This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]

On: 13 October 2014, At: 14:28

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ntcn20

WAIS-III Matrix Reasoning Test Performance in a

Mixed Clinical Sample
Anthony T. Dugbartey , Phyllis N. Sanchez , J. Gail Rosenbaum , Roderick K. Mahurin , J.
Mark Davis & Brenda D. Townes
Published online: 09 Aug 2010.

To cite this article: Anthony T. Dugbartey , Phyllis N. Sanchez , J. Gail Rosenbaum , Roderick K. Mahurin , J. Mark
Davis & Brenda D. Townes (1999) WAIS-III Matrix Reasoning Test Performance in a Mixed Clinical Sample, The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 13:4, 396-404

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT396

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 The Clinical Neuropsychologist 1385-4046/99/1304-396$15.00
1999, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 396-404 © Swets & Zeitlinger

WAIS-III Matrix Reasoning Test Performance in a Mixed

Clinical Sample*

Anthony T. Dugbartey1, Phyllis N. Sanchez1, J. Gail Rosenbaum1, Roderick K. Mahurin1,2, J.

Mark Davis3, and Brenda D. Townes1,4

1University of Washington, Seattle, 2Battelle Memorial Research Institute, Seattle, 3University of Georgia,
Athens, 4Bogaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014

ABSTRACT

This study examined the relationship between the Matrix Reasoning subtest (MRT) of the WAIS-III and
a selected number of neuropsychological tests in a heterogeneous clinical sample of English-speaking
American (n = 41), and non-English-speaking immigrant (n = 14) adults. A moderate association between
the Halstead Category Test and the MRT (–.58) was found in the English-speaking sample. Multiple re-
gression analysis revealed a significant association between measures of verbal abstract reasoning and
verbal fluency, and performance on the MRT. Among the immigrant sample, the MRT was also found to
be significantly associated with verbal fluency task performance, as well as with the Comprehensive Test
of Nonverbal Intelligence. Correlational analyses therefore suggest a strong verbal mediation element in
the MRT, and that labeling it a nonverbal task may be misleading.

Approximately 60 years after David Wechsler’s
intelligence test was initially introduced (Wechs-
ler, 1939), the third edition of the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III; Wechsler,
1997a) has, for the first time, incorporated a
subtest adapted from the Raven Progressive Ma-
trices Test (RPM; Raven, 1938). The primary
reason for this addition was to increase the test’s
utility in evaluating novel, abstract, and nonver-
bal reasoning abilities (The Psychological Cor-
poration, 1997).
The matrix reasoning paradigm is only one
subset of the broad spectrum of rule induction
tests. As Alderton and Larson (1990) have not-
ed, different types of inductive reasoning tests
can be devised by simply varying the content of
presentation, which may range from figural de-
signs to numerical or verbal stimuli. Basically,
however, and perhaps beyond the actual ‘per-
ceptual inputs’ (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990)
of the presented content, is an assessment of
higher level reasoning abilities that has various-
ly been labeled ‘g’ (Spearman, 1927, 1964),
‘fluid’ intelligence (Cattell, 1963), or even a
form of working memory capability (Carpenter,
Just, & Shell, 1990; Salthouse, 1993) that typi-
cally is not domain specific (Prabhakaran,
Smith, Desmond, Glover, & Gabireli, 1997).
Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test, which was
inspired by Spearman’s concept of intelligence,
is considered by many to be the ‘‘gold stan-
dard’’ of inductive reasoning tasks (Alderton &
Larson, 1990; Mills, Ablard, & Brody, 1993;
Prabhakaran, Smith, Desmond, Glover, & Ga-
brieli, 1997; van den Broek & Bradshaw, 1994).
Perhaps because of their versatility, tests of

*
Address correspondence to: Anthony T. Dugbartey, now at Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission,
2840 Nanaimo Street, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8T 4W9.
Accepted for publication: May 14, 1999.
 WAIS-III MATRIX REASONING TEST PERFORMANCE
matrix reasoning abilities have been included in
a number of other cognitive ability measures
still in use today, such as the Stanford-Binet In-
telligence Scale-4th Edition (Thorndike, Hagen,
& Sattler, 1986), and the Kaufman tests (Kauf-
man & Kaufman, 1983, 1990). The Standard ver-
sion of Raven’s Progressive Matrices (RSPM;
Raven, 1976), which is reported to correlate sig-
nificantly with the WAIS-III (i.e., .49 with the
Verbal, .79 with the Performance, and .64 with
the Full Scale IQs; The Psychological Corpora-
tion, 1997), also has a strong reputation as a cul-
ture-reduced measure of intelligence and ab-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
stract reasoning abilities (O’Leary, Rush, &
Guastello, 1991; Powers, Barkan, Jones, 1986;
Spreen & Strauss, 1998; but see Owen, 1992). It
is, however, not clear whether the Matrix Rea-
soning Test of the WAIS-III (MRT), in spite of
its high association with the RSPM, can be of
clinical utility in individuals with neurocogni-
tive deficits.
The present research involves two studies
aimed at examining the extent to which the MRT
is associated with other measures of abstract
reasoning, divergent thinking, and cognitive
flexibility. The first study primarily addresses
the strength of the relationship between MRT
and the Halstead Category Test (HCT; Reitan &
Davison, 1974). The nature of the relationship,
if any, between the MRT and other selected
problem-solving tasks is also examined. The
second study addresses the contention that the
MRT is a ‘culture-fair and language-free’
(Wechsler, 1997a, p. 17) test by exploring its
utility in a diverse, non-native English-speaking
immigrant population.
STUDY 1
METHOD
Participants
A total of 41 adults who had been referred to a
University of Washington-affiliated neuropsychol-
ogy clinic for neuropsychological evaluations were
included in this study. The sample comprised 22
men and 19 women. Mean age at the time of evalu-
ation was 38.2 years (SD = 12.10; range = 17 to 60
yrs), with an average education of 12.5 years (SD
= 2.81). Reasons for referral varied quite consider-
397
ably, with the most frequent presenting diagnoses
being closed-head trauma (n = 8), industrial neuro-
toxin exposure (n = 6), unipolar depression (n = 5),
alcoholism (n = 4), asymptomatic HIV disease (n =
3), cerebral neoplasms (n = 2), and subarachnoid
hemorrhage (n = 2); and the rest presented with
mixed clinical diagnoses including learning dis-
ability, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
status post high-voltage electrical injury, and
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The mean
WAIS-III Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) of the participants
was 96.7 (SD = 13.7).
Most of the participants (80.5%) were right-
handed. With regard to ethno-racial background,
85% identified themselves as Caucasian, African
Americans comprised 10%, while the rest were
Native Americans (2.5%) and Hispanic Americans
(2.5%). None of these participants were either first
or second generation immigrants to the United
States.
Measures and Procedure
The WAIS-III (Wechsler, 1997a) was individually
administered to all participants as part of a com-
prehensive clinical neuropsychological evaluation,
which also included the Controlled Oral Word As-
sociation Test (COWAT; Spreen & Benton, 1969),
Trail Making Test (Army Individual Test Battery,
1944), Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (Oster-
rieth, 1944; Rey, 1941), and Halstead Category
Test (Reitan & Davison, 1974).
Statistical Analysis
In order to facilitate intertest comparisons, the raw
neuropsychological data obtained in this study
were converted into normalized T scores with a
mean of 50 (SD = 10). Statistical analyses (i.e.,
including two-tailed paired t test comparisons,
Pearson product-moment correlations, and simulta-
neous multiple regressions) were performed using
the SPSS for Windows Version 7.0 statistical
package (SPSS Inc, 1996). The more conservative
alpha level of .01 was selected as the cutoff for
significance in light of the number of statistical
analyses performed with a rather modest sample
size.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents simple correlations for the neu-
ropsychological test data. There was no signifi-
cant difference between the sexes on the MRT
(t = –.85, p > .05). The paired sample t test indi-
cated a significant difference between the Cate-
 398
Table 1. Intercorrelations of Test Variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014

11. CTT –
12. SRF –.22 –
13. SPF –.95** –.09 –
14. PRF –.83** –.29 –.61** –
15. Animals –.15 –.12 –.05 –.26 –
16. COWAT –.28 –.21 –.20 –.37* –.41** –

ANTHONY T. DUGBARTEY ET AL.

WAIS–III
17. FSIQ –.57** –.15 –.53** –.50** –.49** –.51** –
18. VIQ –.47** –.07 –.43** –.40** –.48** –.50** –.91 –
19. PIQ –.57** –.20 –.51** –.50** –.40** –.42** –.90** –.64** –
10. VCI –.42** –.13 –.39* –.35* –.49** –.50** –.79** –.93** –.50** –
11. WMI –.35** –.03 –.33* –.29 –.37* –.35* –.72** –.79** –.50** –.65** –
12. Comp –.55** –.02 –.56** –.41** –.15 –.31 –.71** –.71** –.58** –.60** –.37* –
13. Sim –.37* –.11 –.33* –.34* –.45** –.59** –.66** –.78** –.41** –.86** –.59** –.43** –
14. MRT –.58** –.20 –.55** –.46** –.45** –.52** –.86** –.71** –.83** –.64** –.54** –.57** –.56** –
15. Pic Arr –.42** –.05 –.40** –.36* –.24 –.20 –.70** –.52** –.76** –.44** –.27 –.53** –.31* –.59** –
16. RCFT–Copy –.44** –.23 –.47** –.24 –.27 –.11 –.36* –.26 –.39* –.26 –.27 –.16 –.12 –.31* –.20 –
TMT (sec)
17. Part A –.41** –.19 –.36* –.37* –.43** –.35* –.55** –.44** –.54** –.37* –.44** –.24 –.42** –.67** –.23 –.41** –
18. Part B –.57** –.32* –.52** –.48** –.42** –.29 –.59** –.53** –.51** –.48** –.59** –.29 –.46** –.61** –.27 –.45** –.65** –

Note. CTT= Total number of errors on the Halstead Category Test; SRF= Symbol Recognition Factor; SPF= Spatial Positioning Factor; PRF= Proportional
Reasoning Factor; Animals = Animal Fluency Test of the COWAT; COWAT= Phonemic Fluency Test of the COWAT; Comp = WAIS–III Comprehension test;
Sim = WAIS–III Similarities test; MRT= WAIS–III Matrix Reasoning Test; Pic Arr = WAIS–III Picture Arrangement Test; RCFT = Rey–Osterrieth Complex
Figure Test.
*p < .05; ** p < .01.
 WAIS-III MATRIX REASONING TEST PERFORMANCE
gory Test total error scores and MRT (t = 8.51,
p < .001). Recent construct validation findings
(Allen, Goldstein, & Mariano, 1999; Johnstone,
Holland, & Hewett, 1997) have demonstrated
the multidimensionality of the Category Test.
Paired sample t tests were therefore used to com-
pare the means of each of the three Category
Test subtest clusters (as identified by Johnstone
et al., 1997) and the MRT. There was a signifi-
cant difference between the Symbol Recogni-
tion/Counting Factor (i.e., subtests 1 & 2 of the
Category Test) and the MRT (t = 23.51, p <
.001). The Spatial Positioning Factor (compris-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
ing subtests 3, 4, & 7) and MRT scores were not
significantly different (t = 1.50, p > .05). Simi-
larly, no significant difference emerged between
the MRT and Proportional Reasoning Factor
(subtests 5 & 6) of the Category Test (t = .36,
p > .05).
Visuospatial perception skills, as measured
by drawing reproduction accuracy on the Rey-
Osterrieth Complex Figure Test, was signifi-
cantly different from performance on the MRT
(t = –21.16, p < .001), with a bivariate correla-
tion coefficient of .31. The mean MRT score
was significantly different from both the TMT
Part A (t = –10.86, p < .001), and the TMT Part
B (t = –12.30, p < .001) times to completion.
To investigate the relationship between the
MRT and measures of verbal processing, a mul-
tiple regression analysis was conducted with
MRT as the dependent variable and the follow-
ing verbally mediated tests as predictors: phone-
mic and semantic verbal fluency tests, the
WAIS-III Verbal Comprehension Index, and the
Comprehension subtest from the WAIS-III. The
verbally mediated tests were significant predic-
tors of MRT scores (F (4, 36) = 10.52, p <
.0001) with an Adjusted R2 of .49. Examination
of the predictor variables revealed the WAIS-III
Comprehension scores to be a significant unique
predictor of MRT scores (p < .05).
399
STUDY 2
METHOD
Participants.
Fourteen non-native English-speaking, first gener-
ation immigrant adults (7 males; 7 females) diag-
nosed with a variety of medical, neurological, and
psychiatric disabilities were evaluated. These par-
ticipants were primarily referred from international
medicine clinics, community advocacy, and outpa-
tient mental health centers. Presenting complaints
and diagnoses ranged from short-term memory
loss (28.6%), seizure disorder (14.3%), and cardiac
disease (14.3%) to a number of other disorders
(i.e., cerebrovascular accidents, cerebral neo-
plasms, depression, hypertension, schizophrenia,
and chronic renal disease) that each comprised
7.1% of the study sample. In terms of country of
origin, 5 (36%) were native Cambodians and 4
(28%) were from Vietnam, whereas 2 (14%) were
native born Iranians. There was one participant
each (i.e., 7%) from The Ukraine, Mexico, and
Cuba. The participants’ ages ranged from 23 to 77
years (M = 55.56; SD = 17.9). Mean duration of
stay in the United States was 14 years (SD = 6.4),
and average length of pre-migration formal educa-
tion was 4.5 years (SD = 4.3; range = 0 to 11).
Measures and Procedures
The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence
(CTONI; Hammill, Pearson, & Wiederholt, 1997),
MRT subtest of the WAIS-III, and Animal Fluency
subtest of the COWAT were individually adminis-
tered in the patient’s native language with the as-
sistance of a professional, certified bilingual trans-
lator/interpreter as part of a cross-cultural cogni-
tive evaluation.
RESULTS
There was no significant association between
MRT scores and length of pre-migration formal
education in this sample (r = .09, p = .75). A
significantly high correlation between the MRT
and Animal Fluency test performance (r = .76,
p < .001) was found. A multiple regression anal-
ysis was performed with MRT as the dependent
variable and the three CTONI composite scores
(Nonverbal IQ, Pictorial Nonverbal IQ, & Geo-
metric Nonverbal IQ) as predictors. Results
showed that the CTONI composite indices sig-
nificantly predicted performance on the MRT
 400 ANTHONY T. DUGBARTEY ET AL.
(F(3, 10) = 4.98, p < .01; Adjusted R2 = .48). A
significantly high correlation between the MRT
and CTONI Nonverbal IQ was found (r = .75, p
< .01). It is especially interesting to note that the
Animal Fluency test and CTONI Nonverbal IQ
scores each had similar coefficients of determi-
nation (i.e., 56.3% and 57.8%, respectively) re-
lative to the MRT.
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to explore three major
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
issues: (1) an examination of the relationship
between the MRT and the Category Test; (2)
determination of whether the MRT is associated
with performance on measures of verbal abstract
conceptualization and verbally mediated diver-
gent thinking; and (3) a comparison of the MRT
and a nonverbal intelligence test in a group of
non-English-speaking immigrants to the United
States. Some shortcomings of this investigation
must be acknowledged. First, although generali-
zability in clinical neuropsychological research
is enhanced by the inclusion of individuals from
a wide variety of diagnostic groupings, the ra-
ther small intra-diagnostic sample sizes did not
permit an analysis by diagnostic category. Sec-
ond, the effect, or more precisely, relationship
between the acculturation process (broadly de-
fined as learning as a result of culture contact)
and performance on the MRT was not investi-
gated. This, however, is a legitimate area for
future study.
Our results suggest that the MRT is closely
associated with aspects of the Category Test that
measure complex spatial abstract reasoning and
the use of conceptual rules in reasoning with
ratios and proportions. Although the correlation
between MRT and Category Test is rather mo-
dest (–.58), it nevertheless suggests some degree
of convergent validity as to the underlying task
requirements of the MRT. Also, the low coeffi-
cient of determination between MRT and the
copy version of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex
Figure test may be taken as preliminary evi-
dence of the relatively minimal contribution of
visuoperceptual and visuospatial construction
skills in MRT performance. In other words, it
appears that elementary visuoperceptual abilities
may be a necessary, but not sufficient, require-
ment for success on reasoning with matrices.
This view, regarding the non-domain-specificity
of higher level reasoning with matrices, is not
new (Carpenter et al., 1990; Prabhakaran et al.,
1997). The finding of a significant relationship
between the MRT and measures of higher order
verbal conceptualization and intelligence sug-
gests a strong verbal mediation component of
MRT performance. The robustness of this un-
derlying verbal processing element is supported
by the high correlation between verbal fluency
and the MRT in both our American and non-
English-speaking immigrant samples. It must be
noted, however, that there is evidence to the ef-
fect that verbal associative fluency scores are
themselves significantly influenced by ethnic
group membership (Johnson-Selfridge, Zalew-
ski, & Aboudarham, 1998), although exactly
why this is so remains unclear. Additional con-
firmatory evidence for this general trend of a
verbal mediation in MRT scores is demonstrated
by the .64 correlation coefficient between the
MRT and WAIS-III Verbal IQ of the original
WAIS-III standardization sample (The Psycho-
logical Corporation, 1997).
With some exceptions (Berker & Smith, 1988;
Drebing, Takushi, Tanzy, Murdock, Stewart, &
Majovski, 1990), there is a compelling body of
evidence (Berman & Weinberger, 1990; Haier et
al., 1988; Kertesz & McCabe, 1975; Luria, 1973;
Piercy & Smyth, 1962; Villardita, 1985; Zaidel,
Zaidel, & Sperry, 1981) emphasizing the strong
contribution of the dominant left hemisphere
toward success on matrix-oriented (abstract rea-
soning and spatial synthesis) tasks. Thus, the
fact that MRT stimuli are visually presented and
expressive language skills are not overtly re-
quired does not necessarily imply that subvocal
verbalization or other linguistically-mediated
cognitive problem-solving strategies are not es-
sential to success on this task. The label ‘‘non-
verbal’’ is therefore misleading, because a ver-
bal mediation element seems to be present in the
MRT. Perhaps a more appropriate descriptive
term for such tasks may be ‘‘non-enuntiary’’
(from the Latin derivative of enunciative), rather
than ‘‘non-verbal,’’ abstract reasoning.
 WAIS-III MATRIX REASONING TEST PERFORMANCE
An alternative explanation of the results is
that executive functions, rather than verbal me-
diation, may be the underlying mechanism that
accounts for the observed correlations between
the MRT and other measures of higher order
conceptual skills. After all, in a broad sense, rule
induction tasks (the rubric under which matrix
reasoning tests fall) are themselves measures of
executive skills in much the same way as the
Category Test and the other higher order pro-
blem-solving measures employed in this study.
But then the executive functions explanation,
however attractive, begs the question as verbal
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
self-regulation of behavior is itself a crucial ele-
ment of the executive functions construct (for a
thorough discussion of verbal self-regulation as
a process underlying rule-governed behavior,
see Lyon & Krasnegor, 1996).
Whether described in metacognitive (Dennis,
Barnes, Donnelly, Wilkinson, & Humphreys,
1996; Paris & Winograd, 1990), strategic plan-
ning (Shallice, 1982), or working memory
(Owen, Downes, Sahakian, Polkey, & Robbins,
1990; Pennington, 1994) terms, the skillful use
of strategies in solving novel problems (Es-
linger, 1996) invariably occurs most effectively
through the use of language. Moreover, propos-
ing executive functions as an explanatory con-
struct does not necessarily negate the verbal pro-
cessing substrate hypothesis. In other words, the
verbal processing and executive functions hy-
potheses need not be mutually exclusive. Indeed,
there are strong indications (Denckla, 1996;
Dugbartey, Rosenbaum, Sanchez, & Townes,
1999; Levin, Eisenberg, & Benton, 1991; Levin
et al., 1996; Roberts & Pennington, 1996; Stuss
& Benson, 1986; Taylor, Schatschneider, Petrill,
Barry, & Owens, 1996; Wang, 1987) that execu-
tive function tasks measure multiple cognitive
functions, and hence are factorially confounded.
Unfortunately, most empirical neuropsychologi-
cal investigations of executive skills do not in-
volve manipulations that parse the processing
demands of psychometric tests and break them
down into their component features for greater
understanding. Whether the current findings re-
flect either executive function capabilities or
verbal processing components (or a combination
thereof), awaits further corroborative study.
401
Our finding of a very low correlation between
length of pre-migration formal education and the
MRT is, again, with some exceptions (e.g.,
Grossi et al., 1993), consistent with similar re-
ports on both the Coloured (Esquivel, 1984) and
Standard (Llabre, 1984) versions of the RPM
test, although socioeconomic background (Frey
& Pinelli, 1991) has been documented to exert a
strong differential influence on matrix reasoning
test performance. The mean length of formal
education in our non-English-speaking sample
was rather small, with 14.3% of the participants
reporting no history of formal education. This
may be of some import, as cognitive processing
strategies of healthy illiterates are thought to
differ qualitatively from individuals with a his-
tory of formal education (Reis & Castro-Caldas,
1997; Castro-Caldas, Reis, & Guerreiro, 1997),
regardless of the actual amount of time spent
receiving formal schooling.
The high correlation between the MRT and
CTONI provides some evidence for the validity
of the MRT as a potentially useful contributor to
a more comprehensive assessment of intellectual
ability. By implication then, contentions that the
validity of the WAIS-III is enhanced by the in-
corporation of the MRT (The Psychological
Corporation, 1997) receives empirical support
by our findings with a non-English-speaking
sample. However, the extent to which the MRT
can be considered a culture-fair intellectual abil-
ity measure, is more difficult to determine. Cul-
ture-fairness in psychological tests must be con-
sidered as relative constructs. The MRT, or for
that matter, CTONI, may only be minimally cul-
ture-fair to the extent that the testee shares simi-
lar test-taking attitudes or epistemological value
systems implicit in the psychological constructs
being measured. The neuropsychological, cross-
cultural, and cultural psychological literature is
replete with admonishments to the effect that
cognitive ability tests are culturally relative
(Ardila, 1995; Artiola i Fortuny & Mullaney,
1997; Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs Task
Force on the Delivery of Services to Ethnic Mi-
nority Populations, 1991; Boesch, 1996; But-
cher, 1982; Greenfield, 1997; Helms, 1992; Loe-
wenstein, Argüelles, Argüelles, & Linn-Fuentes,
1994; Neisser et al., 1996; Rogoff & Chavajay,
 402 ANTHONY T. DUGBARTEY ET AL.
1995). The assumption that cultural variables
can effectively be controlled solely by eliminat-
ing the overt verbalization of responses is te-
nuous, because ‘... not only verbal, but also non-
verbal tests may be culturally biased’ (Ardila,
1995, p. 146. See also, Irvine, 1969; Jacobs et
al., 1997). The challenge for neuropsychologists
engaged in research and clinical practice with
culturally diverse populations then, is to famil-
iarize themselves with the dominant value sys-
tems and worldviews of their clientele in order
to be able to make informed inferences about the
integrity of their neurocognitive functioning le-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
vels from test findings (see for example, Artiola
i Fortuny & Mullaney, 1998).
In conclusion, and taken together with a num-
ber of empirical reports on other matrices tests,
our results lead us to propose that the MRT is
not devoid of an underlying verbal-linguistic
process that contributes to success on this induc-
tive reasoning test. However, the MRT’s signifi-
cant correlation with the Category Test, a well-
established neuropsychological tool (Choca,
Laatsch, Wetzel, & Agresti, 1997), and its po-
tential as a culturally sensitive measure, are
quite encouraging.
REFERENCES
Alderton, D. L. & Larson, G. E. (1990). Dimensional-
ity of Raven’s Progressive Matrices items. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 50, 887-
900.
Allen, D. N., Goldstein, G., & Mariano, E. (1999). Is
the Halstead Category Test a multidimensional
instrument? Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology, 21, 237-244.
Ardila, A. (1995). Directions of research in cross-cul-
tural neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 143-150.
Army Individual Test Battery. (1944). Manual of di-
rections and scoring. Washington, DC: War De-
partment, Adjutant General’s Office.
Artiola i Fortuny, L. A., & Mullaney, H. A. (1997).
Neuropsychology with Spanish speakers: Lan-
guage use and proficiency issues for test develop-
ers. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuro-
psychology, 19, 615-622.
Artiola i Fortuny, L. & Mullaney, H. A. (1998). As-
sessing patients whose language you do not know:
Can the absurd be ethical? The Clinical Neuropsy-
chologist, 12, 113-126.
Berker, E., & Smith, A. (1988). Diaschisis, site, time
and other factors in Raven performance of adults
with focal cerebral lesions. International Journal
of Neuroscience, 38, 267-285.
Berman, K. F., & Weinberger, D. R. (1990). Latera-
lisation of cortical function during cognitive tasks:
Regional cerebral blood flow studies of normal
individuals and patients with schizophrenia. Jour-
nal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry,
53, 150-160.
Board of Ethnic Minority Affairs Task Force on the
Delivery of Services for Ethnic Minority Popula-
tions. (1990). Guidelines for providers of psycho-
logical services to ethnic, linguistic, and culturally
diverse populations. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Boesch, E. E. (1996). The seven flaws of cross-cul-
tural psychology. The story of a conversion. Mind,
Culture, and Activity, 3, 2-10.
Butcher, J. N. (1982). Cross-cultural research methods
in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N.
Butcher (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in
clinical psychology (pp. 273-308). New York:
Wiley.
Castro-Caldas, A., Reis, A., & Guerreiro, M. (1997).
Neuropsychological aspects of illiteracy. Neuro-
psychological Rehabilitation, 7, 327-338.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized
intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 54, 1-22.
Choca, J. P., Laatsch, L., Wetzel, L., & Agresti, A.
(1997). The Halstead Category Test: A fifty year
perspective. Neuropsychology Review, 7, 61-75.
Denckla, M. B. (1996). Research on executive func-
tion in a neurodevelopmental context: Application
of clinical measures. Developmental Neuropsy-
chology, 12, 5-15.
Dennis, M., Barnes, M. A., Donnelly, R. E., Wilkin-
son, M., & Humphreys, R. P. (1996). Appraising
and managing knowledge: Metacognitive skills
after childhood head injury. Developmental Neuro-
psychology, 12, 77-103.
Drebing, C. E., Takushi, R. Y., Tanzy, K. S., Mur-
dock, G. A., Stewart, J. C., & Majovski, L. V.
(1990). Re-examination of CPM performance in
lateralized brain injury. Cortex, 26, 661-664.
Dugbartey, A. T., Rosenbaum, J. G, Sanchez, P. N., &
Townes, B. T. (1999). Neuropsychological assess-
ment of executive functions. Seminars in Clinical
Neuropsychiatry, 4, 5-12.
Eslinger, P. J. (1996). Conceptualizing, describing,
and measuring components of executive function.
In G. R. Lyon & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention,
memory, and executive function (pp. 367-395).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Esquivel, G. B. (1984). Coloured Progressive Matri-
ces. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test
Critiques. Vol 1 (pp. 206-213.). Missouri: Test
Corporation of America.
 WAIS-III MATRIX REASONING TEST PERFORMANCE
Frey, P. D., & Pinneli, B. Jr. (1991). Visual discrimi-
nation and visuomotor integration among two
classes of Brazilian children. Perceptual and Mo-
tor Skills, 72, 847-850.
Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you.
Why ability assessments don’t cross cultures.
American Psychologist, 52, 1115-1124,
Grossi, D., Correra, G., Calise, C., Ruscitto, M. A.,
Vecchione, V., Vigliardi, M. V., & Nolfe, G.
(1993). Evaluation of the influence of illiteracy on
neuropsychological performance by elderly per-
sons. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 859-866.
Haier, R. J., Siegel, B. V. Jr., Nuechterlein, K. H.,
Hazlett, E., Wu, J. C., Paek, J., Browning, H. L., &
Buchsbaum, M. S. (1988). Cortical glucose meta-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
bolic rate correlates of abstract reasoning and at-
tention studied with positron emission tomography.
Intelligence, 12, 199-217.
Hammill, D. D., Pearson, N. A., & Wiederholt, J. L.
(1997). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelli-
gence. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.
Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural
equivalence in standardized cognitive ability test-
ing? American Psychologist, 47, 1083-1101.
Irvine, S. H. (1969). Factor analyses of African abili-
ties and attainments: Constructs across cultures.
Psychological Bulletin, 71, 20-32.
Jacobs, D. M., Sano, M., Albert, S., Schofield, P.,
Dooneief, G., & Stern, Y. (1997). Cross-cultural
neuropsychological assessment: A comparison of
randomly selected, demographically matched co-
horts of English and Spanish-speaking older adults.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsy-
chology, 19, 331-339.
Johnson-Selfridge, M. T., Zalewski, C., & Aboudar-
ham, J-F. (1998). The relationship between ethnic-
ity and word fluency. Archives of Clinical Neuro-
psychology, 13, 319-325.
Johnstone, B., Holland, D., & Hewett, J. E. (1997).
The construct validity of the Category Test: Is it a
measure of reasoning or intelligence? Psychologi-
cal Assessment, 9, 28-33.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). K-ABC:
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Kaufman
Brief Intelligence Test Manual. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Services.
Kertesz, A., & McCabe, P. (1975). Intelligence and
aphasia: Performance of aphasics on Raven’s
Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM). Brain and
Language, 2, 387-395.
Laatsch, L., & Choca, J. (1991). Understanding the
Halstead Category Test by using item analysis.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 3, 701-704.
Levin, H. S., Eisenberg, H. M., & Benton, A. L.
(Eds.). (1991). Frontal lobe function and dysfunc-
tion. New York: Oxford University Press.
403
Levin, H. S., Fletcher, J. M., Kufera, J. A., Harward,
H., Lilly, M. A., Mendelsohn, D., Bruce, D., &
Eisenberg, H. M. (1996). Dimensions of cognition
measured by the Tower of London and other cogni-
tive tasks in head-injured children and adolescents.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 17-34.
Llabre, M. M. (1984). Standard Progressive Matrices.
In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test Cri-
tiques. Vol 1 (pp. 595-602). Missouri: Test Corpo-
ration of America.
Loewenstein, D. A., Argüelles, T., Argüelles, S., &
Linn-Fuentes, P. (1994). Potential cultural bias in
the neuropsychological assessment of the older
adult. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuro-
psychology, 16, 623-629.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. An introduc-
tion to neuropsychology. London: Penguin.
Lyon, G. R., & Krasnegor, N. A. (Eds.). (1996). At-
tention, memory, and executive function. Balti-
more: P. H. Brookes.
Mills, C. J., Ablard, K. E., & Brody, L. E. (1993). The
Raven’s Progressive Matrices: It’s usefulness for
identifying gifted/talented students. Roeper Re-
view, 15, 183-186.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J. Jr., Boykin,
A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F.,
Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., &
Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and un-
knowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101.
O’Leary, U-M., Rusch, K. M., & Guastello, S. J.
(1991). Estimating age-stratified WAIS-R IQs
from scores on the Raven’s Standard Progressive
Matrices. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 277-
284.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test de copie d’une figure
complex: Contribution a l’étude de la perception et
de la mémoire. Archives de Psychologie, 30, 286-
356.
Owen, K. (1990). The suitability of Raven’s Standard
Progressive Matrices for various groups in South
Africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13,
149-159.
Owen, A. M., Downes, J. J., Sahakian, B. J., Polkey,
C. E., & Robbins, T. W. (1990). Planning and spa-
tial working memory following frontal lobe lesions
in man. Neuropsychologia, 28, 1021-1034.
Pa ris , S. G ., & Winogra d, P. (1990). H ow
metacognition can promote academic learning and
instruction. In B. J. Jones & L. Idol (Eds.), Dimen-
sions of thinking and cognitive instruction (pp. 15-
51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pennington, B. F. (1994). The working memory func-
tion of the prefrontal cortices: Implications for de-
velopmental and individual differences in cogni-
tion. In M. M. Haith, J. Benson, R. Roberts, & B.
F. Pennington (Eds.), Future oriented processes in
development (pp. 243-292). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Powers, S., Barkan, J. H., & Jones, P. B. (1986). Reli-
 404 ANTHONY T. DUGBARTEY ET AL.
ability of the Standard Progressive Matrices Test
for Hispanic and Anglo-American children. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 62, 348-350.
Piercy, M., & Smyth, V. O. G. (1962). Right hemi-
sphere dominance for certain non-verbal intellec-
tual skills. Brain, 85, 775-790.
Prabhakaran, V., Smith, J. A. L., Desmond, J. E.,
Glover, G. H., & Gabrieli, D. E. (1997). Neural
substrates of fluid reasoning: An fMRI study of
neocortical activation during performance of the
Raven’s Progressive Matrices Test. Cognitive Psy-
chology, 33, 43-63.
Raven, J. C. (1938). Progressive Matrices. London:
H. K. Lewis and Co.
Raven, J. C. (1976). Standard Progressive Matrices.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 14:28 13 October 2014
Oxford, England: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Reis, A., & Castro-Caldas, A. (1997). Illiteracy: A
cause for biased cognitive development. Journal of
the International Neuropsychological Society, 3,
444-450.
Reitan, R. M., & Davison, L. A. (1974). Clinical neu-
ropsychology: Current status and applications.
Washington: Winston.
Rey, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas
d’encéphalopathie traumatique. Archives de
Psychologie, 28, 286-340.
Roberts, R. J., & Pennington, B. F. (1996). An inter-
active framework for examining prefrontal cogni-
tive processes. Developmental Neuropsychology,
12, 105-126.
Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P., (1995). What’s become of
research on the cultural basis of cognitive develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 50, 859-877.
SPSS, Inc. (1996). SPSS Base System 7.0 for Windows
User’s Guide. Chicago, IL: Author.
Salthouse, T. A. (1993). Influence of working mem-
ory on adult age differences in matrix reasoning.
British Journal of Psychology, 84, 171-199.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, 298, 199-209.
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. New York:
Macmillan.
Spearman, C. (1964). Theory of general factor. British
Journal of Psychology, 36, 117-131.
Spreen, O., & Benton, A. L. (1969). Neurosensory
Center Comprehensive Examination for Aphasia
(NCCEA). Victoria: University of Victoria Neuro-
psychology Laboratory.
Spreen, O., & Strauss, E. (1998). A compendium of
neuropsychological tests. (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1986). The frontal
lobes. New York: Raven.
The Psychological Corporation (1997). The WAIS-III-
WMS-III Technical Manual. San Antonio, TX: Au-
thor.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M.
(1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth
Edition: Technical Manual. Chicago: Riverside.
van den Broek, M. D., & Bradshaw, C. M. (1994).
Detection of acquired deficits in general intelli-
gence using the National Adult Reading Test and
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 509-515.
Villardita, C. (1985). Raven’s colored progressive
matrices and intellectual impairment in patients
with focal brain damage. Cortex, 21, 627-634.
Wang, P. L. (1987). Concept formation and frontal
lobe function: The search for a clinical frontal lobe
test. In E. Perecman (Ed.), The frontal lobes revis-
ited (pp. 189-205). New York: IRBN.
Wechsler, D. (1939). Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence
Scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-Third Edition. Administration & Scoring
Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Cor-
poration.
Zaidel, E., Zaidel, D., & Sperry, R. W. (1981). Left
and right intelligence: Case studies of Raven’s Pro-
gressive Matrices following brain bisection and
hemidecortication. Cortex, 17, 167-186.