ArticleJournal of Intelligence2020
A Mokken Scale Analysis of the Last Series of the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM-LS).
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Random-effects psychophysics for studying individual differences in perception and cognition.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Modeling Sequential Dependencies in Progressive Matrices: An Auto-Regressive Item Response Theory (AR-IRT) Approach.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- The Youth Attitudes about Vaccines (YAV-5) scale: adapting the parent attitudes about childhood vaccines short scale for use with youth in German, French, and Italian in Switzerland, exploratory factor analysis and mokken scaling analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- Hierarchy and Reliability of the Preschool Language Scales-Fifth Edition: Mokken Scale Analysis.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
- A Mokken scale analysis of the Kessler-6 screening measure among Chinese older population: findings from a national survey.BMC geriatrics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices Raven (1941) is a widely used 60-item long measure of general mental ability. It was recently suggested that, for situations where taking this test is too time consuming, a shorter version, comprised of only the last series of the Standard Progressive Matrices (the SPM-LS; Myszkowski and Storme (2018)) could be used, while preserving satisfactory psychometric properties Garcia-Garzon et al. (2019); Myszkowski and Storme (2018). In this study, I argue, however, that some psychometric properties have been left aside by previous investigations. As part of this special issue on the reinvestigation of Myszkowski and Storme's dataset, I propose to use the non-parametric Item Response Theory framework of Mokken Scale Analysis Mokken (1971, 1997) and its current developments Sijtsma and van der Ark (2017) to shed new light on the SPM-LS. Extending previous findings, this investigation indicated that the SPM-LS had satisfactory scalability ( H = 0 . 469 ), local independence and reliability ( M S = 0 . 841 , L C R C = 0 . 874 ). Further, all item response functions were monotonically increasing, and there was overall evidence for invariant item ordering ( H T = 0 . 475 ), supporting the Double Monotonicity Model Mokken (1997). Item 1, however, appeared problematic in most analyses. I discuss the implications of these results, notably regarding whether to discard item 1, whether the SPM-LS sum scores can confidently be used to order persons, and whether the invariant item ordering of the SPM-LS allows to use a stopping rule to further shorten test administration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.