A
1|4
Scoring Key 2|5
STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES 31
J.C. Raven 4|2
Sets A, B, C, Dand E 56
S9 63
76
82
91
92 103
11|4
Score is number of items answered correctly.
Maximum score for each Set = 12. 12|5
Maximum total score = 60.
92 B
1|2
0L 2|6
L6 31
8 42
92 51
99 63
89 75
J.C. RAVEN LTD.
8|6
1989
94
ISBN9789332582903
103
114
12|11|1 10|6 81 75 64 5|7 3|3 22 1|8
97 4|8
|12| 5
Reference Material
Classic and Parallel tests
Table SPM2
Normal (Expected) Score Composition of Classic and Parallel tests ONLY
(1979 Standardisation)
Total A D Total A B D Total A C D E
10 1 1 27 9 7 5 1 44 11 11 9 4
11 7 2 1 1 28 10 7 5 1 45 12 11 4
12 2 1 1 0 29 10 7 6 5 1 46 12 11 9 5
13 1 1 30 10 6 5 2 47 12 11 10
14 8 3 1 1 31 10 8 6 2 48 12 11 9 10 6
15 3 2 1 1 32 10 8 6 6 2 49 12 11 10 10 6
16 4 2 1 1 33 10 8 6 7 2 50 12 11 10 10 7
17 A 2 1 1 34 10 7 7 2 51 12 11 10 10
18 A 2 2 1 35 10 7 2 52 12 12 10 10
19 5 2 2 1 36 11 7 7 2 53 12 12 11 10
20 9 5 3 2 1 37 11 7 2 54 12 12 11 10
21 4 1 38 |1 10 7 2 55 12 12 11 11 9
22 9 5 3 1 39 1 10 2 56 12 12 11 11 10
23 6 4 3 1 40 11 10 8 3 57 12 12 12 11 10
24 9 6 4 1 41 11 10 9 3 58 12 12 12 11 11
25 9 6 5 1 42 11 10 9 4 59 12 12 12 12 11
26 6 5 1 43 11 11 9 4 60 12 12 12 12 12
Table SPM18
Standard
SmoothedProgressive
1997 NormsMatrices
for Pune(Classic form)
and Mumbai (Bombay), India in the Context of 1979 British Data
72 8 812 Age in Years (Months)
9'2 10 10 10'2 11
7(3) 7(9) 11 112 12 12 1212 13
8(3) 8(9) 9(3) 9(9)
13 13'2 14 14 14'2 15
to 10(3) 10(9) 11(3) 11(9) 15 15'2 16 17 18
to to to to to
12(3) 12(9) 13(3) 13(9) 14(3) 14(9)
Percentile to to to to 15(3)
7(8) 8(2) 8(8) 9(2)
to to to to
9(8) 10(2) 10(8) 11(2) 11(8) 12(2)
to to to
UK UK P&M UK 12(8) 13(2) 13(8) 14(2)
UK P&M UK UK P&M UK UK
14(8) 15(2) 15(8)
95 37 40 39
P&M UK UK P&M UK UK P&M UK UK P&M
42 44 44 46 48 46 UK UK P&M UK P&M P&M P&M
49 50 49 51 52
90 35 38 52 53 54 53 54 55 54
36 40 42 41 44 46 43 47
56 57 55 57 56 56 55
48 46 49 50
75 49 51 52 51 53 54
30 33 34 36 38 34 41 42
52 54 55 53 55 54 54 53
37 43 4 45 46 45 47 4 47
50 22 25 19 50 48 50 51 4 51 50
31 33 21 36 38 28 39 50 49
40 33 41 41 39 42 43 4 44 45
25 43 46 47 A4 47
15 17 13 22 25 13 28 32 17 45
33 34 22 36 30 38 39 33
10 41 42 36 42 43 42 39 39
12 14 11 17 17 11 37
19 23 12 27 29 14 31 18 32 33 23 35 36 27 36 36 36 31
5 11 12 10 13
31 30
14 10 14 17 1 22 24 12 25 26 14 27 28 17 29 30 20 33 33 24 33 23 26 25
148 174 100 153 166 592 198 172 1104 194 187 1189 164 164 1293 174 185 1310 80 196 1344 191 1108 171 1192 769 287
The carefully drawn samples of 5,161 Mumbai (previously Bombay) and 5,127 Pune young people were tested, under the supervision of Prof. C.G.
Deshpande, by selected personnel from the Department of Applied
Psychalogy. University of Mumbai (previously Bombay). andthe Jnana Prabodhiai Institute of Psychology. The 78 schools involved included Government, Government aided, and PrivateSchools teachingin Marathi
English, Hindi, and Gujarathiin the correct proportions. There were smallsex differences in one direction in one area and in the opposite direction in the other, but otherwise the notms for thetwo areas weresimilar and
have been merged in the above table. Full details of the study will be published as a Supplement to the Indian edition of the SPM Manual, but they are currently available from Prof. J.M. Ojha, Director, Manasayan, New
Delhiand Prof. C.G. Deshpande, Pune.
Table SPM19
Standard Progressive Matrices (Classic form)
Smoothed 1992 Norms for Delhi (India) North Zone in the Context of 1979 British Data
Age in Years (Months)
11 11 11% 12 12 12% 13 13 13½ 14 14 14½ 15 15 15½
10(9) 11(0) 11(3) 11(9) 12(0) 12(3) 12(9) 13(0) 13(3) 13(9) 14(0) 14(3) 14(9) 15(0) 15(3)
to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to
Percentile 11(2) 11(11) 11(8) 12(2) 12(11) 12(8) 13(2) 13(11) 13(8) 14(2) 14(11) 14(8) 15(2) 15(11) 15(8)
UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK UK DEL UK
95 50 46 51 52 47 53 54 48 54 55 49 56 57 50 57
90 45 49 50 46 51 52 47 53 54 48 54 55 49 55
75 37 45 46 39 47 49 41 49 50 44 50 51 45 51
50 40 31 41 41 33 42 43 35 45 38 46 47 40 47
25 34 20 36 37 23 38 39 25 41 42 28 42 42 31 42
10 29 14 31 31 14 32 33 14 35 36 15 36 36 16 36
5 24 12 25 26 12 27 28 12 29 30 12 33 33 12 33
187 39 164 164 92 174 185 143 180 196 164 189 191 131 171
Based on an extensive study carried out by Dr JM Ojha. To be published in an Indian Manual
Supplement by Manasayan, Delhi.
possibility of unreliable records may not be totally eliminated, especially from non-urban
immigrants.
TABLED.1
PERCENTILE AGE NORMS DELHI
95 90 75 50 25 10 5
Age
9( 3)
10(113) 42 38.5 33 23.5 15 12 11
46 44 37 29 17 12 11
11 (348) 13.5 11
12 (505) 47 44 39 31 18
47 41 34 21 14 12
13(520) 49
13
14(577) 52 50 45 39 29 18
15 (460) 55 52 46 41 31 19 14.5
55 52.5 47 42 34 22 17
16(393) 29.5 22
55.5 53 49.5 45 38
17 (261) 25.5 19.5
18(72) 54 49 45 40 35
19( 16)
20 (3)
21( 1)
Note: Figures in brackets are the no. of cases in each category
The n of age 9, 19,20and 21were too smallfor reporting
TABLE D.2
PERCENTILE AGE NORMS DELHI
Class 95 90 75 50 25 10
43 40.50 34 22 15 12 10
6(429) 20 14 12
7 (690) 47 44 39 31
40 33 22 14 11.50
8 (505) 49 46.50
44 37 26 14 12
9 (386) 49 48
55 52 48 43 35 26.50 19.50
10(651) 34 25.50 22
11(232) 50 48 46 41
12(389) 57 54 50 46 41 34 29.50
category
Note: Figures in brackets are the no. of cases in cach
11
TABLE M.1
Percentile Age norms for the composite sample from Maharashtra (Pune and Mumbai )
PERCENTILES
95 90 75 50 25 10 5
AGE
43 40 34.5 24.5 14.5 11 10
9 46 43.5 37.5 29 17.5 12.5 11
10 48 45 40.5 34 23.5 14.5 12
11 51 49.5 45 38.5 30.5 19 14
12 52.5 51.5 47 42 33.5 23 16
13 53.5 52.5 47.5 42.5 35.5 26 18
14 54.5 53.5 48.5 43.5 36 27 23
15 54.5 54.5 49.5 44.5 38 30 26
16 55 54.5 51.5 45.5 39.5 32 27
17 55 53.5 50 45.5 38.5 31.5 24
18 53 51.5 48.5 43.5 37.5 29 25
REFERENCES
1. NORMS; STANDARD PROGRESSIVE MATRICES FOR CLASSES VI & X
OF DELHISCHOOLS Delhi: Bureau of Educational & Vocational
State Institute of Education. 1986
13
MARKING, EVALUATING ANp REPORTING
distributed symmetrically. For practical purposes, it is convenient to consider
Cetain percentages of the population and to group people's scores accordingy.
In this way, it is possible to classify aperson according to the score obtained as
shown below:
GRADEI "Intellectually superior", if a score lies at or above the 95th
percentile for people of the same age group.
GRADEII "Definitely above the average in intellectual capacity", if a score lies
at or above the 75th percentile. (It may be designated I|+ ifit lies
at or above the 90th percentile.)
GRADE II "Intellectually average", if a SCore lies between the 25th and 75th
percentiles. (lt may be designated as ll+, if it is above the 50th
percentile, and lIl-, if it is below it.)
GRADE IV "Definitely below average in intellectual capacity', if a score lies at or
belowthe 25th percentile. (t may be designated IV-, if it lies at or
below the IOth percentile.)
GRADEV "Intellectually impaired', if ascore lies at or below the 5th
percentile for that age group.
The total score obtained, the consistency of an estimate, and the grade
reached are conveniently summarised as in the following example:
Total Score 46
0, +1,-2, +2,-I
Discrepancies
Grade Ill+
Time 38 minutes
and thus to
In order toavoid the test becoming too long or unwieldy -
compromises had to be made in
retain atest of maximum usefulness - certain
clearly among those
its development. Asa result, its ability to differentiate
scores and aduts with high SCores was necessarily
especially children- with loW
scores increased. As has
restricted. The secondproblem became senous as
among higher scores, without
heen exolained, the SPM's ability to discriminate
discriminate among the less able, has been restored
