 .75 .76 .75
7 .18 .22 .14 .64 .64 .64
8 .24 .26 .22 .76 .77 .75
9 .23 .22 .25 .74 .73 .74
10 .23 .21 .24 .62 .61 .63
11 .23 .22 .24 .68 .73 .64
12 .26 .32 .21 .60 .58 .61
13 .33 .35 .32 .47 .53 .42
14 .27 .28 .26 .37 .36 .38
15 .34 .33 .35 .31 .31 .32
16 .32 .30 .35 .37 .38 .37
17 .30 .35 .26 .30 .33 .28
18 .21 .24 .18 .35 .37 .33
19 .16 .20 .11 .54 .55 .54
20 .25 .29 .20 .23 .24 .22

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .69 .68 .67 -.90 (-.88) -.89 -.90
Alpha
Split half .71 .69 .69

VA - Verbal Analogies
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .22 .25 .19 .94 .93 .94
2 .17 .20 .14 .88 .87 .89
3 .42 .42 .41 .84 .83 .85
4 .39 .33 .44 .70 .71 .70
5 .35 .36 .34 .74 .75 .72
6 .36 .38 .33 .86 .87 .86
7 .42 .38 .44 .81 .83 .80
 8 .26 .29 .24 .35 .37 .33
9 .32 .27 .36 .73 .75 .72
10 .26 .31 .22 .68 .68 .69
11 .23 .24 .22 .48 .46 .50
12 .26 .28 .24 .43 .40 .45
13 .24 .26 .21 .52 .52 .52
14 .16 .15 .17 .22 .25 .20
15 .26 .28 .25 .23 .25 .22
16 .22 .24 .20 .31 .31 .31
17 .13 .13 .14 .23 .24 .21
18 .23 .26 .19 .24 .27 .22
19 .26 .24 .27 .32 .34 .30
20 .27 .33 .21 .24 .28 .20

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .70 .71 .69 -.90 (-.90) -.90 -.90
Alpha
Split half .74 .75 .72

VS - Verbal Similarities
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .26 .28 .25 .74 .77 .72
2 .38 .40 .35 .83 .80 .86
3 .38 .40 .37 .86 .85 .87
4 .32 .31 .31 .68 .64 .72
5 .28 .32 .24 .67 .68 .67
6 .42 .45 .39 .78 .74 .81
7 .37 .39 .35 .56 .55 .56
8 .27 28 .25 .70 .70 .71
9 .50 .54 .46 .62 .62 .62
10 .52 .55 49 .63 .63 .62
11 .56 .54 .58 .56 .55 .56
12 .30 .35 .25 .33 .32 .34
15 .19 .22 .16 .56 .55 .56
16 .38 .39 .36 .35 .34 .35
17 .32 .37 .28 .26 .25 .28
18 .25 .26 .24 .14 .13 .15
19 .30 .32 .29 .23 .27 .20
13 .27 .27 .27 .18 .18 .18
14 .18 .17 .20 .09 .09 .10
20 .12 .14 .10 .10 .11 .10

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

 Cron. .77 .79 .75 -.94 (-.94) -.94 -.94
Alpha
Split half .81 .82 .79

CA - Calculations
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female

1 .04 .01 .01 .99 .99 .99

2 .20 .21 .21 .91 .93 .90
3 .27 .24 .24 .86 .85 .87
4 .27 .28 .28 .77 .77 .77
5 .37 .39 .39 .78 .80 .76
6 .42 .39 .39 .70 .77 .64
7 .58 .54 .54 .57 .63 .52
8 .40 .34 .34 .74 .77 .71
9 .34 .33 .33 .72 .70 .74
10 .49 .46 .46 .67 .71 .64
11 .53 .54 .54 .55 .57 .53
12 .59 .57 .57 .48 .51 .45
13 .61 .60 .60 .33 .38 .28
14 .63 .61 .61 .38 .43 .34
15 .64 .60 .60 .42 .49 .36
16 .53 .48 .48 .37 .42 .34
17 .58 .53 .53 .27 .32 .21
18 .55 .53 .53 .21 .24 .17
19 .54 .52 .52 .18 .21 .14
20 .50 .46 .46 .18 .23 .15

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .87 .88 .86 -.97 (-.93) -.97 -.96
Alpha
Split half .90 .91 .89

NS - Number Series
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .22 .26 .19 .97 .97 .96
2 .39 .42 .36 .77 .78 .75
3 .33 .33 .31 .85 .88 .83
4 .33 .32 .35 .85 .85 .85
5 .51 .54 .48 .74 .77 .71
6 .55 .55 .54 .69 .74 .65
 7 .55 .52 .57 .75 .77 .73
8 .49 .45 .51 .67 .69 .64
9 .61 .56 .65 .69 .72 .66
10 .60 .58 .61 .70 .74 .66
11 .69 .66 .70 .64 .70 .59
12 .65 .64 .64 .59 .65 .53
13 .64 .65 .62 .53 .58 .49
14 .69 .66 .70 .46 .52 .42
15 .63 .65 .61 .40 .46 .35
16 .67 .66 .68 .43 .48 .38
17 .63 .65 .60 .33 .39 .28
18 .60 .62 .58 .24 .30 .20
19 .53 .54 .49 .24 .29 .20
20 .52 .53 .49 .22 .27 .18

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .91 .91 .91 -.97 (-.96) -.96 -.97
Alpha
Split half .94 .94 .94

SI - Numerical Signs
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .20 .18 .21 .97 .98 .97
2 .23 .24 .23 .96 .96 .96
3 .45 .50 .40 .81 .83 .79
4 .43 .49 .37 .78 .80 .77
5 .48 .53 .44 .78 .80 .77
6 .46 .52 .40 .73 .74 .72
7 .44 .49 .40 .60 .63 .58
8 .54 .58 .50 .68 .73 .64
9 .48 .53 .42 .62 .65 .59
10 .58 .60 .57 .67 .70 .64
11 .61 .66 .57 .58 .63 .54
12 .63 .63 .62 .62 .69 .56
13 .62 .62 .60 .49 .58 .41
14 .59 .66 .52 .47 .52 .41
15 .57 .58 .55 .43 .50 .37
16 .52 .55 .45 .30 .39 .23
17 .51 .53 .45 .21 .28 .15
18 .51 .56 .41 .29 .39 .21
19 .39 .46 .27 .19 .25 .13
20 .38 .43 .26 .14 .21 .09
 Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)
Cron. .89 .90 .86 -.97 (-.97) -.96 -.98
Alpha
Split half .91 .92 .89

FS - Figure Selection
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .36 .36 .35 .82 .82 .82
2 .38 .37 .39 .74 .76 .73
3 .37 .42 .33 .70 .70 .70
4 .36 .40 .32 .62 .63 .61
5 .36 .37 .35 .62 .62 .63
6 .33 .38 .27 .61 .61 .61
7 .37 .39 .36 .50 .52 .49
8 .28 .32 .24 .49 .50 .48
9 .29 .31 .27 .47 .49 .45
10 .30 .32 .27 .46 .47 .46
11 .31 .33 .29 .75 .75 .75
12 .46 .46 .45 .61 .60 .62
13 .34 .40 .29 .45 .46 .44
14 .32 .31 .33 .40 .40 .39
15 .28 .26 .29 .35 .35 .35
16 .32 .35 .30 .43 .41 .45
17 .36 .36 .36 .43 .45 .42
18 .28 .25 .31 .43 .42 .44
19 .35 .34 .36 .46 .41 .51
20 .20 .20 .20 .26 .27 .25

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .77 .79 .76 -.81 (-.77) -.84 -.77
Alpha
Split half .81 .82 .78

CU - Cubes
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .38 .38 .37 .79 .79 .80
2 .38 .37 .39 .69 .69 .70
3 .40 .39 .40 .75 .76 .74
4 .39 .40 .38 .73 .75 .72
5 .40 .44 .37 .70 .71 .71
 6 .16 .20 .12 .44 .45 .43
7 .34 .35 .33 .55 .56 .54
8 .33 34 .32 .51 .53 .50
9 .23 .27 .18 .34 .35 .34
10 .23 .27 .18 .22 .23 .21
11 .48 .49 .47 .75 .75 .75
12 .50 .52 .48 .72 .73 .71
13 .52 .52 .50 .66 .68 .65
14 .54 .57 .52 .60 .60 .61
15 .50 .52 .49 .56 .59 .55
16 .53 .53 .53 .55 .55 .55
17 .31 .36 .27 .20 .21 .18
18 .28 .32 .23 .20 .23 .17
19 .25 .26 .24 .19 .21 .17
20 .12 .14 .10 .09 .10 .08

Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)

Cron. .81 .82 .79 -.68 (-.65) -.68 -.69
Alpha
Split half .86 .87 .84

MA - Matrices
Item Item-total correlation (part-whole corrected) Difficulty
Form A Total Male Female Total Male Female
1 .40 .40 .40 .92 .91 .92
2 .27 .27 .28 .77 .76 .77
3 .37 .39 .35 .81 .78 .84
4 .30 .31 .29 .79 .78 .80
5 .34 .36 .32 .76 .74 .77
6 .37 .42 .31 .77 .75 .79
7 .31 .31 .30 .61 .58 .63
8 .25 .29 .22 .53 .53 .54
9 .28 .28 .27 .60 .60 .61
10 .35 .32 .37 .44 .42 .46
11 .37 .40 .33 .52 .51 .53
12 .35 .35 .36 .44 .44 .43
13 .33 .39 .28 .28 .28 .28
14 .37 .43 .31 .50 .48 .52
15 .31 .33 .31 .21 .22 .21
16 .23 .26 .22 .18 .17 .19
17 .23 .20 .24 .20 .18 .22
18 .12 .14 .11 .09 .10 .09
19 .12 .13 .13 .12 .13 .10
20 .10 .10 .10 .09 .08 .10
 Reliability estimates Kendall's tau - Form A/(B)
Cron. .73 .74 .71 -.97 (-.97) -.97 -.97
Alpha
Split half .77 .79 .76

Tab. 5.1: Correlation matrix of the nine task scales

(Below-diagonal figures are for the UK sample; above-diagonal figures relate to a German sample with N=2208)
Task Group SC VA VS CA NS SI FS CU MA
Sentence Completion --- .37 .35 .31 .25 .25 .19 .17 .20
Verbal Analogies .52 --- .59 .54 .51 .45 .36 .21 .26
Verbal Similarities .47 .59 --- .46 .47 .40 .35 .25 .26
Calculations .34 .49 .44 --- .66 .66 .37 .28 .23
Number Series .30 .45 .41 .61 --- .62 .41 .33 .29
Numerical Signs .34 .45 .44 .69 .63 --- .40 .32 .23
Figure Selection .27 .39 .42 .40 .43 .49 --- .46 .31
Cubes .20 .29 .30 .32 .38 .42 .54 --- .23
Matrices .25 .39 .35 .32 .43 .42 .48 .48 ---

Tab. 5.3: Confirmatory factor analysis of the reasoning tasks

(completely standardized solution)
Task Group verbal numerical Figural
Sentence Completion .62
Verbal Analogies .81
Verbal Similarities .75
Calculations .80
Number Series .76
Numerical Signs .85
Figure Selection .76
Cubes .69
Matrices .67
Factor-correlations
Verbal 1.00
Numerical .70 1.00
Figural .63 .71 1.00

The oblique factor model presented in Tab. 5.3 is based on maximum likelihood estimation.
The fit is acceptable: Chi=184.29; df=24; p<.001; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)
= .96; Root Mean Square Residual (RMR)= 0.030; Comparative Fit Index (CFI)= .99. The
three factors represent Verbal Reasoning, Numerical Reasoning, and Figural Reasoning. The
factor correlations indicate that a second order factor representing Reasoning can be
formed.
Validity

Evidence of validity is derived from tests of the structure of the test by means of
multivariate analyses. Correlations with other assessment instruments (d2 test, WAIS-R,
MWT-BV, CFT20, Raven APM and FRT) as well as with school performance indicate
convergent and discriminant validity.

Tab. 5.6: Correlations between IST scales and other tests (German sample)
Scale The d2 Test MWT-B WAIS CFT 20 Raven FRT
of Attention Knowledge Matrizen APM
verbal .17 .39 .48 .47 .54 .25
numerical .20 .17 .34 .45 .09 .13
figural .13 .21 .30 .55 .50 .39
Reasoning .21 .31 .46 .63 .69 .49
N 484 180 180 180 244 568

Tab. 5.8: Correlations between IST scales and other tests (UK sample)
Scale WAIS vocabulary Raven APM
verbal .44 (.51) .38 (.48)
numerical .12 (.28) .41 (.47)
figural .30 (.23) .46 (.49)
Reasoning .33 (.50) .50 (.63)
N 212 (72) 164 (72)

Duration
Depending on which modules are used, the time taken for the test can range from 77
minutes (basic module) to 130 minutes.

Test form Duration, ca. No. of items

Form A Intro 5.00 min 1..n
SC: Sentence Completion 10.00 min 20
VA: Verbal Analogies 10.00 min 20
VS: Verbal Similarities 10.00 min 20
CA: Calculations 12.00 min 20
NS: Number Series 12.00 min 20
SI: Numerical Signs 12.00 min 20
FS: Figure Selection 10.00 min 20
CU: Cubes 12.00 min 20
MA: Matrices 12.00 min 20
Verbal memory 8.00 min 10
Figural memory 8.00 min 13
Knowledge test 42.00 min 84
Form B Intro 5.00 min 1..n
 SC: Sentence Completion 10.00 min 20
VA Verbal Analogies 10.00 min 20
VS Verbal Similarities 10.00 min 20
CA Calculations 12.00 min 20
NS Number Series 12.00 min 20
SI Numerical Signs 12.00 min 20
FS Figure Selection 10.00 min 20
CU Cubes 12.00 min 20
MA Matrices 12.00 min 20
Verbal memory 8.00 min 10
Figural memory 8.00 min 13
Knowledge Test 42.00 min 84
Durations are absolute, from start to end of the test process (incl. instruction phase etc).

References
Beauducel, A., Brocke, B. & Liepmann, D. (2001). Perspectives on fluid and crystallized
Intelligence: facets for verbal, numerical, and figural intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 977-994.

Cattell, R.B. (1971) Abilities: Their Structure, Growth and Action. Houghton Mifflin, Oxford,
England.

Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., & Amthauer, R. (2007). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test
2000 R (3., erweiterte Auflage) [Intelligence-Structure-Test 2000 R (3rd, extended
edition)]. Hogrefe, Gttingen.

DISORDERS & ISSUES
NEWS
BLOGS
GET HELP
ABOUT

Disorders & Issues

Psychological Testing
Psychological Testing: Raven's Progressive Matrices

MICHAEL W. ADAMOWICZ, LICSW NOV 10, 2010 UPDATED AUG 31, 2016

Raven's Progressive Matrices (often referred to simply as Raven's Matrices)

are multiple choiceintelligence tests of abstract reasoning, originally developed by Dr.
John C. Raven in 1936.[1] In each test item, the subject is asked to identify the missing
item that completes a pattern. Many patterns are presented in the form of a 4x4, 3x3, or
2x2 matrix, giving the test its name.
Versions
The matrices are posed in three different forms for participants of different ability:

Standard Progressive Matrices: These were the original form of the matrices, first
published in 1938. The booklet comprises five sets (A to E) of 12 items each (e.g., A1
through A12), with items within a set becoming increasingly difficult, requiring ever greater
cognitive capacity to encode and analyze information. All items are presented in black ink
on a white background.
Coloured Progressive Matrices: Designed for younger children, the elderly, and people
with moderate or severe learning difficulties, this test contains sets A and B from the
standard matrices, with a further set of 12 items inserted between the two, as set Ab. Most
items are presented on a coloured background to make the test visually stimulating for
participants. However the very last few items in set B are presented as black-on-white; in
this way, if a subject exceeds the tester's expectations, transition to sets C, D, and E of
the standard matrices is eased.
Advanced Progressive Matrices: The advanced form of the matrices contains 48 items,
presented as one set of 12 (set I), and another of 36 (set II). Items are again presented in
black ink on a white background, and become increasingly difficult as progress is made
through each set. These items are appropriate for adults and adolescents of above-
average intelligence.
In addition, so-called "parallel" forms of the standard and coloured progressive matrices
were published in 1998. This was to address the problem of the Raven's Matrices being
too well-known in the general population. The fact that testees have grown increasingly
experienced with the Ravens over the last 60 years could explain the increases in
scores of around 10 IQ points per generation (see Flynn effect). Items in the parallel
tests have been constructed so that average solution rates to each question are
 identical for the classic and parallel versions. An extended form of the standard
progressive matrices, Standard Progressive Matrices Plus, was published at the same
time, offering greater discrimination among more able young adults.
The Triple Nine Society, a high IQ society, accepts the Advanced Progressive Matrices
form for one of their admission tests. They require a score of at least 32 out of 36 on or
before December 31, 1999 on the RAPM. The International Society for Philosophical
Enquiry (ISPE) similarly accepts the RAPM as a qualification for admission.
Underlying factors
According to their author, Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary tests measure
the two main components of general intelligence (originally identified by Charles
Spearman): the ability to think clearly and make sense of complexity, which is known as
eductive ability (from the Latin root "educere", meaning "to draw out") and the ability to
store and reproduce information, known as reproductive ability.
A matrix example.

A 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with Asperger syndrome, a high-
functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher than other individuals on Raven's
tests.[2] Another 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with classic autism, a low-
functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher in Raven's tests than in Wechsler
tests. In addition, the individuals with classic autism were providing correct answers to
the Raven's test in less time than individuals without autism, although erring as often. [3]
John Carlyle Raven first published his Progressive Matrices in the United Kingdom in
1938. His three sons established Scotland-based test publisher J C Raven Ltd. in 1972.
In 2004, Harcourt Assessment, Inc. a division of Harcourt Education acquired J C
Raven Ltd.
Notes
1. ^ Raven, J. C. (1936). Mental tests used in genetic studies: The performance of related
individuals on tests mainly educative and mainly reproductive. MSc Thesis, University of
London.
2. ^ Hayashi et al.
(2007) http://www.freewebs.com/adiscussion/Superior%20fluid%20intelligence%20in%20
children%20with%20Asperger's%20disorder.pdf
3. ^ Dawson M, Soulires I, Gernsbacher MA, Mottron L (2007). "The level and nature of
autistic intelligence". Psychol Sci 18 (8): 65762. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.2007.01954.x. PMID 17680932. Lay summary ScienceDaily (2007-08-05).
References
Raven, J., Raven, J.C., & Court, J.H. (2003). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices
and Vocabulary Scales. Section 1: General Overview. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment.
External links
Website of Dr. John Raven

Previous Article
Psychological Testing: Stanford-Binet IQ Test
 Next Article
Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Comments
ROBERTO AUTRAN NUNES

APR 7, 2011

My Raven's IQ
My Raven's IQ (Advanced Progressive Matrices): 175.

SUNFLOWER

SEP 25, 2012

my child's result
my daughter scored 90/average on RPM. what does it mean?

Pick a Rehab

Viewing Topic
TREATMENTS & INTERVENTIONS
o Alternative Mental Health Medicine
o Medications
o Psychological Testing
o Psychotherapy

Psychological Testing Resources

Basic Information
INTRODUCTION
INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENT
WECHSLER ADULT INTELLIGENCE SCALE
STANFORD-BINET IQ TEST
RAVEN'S PROGRESSIVE MATRICES
MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
RORSCHACH INKBLOT TEST
THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS
 DIAGNOSTIC & STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS
GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONING
MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR
NEUROIMAGING
FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

More Information

Questions & Answers

Blog Entries
Related Topics
PSYCHOTHERAPY
MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONS
TREATMENTS & INTERVENTIONS

Featured Disorders & Issues

ADDICTIONS
MENTAL DISORDERS
MEDICAL DISORDERS
WELLNESS AND PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
LIFE ISSUES
HEALTHCARE
LIFESPAN DEVELOPMENT

Need Addiction Treatment?

Find top rehab centers and providers nationwide:

Enter Your Zip

GO
COPYRIGHT 1995-2015 CENTERSITE, LLC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
COPYRIGHT 2016 MENTALHELP.NET, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CONTACT US

TERMS OF SERVICE

PRIVACY POLICY
Copyright 200
7
NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
888-298-6227 TalentLens.com

Raven's Advanced
Progressive Matrices
(APM)
Evidence of Reliability and
Validity
Copyright 2007 by NCS Pearson, Inc.
All rights reserved. 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 writ
ing from the copyright owner.
Pearson
and
TalentLens
logo
s
are trademarks, in the U.S.
and/or other countries, of
Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s).
Portions of this work were previously published.
Printed in the United
States of America.
Copyright 2007 by NCS Pears
on, Inc. All rights reserved.
-1-
Ravens Advanced Progressive
Matrices (APM)
Evidence of Reliability and Validity
Internal Consistency Reliability
The internal consistency reliability estimate for the
Advanced Progressive Matrices
(APM) total
raw score was .87 in the standardization sample of 462 individuals. (See the
Appendix for more
details regarding the composition of the sample.) This reliability estimate for
the revised APM
indicates that the total raw score on the APM possesses good internal
consistency reliability as
provided in the guidelines of the U.S. Department of Labor (1999, p. 33) for
interpreting a
reliability coefficient.
Content Validity
In an employment setting, evidence of content
validity exists when an assessment includes a
representative sample of tasks, behaviors, knowl
edge, skills, abilities, or other characteristics
necessary to perform the job. Evidence of content validity is usually gathered
through
job analysis.
The APM has been widely used for decades as a measure of
eductive ability
the ability to
evolve high-level constructs which make it easier to think about complex
situations and events
(Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998a, p. G8). In an extensive analysis of the
cognitive processes that
distinguish between higher-scoring and lower-scoring examinees on the
Standard Progressive
Matrices
(SPM) and the APM, Carpenter, Just, and Shell (1990) described the Ravens
Progressive Matrices as a classic test of
analytic intelligence
... the ability to reason and solve
problems involving new information, without
relying extensively on an explicit base of
declarative knowledge derived from either schooling or previous experience
(p. 404). In an
employment setting, evidence of the content-related validity of the APM
should be established
by demonstrating that the jobs for which the APM is to be used require the
problem-solving
skills measured by the assessment.
Copyright 2007 by NCS Pears
on, Inc. All rights reserved.
-2-
Convergent Validity
Evidence of convergent validity is provided when scores on an assessment
relate to scores on
other assessments that claim to measure similar tr
aits or constructs. Years of previous studies
on the APM support its convergent validity (Raven,
Raven, & Court, 1998b). In a sample of 149
college applicants, APM scores correlated .56 with math scores on the
American College Test
(Koenig, Frey, & Detterman, 2007). Furthermore, in
a study using 104 university students, Frey
and Detterman (2004) reported that scores from the APM correlated .48 with
scores on the
Scholastic Assessment Test
(SAT).
Evidence of convergent validity for the current ve
rsion of the APM is supported by two findings.
First, in the standardization sample of 462 individuals, scores on the current
APM correlated .97
with scores on the previous APM. Second, in a subset of 41 individuals from
the standardization
sample, the revised APM scores correlated .53 with scores on the
Watson-Glaser Critical
Thinking Appraisal

Short Form.
Detailed evidence regarding the validity of the Watson-Glaser
as a measure of critical thinking and reasoning appears in the Watson-Glaser
Short Form
Manual (Watson & Glaser, 2006).
Criterion-Related Validity
Criterion-related validity addresses the inference that individuals who score
better on an
assessment will be more successful on some criterion of interest. Criterion-
related validity for
general mental ability tests like the APM is supported by validity
generalization. The principle of
validity generalization refers to the extent that inferences from accumulated
evidence of
criterion-related validity from previous research can be generalized to a new
situation.
There is abundant evidence that measures of general mental ability, such as
the APM, are
significant predictors of overall performance acro
ss jobs. For example, in its publication on the
Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures
, the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2003) notes that validity
generalization is well-
established for cognitive ability tests. Schmidt & Hunter (2004) provide
evidence that general
mental ability predicts both occupational level attained and performance
within ones chosen
occupation and does so better than any other ability, trait, or disposition and
better than job
experience (p. 162). Prien, Schippmann, and Prien (2003) observe that
decades of research
present incontrovertible evidence supporting the use of cognitive ability
across situations and
occupations with varying job requirements (p.
55). Many other studies provide evidence of the
relationship between general mental ability and job performance (e.g., Kolz,
McFarland, &
 Login Sign up

Search

Expert Search
Quick Search

Patents/Apps
Non-Patent Literature

SEARCH
RESEARCH
MPEP 2.0
TOOLS & RESOURCES
ACCLAIM IP
HELP

Relationship between the self-directed search and the Edwards personal

preference schedule using the N of 1 research design.
Article Type:
Report
Subject:
Vocational guidance (Research)
Authors:
Miller, Mark J.
Chauvin, Ida
Thomas, Donna
Cowger, Ernie
Pub Date:
06/01/2010
Publication:
Name: College Student Journal Publisher: Project Innovation (Alabama) Audience: A
cademic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Education Copyright: COPYRIGHT 201
0 Project Innovation (Alabama) ISSN: 0146-3934
Issue:
Date: June, 2010 Source Volume: 44 Source Issue: 2

Accession Number:
228428440
Full Text:
This exploratory study used an N of 1 research design to determine the degree of
correspondence between the Self-Directed Search (SDS) and the Edwards Personal
Preference Schedule (EPPS). Implications based on the results for vocational
counselors are delineated.

**********

It is clear that although the use of inventories and tests in counseling has waned
decidedly since the days of Parsons and the trait/factor approach, tests are still used
routinely in career counseling. Most career development textbooks, for example,
contain more than one chapter on various types of tests/inventories used for career
counseling purposes. One of the more widely used inventories is the Self-Directed
Search (SDS; Holland, 1994). Another inventory, used perhaps less frequently for
career counseling, is the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards,
1959).

Thus, the purpose of the present study is to discover if corresponding dimensions exist
between the personality traits measured by the SDS [which is based on vocational
theory] and the personality traits measured by the EPPS [which is based on need
theory]. Descriptive statistics using the N of 1 research design will be employed to
identify the similar dimensions of vocational preferences and personality structure. A
rationale for the use of the N of 1 approach as well as relevant research on the
relationship between Holland's personality theory and EPPS will be presented.

The N of 1 Approach

N of 1 research refers to the detailed examination of a single entity (e.g., person,

client, a counseling dyad, a group; Miller, 1985). According to C.E. Hill, Carter, and
O'Farrell (1983), N of 1 research has distinct advantages over more traditional
experimental studies because it allows for a more adequate description of what is
happening. Sue (1978) added that N of 1 research allows researchers to study a
somewhat rare phenomenon.

An early request for N of 1 research in the field of career intervention (Osipow, 1982)
was followed by the publication of several narrative cases in The Career Development
Quarterly (A.L. Hill & Spokane, 1995) and a few studies in related periodicals (Dorn,
1988; Kirschner, Hoffman, & Hill, 1994; Spokane et al., 1993). The reader who is
unfamiliar with the virtues, importance, and thinking that are the foundation of N of 1
research is encouraged to read the above cited articles as well as the following: Frey,
1978; Goldman, 1977; Remer, 1981; Tracey, 1983.
Some Research on the Relationship Between Holland's Typology and the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule

The question concerning the relationship between personality traits and vocational
interests has been the focus of research for decades. For example Bailey (1971)
investigated the relationship between the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB;
Campbell, et al, 1968), an interest inventory organized around Holland's theory, and
the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS; Edwards, 1959). The author
initially asked subject-matter experts to make judgments indicating which scales from
the EPPS most nearly matched Holland's descriptions. The results of the judgments
are presented.

The author concluded that although the resemblance offered by qualified judges and
those presented by Holland appear to be somewhat limited, the overall canonical
analysis of the two sets of variables for the entire sample reinforced the idea that the
two psychological domains of personality and vocational interests are related (Bailey,
1971).

Kristjanson (1969) also examined the link between SVIB and EPPS scales. The
majority of the results were in the expected direction. For example, Realistic types
were Enduring; Investigative types were Achieving and Enduring but less Affiliative;
Artistic types were more Achieving, Independent but not Orderly or Enduring; Social
types were Intraceptive, Nuturant, Dominant but not Succorant or Orderly;
Enterprising types were Dominant, Aggressive, and Succorant, but not Enduring or
Intraceptive; and Conventional types were Orderly and Achieving.

Wakefield and Cunningham (1975) studied the relationship between another

instrument that is organized around Holland's theory- the Vocational Preference
Inventory (VPI; Holland, 1970) and the EPPS. The two instruments were compared
using canonical analysis. The analysis revealed three significant relationships between
components of the two instruments.

The first significant relationship revealed a correspondence between the Order and
Abasement variable of the EPPS and the Conventional scale of the VPI. The second
significant relationship revealed a correspondence between the Achievement,
Succorance, and Endurance variable of the EPPS and the Investigative scale of the
VPI. Finally, the third significant relationship placed the needs for Intraception and
Nurturance from the EPPS next to the Social scale from the VPI; that is, the positive
relationship between the Social scale and the needs for Intraception, i.e., "to analyze
one's motives and feelings ..." (Edwards, 1959, p. 11) is consistent with Holland's
(1966, 1997) description of the Social personality type. The authors conclude that the
Holland types and the EPPS, though not duplicative personality measures, are,
nonetheless, significantly related to each other.

Procedure

A questionnaire packet containing the SDS, the EPPS, and a biographical data form
was given to a single participant. The participant was a volunteer graduate student and
she received a small honorarium for her involvement. Controlling for order effects
was not considered since the study involved a single participant. The participant
completed all forms within two weeks. Upon completion of the questionnaire packet,
the participant received a debriefing statement outlining the purpose of the study and
the results.

The Single Participant

The participant used in this study was a graduate student in general counseling within
the Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at a median size southern
university. The participant was a 22-year-old African-American female, single, and
working in a counseling-related field. Her occupational fantasies were child and
adolescent counselor and lawyer, and her leisure pursuits included traveling,
shopping, and reading.

Instruments

Self-Directed Search (SDS). The Self-Directed Search (SDS; Holland, 1994) is a self-
administered, self-scored, and self-interpreted instrument designed to provide career
guidance for students and adults. After completing the SDS, the individual sums all
positive responses and arrives at a three-letter code on the summary page. An
individual's personality can be classified by means of a three-letter code, with each
letter representing one of the six personality types (RIASEC).

Empirical studies generally have demonstrated sufficient evidence to accept the

hexagonal structure as a satisfactory representation of the interrelations among the
types (Swanson, 1994; Tracey & Rounds, 1993). Holland (1997) reported reliability
estimates ranging from .70 to .89 as well as evidence of concurrent validity. Several
hundred studies have been conducted on the SDS with generally favorable results
(Osipow, 1993).

The Edward Personal Preference Schedule. The Edward Personal Preference Schedule
(EPPS) is a forced choice, objective personality inventory derived from the theory of
H.A. Murray (1938), which measures the rating of individuals in fifteen normal needs
or motives. On the EPPS there are nine statements used for each scale. Social
desirability ratings have been done for each item, and the pairing of items are attempts
to match items of approximately equal social desirability. Fifteen pairs of items are
repeated twice for the consistency scale.

The inventory consists of 225 pairs of statements in which items from each of the 15
scales are paired with items from the other 14 plus the other fifteen pairs of items
from the optional consistency check. This leaves the total number of items (14x 15) at
210. Edwards has used the last 15 items to offer the candidate the same item twice,
using the results to calculate a consistency score. The results are considered valid if
the consistency checks for more than 9 out of the 15 paired items. Within each pair,
the subjects choose one statement as more characteristic of themselves, reducing the
social desirability factor of the test. Due to the forced choice format, the EPPS is an
ipsative test, the statements are made in relation to the strength of an individual's other
needs. Hence, like personality, it is not absolute. Results of the test are reliable,
although there are doubts about the consistency scale. Information on the test-retest
and split-half reliability as well as the convergent and discriminant validity of the
EPPS can be found (in Edwards, 1959).

The needs measured by the personality variables of the EPPS are Achievement (Ach),
Deference (Def), Order (Ord), Exhibition (Exh), Autonomy (Aut), Affiliation (Aft),
Intraception (Int), Succorance (Suc), Dominance (Dora), Abasement (Aba), Nuturance
(Nur), Change (Chg), Endurance (End), Herterosexuality (Het), and Aggression
(Agg). Many of these needs bear the same names as personality characteristics
described by Holland for each of his personality types (Bailey, 1971).

Biographical Data Sheet. A demographic information form designed for this study
was used to obtain data regarding demographic characteristics of the participant. The
biographical data sheet requested the following personal information: gender, age,
race/ethnicity, marital status, academic major, occupational fantasy, and leisure
pursuits.

Results and Discussion

The participant's three-letter Holland code as measured by the SDS was SIA.
Specifically, the raw scores for each Holland type were as follows: R= 11, I= 30, A=
29, S= 41, E= 23, and C= 24. Given the Rule of "8" (see Holland, 1994), her three-
letter code could also be SAI. As an aside, Wiggins and Weslander (1979) found that
the personality characteristics of counselors rated as most effective were SAI (an
extremely high congruency score using the Iachan (1984) Index). In addition, our
participants' raw scores and accompanying percentile ranks from the EPPS are
presented from highest to lowest: Intraception 22 (95%), Change 22 (91%),
Dominance 14 (80%), Heterosexuality 12 (75%), Autonomy 14(72%), Exhibition 13
(70%), Nuturance 20 (64%), Deference 15 (56%), Succorance 12 (46%), Abasement
15 (36%), Achievement 11 (30%), Order 13 (30%), Aggression 8 (29%), Affiliation
12 (10%), Endurance 8 (5%).

The first and most obvious pattern that emerged was the clear and predictable
correspondence between the Social and Artistic Holland types with the Intraception
(95%) trait of the EPPS. The next pattern that surfaced was the obvious link between
the Investigative and Artistic Holland types with the need for Change (91%) as
measured by the EPPS. Also less clear but still important similarities were found
between the Social Holland type and the trait of Nuturance (64%) as well as between
the Investigative Holland type and the importance of Autonomy (72%) as measured
by the EPPS. A final pattern emerged using a somewhat circuitous approach; that is,
focusing on the participants' lowest scores from each measure. There appeared a clear
connection between the Realistic Holland type (her lowest score) and the traits of
Order (30%) and Endurance (5%) of the EPPS. The three patterns that emerged from
our study are consistent with what others have found or hypothesized (e.g., Bailey,
1971; Kristjanson, 1969; Wakefield & Cunningham, 1975).

The extent to which a client will enjoy various careers is determined, at least in part,
by the type of person one is. Since most approaches to career counseling initially
include a self-understanding component, the EPPS would seem to be well-suited for
the application of personality assessment to career counseling. The fact that the EPPS
fits fairly well with the Holland model increases its attractiveness for career
practitioners.

Although these results suggest important overlap between the two measures, neither
personality model can account completely for the other; each model containing unique
aspects in their own right. Thus, as others have noted, since the EPPS may provide
helpful personality information not assessed by the Holland's model, career counselors
should consider supplementing interest measures with assessment domains from the
EPPS.

This study revealed important relationships between Holland's typology and the
personality traits described in the EPPS, and thus, the study offers tentative
suggestions for career counselors. Though the results are clearly preliminary, they do
lend some support to the notion that career counselors can make some inferences
about the client's personality preferences and interests. Perhaps this broader picture of
the client will assist the counselor in asking questions to promote greater self-
awareness and career exploration. The general conclusion from this exploratory study
is that information gleaned from these two instruments will foster both client
understanding and greater understanding of the world of work thereby improving a
client's decision-making ability.

Furthermore, the SDS could be used to identify a host of specific careers for
consideration, while the EPPS could be used to effectively help clients understand
"why" those careers are attractive within the framework of the client's life patterns. As
clients begin understanding "why" certain occupations are more appealing than others,
they may become more motivated to begin the task of gathering relevant formal and
informal pieces of career-related information. Carefully examining occupations based
at least in part on the SDS-EPPS associations will help determine if their interests,
preferences, and personality traits relate to those occupations under consideration.

A few limitations are important to consider when interpreting findings and planning
for future research. First, the findings were based on descriptive statistics. Clearly,
more sophisticated statistical analyses should be considered in future research. In
addition, results of this research are based on self-report data from a single African-
American, female, graduate student. Before conclusions can be drawn on the
similarity between the two instruments used in this study, the current results need to
be demonstrated empirically using different methodologies and larger sample sizes.

Please send correspondence to Mark J. Miller, Professor Counseling, Louisian Tech

University Psychology & Behavioral Sciences. PO Box 10048 Ruston, LA 71272

References

Bailey, R.L. (1971). Testing Holland's theory. Measurement and Evaluation in

Guidance, 4, 107-114.

Campbell, D. P., Borgen, F. H., Eastes, S. H., Johansson, C. B., & Peterson, P. A.
(1968). A set of basic interest scales for the Strong Vocational Interest Blank for Men.
Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 52, 1-54.

Dorn, F. J. (1988). Utilizing social influence in career counseling: A case study. The
Career Development Quarterl.v, 36, 269-280.

Edwards, A.L. (1959). Manual: Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. NY:

Psychological Corporation.

Frey, D. (1978). Science and the single case study in counseling research. The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 263-268.

Goldman, L. (1977). Toward more meaningful research. The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 55,363-368.

Hill, C.E., Carter, J.A, & O'Farrell, M.K. (1983). A case study of the process and
outcomes of time-limited counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 3-18.

Hill, A.L., & Spokane, A.R. (1995). Career counseling and possible selves: A case
study. The Career Development Quarterly, 43, 221-232.

Holland, J.L. (1966). The psychology of vocational choice. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.

Holland, J.L. (1970). Manual for the Vocational Preference Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Counseling Psychologists Press.

Holland, J.L. (1994) The Self Directed Search: Professional Manual- Form R. Odessa,
FL: Psychology Assessment Resources.

Holland, J.L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities

and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychology Assessment Resources.

Iachan, R. (1984). A measure of agreement for use with the Holland classification
system. Journal of Vocational Behavior; 24, 133-141.

Kristjanson, R.W. (1969). Personality types and their hypothesized attributes: An

application of Holland's vocational choice theory. Unpublished master's thesis,
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Kirnschner, T.J., Hoffman, M.A., & Hill, C.E. (1994). A case study of the process and
outcome of career counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41, 216-226.

Miller, M.J. (1985). Analyzing client change graphically. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 63, 491-494.

Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in personality. NY: Oxford University Press.

Osipow, S.H. (1982). Research in career counseling: An analysis of issues and

problems. The Counseling Psychologist, 10 (4), 27-34.

Osipow, S.H. (1993). Theories of career development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Remer, R. (1981). The use of time-series design: Interaction between skill level and
application. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 621-627.

Spokane, A.R., Fretz, B.R., Hollman, M.A., Nagel, D., Davison-Aviles, R.M., &
Jaschik-Herman, M. (1993). Forty cases: A framework for studying the effects of
career counseling on career and personal adjustment. Journal of Career Assessment, 1,
118-129.

Sue, D.W. (1978). Editorial. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 260.

Swanson, J.L. (1994). The structure of vocational interests for African-American

college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 144-157.

Tracey, T.J. (1983). Single case research: An added tool for counselor and
supervisors. Counselor Education and Supervision. 22, 185-196.

Tracey, T.J., & Rounds, J.B. (1993). Evaluating Holland's and Gati's vocational
interest models: A structural meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 13, 229-246.

Wakefield, J.A., & Cunningham, C.H. (1975). Relationship between the Vocational
Preference Inventory and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 6, 373-377.

Wiggins, J.D., & Weslander, D.L. (1979). Personality characteristics of counselors

rated as effective or ineffective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 15, 175-185.

MARK J. MILLER, PH.D.

Professor Counseling

Louisiana Tech University

IDA CHAUVIN, PH.D.

Assistant Professor, Counseling

Louisiana Tech University

DONNA THOMAS, PH.D.

Assistant Professor

Louisiana Tech University

ERNIE COWGER, PH.D.

Associate Professor, Counseling

Louisiana Tech University

Holland Type EPPS Scales

Realistic Order, Endurance

Investigative Achievement, Autonomy
Artistic Intraception, Abasement
Social Affiliation, Nurturance
Enterprising Achievement, Exhibition,
Dominance
Conventional Deference, Order,
Endurance
Gale Copyright:
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Previous Article: Is it nature or nurture? beliefs about child development held by

college students in psychology cour...

Next Article: College students' perceptions of equal opportunity for African

Americans and race-based policy: do d...

Home
Search
Services
Communities
Help
Contact us
Advertise on this Site

 2004-2016 FreePatentsOnline.com. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy & Terms of
Use. A SumoBrain Solutions Company
 Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

Purpose: Personality inventory.

Population: College and adults.

Scores: 15 scores.

Time: (40-55) minutes.

Author: Allen L. Edwards.

Publisher: The Psychological Corporation.

Description: The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) is a forced choice,

objective, non-projective personality inventory, derived from the theory of H. A.
Murray, which measures the rating of individuals in fifteen normal needs or motives.
On the EPPS there are nine statements used for each scale. Social Desirability ratings
have been done for each item, and the pairing of items attempts to match items of
approximately equal social desirability. Fifteen pairs of items are repeated twice for
the consistency scale.

Scoring: The EPPS consists of 15 scales: achievement, deference, order, exhibition,

autonomy, affiliation, interception, succorance, dominance, abasement, nurturance,
change, endurance, heterosexuality, and aggression.

Reliability: Split-half reliability coefficients, or coefficients of internal consistency

for 1,509 students in the college normative group range from .60 to .87 with a median
of .78. The author also presents test-retest stability coefficients with a one-week
interval. These are based on a sample of 89 students and range from .55 to .87 with a
median of .73. Other researchers have reported similar results over a three-week
period, showing correlations of .55 to 87 with a median of .73.

Validity: The manual reports studies comparing the EPPS with the Guilford Martin
Personality Inventory and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale. Other researchers have
correlated the California Psychological Inventory, the Adjective Check List, the
Thematic Apperception Test, the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, and the MMPI
with the EPPS. In these studies there are often statistically significant correlations
among the scales of these tests and the EPPS, but the relationships are usually low-to-
moderate and often are difficult for the researcher to explain.

Norms: 1,509 students in college.

Suggested Uses: Recommended primarily for instructional value and research
settings.