CATTELL’S CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

AIM
To assess the fluid intelligence of the participant using Cattell’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test,
Scale 3 (Form A+B).

BASIC CONCEPT
Intelligence is an inferred process that humans use to explain the different degrees of adaptive
success in people’s behavior. There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are
experts who study it. Simply put, however, intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from,
understand, and interact with one’s environment.
A few definitions of intelligence, as given by different psychologists:

 A general ability which mainly involves the eduction of relations and correlates.
(Spearman, 1904)
 The ability to judge well, to understand well and reason well.
(Binet and Simon, 1905)
 The capacity to form concepts and grasp their significance.
(Terman, 1916)
 The ability of an individual to adapt his thinking to new demands, it is the common mental
adaptability to new tasks and conditions of life.
(Stern, 1912)
 The capacities to inhibit instinctive adjustments, flexibility imagine new responses, and
realize modified instinctive adjustments to overt behavior.
(Thurstone, 1921)
 The aggregate or global capacity of an individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and
to deal effectively with the environment
(Weschler, 1939)
 The ability to undertake activities characterized by difficulty, complexity, abstractedness,
economy, adaptiveness to a goal, social value and the emergence of originals and to maintain
such activities under conditions that demand a concentration of energy and resistance to
emotional forces.
(Stoddard, 1943)
 The mental capacity to automatize mental processing, to formulate new ideas, and to emit
contextually appropriate behavior in response to novelty which includes not only adaptation
but also shaping and selection of any environmental context.
(Sternberg, 1985)

1
However, while often used interchangeably and as synonyms, intelligence, aptitude and achievement
differ on a few key points:

 Intelligence and Aptitude

INTELLIGENCE APTITUDE

1. Intelligence is global in nature, not specific Aptitude is the ability to perform a specific task or
to a particular domain acquire a particular skill well

2. More focused on g-factor More focused on s-factor

 Aptitude and Achievement

ACHIEVEMENT APTITUDE

1. Achievement tests evaluates how much a Aptitude tests evaluate a person’s potential for
person has learnt in the past future learning and performance

2. Achievement tests evaluate the effects of a Aptitude tests evaluates the effects of an unknown
known or controlled set of experiences or uncontrolled set of experiences

3. Evaluates the product of a course of Evaluates the potential to profit from a course of
training training

4. Achievement tests rely heavily on content Aptitude tests rely heavily on predictive criteria
validation procedures validation procedures

2
 THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE
Psychologists have proposed several theories of intelligence. Theories can be broadly classified as
either representing a psychometric/structural approach or an information-processing approach.

 The psychometric approach considers intelligence as an aggregate of abilities. It expresses

the individual’s performance in terms of a single index of cognitive abilities.

 On the other hand, the information processing approach describes the processes people use
in intellectual reasoning and problem solving.
The major focus of this approach is on how an intelligent person acts. Rather than focusing
on structure of intelligence or its underlying dimensions, information processing approaches
emphasize studying cognitive functions underlying intelligent behavior.

I. PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH

1. Uni-Factory Theory

 Alfred Binet’s theory of intelligence was rather simple as it arose from his interest
in differentiating more intelligent from less intelligent individuals.
 He, therefore, conceptualized intelligence as consisting of one similar set of
abilities which can be used for solving any or every problem in an individual’s
environment.

2. Two Factor Theory

 In 1927, Charles Spearman proposed a two-factor theory of intelligence

employing a statistical method called factor analysis.
 He showed that intelligence consisted of a general factor (g-factor) and some
specific factors (s-factors)
 The g-factor includes mental operations which are primary and common to all
performances
 Specific abilities that a person possessed were an expression of s-factor, which
differed, depending on a person’s abilities

3. Theory of Primary Mental Abilities

 Psychologist Louis L. Thurstone offered a differing theory of intelligence. Instead

of viewing intelligence as a single, general ability, this theory focused on seven
different primary mental abilities, all of which were relatively independent of each
other.
 The abilities that he described were verbal comprehension, reasoning, perceptual
speed, numerical ability, word fluency, associative memory and spatial
visualization
3
4. Structure-of-Intellect Model

 J.P. Guilford (1988) proposed the structure of intellect model which classifies
intellectual traits among three dimensions: operations, contents, and products.
i. Operations are what the respondent does.
These include cognition, memory recording, memory retention, divergent
production, convergent production, and evaluation.
ii. Contents refer to the nature of materials or information on which
intellectual operations are performed.
These include visual, auditory, symbolic (e.g., letters, numbers), semantic
(e.g., words) and behavioral (e.g., information about people’s behavior,
attitudes, needs, etc.).
iii. Products refer to the form in which information is processed by the
respondent.
Products are classified into units, classes, relations, systems,
transformations, and implications.

 Since this classification includes 6x5x6 categories, therefore, the model has 180
cells. Each cell is in the model represents a unique operation-content-product
combination and a distinct mental ability.

5. Cattell's Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence

 The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence suggests that

intelligence is composed of a number of different abilities that interact and work
together to produce overall individual intelligence.

i. Fluid intelligence is defined as the ability to perceive relationships

independent of previous specific practice or instruction concerning those
relationships.
It involves being able to think and reason abstractly and solve problems.
This ability is considered independent of learning, experience, and
education.

ii. Crystallized intelligence involves knowledge that comes from prior

learning and past experiences.
Situations that require crystallized intelligence include reading
comprehension and vocabulary exams. This type of intelligence is based
upon facts and rooted in experiences. As we age and accumulate new
knowledge and understanding, crystallized intelligence becomes stronger

iii. There is a correlation of 0.50 between the fluid ability and crystallized
ability.

4
 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZED ABILITY

Fluid Ability Crystallized Ability

Inherent capacity to learn and solve problems The product of educational and cultural experience in
that depend on an efficient functioning of the interaction with fluid intelligence.
central nervous system.

Relatively culture-reduced form of mental Highly cultural dependent form of mental efficiency.
efficiency.

Required ability to manage information on Requires ability to retrieve information from long term
working memory memory.

Used when a task requires novel, abstract Used for tasks which require a learned or habitual
problems or adaptation to a new situation. response.

Peaks in early adulthood and begins to decline as Continues to grow as we age and accumulate new
people enter late adulthood. Vulnerable to brain knowledge and understanding.
damage and aging.

II. INFORMATION PROCESSING/COGNITIVE APPROACH

1. Triarchic Theory
 Robert Sternberg defined intelligence as mental activity directed toward purposive
adaptation to, selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to one’s
life.
 Sternberg proposed what he refers to as 'successful intelligence,' which is
comprised of three different factors:
i. Componential/Analytical intelligence: This component refers to
problem-solving abilities.
a. METACOMPONENTS: are executive processes used in problem
solving and decision making that involve the majority of managing
our mind. They tell the mind how to act.
b. PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS: the processes that actually
carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the
basic processes that allow us to do tasks
c. KNOWLEDGE ACQUSITION COMPONENTS: are used in
obtaining new information. These components complete tasks that
involve selectively choosing information from irrelevant
information. These components can also be used to selectively
combine the various pieces of information they have gathered
ii. Experiential/Creative intelligence: This aspect of intelligence involves
the ability to deal with new situations using past experiences and current
skills.
5
 iii. Contextual/Practical intelligence: This element refers to the ability to
adapt to a changing environment.

2. PASS Model of Intelligence

 Developed by J.P. Das, Jack Naglieri, and Kirby (1994), according to this model,
intellectual activity involves the interdependent functioning of three neurological
systems, called the functional units of brain. These units are responsible for
arousal/attention, coding or processing, and planning respectively.
i. Arousal/Attention : State of arousal is basic to any behavior as it helps us
in attending to stimuli.
ii. Simultaneous and Successive Processing: Simultaneous processing takes
place when you perceive the relations among various concepts and
integrate them into a meaningful pattern for comprehension while
Simultaneous processing helps you in grasping the meaning and
relationship between the given abstract figures.
iii. Planning: After the information is attended to and processed, planning is
activated. It allows us to think of the possible courses of action, implement
them to reach a target, and evaluate their effectiveness.

ASSESMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
Interest in intelligence dates back thousands of years, but it wasn't until psychologist Alfred Binet
was commissioned to identify students who needed educational assistance that the first IQ test was
born.

 Alfred Binet and the First IQ Test

o In 1905, Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, made the first successful attempt to
formally measure intelligence. In 1908, when the scale was revised, they gave the
concept of Mental Age (MA), which is a measure of a person’s intellectual
development relative to people of her/his age group. Chronological Age (CA) is the
biological age from birth.

o In 1912, William Stern, a German psychologist, devised the concept of Intelligence

Quotient (IQ). IQ refers to mental age divided by chronological age, and multiplied
by 100.

6
  The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test

o The Stanford-Binet intelligence test used a single number, known as the intelligence
quotient (or IQ), to represent an individual's score on the test.
o This score was calculated by dividing the test taker's mental age by their
chronological age, and then multiplying this number by 100.
For example, a child with a mental age of 12 and a chronological age of 10 would
have an IQ of 120 (12 /10 x 100).

 The Wechsler Intelligence Scales

o Dissatisfied with the limitations of the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler published his new
intelligence test known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) in 1955.

o The WAIS-IV contains 10 subtests along with 5 supplemental tests. The test provides
scores in four major areas of intelligence: a Verbal Comprehension Index, a
Perceptual Reasoning Index, a Working Memory Index, and a Processing Speed
Index.

o Rather than score the test based on chronological age and mental age, as was the case
with the original Stanford-Binet, the WAIS is scored by comparing the test taker's
score to the scores of others in the same age group.

CULTURE-FAIR TEST is a test designed to be free of cultural bias, as far as possible, so that no
one culture has an advantage over another. The test is designed to not be influenced by verbal ability,
cultural climate, or educational level.

The purpose is to eliminate any social or cultural advantages, or disadvantages, that a person may
have due to their upbringing. Most intelligence tests, particularly those having language elements,
have a cultural component in them. Some tests are language-free tests. The test administrator uses
gestures, demonstrations, or signs to elicit subjects' responses.

Culture-fair tests were developed to reduce cultural bias. There are two types of culture-fair tests.
The first type contains the items that are assumed to be known to individuals from all socio-
economic and ethnic backgrounds. The second kind of culture-fair tests do not have any verbal
items.

A culture-fair test is a non-verbal paper-pencil test that can be administered to patients as young as
four years old. The test can be administered to anyone, from any nation, speaking any language. A
culture-fair test may help identify learning or emotional problems. The patient only needs the ability
to recognize shapes and figures and perceive their respective relationships. Some examples of tasks
in the test may include:

7
  completing series

 classifying

 solving matrices

 evaluating conditions

However, there is doubt as to whether any test can truly be culturally unbiased or can ever be
made completely fair to all persons independent of culture.

Limitations of Culture-fair Testing

1. Culture fair testing is an idealized abstraction that is never achieved in the real world. All
knowledge is based in culture and acquired over time. Therefore, a test cannot be free from
cultural influences but can only presuppose experiences that are common to different
cultures. Thus, as Scarr (1994) notes, there is no such thing as a culture-free test.

2. It is not possible for a test to be equally fair to all cultural groups. A non-reading test may be
culturally fair in one situation, a non-language test in another, a performance test in the third
and so on.

3. The meaning of a test may differ among cultural groups, which will affect the validity of
comparisons. For example, people reared in the West may look for logical principles in a test
of Matrices whereas those reared in African tribes may approach it as a measure of aesthetic
progression.

4. Every test tends to favor people from culture in which it was developed. The mere use of
paper and pencil or the presentation of abstract tasks having no immediate practical
significance will favor some cultural groups and handicap others. In fact, a certain degree of
acquaintance with non-verbal symbols is required for subjects to do well on these tests.

5. Non-verbal content instead of verbal is used as an indicator of the measure of same

intellectual functions as measured by verbal tests of intelligence. But this is questionable on
two grounds. Firstly, it cannot be assumed that non-verbal tests, however similar they may
appear measure the same constructs as measured by verbal tests. Secondly, a growing body of
evidence suggests that non-language tests may be more culturally loaded than language tests
as different non-verbal symbols may have different connotations for different cultures.

6. A test constructed entirely from elements that are equally familiar in many cultures might
measure trivial functions and possess little theoretical and practical validity in a given culture.
If intelligence is a combination of abilities within a given culture, eliminating cultural
differences from a test is likely to eliminate intelligence from it.

8
DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST
AIMS OF THE TEST

The main aims in the design and construction of the tests were:

 to create a psychometrically sound instrument, upon a comprehensive theoretical foundation with

maximum possible validity and reliability

 to minimize the irrelevant influences of cultural learning and social climate while preserving the
predictive utility of the tests across a broad spectrum of concrete behavior

 to provide high administrative and scoring convenience and maximum economy of testing time

HISTORY OF THE TEST

The history of the Culture Fair Scales begun in work undertaken by Cattell in the late 1920s, sparked
by the precise scientific research of Charles Spearman and others into the nature and accurate
measurement of intelligence. In 1930, the work resulted in the publication of the Cattell group
intelligence scale. Five years later, many of the scales, particularly those intended for use with
children were revised and recast into non-verbal forms to diminish the unwanted and unnecessary
effects of verbal fluency in the pure measurement of intelligence.

Research and refinement continued and in 1940, another revision of the test appeared. At this time,
items had become completely perceptual and were organized into 6 subtests, each of which has been
retained in the present format. Before publication of this edition, four successive item analyses were
carried out on samples of high school seniors, college students, 7th and 8th grade students and
psychology majors. Of the 158 items analyzed, 72 of satisfactory validity and reliability were
retained for the published version.

In 1949, the Culture Fair Scales underwent another revision and adopted the format which has been
retained ever since, consisting of four subtests (Series, Classifications, Matrices and Conditions) at
each of two difficulty levels.

The latest revision was made in 1961 and since then very smart and minor changes have been
introduced.

9
DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST
1. CFIT is a non-verbal measure of intelligence.

CFIT does not involve the use of language or verbal ability. A student must see the patterns formed
by the shapes organized into groups, and then choose an answer that completes the pattern.

2. CFIT is a culture fair test of intelligence

This is because instead of evaluating skills influenced by cultural or educational factors like
educational level etc, CFIT evaluates reasoning through the child's ability to understand and use the
rules that govern a progression of geometric patterns and figures.

3. CFIT can be administered in a group or to an individual

CFIT can be administered both in a group or to an individual, as it does not require any special
attention being paid to the subjects and requires intervention only to explain the test and keep track
of time.

4. CFIT is a combination of speed and power tests.

Speed tests are designed to assess how quickly a test taker is able to complete the items within a set
time period. The primary objective of speed tests is to measure the person's ability to process
information quickly and accurately, while under duress.
A power test measures candidates’ level of achievement (that is, how well they can achieve as
opposed to how quickly they can answer questions).

CFIT is a combination of speed and power tests because it measures the accuracy of the subject’s
responses to increasingly difficult items in a limited amount of time.

FORMAT OF THE TEST

There are 3 scales in the Culture Fair series.

Scale 1 was designed for use with children 4-8 years of age. It may also be used with older, mentally
handicapped individuals. Scale 1 differs in format from the other tests in the series in utilizing eight
rather than four subtests and not being wholly group administered and in requiring the examinee to
understand and respond to verbal instructions

Scales 2 and 3 are wholly group administrable. Nevertheless, occasions may arise in which the closer
rapport of a one-on-one situation will be required to enable the individual being tested to perform
most effectively.

The main difference between the two scales is the difficulty level of the items. Scale 2 can be
appropriately be used with children as young as eight years and equally appropriately with older
children and most adults. From age 13 or 14 onwards, either scale 2 or scale 3 could be employed.
Scale 2 is usable in all cases but greater refinement in the higher intelligence ranges is obtained with
10
Scale 3 because of the higher difficulty level. Thus, in choice of scales, the test administrator should
be guided by his own evaluation on potential ability level to be tested. When he reasonably
anticipates ceiling effects of scale 2, he would employ scale 3. For the vast majority of test users
however, scale 2 will suffice too.

In each of the scales, there are two forms available, form A and form B. The main reason for
existence of these forms is of administrative convenience. Because of the wide variability in class
time scheduling among schools, there were many occasions when the full tests (form A + form B)
could not be comfortably given in a single class. Additionally, the two-form design provides some
extra benefits, such as brief rest period between forms to reduce fatigue and aid test-taking morale.

Each of the form contains 4 subtests each.

 In the first subtest, the individual is presented with an incomplete, progressive series. His task
is to select, from among the choices provided, the answer which best continues the series.
This is a measure of sequential thinking.

 The Classification subtest differs slightly between scale 2 and 3. The individual is presented
with 5 figures. In scale 2, he must select one which is different from the other four, while in
scale 3, he must correctly identify two figures which are in some way different from the other
three. This measures generalization and discrimination skills.

 In the Matrices subtest, the task is to correctly complete the design or matrix presented at the
left of each row. This measures generalization and discrimination skills.

 The final subtest, Conditions (or Topology) requires the individual to select, from the five
choices, the one which duplicates the conditions given in the first box. Spatial perception
and mental rotation are tested here.

11
RELIABILITY OF THE TEST
The reliability of the test was measured using 3 different evaluations:

1. Consistency over Items: this was calculated by a variety of methods, including split-half and
appropriate internal consistency formulas. A sample of 1477 male and female high school and
college students showed an average reliability of .85 for the full test (A+B) and of .74 for the
short form (A).

2. Consistency over Parts: this involved interform correlations being corrected to appropriate
lengths. A sample of 402 male and female high school students showed an average reliability of
.82 for the full test (A+B) and of .70 for the short form (A).

3. Consistency over Time: this was measured via test-retest correlations with the time intervals
varying from immediate to one week. A sample of 1323 male and female high school and college
students showed an average reliability of .82 for the full test (A+B) and of .69 for the short form
(A).

VALADITY OF THE TEST

The validity of the test was measured using 2 different evaluations:

1. Concept Validity: refers to direct correlation with the pure intelligence factor. A sample of 660
male and female (students and job corps groups) showed an average validity of .85 for the full
test (A+B) and of .81 for the short form (A).

2. Concrete Validity: this was measured with the help of correlations with other tests of general
intelligence, including WAIS, GATB, RSPM, DAT among others. A sample of 523 male and
female (students and adults) showed an average validity of .77 for the full test (A+B) and of .70
for the short form (A).

NORMS OF THE TEST

These norms are reported in the form of IQ scores and percentile rank. It was developed so as to
yield a standardized IQ score with a mean of 100 and standard deviation 16 for compatibility with
other widely used intelligence tests.

12
APPLICATIONS OF THE TEST
The Culture Fair Tests are valuable instruments for all uses to which an intelligence test is rationally
applied, notably:

1. Discovering whether the achievement of each individual is what would be expected from his
intelligence, thus facilitating identification of emotional or learning problems where they exist.
2. Assessing an applicant’s potential to perform job relevant tasks that involve cognitive ability.
3. Making a more reliable and informed decision whether a particular child may require special
educational facilities or a program of cultural enrichment
4. Selecting students for accelerated educational programs within an age-group grade
5. Advising students in regards to probable success in college or the chance of winning a
scholarship
6. Increasing the effectiveness of vocational guidance decisions, both for students and adults

In all such applications the special advantage of the culture fair test is that they make cleaner
separations of natural ability from specific learning and thus permit better analysis and prediction
of the individual's ultimate potentialities.

LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST

 One of the major points against the test is that it has no face value, that is to say that it is hard
to understand why and how a test measures what it is claiming to, in this case, intelligence.
However, the professional psychologist, but not the general public, has long given up face
validity.

 A second criticism is that within the same year, among students all in the same kind of
school, the Culture Fair Test doesn’t predict achievements as highly as the traditional test,
particularly academic.

 This test may not be considered a completely culturally fair one as it places time limits on
the subject. This is because different cultures may have different attitudes towards the usage
of time. In one culture, the person may have learned to work fast as possible when he is in a
timed test situation, whereas this may not be the case elsewhere.
In this event, giving the test under untimed conditions would make cross-cultural
comparisons fairer.

13
PRELIMINARIES
Name: Rakhi Taparia

Gender: Female

Educational Qualifications: Masters in Architercure

Age: 44

Place of Conduction: Laboratory

MATERIALS REQUIRED
 CFIT Form A and B test booklets
 Stopwatch
 Screen
 Pencil
 CFIT Manual
 CFIT Technical Manual
 Response Sheets

PROCEDURE

1. Lab Setting
The subject was seated adjacent to the left hand side of the tester. A screen was placed between
the tester and the subject. The CFIT forms and booklets were kept ready, along with 2 response
sheets and pencils and an eraser for the subject. A stopwatch was kept in front of the tester to
keep track of the time during the test. Proper illumination and ventilation was ensured to make
the test-taking comfortable.

2. Rapport Formation
The testee was called into the lab and the first 10 minutes were spent on rapport formation.
Casual conversation took place, which was to make her relaxed and comfortable followed by
eliciting personal information like education history, relationships etc.
She was ensured that the test was for her own sake and is good for her. The confidentiality of her
responses was guaranteed and she was assured that feedback would be provided. The entire
conversation was held in a non threatening manner.

14
3. Instructions
First the general instructions were read out from the CFIT manual. Any doubts were cleared and
clarified. Instructions for each form and subtest were then read aloud in a clear voice
VERBATIM from the CFIT manual

4. Administration
After giving the instructions, the subject was allowed to start working on the first subtest. This
procedure was then repeated for all the four subtests in Form A. After a short pause, the entire
process was repeated for Form B. During the test, the subject’s behavior was also observed and
recorded.
After the test was done, the subject was asked to write an introspective report outlining her
experience of giving the test and how she felt during it. Their contact information was then taken
so that we could get back to them with the results.

5. Precautions

a. The room was brightly lit to make sure that the testee did not have any issues in seeing
the forms and sufficient ventilation to make the process comfortable.
b. Instructions were read out clearly and discrepancies or confusions were clarified. The
prescribed time limits for each subtest were strictly adhered to make sure the results were
accurate.
c. It was ensured that all the equipments required for test taking were placed in front of the
testee.
d. During the test taking, the testee was not interrupted or distracted in any way.

15
INTROSPECTIVE REPORT
“Initially, when the tester approached me, I was very unsure about doing the test as was afraid to
know what my IQ score would turn out to be, not to mention that it was the end of the day so I was a
bit tired from working all day at the office. However, I was won over with a little bit of convincing
and agreed to do it. As I progressed, at some stages, I found it difficult to see some of the patterns
and particularly in the last set, where the dot was almost not visible in some figures. Also, in some
sets, I felt that the time provided was too short but surprisingly, some I completed well before time.
Overall, this was an new experience, one that I hope look forward to repeating-maybe.”

BEHAVIOURAL REPORT
The subject initially seemed hesitant about the test, not really sure about giving an IQ test as she was
apprehensive about the scores she would get. She was also tired as she had just come back from her
office but after explaining the test and what she would have to do, the subject agreed to sit down for
the test.

During the test, she seemed calm and composed, attempting each part with swiftness and not
focusing on any particular part. No impatience or fidgeting was detected and she seemed very
interested in what she was doing. She did however, at a couple of junctions, complain about the bad
printing quality of the booklet and how it was difficult for her to understand what was in the figure.
Apart from this, the test taking as a whole was a smooth procedure.

After the test, the subject seemed happy with her performance and was excited to know how she had
done and what her IQ was.

16
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The scoring key was used to calculate the scores for each subtest on form A and B. These scores
were then added to find the raw scores separately on each form. The raw scores of both form A and
A were added to calculate total raw score. This was then converted into and IQ score and percentile
rank by referring to provided norms.

 Percentage of Correct Responses

(no. of correct responses x 100/total items)

 where x = IQ score, µ = is the mean of the population(100) and σ is the

standard deviation of the population (16)

(Table 1) Number and % of Correct Responses

Subtests Correct responses Correct responses Cumulative Scores Form A+B

(Form A) (Form B)

Series 8/13 6/13 14/26 53.84%

Classifications 8/14 10/14 18/28 64.28%

Matrices 6/13 7/13 13/26 50%

Conditions 5/10 9/10 14/20 70%

TOTAL 27/50 32/50 59/100

(Table 2) Scores Obtained by the Subject

Raw Score (Form A + Form B) 59/100

IQ Score 117

Percentile Rank 86

Z Score +1.06

17
INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION
CFIT is deemed a culture fair test as being a non-verbal test of intelligence. It reduces the influences
of education and socio-cultural environmental factors, only employing figures and abstract shapes. It
is a measure of fluid intelligence.
“Fluid intelligence (Gf) taps the level of complexity of relationships which an individual can
perceive and act upon when he doesn't have recourse to answers to such complex issues already
stored in memory. It is concerned with basic processes of reasoning and other mental activities that
depend only minimally on learning and acculturation. Therefore, tests of Gf have little informational
content and require the ability to see complex relationships between simple elements like number
and letter series, figure classification, figure analogies, spatial visualization, block designs,
matrices, and so forth. (Colom & Abad, 2007)

The subject was a 44 year old married female architect who had graduated from CEPT Ahemdabad.
She has been working professionally for about 15+ years, taking a break when she had her daughter
for about 8 years and has even taught as guest faculty in private colleges. She is the eldest daughter,
with 2 younger brothers. In her school level, she had always been one of the brightest students,
normally securing one of the top 3 ranks in all her exams and studied in the PCMB stream in 11th and
12th. Apart from her schooling and education, she has always expressed an explicit interest in
learning more about any topic that she comes across. During the test, she seemed calm and
composed, attempting each part with swiftness and not focusing on any particular part. No
impatience or fidgeting was detected and she seemed very interested in what she was doing.

The subject obtained a raw score of 59 and a Z score of +1.06. These scores were then converted into
an IQ score of 117. IQ scores are standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of
16. They typically follow what is known as a normal distribution, a bell-shaped curve in which the
majority of scores lie near or around the average score. The subject who had obtained an IQ score
of 117, falls into the HIGH AVERAGE category. This score was also translated in a percentile rank
which indicates that 86% of the cases in the standardization sample fall below the subjects score.
The IQ score was then translated into a z score. A Z-Score is a statistical measurement of a score's
relationship to the mean in a group of scores. A Z-score of 0 means the score is the same as the
mean. A Z-score can also be positive or negative, indicating whether it is above or below the mean
and by how many standard deviations. The subject obtained a Z-Score of 1.06, which means that his
IQ is +1.06 points above the mean.

On the basis of all this information we can conclude that this person is high average in his intellect
and intelligence, which is a measure of fluid ability.

Both form A and B were administered to the subject as it gives us a more reliable score.
Administering only form A is known as the short form of the test while administering both is called
the full test. The two-form design provides allows a brief rest period between forms to reduce fatigue
and aid test-taking morale. By observing the subject’s scores on Form A- 27/50 to a 32/50 on Form
B, we notice an improvement in her performance on the test, which can be attributed to practice.
Since the two forms of the test are parallel forms, the nature of the items are similar and hence the
same set of abilities are required to complete the forms. So we see a transfer of learning from one
form to another.

18
The score obtained on CFIT is a pooled estimate of 4 distinct abilities, measured by the 4 subtests.
The subtests measure the following:

 Series Test - sequential thinking

 Classification Test - generalization and discrimination skills
 Matrices Test- Reasoning and analogy
 Conditions Test - spatial perception and mental rotation
On the basis of table 1, we see that the subject’s score on the Conditions test is the highest,
answering 70% or 14/20 questions correctly. From this we can infer that her spatial perception and
mental rotation abilities are far more developed than her ability to reason and form and understand
the relation between two abstract objects. This was demonstrated by her score on the Matrices test,
where she only answered 50% or 13/26 questions correctly.

Due to her high average score on the test, we can say that the subject the ability to see complex
relationships between simple elements like number and letter series, figure classification, figure
analogies, spatial visualization, block designs, matrices, and so forth. She can tap the level of
complexity of relationships where perceiving and acting upon things when she doesn't have recourse
to answers to such complex issues already stored in memory.

As stated in the case history of the subject, she has always been a bright student both in school and
college, bagging the top scores in all the exams. Keeping this in mind, we can say that her IQ score
on this test corresponds fairly with her academic achievement. However, we should be careful about
making predictions about school as it involves both fluid and crystallized intelligence, also including
other factors such as attention span, memory etc. Fluid intelligence is also required in positions
which require a lot of novel problem solving. Taking into account the subject’s chosen field of
profession, architecture and her score on the test, which is 117, we can definitely see the
correspondence and relation between the two.

The CFIT is a timed test with a limited amount of time allotted for each subtest which increasing
difficulty- combination of speed and power test. Therefore, an untimed version of the test would
have been more culture fair as different cultures have different attitudes towards time and
punctuality. In one culture, a person may have to work as hard as possible when he is in a timed
situation whereas somewhere else, this may not be the case

CONCLUSION
The subject achieved an IQ score of 117, which puts her in the high average category of intelligence.
In accordance with her IQ score, the subject was placed in the 86th percentile, which put her IQ
score above 86% of the people who were a part of the standardisation sample.

19
References

Cattell, R. B. (n.d.). Technical Manual. In R. B. Cattell, Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test.

Colom, R., & Abad, F. J. (2007). Culture Fair Intelligence Test. In N. J. Salkind, Encyclopedia of
Measurement and Statistics (pp. 205-206). California: SAGE Publications Inc.

NCERT. (2012). Psychology for Class 12. New Delhi: NCERT.

Smith, R., & Passer, M. (2010). The Science of Mind and Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies.

20