CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

Aim

To measure cognitive abilities in individuals while minimizing the influence of cultural or

social background.

Objective

To provide a fair and unbiased assessment of a person’s intelligence by focusing on tasks

that are considered to be free from cultural bias, promoting equal opportunities for diverse
groups in intelligence testing.

Introduction

Francis Galton is remembered as the first person to publish on the heritability of

intelligence, thus framing the contemporary nature–nurture debate. Galton (1883) believed that
the most intelligent persons were those equipped with the best sensory abilities. This position
was intuitively appealing because, as Galton observed, “The only information that reaches us
concerning outward events appears to pass through the avenues of our senses; and the more
perceptive the senses are of difference, the larger is the field upon which our judgment and
intelligence can act”. He anticipated later physiological research exploring, for example, the
relationship between intelligence and speed of neural conductivity and speed of information
processing (Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Alfred Binet did not leave an explicit definition of intelligence. He did, however, write
about the components of intelligence. For Binet, these components included reasoning,
judgment, memory, and abstraction. In papers critical of Galton’s approach to intellectual
assessment, Binet and a colleague called for more complex measurements of intellectual ability.
Galton had viewed intelligence as a number of distinct processes or abilities that could be
assessed only by separate tests. In contrast, Binet argued that when one solves a particular
problem, the abilities used cannot be separated because they interact to produce the solution
(Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

David Wechsler’s conceptualization of intelligence can perhaps best be summed up in his

own words: Intelligence, operationally defined, is the aggregate or global capacity of the
individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment. It
is aggregate or global because it is composed of elements or abilities which, though not entirely
independent, are qualitatively differentiable. By measurement of these abilities, ultimately
evaluate intelligence. But intelligence is not identical with the mere sum of these abilities,
however inclusive. The only way that can evaluate it quantitatively is by the measurement of the
various aspects of these abilities (Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

For Piaget, intelligence may be conceived of as a kind of evolving biological adaptation

to the outside world. As cognitive skills are gained, adaptation (at a symbolic level) increases,
and mental trial and error replaces physical trial and error. Yet, according to Piaget, the process
of cognitive development is thought to occur neither solely through maturation nor solely
through learning. He believed that, as a consequence of interaction with the environment,
psychological structures become reorganized (Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Research conducted by Sternberg and his associates sought to shed light on how
intelligence is defined by laypeople and psychologists. According to Stern (1914), “Intelligence
is a general capacity of an individual consciously to adjust his thinking to new requirements. It is
the general mental adaptability to new problems and conditions of life” (Cohen &
Swerdlik ,2002).

Sternberg and his colleagues grouped the list of 250 behaviors characterizing intelligence
and unintelligence into subsets that were most strongly related to each other. The analysis
indicated that the non-psychologists and the experts conceived of intelligence in general as
practical problem-solving ability, verbal ability, and social competence. Each specific type of
intelligence was characterized by various descriptors. “Academic intelligence” included verbal
ability, problem-solving ability, and social competence as well as specific behaviors associated
with acquiring academic skills. “Everyday intelligence” included practical problem-solving
ability, social competence, character, and interest in learning and culture (Cohen &
Swerdlik ,2002).

In general, the researchers found a surprising degree of similarity between the experts’
and laypeople’s conceptions of intelligence. With respect to academic intelligence, however, the
experts tended to stress motivation. whereas laypeople stressed the interpersonal and social
aspects of intelligence (Cohen & Swerdlik , 2002).
 Intelligence tests are validated against measures of academic achievement, they are often
designated as tests of scholastic aptitude. Intelligence tests are frequently employed as
preliminary screening instruments, to be followed by tests of special aptitudes. This practice is
especially prevalent in the testing of normal adolescents or adults for educational and vocational
counselling, personnel selection, and similar purposes (Anne Anastasia 1996).

Another common use of general intelligence tests is to be found in clinical testing,

especially in the identification and classification of the mentally retarded. For clinical purposes,
individual tests are generally employed. The test characteristically provide a single score, such as
an IQ, indicating the individual’s general intellectual level (Anne Anastasia 1996).

A typical approach is to arrive at this global estimate of intellectual performance by , a

wide variety of tasks is presented to the subject in the expectation that an adequate sampling of
all important intellectual functions will thus be covered. In actual practice, the tests are usually
overloaded with certain functions, such as verbal ability, and completely omit others. While
individual tests such as the Stanford- binet and the Wechsler scales find their principal
application in the clinic, group tests are used primarily in the educational system, civil service,
industry, and the military services. It will be recalled that mass testing began during World War I
with the development of the Army Alpha and the Army Beta for use in the United States Army.
The former was a verbal test designed for general screening and placement purposes. The latter
was a non-verbal test for use with men who could not properly be tested with the Alpha owing to
foreign-language background or illiteracy (Anne Anastasia 1996).

Theories of Intelligence

Factor-Analytic Theories of Intelligence

Factor analysis is a group of statistical techniques designed to determine the existence of

underlying relationships between sets of variables, including test scores. In search of a definition
of intelligence, theorists have used factor analysis to study correlations between tests measuring
varied abilities presumed to reflect the underlying attribute of intelligence (Cohen &
Swerdlik ,2002).
 Two-factor theory of intelligence. The British psychologist Charles Spearman pioneered
new techniques to measure Interco relations between tests. He found that measures of
intelligence tended to correlate to various degrees with each other. Spearman (1927) formalized
these observations into an influential theory of general intelligence that postulated the existence
of a general intellectual ability factor (denoted by an italic lowercase g ) that is partially tapped
by all other mental abilities. This theory is sometimes referred to as a Two-factor theory of
intelligence, with g representing the portion of the variance that all intelligence tests have in
common and the remaining portions of the variance being accounted for either by specific
components ( s ), or by error components ( e ) of this general factor. Tests that exhibited high
positive correlations with other intelligence tests were thought to be highly saturated with g,
while tests with low or moderate correlations with other intelligence tests were viewed as
possible measures of specific factors (such as visual or motor ability). The greater the magnitude
of g in a test of intelligence, the better the test was thought to predict overall intelligence(Cohen
& Swerdlik ,(2002).

Many multiple-factor models of intelligence have been proposed. Some of these models,
such as that developed by Guilford (1967), have sought to explain mental activities by
deemphasizing, if not eliminating, any reference to g. Thurston (1938) initially conceived of
intelligence as being composed of seven “primary abilities.” However, after designing tests to
measure these abilities and noting a moderate correlation between the tests, Thurston became
convinced it was difficult if not impossible to develop an intelligence test that did not tap g
(Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Gardner (1983, 1994) developed a theory of multiple (seven) intelligences: logical-

mathematical, bodily-kinaesthetic, linguistic, musical, spatial, interpersonal, and intrapersonal.
Gardner (1983) described the last two as follows: Interpersonal intelligence is the ability to
understand other people: what motivates them, how they work, how to work cooperatively with
them. Successful sales people, politicians, teachers, clinicians, and religious leaders are all likely
to be individuals with high degrees of interpersonal intelligence. Intrapersonal intelligence, a
seventh kind of intelligence, is a correlative ability, turned inward. It is a capacity to form an
accurate, veridical model of oneself and to be able to use that model to operate effectively in life.
Aspects of Gardner’s writings, particularly his descriptions of interpersonal intelligence and
intrapersonal intelligence, have found expression in popular books written by others on the
subject of so-called emotional intelligence ( Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. A theory of intelligence

first proposed by Raymond B. Cattell (1941, 1971) and subsequently modified by Horn has
received increasing attention from test developers as well as test users. As originally conceived
by Cattell, the theory postulated the existence of two major types of cognitive abilities:
crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence. The abilities that make up Crystallized
intelligence (symbolized Gc ) include acquired skills and knowledge that are dependent on
exposure to a particular culture as well as on formal and informal education (vocabulary, for
example). Retrieval of information and application of general knowledge are conceived of as
elements of crystallized intelligence. The abilities that make up Fluid intelligence (symbolized
Gf ) are nonverbal, relatively culture-free, and independent of specific instruction (such as
memory for digits)( Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Through the years, Horn (1968, 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994) proposed the addition of several
factors: visual processing ( Gv ), auditory processing ( Ga ), quantitative processing ( Gq ), speed
of processing ( Gs ), facility with reading and writing ( Grw ), short-term memory ( Gsm ), and
long-term storage and retrieval ( Glr ). According to Horn (1989; Horn & Hofer, 1992), some of
the abilities (such as Gv ) are vulnerable abilities in that they decline with age and tend not to
return to preinjury levels following brain damage. Others of these abilities (such as Gq ) are
maintained abilities; they tend not to decline with age and may return to preinjury levels
following brain damage(Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Three-stratum theory . Another influential multiple-intelligences model based on factor-

analytic studies is the Three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1997). In geology, a
stratum is a layer of rock formation having the same composition throughout. Strata (the plural
of stratum ) along with a representation of each of the three strata in Carroll’s theory. The top
stratum or level in Carroll’s model is g, or general intelligence. The second stratum is composed
of eight abilities and processes: fluid intelligence ( Gf ), crystallized intelligence ( Gc ), general
memory and learning ( Y ), broad visual perception ( V ), broad auditory perception ( U ), broad
retrieval capacity ( R ), broad cognitive speediness ( S ), and processing/decision speed ( T ).
Below each of the abilities in the second stratum are many “level factors” and/or “speed
factors”—each different, depending on the second-level stratum to which they are linked. The
three-stratum theory is a hierarchical model, meaning that all of the abilities listed in a stratum
are subsumed by or incorporated in the strata above(Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model. Using factor analysis as well as other statistical

tools, these researchers have attempted to modify and reconfigure existing models to better fit
empirical evidence. One such modifications that has gained increasing attention blends the
Cattell-Horn theory with Carroll’s three-stratum theory. Although this blending was not initiated
by Cattell or Horn or Carroll, it is nonetheless referred to as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)
model of cognitive abilities. An integration of the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models was
proposed by Kevin S. McGrew (1997). On the basis of additional factor-analytic work, McGrew
and Flanagan (1998) subsequently modified McGrew’s initial CHC model., the McGrew-
Flanagan CHC model features ten “broad-stratum” abilities and over seventy “narrow-stratum”
abilities, with each broad-stratum ability subsuming two or more narrow-stratum abilities(Cohen
& Swerdlik ,2002).

The ten broad-stratum abilities, with their “code names” in parentheses, are labelled as
follows: fluid intelligence ( Gf ), crystallized intelligence ( Gc ), quantitative knowledge ( Gq ),
reading/writing ability ( Grw ), short-term memory ( Gsm ), visual processing ( Gv ), auditory
processing ( Ga ), long-term storage and retrieval ( Glr ), processing speed ( Gs ), and
decision/reaction time or speed ( Gt ). The McGrew-Flanagan CHC model makes no provision
for the general intellectual ability factor ( g ). The model was the product of efforts designed to
improve the practice of psychological assessment in education (sometimes referred to as
psychoeducational assessment) by identifying tests from different batteries that could be used to
provide a comprehensive assessment of a student’s abilities. Having identified key abilities, the
authors made recommendations for cross-battery assessment of students, or assessment that
employs tests from different test batteries and entails interpretation of data from specified
subtests to provide a comprehensive assessment (Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

The Information-Processing View

Another approach to conceptualizing intelligence derives from the work of the Russian
neuropsychologist Aleksandr Luria (1966a, 1966b, 1970, 1973, 1980). This approach focuses on
the mechanisms by which information is processed— how information is processed, rather than
what is processed. In successive (or sequential) processing, each bit of information is
individually processed in sequence. As its name implies, sequential processing is logical and
analytic in nature; piece by piece and one piece after the other, information is arranged and
rearranged so that it makes sense. In simultaneous (or parallel) processing, information is
integrated all at one time. Simultaneous processing may be described as “synthesized.”
Information is integrated and synthesized at once and as a whole (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2002).

PASS model. The strong influence of an information-processing perspective is also

evident in the work of others who have developed the PASS model of intellectual functioning,
where PASS is an acronym for planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive( Cohen &
Swerdlik ,2002).

Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Jack and Das (1997) developed the Cognitive
Assessment System (CAS),ability test expressly designed to tap PASS factors. Although these
test authors presented evidence to support the construct validity of the CAS, other researchers
have questioned whether the test is actually measuring what it purports to measure (Cohen &
Swerdlik, (2002).

Robert Sternberg proposed another information-processing approach to intelligence,

arguing that “the essence of intelligence is that it provides a means to govern ourselves so that
our thoughts and actions are organized, coherent, and responsive to both our internally driven
needs and to the needs of the environment” He proposed atriarchic theory of intelligence with
three principal elements: metacomponents, performance components, and knowledge-acquisition
compo (Cohen & Swerdlik ,2002).

Test Description

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
(Smith & Passer, 2010).

There are two types of culture-fair tests. The first type contains the items that are
assumed to be known to individuals from all socioeconomic 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 (Smith & Passer, 2010).

Culture Fair Intelligence Test has 3 scale. Scale 1 is can be given to children between age
group of 4 -8-year-old. Scale I includes 8 subtests of mazes, copying symbols, identifying similar
drawings and other non-verbal tasks. Scale 2 is given to 8-14 years old and average performing
adults. And scale 3 can be given to 14 years old to adults. Scale 3 contains 4 subtests. The scale 2
and 3 contain two equivalent forms as A and B. Each form can be administered individually or in
combination with the other form. When it is delivered individually, it is called short intelligence
test. However, when both forms of a scale are combined, it is called a full-scale test. We used
scale 3A which contains 4 subtests that are series, classification, matrices and conditions
different perceptual tasks so that the composite intelligence measure avoids spurious reliance on
one skill (Smith & Passer, 2010).

Subtest 1 is based on Sequential Thinking (Series) the test taker is presented with an
incomplete, progressive series matric and from the provided choices they must choose the
answer best completing the series, and the time given to complete subtest 1 is 3 minutes. Subtest
2 is based on Generalization and Discrimination Skills (Classification) the test taker, out of the 5
boxes, is asked to identify 2 boxes that would be different from the other remaining 3 boxes, the
time for subtest 2 is 4 minutes. Subtest 3 is about matrices the task is to correctly complete the
design or matrix presented at the left of each row, the time given for subtest 3 is 3 minutes.
Subtest 4 is based on Spatial Perception and Mental rotation (Conditions), it requires the test
taker to select from the 5 choices provided, the one which duplicates the conditions given in the
left box, and the time given for subtest 4 is 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The test has total 50 items
and total time given to complete the test is 12.5 minutes (Smith & Passer, 2010).
 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 (NCERT. 2012).

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 analysed, 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
intrelationship (NCERT. 2012).

The Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) was created by Raymond Cattell in 1949 as an
attempt to measure cognitive abilities devoid of sociocultural and environmental influences.
Scholars have subsequently concluded that the attempt to construct measures of cognitive
abilities devoid of the influences of experiential and cultural conditioning is a challenging one.
Cattell proposed that general intelligence (g) comprises both fluid intelligence (Gf) and
crystallized intelligence (Gc). Whereas Gf is biologically and constitutionally based, Gc is the
actual level of a person’s cognitive functioning, based on the augmentation of Gf through
sociocultural and experiential learning (including formal schooling) (Colom & Abad, 2007).

Crystallized intelligence (Gc) refers to that aspect of cognition in which initial intelligent
judgments have become crystallized as habits. It involves knowledge that comes from prior
learning and past experiences. It is based upon facts and rooted in experiences and becomes
stronger as we age. Fluid intelligence (Gf) is in several ways more fundamental and is
particularly evident in tests requiring responses to novel situations. It involves being able to think
and reason abstractly and solve problems. This ability is considered independent of learning,
experience, and education. Before biological maturity individual differences between Gf and Gc
will be mainly a function of differences in cultural opportunity and interest. Among adults,
however, these discrepancies will also reflect differences with increasing age because the gap
between Gc and Gf will tend to increase with experience which raises Gc, whereas Gf gradually
declines as a result of declining brain function (Colom & Abad, 2007).

Development 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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

Limitation of the Test

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).
 Every test tends to favour 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 favour 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 (Colom &
Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad,
2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).

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 (Colom & Abad, 2007).
Reliability of the Test

The reliability of the test was measured using 3 different evaluations:

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)(Technical Manual, Cattell, n.d.).

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)(Technical Manual,
Cattell, n.d.).

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)(Technical Manual, Cattell, n.d.).

Validity 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)(Technical Manual, Cattell, n.d.).

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
General Considerations

The tests can be administered to groups or individually. Answers can be marked in the
test booklet or on separate answer sheets, thus permitting reuse of the test booklets. The
examiner should read the directions to himself several times beforehand, to familiarize himself
with the test sequences, the timing, and the instructions. The instructions should be read exactly
as they are given, in an unhurried, friendly conversational manner (Technical Manual, Cattell,
n.d.).

Time limits must be strictly adhered to and under no circumstances altered to allow fewer
or more persons to complete a given subtest. Instructions are to be presented exactly. Caution the
group that the booklets are not to be opened until they are told to do so (Technical Manual,
Cattell, n.d.).

Description of the Scales

Series (Subtest 1)

Series questions are typically designed to assess the test-taker’s ability to recognize and
extend patterns or sequences without relying on language or cultural knowledge. Test-taker are
presented with visual or abstract sequences of symbols, shapes, or numbers. They must identify
the missing elements in the sequence based on the underlying pattern. This format minimizes
cultural and language bias, making it more it more suitable for individuals from diverse cultural
backgrounds. For example, a CFIT series question might present a sequence of abstract symbols
and ask the test-taker to determine the missing symbol by identifying the pattern within the
sequence.

Classification (Subtest 2)

Classification tasks assess the test-taker's ability to categorize and group items or
symbols based on inherent characteristics or rules. The CFIT uses non-verbal and culture-neutral
stimuli to ensure that the classification task is not influenced by language or cultural factors.
Test-takers must recognize similarities and differences among items to correctly group them. For
example, a CFIT classification task could involve sorting geometric shapes based on their
attributes, such as grouping all triangles together, all circles together, and all squares together.

Matrices (Subtest 3)

Matrices questions are presented in a non-verbal format, often using visual patterns
or symbols arranged in grids or tables. Test-takers are required to identify the missing elements
within the matrix by deducing the underlying relationships or patterns in the filled cells. For
example, in a CFIT matrices question, the test-taker may need to complete a grid of abstract
symbols by recognizing the pattern governing the placement of symbols in the filled cells.

Condition (Subtest 4)

Conditioning typically refers to the test-taker's ability to adapt to specific rules or

instructions provided within the test itself. While conditioning may not be as prominent in these
tests compared to the other concepts mentioned, it can still be relevant in certain items. Test-
takers might need to adapt to different rules or instructions presented in a culture-neutral manner.
For example, in a CFIT conditioning task, test-takers could be exposed to a set of rules for a
specific task and then asked to apply those rules to new situations or stimuli, demonstrating their
capacity to adapt and learn from instructions provided within the test.

Administration

Aim

The aim of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) is to assess cognitive abilities while
minimizing the influence of cultural and linguistic factors, providing a more equitable measure
of general intelligence.

Materials

CFIT manual, Test Booklet, Answer Sheet, Stationery, Times devices and Scoring key.
Scoring and Interpretation

Name Age Gender Education Location Emotional State

Shifa Khan 17 Female SYJC P.N. Doshi Nervous
(12th grade) College
Test taker Profile

Table 1

Subtest Correct responses Percent of correct responses

Series 6/13 46.15%
Classification 5/14 35.71%
Matrices 7/13 53.84%
Condition 5/10 50.00%
Total 23/50

Table 2

Test takers scores

Raw score 23

IQ Equivalent 89

Percentile rank 24

According to the participant's raw score, she successfully answered 23 out of 50 test
questions. Her actual test performance is reflected in this score. Her cognitive capacity can be
expressed in terms of the standard IQ scale using the IQ equivalent score. Generally speaking, a
person with an IQ of 100 is regarded as average. In this case, the participant's IQ equivalent
score of 89 indicates that her performance on this particular culture-fair intelligence test was
marginally below the mean for the population for which the test is normed. It means that, on
average, test takers in the norming group had slightly higher scores than she did. The percentile
rank tells us how each participant's performance compares to that of other test-takers. A
percentile rank of 24 indicates that the participant outperformed about 24% of the norming group
participants who also took the test.

Participants correctly answered 6 out of 13 items in the Series subtest, obtaining a

percentage correct score of 46.15%. They showed modest competence in identifying connections
between elements in a series. A reasonable ability for spotting and foreseeing patterns or trends
may exist in the individual. They might be particularly adept in tasks that call for the recognition
of patterns or sequences, such decoding procedural steps or spotting trends in data.

A percentage correct score of 35.71% was obtained on the Classification subtest by the
subject, who correctly answered 5 out of 14 items. The participant's performance on the
Classification subtest suggests that she has a substantially weaker capacity for classifying and
assembling objects according to general traits or guidelines. Effectively classifying the things
was difficult for them. Tasks that need for effectively organizing or categorizing information may
present difficulties for the participant. They may gain from developing their capacity to
distinguish between similarities and differences among items, as this skill can be helpful in tasks
involving organization, judgement, or logical categorization.

Participant correctly answered 7 out of 13 questions in the subtest on matrices, earning a

percentage correct score of 53.84%. This suggests that this subtest was taken rather well. The
participant's performance on the Matrices subtest points to a comparatively strong aptitude for
finding links, analogies, and patterns in abstract visual matrices. In this regard, they showed
strong analytical abilities. The person might be particularly effective at tasks that call for abstract
thought, problem-solving, and understanding complex connections.

In the Condition subtest, the participant obtained a percentage correct score of 50% after
answering 5 out of 10 questions correctly. The subject demonstrated a modest understanding of
and ability to use conditional reasoning in the Condition subtest. They did well enough, but there
may be space for improvement. Depending on the circumstances, the person might be able to
make wise decisions. However, further development of conditional reasoning skills could
enhance their ability to weigh options and consider consequences more effectively.

Recommendations

Series

Consider practicing logic puzzles, numerical series, and sequence identification exercises
to help participants recognize and extend patterns or sequences. Identifying regularities in data or
processes through various activities. As a result, they will get better at spotting patterns in actual
circumstances, which can be helpful in a variety of problem-solving contexts.

Classification

Participants should concentrate on honing their classification and categorization abilities.

Practice classifying things into groups based on traits or guidelines. Improve your ability to
efficiently sort and organize information. The capacity to manage real-life circumstances that call
for logical organization and categorization can be improved by engaging in categorization and
classification-related tasks, such as sorting things or organizing data.

Matrices

Participants should concentrate on honing their classification and categorization

abilities. Practice classifying things into groups based on traits or guidelines. Improve your
ability to efficiently sort and organize information. The capacity to manage real-life
circumstances that call for logical organization and categorization can be improved by engaging
in categorization and classification-related tasks, such as sorting things or organizing data.

Condition

To enhance conditional reasoning abilities, the participant can practice decision-

making in scenarios with specific conditions or constraints. Engage in activities that require them
to weigh options and consider consequences. Try solving conditional puzzles and problems to
sharpen their conditional reasoning skills. Strengthening this skill will improve the ability to
make informed choices in real-life decision-making situations
 References

Anne Anastasia (1996) Fourth Edition. Psychological Testing

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

Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik , M. E. (2002). Psychological testing and assessment: An

introduction to tests and measurement (7th ed.)

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 Behavior. New York: McGraw-

Hill Compa NCER