David’s Battery of Differential Abilities- Revised (DBDA-R)

Introduction

The assessment of human abilities explores individual differences through psychological

theories. Abilities developed through training or education encompass aptitude, talent, and

competence. These concepts are key in education and careers, aiding in success prediction

and guidance.

●​ Ability: Refers to the power to perform an act, either physical or mental, which can be

developed through training or education. Given the necessary external circumstances,

it implies that the task can be performed now.

●​ Aptitude: Originally carried implications of innateness but is now used to refer to the

potential for an individual to reach a specified level of ability through a certain

amount of training.

●​ Capability: The maximum effectiveness a person can attain with optimum training.

●​ Capacity: Often used loosely as a synonym for ability or aptitude, sometimes

implying innateness.

●​ Talent: A high degree of ability or aptitude.

●​ Gift and Endowment: Popular terms for high ability, largely considered innate.

●​ Competence: Fitness for a particular kind of task or general fitness.

David’s Battery of Differential Abilities (DBDA) assesses ability by measuring an

individual's current functional capacity rather than predicting future potential. Unlike aptitude

tests, it evaluates present skill levels under standardised conditions across eight cognitive

domains, comprehensively analysing mental functioning.

short tests measuring eight abilities: verbal, numerical, spatial, closure, clerical, reasoning,

mechanical, and psychomotor. It provides a standardized, objective assessment of mental

abilities under specific conditions.

Subtests

●​ Verbal Ability (VA): It refers to comprehension of words and ideas and one’s ability

to understand written language. Two sub-sets measure it,

○​ VA Part I involves a word meaning exercise and generalising relationships

among words measured through 15 items.

○​ Part II measures understanding of proverbs through 9 items

●​ Numerical Ability (NA): This ability measures one's capability of manipulating

numeric values and engagement in mathematical operations. It has 20 items

●​ Spatial Ability (SA): It assesses one's ability to perceive spatial patterns and figure

orientation in a plane or space. 72 items comprise two-dimensional figures in either a

rotated or reversed manner.

●​ Closure Ability (CA): It is one's perceptual ability to identify a stimulus and its

missing parts and is measured through 20 items wherein words are mutilated and

options are jumbled.

●​ Clerical Ability (CL): This ability deals with making rapid and spontaneous

evaluations of features of visual stimuli. It is measured through 72 items, which aim

to derive one's comprehension of the sameness or difference between paired groups of

letters.

●​ Reasoning Ability (RA): It measures one's capability to apply the process of

induction i.e. devising a theory or principle from a given problem or deduction, i.e.
 deriving a conclusion from a general principle. It involves 12 items requiring the

identification of a general principle followed as per a given word.

●​ Mechanical Ability (MA): It refers to an individual’s understanding and skill of basic

mechanical principles and ease with machines, tools, electrical and automotive facts.

It is measured through 25 items dependent on one's acquired knowledge and skill.

●​ Psychomotor Ability (PM): It assesses one's fine motor skills and precise

movements requiring eye-hand coordination through 70 items that test muscle

dexterity.

Theoretical Concept

Thurstone's Theory: Primary Mental Abilities

Louis Leon Thurstone, an American psychologist, developed the theory of Primary Mental

Abilities in the 1930s. This theory posits that mental abilities are composed of multiple

distinct factors rather than a single general intelligence factor.

Primary Mental Abilities Identified by Thurstone

1.​ Verbal Comprehension (V): Understanding words, vocabulary, and reading

comprehension.

2.​ Word Fluency (W): Quickly generating words, often tested in language tasks.

3.​ Number (N): Numerical reasoning and arithmetic ability.

4.​ Spatial Ability (S): Visualizing and manipulating objects in space.

5.​ Memory (M): Recalling information, sequences, or lists.

6.​ Reasoning (R): Applying logical thinking to solve problems.

Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect Model

J.P. Guilford developed the Structure-of-Intellect Model as a theoretical framework for

understanding human mental abilities. This model classifies abilities into three dimensions:
 1.​ Content (What is processed?): Figural (visual), Symbolic (numbers/letters), Semantic

(meaning), and Behavioral (social interactions).

2.​ Operations (How is it processed?): Cognition (recognition), Memorization (storage),

Convergent Thinking (single solution), Divergent Thinking (multiple solutions), and

Evaluation (judgment).

3.​ Products (What is the outcome?): Units (basic info), Classes (categories), Relations

(connections), Systems (complex structures), Transformations (modifications), and

Implications (inferences).

Spearman’s Two-Factor Theory of Intelligence

This theory, developed by Charles Spearman, posits that intelligence is composed of two key

components:

●​ General Intelligence (g): Represents the core intellectual ability that underlies

performance across a wide variety of tasks. It reflects an individual’s capacity for

abstract thinking, problem-solving, and adaptation.

●​ Specific Abilities (s): Represent skills and abilities unique to particular tasks or

domains, such as mathematical ability, verbal skills, or spatial reasoning.

Raymond Cattell’s Theory

●​ Fluid Intelligence (Gf): Refers to the ability to solve novel problems, recognize

patterns, and adapt to new situations without relying on prior experience or

knowledge.

●​ Crystallized Intelligence (Gc): Refers to knowledge and skills acquired through

education, experience, and cultural exposure.

Early ability testing was shaped by Spearman (1904), who identified a general intelligence

factor (“g”) underlying diverse cognitive skills. His work laid the foundation for standardized

testing by suggesting a common influence across cognitive domains.

Advancements in factor analysis led to refined intelligence models, such as Guilford’s

Structure-of-Intellect (SI) model, which classified cognitive abilities into three dimensions:

content, operations, and products. Guilford proposed up to 120 distinct abilities, challenging

the broad profiles of earlier tests like the Differential Aptitude Test (DAT) and General

Aptitude Test Battery (GATB).

In response, David’s Battery of Differential Abilities (DBDA) was developed to provide

precise assessments of specific cognitive abilities. Unlike earlier tests, DBDA used targeted

subtests to identify individual strengths and weaknesses, aiding in educational and vocational

decision-making.

Revisions

The development of the DBDA involved extensive pilot testing and rigorous statistical

analysis to validate its underlying structure. It has been revised twice since its’ development

in 1947.

Its modular design allowed for the selective administration of subtests tailored to the specific

cognitive constructs of interest. As practical experience with the DBDA accumulated,

researchers identified areas for further improvement, leading to the development of a revised

version, DBDA-R in 2011.

reliability, and it incorporated adjustments to account for extrinsic factors—such as cultural

background and educational quality—that can influence cognitive performance. Importantly,

DBDA-R emphasizes that its scores reflect current cognitive functioning rather than serving

as absolute predictors of future abilities.

Psychometric properties

Reliability

●​ Split-half Reliability: The assessment shows moderate to very high reliability

coefficients ranging from 0.69 in Mathematical Ability to 0.95 in Spatial Ability.

●​ Test-retest Reliability: The assessments show moderate to high-reliability

coefficients across all subtests. It ranges from 0.61 on Reasoning Ability to 0.85 on

Spatial Ability.

Validity

●​ Criterion Validity: The criterion validity of the DBDA-revised version was

measured against WAIS, 16PF, GMAT and other academic achievement tests. The

correlation coefficients yielded moderate values against other intelligence tests.

●​ Predictive Validity: Predictive validity evidence is limited, but some studies suggest

that DBDA-R scores may predict future academic and job success.

Evaluation

Merits

1.​ DBDA evaluates multiple cognitive domains, making it a well-rounded tool for

assessing intellectual functioning.

2.​ High reliability and validity, ensuring consistent results across different test

administrations.
 3.​ Standardized tests like DBDA provide objective, quantifiable data, reducing bias in

cognitive assessments.

4.​ DBDA is commonly used for student assessments, career counselling, and

employment selection, aligning with APA's recommendations on psychological

assessments being practical and applicable in multiple domains.

5.​ The test is structured to allow examiners to assess multiple cognitive abilities in a

relatively short period, making it a convenient tool for large-scale testing.

6.​ Some sections of DBDA attempt to minimize cultural bias, adhering to APA’s

principles of fairness in testing and assessment.

Limitations

1.​ Despite efforts to reduce cultural bias, specific verbal and numerical reasoning tasks

may still favour individuals from specific educational or linguistic backgrounds.

2.​ DBDA lacks accommodations for diverse testing abilities, disadvantaging those with

test anxiety or poor test-taking skills.

3.​ Frequent DBDA exposure may cause practice effects, improving scores through

familiarity rather than true cognitive growth.

4.​ DBDA primarily measures cognitive abilities and does not assess social or emotional

intelligence.

5.​ While DBDA assesses cognitive skills, it may overlook creativity, critical thinking,

and non-traditional problem-solving, limiting its applicability.

6.​ DBDA is not designed for diagnosing psychological disorders or learning disabilities.
 Applications

DBDA is a psychometric tool widely used for assessment, selection, and training across

various fields:

1.​ Career & Education – Aids career guidance, vocational counselling, and academic

planning by assessing cognitive strengths and helping in course or career selection.

2.​ Employment & Training – Used in recruitment, employee selection, and customized

training programs to enhance verbal, numerical, and reasoning skills.

3.​ Research & Specialized Assessments – Applied in cognitive studies, military

evaluations, and defence sector screenings for high-pressure roles.

4.​ Competitive & Organizational Use – Helps in exam preparation, leadership

assessments, promotions, and organisation succession planning.

Research

Study 1

Title: Impact of Information & Communication Technology on Numerical, Verbal, and

Writing Ability Among Students

Authors: Ved Prakash Maurya, Sayma Jameel, & Ashok Kumar Patel

Findings: Maurya et al.'s study on the impact of ICT on cognitive abilities in undergraduate

students found that while technology enhanced numerical and verbal skills, it led to a decline

in writing ability due to increased dependency. Using DBDA and writing tasks, the study

compared performance with and without digital assistance, revealing that students relied

heavily on technology, which reduced their self-confidence and impaired memory recall

when tech was unavailable. The findings highlight both the benefits and drawbacks of ICT in

education, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to prevent over-reliance and

cognitive decline.
Study 2

Title: Comparative Study of Verbal, Numerical, and Reasoning Aptitude Among Engineering

Students

Authors: Richa Mandovra & Dr. Saroj Kothari

Findings: This study compares verbal, numerical, and reasoning aptitudes between

Mechanical Engineering (ME) and Information Technology (IT) students, as well as key

skills for employability and further studies. Using DBDA, researchers assessed 91

fifth-semester students from a private college in Indore. Results showed IT students

performed better in all areas, but both groups had average to poor scores, raising concerns

about engineering graduates' aptitude levels in India. The study highlights the need for

improved training programs in engineering education to enhance these essential skills and

boost employability.

​
 Test -7

Aim

To assess the subject’s or group's current abilities across 8 different domains using the

DBDA-R (David’s Battery of Differential Abilities - Revised).

Socio-Demographic Details

Name:

Sex:

Age:

Occupation:

Materials Required

●​ DBDA booklets for each of the abilities

●​ DBDA response sheet/s

●​ Stationary (pen/pencil)

●​ Stopwatch

●​ DBDA Scoring Norm (provided in the DBDA Manual)

Procedure

●​ Seat the subject comfortably, establish rapport, and obtain informed consent from the

subject to administer the DBDA. (The same applies to group administration).

●​ Provide the instructions for the first battery test, which are provided in the test

booklet.

●​ Following the instructions, explain to the subject how to respond by helping them

with demo/example questions for each test. Solve doubts if presented and ensure

understanding before proceeding.

●​ Let the subject know the time limit for each test (except for Spatial Ability and

Clerical Ability).
 ●​ Give them erasers if they want to erase any wrong responses (except PMA).

●​ Time the subject and strictly stop them from responding to further items once the

allotted time for that test is over.

●​ Once the subject has finished responding to each test, allow them to rest for 20-30

seconds before proceeding to the next test’s instructions.

●​ Once all the tests have been completed, score each test using its stencil sheets.

●​ Convert the raw scores to the STEN score by referring to appropriate norms tables,

and interpret the STEN scores for each ability by referring to the STEN score

interpretation for each ability.

Instructions

Standardized Test Instructions

All the tests in DBDA-R should follow a specific procedure in the interest of maximally

standardized measurement. Some general considerations or points that apply to all the tests

are given below, followed by specific information for each test.

General Considerations

1.​ Read aloud, and relatively slowly, the instruction page for each test as the subject(s)

read the page silently to themselves. For each test, announce:

“Read the instructions for this test to yourself while I read them aloud.”

Pause where examples appear to allow the subjects time to think through the

examples.

2.​ After the complete instructions have been read, ask the subjects:

“Are there any questions before you begin?”

Clarify instructions or doubts at this point; if necessary, subjects may re-read parts of

the instructions and review the examples, but no new examples should be given.

3.​ After answering questions on the instructions, the examiner should announce:
 “All right, turn the page and begin.”

(The words here are altered in some tests, and this is made clear in the specific

instructions for each test below). Allow about 3 seconds for turning the page, and then

begin timing. When the time is up, announce in a firm voice:

“Stop working now. Please put your pencils down and turn the booklet immediately.”

Be sure that the subjects do not continue to work.

4.​ Follow working times strictly. USE A STOPWATCH OR A TEST TIMER. This fact

is crucial for all the tests. The working time is disclosed for all the tests except SA and

CL, as summarized in Table 5 earlier. The examiner should be sure he knows the time

allotted to a test before he gives the signal to start. The subjects mustn't be informed

of the SA and CL times. If an enquiry is made regarding the time for these tests,

he/she should reply:

“Persons taking this test are not given the working time. Please continue to work until

told to stop.”

The timings for SA and CL are not disclosed to the subject to assess the speed and

accuracy under high anxiety states.

5.​ Emphasize that the directions, such as not going on to PART-II or the next page until

told to do so, must be strictly followed. In a group testing situation, the examiner or

an assistant should unobtrusively walk around the room to see that the subjects do not

turn the page when they finish the test.

6.​ Before beginning the battery, the examiner should encourage the subjects to do their

best by stressing the importance of the tests in determining what each person's

strengths are and which area/course is best suited for him/her. Subjects should be

reassured that they are not expected to correct every item.

have been told to stop working on a given test and turn to the instructions for the next

test. At this point (when examinees no longer have the test in which they were

working in front of them), allow them 20 to 30 seconds to relax before beginning the

next set of instructions.)

Specific Instructions for all DBDA Tests

1.​ “ Mark only one box for an item. Items for which more than one box is marked will

not be counted. If you need another pencil, etc., at any time, raise your hand.”

2.​ “In all the tests, you will answer a question by choosing the best option among the

several. Even if you don't know the right answer for a particular item, try to narrow

down the choices as much as possible and then mark the option that is your best

guess.”

Scoring

The scoring procedure in DBDA-R is very objective and simple. Scoring stencils or scoring

key is used to obtain the raw score for each test.

Before the scoring keys are used, some general guidelines must be observed to maintain the

validity of the test. Such as:

●​ See that only one response is marked for each item and that it is marked clearly;

●​ Reject those answer sheets that show obvious response patterns, such as all of the

answers in one column, or alteration of left and right responses in all the tests, etc.

●​ See that the maximum items have been answered within the specified time limit.

Directions for obtaining the raw scores from the answer sheet are provided on the scoring

keys themselves. To convert these raw scores into sten scores, find the raw score for VA in
the 'VA' line and read the corresponding sten score above it. Do likewise for other ability

areas also.

In summary, the procedures for obtaining sten scores are:

1. Obtain raw scores from the answer sheet.

2. Select the appropriate norm table.

3. Convert each raw score to its sten equivalent as described above.

Table 7.1

The Table Represents The Sten Score Ranges And Its Interpretation

Sten Score Interpretation

1-3 Low Ability

4-7 Average Ability

8-10 High Ability

(The behavioural observation, Result Analysis, Table and Discussion are for reference;

please write according to your scores.

Please note that the discussion should be written as a whole, with the highest-scored test first

and moving towards the lowest)

Behavioural Observation

The participants displayed varying levels of engagement across the subtests. Signs of

nervousness and frustration were observed in Verbal Ability and Numerical Ability, with

noticeable pauses, jitteriness, and head-scratching. In contrast, she appeared more focused

during Clerical Ability, worked faster in Closure Ability, remained calm in Spatial Ability,

and showed high physical engagement by leaning forward completely in Psychomotor

Ability.
 Results Analysis

The participant scored a Raw score of 11 on the Closure Ability, giving them a sten score of

3, interpreted as Low Ability. On Clerical Ability, they scored a raw score of 30, giving them

a sten score of 2, interpreted as Low Ability. She has a raw score of 7 on Mathematical

Ability, which is interpreted as a sten score of 2, which is interpreted as Low Ability. For the

numerical ability, a raw score of 8 and a straight score of 3 were obtained, which is

interpreted as low ability. She received 49 for a raw score, implying a sten score of 8,

interpreted as High Ability. Regarding reasoning ability, she obtained a raw score of 6 and a

straight score of 4, which is interpreted as average ability. Under Spatial Ability, raw and sten

scores of 47 and 6 were obtained, respectively. This is interpreted as Average Ability. Lastly,

on the Verbal Ability test, a raw score and sten score of 13 and 4 were obtained, respectively,

interpreted as Average Ability.

Table 7.2

The Table represents raw scores, sten scores, and interpretation for each ability subtest

in DBDA-R

Ability Test Raw Score Sten Score Interpretation

Closure Ability (CA) 11 3 Low Ability

Clerical Ability (CL) 30 2 Low Ability

Mechanical Ability (MA) 7 2 Low Ability

Numerical Ability (NA) 8 3 Low Ability

(PM)

Reasoning Ability (RA) 6 4 Average Ability

Spatial Ability (SA) 47 6 Average Ability

Verbal Ability (VA) 13 4 Average Ability

Discussion

The test aimed to assess the subject’s or group's current abilities across 8 different domains

using the DBDA-R (David’s Battery of Differential Abilities - Revised). It was administered

on GS, a 23-year-old Female.

The results show that GS's most pronounced strength lies in her psychomotor ability, where

she achieved a high sten score of 8. This exceptional performance indicates excellent

eye-hand coordination, quick reflexes, and precision in movement-based tasks. Such

well-developed motor skills suggest that GS would excel in activities requiring fine motor

control, physical dexterity, and coordination, including sports, crafts, technical hands-on

work, and other activities demanding precise physical movements.

Regarding her spatial ability, GS demonstrates adequate capabilities with a sten score of 6,

indicating she can effectively recognize patterns, visualize objects in different orientations,

and understand spatial relationships. This average performance in spatial tasks provides her

with sufficient skills for navigation, drawing, interpreting maps and diagrams, and working

with visual-spatial information in everyday contexts.

end of the average. While GS possesses sufficient verbal skills for everyday communication

and basic comprehension, she may benefit from additional support in more complex verbal

tasks that require advanced reading comprehension, vocabulary, and verbal expression.

Similarly, GS's reasoning ability also falls within the average range with a sten score of 4,

reflecting an adequate but not exceptional capacity for logical thinking, problem-solving, and

decision-making in most everyday situations.

Her numerical ability is categorized as low with a sten score of 3, suggesting she encounters

difficulties with numerical operations and mathematical reasoning tasks that may impact her

performance in academic and practical situations requiring calculations and mathematical

problem-solving. Her closure ability is equally challenging, with a sten score of 3, indicating

difficulty in perceiving complete forms from incomplete visual information, which may

affect her ability to quickly identify patterns or comprehend incomplete data in visual

processing tasks.

Even more pronounced difficulties appear in GS's mechanical ability, with a very low sten

score of 2, indicating significant struggles with understanding mechanical concepts,

principles, and relationships that would impact her ability to grasp how machines work,

understand physical systems, and solve mechanical problems. Similarly challenging for GS is

clerical ability, with a sten score of 2, suggesting she requires more time to process and

evaluate written or visual information with speed and accuracy, potentially affecting

performance in tasks requiring organization, attention to detail, and precision.

Considering this profile as a whole, GS may be well-suited for occupations that capitalize on

her exceptional psychomotor abilities, such as surgeon, dentist, assembly line worker,

precision craftsman, or other roles requiring fine motor skills and hand-eye coordination.
These career paths would leverage her strongest cognitive domain while minimizing reliance

on her weaker abilities. With effective strategies that build upon her psychomotor strengths

while providing structured support for developing her weaker abilities, particularly through

activities that combine physical engagement with opportunities to improve numerical,

mechanical, and clerical processing skills, GS can optimize her performance across various

domains.

Summary

The participant shows high psychomotor ability but struggles with numerical, closure,

clerical, and mechanical skills, which may affect problem-solving and pattern recognition.

Verbal, reasoning, and spatial abilities are average, though further improvement in reasoning

and comprehension could be beneficial. Strengthening cognitive performance through math

puzzles, visual tasks, and problem-solving exercises can enhance weaker areas. Recognizing

these strengths and weaknesses can help tailor strategies for better academic and everyday

performance.
 References

Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment.

Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.

Mandovra, R., & Saroj, K. (2018, June). Comparative Study of Verbal, Numerical and
Reasoning Aptitude among Engineering students.

Maurya, V., Jameel, S., & Patel, A. (2018, January). International Journal of Humanities and
Social Science Research.

Spearman, C. (1914). The theory of two factors. Psychological Review, 21(2), 101–115.

Thurstone, L .L. (1937). Thurstone's Primary Mental Ability Tests [Database record]. APA
PsycTests.

Vohra S. (1994). Handbook for DBDA Revised, Psycom services.