CATTELLS CULTURE FAIR INTELLIGENCE TEST

AIM
To assess the fluid intelligence of the participant using Cattells Culture Fair Intelligence Test, Scale 3 (Form A+B).

BASIC CONCEPT
Intelligence is an inferred process that humans use to explain the different degrees of adaptive success in peoples behavior. There are probably as many definitions of intelligence as there are experts who study it. Simply put, however, intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with ones environment. A few definitions of intelligence, as given by different psychologists: A general ability which mainly involves the eduction of relations and correlates. (Spearman, 1904) The ability to judge well, to understand well and reason well. (Binet and Simon, 1905) The capacity to form concepts and grasp their significance. (Terman, 1916) The ability of an individual to adapt his thinking to new demands, it is the common mental adaptability to new tasks and conditions of life. (Stern, 1912) The capacities to inhibit instinctive adjustments, flexibility imagine new responses, and realize modified instinctive adjustments to overt behavior. (Thurstone, 1921) The aggregate or global capacity of an individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with the environment (Weschler, 1939) The ability to undertake activities characterized by difficulty, complexity, abstractedness, economy, adaptiveness to a goal, social value and the emergence of originals and to maintain such activities under conditions that demand a concentration of energy and resistance to emotional forces. (Stoddard, 1943) The mental capacity to automatize mental processing, to formulate new ideas, and to emit contextually appropriate behavior in response to novelty which includes not only adaptation but also shaping and selection of any environmental context. (Sternberg, 1985)

However, while often used interchangeably and as synonyms, intelligence, aptitude and achievement differ on a few key points:

Intelligence and Aptitude INTELLIGENCE APTITUDE Aptitude is the ability to perform a specific task or acquire a particular skill well More focused on s-factor

1. Intelligence is global in nature, not specific to a particular domain 2. More focused on g-factor

Aptitude and Achievement ACHIEVEMENT APTITUDE Aptitude tests evaluate a persons potential for future learning and performance Aptitude tests evaluates the effects of an unknown or uncontrolled set of experiences Evaluates the potential to profit from a course of training Aptitude tests rely heavily on predictive criteria validation procedures

1. Achievement tests evaluates how much a person has learnt in the past 2. Achievement tests evaluate the effects of a known or controlled set of experiences 3. Evaluates the product of a course of training 4. Achievement tests rely heavily on content validation procedures

THEORIES OF INTELLIGENCE
Psychologists have proposed several theories of intelligence. Theories can be broadly classified as either representing a psychometric/structural approach or an information-processing approach. The psychometric approach considers intelligence as an aggregate of abilities. It expresses the individuals performance in terms of a single index of cognitive abilities. On the other hand, the information processing approach describes the processes people use in intellectual reasoning and problem solving. The major focus of this approach is on how an intelligent person acts. Rather than focusing on structure of intelligence or its underlying dimensions, information processing approaches emphasize studying cognitive functions underlying intelligent behavior.

I.

PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH
1. Uni-Factory Theory Alfred Binets theory of intelligence was rather simple as it arose from his interest in differentiating more intelligent from less intelligent individuals. He, therefore, conceptualized intelligence as consisting of one similar set of abilities which can be used for solving any or every problem in an individuals environment.
2.

Two Factor Theory In 1927, Charles Spearman proposed a two-factor theory of intelligence employing a statistical method called factor analysis. He showed that intelligence consisted of a general factor (g-factor) and some specific factors (s-factors) The g-factor includes mental operations which are primary and common to all performances Specific abilities that a person possessed were an expression of s-factor, which differed, depending on a persons abilities

3. Theory of Primary Mental Abilities Psychologist Louis L. Thurstone offered a differing theory of intelligence. Instead of viewing intelligence as a single, general ability, this theory focused on seven different primary mental abilities, all of which were relatively independent of each other. The abilities that he described were verbal comprehension, reasoning, perceptual speed, numerical ability, word fluency, associative memory and spatial visualization
3

4. Structure-of-Intellect Model J.P. Guilford (1988) proposed the structure of intellect model which classifies intellectual traits among three dimensions: operations, contents, and products. i. Operations are what the respondent does. These include cognition, memory recording, memory retention, divergent production, convergent production, and evaluation. ii. Contents refer to the nature of materials or information on which intellectual operations are performed. These include visual, auditory, symbolic (e.g., letters, numbers), semantic (e.g., words) and behavioral (e.g., information about peoples behavior, attitudes, needs, etc.). iii. Products refer to the form in which information is processed by the respondent. Products are classified into units, classes, relations, systems, transformations, and implications. Since this classification includes 6x5x6 categories, therefore, the model has 180 cells. Each cell is in the model represents a unique operation-content-product combination and a distinct mental ability. 5. Cattell's Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence The Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence suggests that intelligence is composed of a number of different abilities that interact and work together to produce overall individual intelligence. i. Fluid intelligence is defined as the ability to perceive relationships independent of previous specific practice or instruction concerning those relationships. It involves being able to think and reason abstractly and solve problems. This ability is considered independent of learning, experience, and education. Crystallized intelligence involves knowledge that comes from prior learning and past experiences. Situations that require crystallized intelligence include reading comprehension and vocabulary exams. This type of intelligence is based upon facts and rooted in experiences. As we age and accumulate new knowledge and understanding, crystallized intelligence becomes stronger There is a correlation of 0.50 between the fluid ability and crystallized ability.
4

ii.

iii.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZED ABILITY

Fluid Ability Inherent capacity to learn and solve problems that depend on an efficient functioning of the central nervous system. Relatively culture-reduced form of mental efficiency. Required ability to manage information on working memory Used when a task requires novel, abstract problems or adaptation to a new situation. Peaks in early adulthood and begins to decline as people enter late adulthood. Vulnerable to brain damage and aging.

Crystallized Ability The product of educational and cultural experience in interaction with fluid intelligence.

Highly cultural dependent form of mental efficiency.

Requires ability to retrieve information from long term memory. Used for tasks which require a learned or habitual response. Continues to grow as we age and accumulate new knowledge and understanding.

II.

INFORMATION PROCESSING/COGNITIVE APPROACH

1. Triarchic Theory Robert Sternberg defined intelligence as mental activity directed toward purposive adaptation to, selection and shaping of, real-world environments relevant to ones life. Sternberg proposed what he refers to as 'successful intelligence,' which is comprised of three different factors: i. Componential/Analytical intelligence: This component refers to problem-solving abilities. a. METACOMPONENTS: are executive processes used in problem solving and decision making that involve the majority of managing our mind. They tell the mind how to act. b. PERFORMANCE COMPONENTS: the processes that actually carry out the actions the metacomponents dictate. These are the basic processes that allow us to do tasks c. KNOWLEDGE ACQUSITION COMPONENTS: are used in obtaining new information. These components complete tasks that involve selectively choosing information from irrelevant information. These components can also be used to selectively combine the various pieces of information they have gathered ii. Experiential/Creative intelligence: This aspect of intelligence involves the ability to deal with new situations using past experiences and current skills.
5

iii.

Contextual/Practical intelligence: This element refers to the ability to adapt to a changing environment.

2. PASS Model of Intelligence Developed by J.P. Das, Jack Naglieri, and Kirby (1994), according to this model, intellectual activity involves the interdependent functioning of three neurological systems, called the functional units of brain. These units are responsible for arousal/attention, coding or processing, and planning respectively. i. Arousal/Attention : State of arousal is basic to any behavior as it helps us in attending to stimuli. ii. Simultaneous and Successive Processing: Simultaneous processing takes place when you perceive the relations among various concepts and integrate them into a meaningful pattern for comprehension while Simultaneous processing helps you in grasping the meaning and relationship between the given abstract figures. iii. Planning: After the information is attended to and processed, planning is activated. It allows us to think of the possible courses of action, implement them to reach a target, and evaluate their effectiveness.

ASSESMENT OF INTELLIGENCE
Interest in intelligence dates back thousands of years, but it wasn't until psychologist Alfred Binet was commissioned to identify students who needed educational assistance that the first IQ test was born. Alfred Binet and the First IQ Test o In 1905, Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon, made the first successful attempt to formally measure intelligence. In 1908, when the scale was revised, they gave the concept of Mental Age (MA), which is a measure of a persons intellectual development relative to people of her/his age group. Chronological Age (CA) is the biological age from birth. o In 1912, William Stern, a German psychologist, devised the concept of Intelligence Quotient (IQ). IQ refers to mental age divided by chronological age, and multiplied by 100.

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test o The Stanford-Binet intelligence test used a single number, known as the intelligence quotient (or IQ), to represent an individual's score on the test. o This score was calculated by dividing the test taker's mental age by their chronological age, and then multiplying this number by 100. For example, a child with a mental age of 12 and a chronological age of 10 would have an IQ of 120 (12 /10 x 100).

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales o Dissatisfied with the limitations of the Stanford-Binet, Wechsler published his new intelligence test known as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) in 1955. o The WAIS-IV contains 10 subtests along with 5 supplemental tests. The test provides scores in four major areas of intelligence: a Verbal Comprehension Index, a Perceptual Reasoning Index, a Working Memory Index, and a Processing Speed Index. o Rather than score the test based on chronological age and mental age, as was the case with the original Stanford-Binet, the WAIS is scored by comparing the test taker's score to the scores of others in the same age group.

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. 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. Some examples of tasks in the test may include:

completing series classifying solving matrices evaluating conditions

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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Every test tends to favor 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 favor 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. 5. 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. 6. 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.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEST

AIMS 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

HISTORY OF THE TEST 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. 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 analyzed, 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 introduced.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEST

1. CFIT is a non-verbal measure of intelligence. CFIT does not involve the use of language or verbal ability. A student must see the patterns formed by the shapes organized into groups, and then choose an answer that completes the pattern. 2. CFIT is a culture fair test of intelligence This is because instead of evaluating skills influenced by cultural or educational factors like educational level etc, CFIT evaluates reasoning through the child's ability to understand and use the rules that govern a progression of geometric patterns and figures. 3. CFIT can be administered in a group or to an individual CFIT can be administered both in a group or to an individual, as it does not require any special attention being paid to the subjects and requires intervention only to explain the test and keep track of time. 4. CFIT is a combination of speed and power tests. Speed tests are designed to assess how quickly a test taker is able to complete the items within a set time period. The primary objective of speed tests is to measure the person's ability to process information quickly and accurately, while under duress. A power test measures candidates level of achievement (that is, how well they can achieve as opposed to how quickly they can answer questions). CFIT is a combination of speed and power tests because it measures the accuracy of the subjects responses to increasingly difficult items in a limited amount of time.

FORMAT OF THE TEST There are 3 scales in the Culture Fair series. Scale 1 was designed for use with children 4-8 years of age. It may also be used with older, mentally handicapped individuals. Scale 1 differs in format from the other tests in the series in utilizing eight rather than four subtests and not being wholly group administered and in requiring the examinee to understand and respond to verbal instructions Scales 2 and 3 are wholly group administrable. Nevertheless, occasions may arise in which the closer rapport of a one-on-one situation will be required to enable the individual being tested to perform most effectively. The main difference between the two scales is the difficulty level of the items. Scale 2 can be appropriately be used with children as young as eight years and equally appropriately with older children and most adults. From age 13 or 14 onwards, either scale 2 or scale 3 could be employed. Scale 2 is usable in all cases but greater refinement in the higher intelligence ranges is obtained with
10

Scale 3 because of the higher difficulty level. Thus, in choice of scales, the test administrator should be guided by his own evaluation on potential ability level to be tested. When he reasonably anticipates ceiling effects of scale 2, he would employ scale 3. For the vast majority of test users however, scale 2 will suffice too. In each of the scales, there are two forms available, form A and form B. The main reason for existence of these forms is of administrative convenience. Because of the wide variability in class time scheduling among schools, there were many occasions when the full tests (form A + form B) could not be comfortably given in a single class. Additionally, the two-form design provides some extra benefits, such as brief rest period between forms to reduce fatigue and aid test-taking morale. Each of the form contains 4 subtests each. In the first subtest, the individual is presented with an incomplete, progressive series. His task is to select, from among the choices provided, the answer which best continues the series. This is a measure of sequential thinking. The Classification subtest differs slightly between scale 2 and 3. The individual is presented with 5 figures. In scale 2, he must select one which is different from the other four, while in scale 3, he must correctly identify two figures which are in some way different from the other three. This measures generalization and discrimination skills. In the Matrices subtest, the task is to correctly complete the design or matrix presented at the left of each row. This measures generalization and discrimination skills. The final subtest, Conditions (or Topology) requires the individual to select, from the five choices, the one which duplicates the conditions given in the first box. Spatial perception and mental rotation are tested here.

11

RELIABILITY OF THE TEST

The reliability of the test was measured using 3 different evaluations: 1. 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). 2. 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). 3. 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).

VALADITY 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).

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.

12

APPLICATIONS OF THE TEST

The Culture Fair Tests are valuable instruments for all uses to which an intelligence test is rationally applied, notably: 1. Discovering whether the achievement of each individual is what would be expected from his intelligence, thus facilitating identification of emotional or learning problems where they exist. 2. Assessing an applicants potential to perform job relevant tasks that involve cognitive ability. 3. Making a more reliable and informed decision whether a particular child may require special educational facilities or a program of cultural enrichment 4. Selecting students for accelerated educational programs within an age-group grade 5. Advising students in regards to probable success in college or the chance of winning a scholarship 6. Increasing the effectiveness of vocational guidance decisions, both for students and adults

In all such applications the special advantage of the culture fair test is that they make cleaner separations of natural ability from specific learning and thus permit better analysis and prediction of the individual's ultimate potentialities.

LIMITATIONS OF THE TEST

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. A second criticism is that within the same year, among students all in the same kind of school, the Culture Fair Test doesnt predict achievements as highly as the traditional test, particularly academic. 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.

13

PRELIMINARIES
Name: Rakhi Taparia Gender: Female Educational Qualifications: Masters in Architercure Age: 44 Place of Conduction: Laboratory

MATERIALS REQUIRED
CFIT Form A and B test booklets Stopwatch Screen Pencil CFIT Manual CFIT Technical Manual Response Sheets

PROCEDURE
1. Lab Setting
The subject was seated adjacent to the left hand side of the tester. A screen was placed between the tester and the subject. The CFIT forms and booklets were kept ready, along with 2 response sheets and pencils and an eraser for the subject. A stopwatch was kept in front of the tester to keep track of the time during the test. Proper illumination and ventilation was ensured to make the test-taking comfortable.

2. Rapport Formation
The testee was called into the lab and the first 10 minutes were spent on rapport formation. Casual conversation took place, which was to make her relaxed and comfortable followed by eliciting personal information like education history, relationships etc. She was ensured that the test was for her own sake and is good for her. The confidentiality of her responses was guaranteed and she was assured that feedback would be provided. The entire conversation was held in a non threatening manner.

14

3. Instructions
First the general instructions were read out from the CFIT manual. Any doubts were cleared and clarified. Instructions for each form and subtest were then read aloud in a clear voice VERBATIM from the CFIT manual

4. Administration
After giving the instructions, the subject was allowed to start working on the first subtest. This procedure was then repeated for all the four subtests in Form A. After a short pause, the entire process was repeated for Form B. During the test, the subjects behavior was also observed and recorded. After the test was done, the subject was asked to write an introspective report outlining her experience of giving the test and how she felt during it. Their contact information was then taken so that we could get back to them with the results. 5.

Precautions
a. The room was brightly lit to make sure that the testee did not have any issues in seeing the forms and sufficient ventilation to make the process comfortable. b. Instructions were read out clearly and discrepancies or confusions were clarified. The prescribed time limits for each subtest were strictly adhered to make sure the results were accurate. c. It was ensured that all the equipments required for test taking were placed in front of the testee. d. During the test taking, the testee was not interrupted or distracted in any way.

15

INTROSPECTIVE REPORT
Initially, when the tester approached me, I was very unsure about doing the test as was afraid to know what my IQ score would turn out to be, not to mention that it was the end of the day so I was a bit tired from working all day at the office. However, I was won over with a little bit of convincing and agreed to do it. As I progressed, at some stages, I found it difficult to see some of the patterns and particularly in the last set, where the dot was almost not visible in some figures. Also, in some sets, I felt that the time provided was too short but surprisingly, some I completed well before time. Overall, this was an new experience, one that I hope look forward to repeating-maybe.

BEHAVIOURAL REPORT
The subject initially seemed hesitant about the test, not really sure about giving an IQ test as she was apprehensive about the scores she would get. She was also tired as she had just come back from her office but after explaining the test and what she would have to do, the subject agreed to sit down for the test. During the test, she seemed calm and composed, attempting each part with swiftness and not focusing on any particular part. No impatience or fidgeting was detected and she seemed very interested in what she was doing. She did however, at a couple of junctions, complain about the bad printing quality of the booklet and how it was difficult for her to understand what was in the figure. Apart from this, the test taking as a whole was a smooth procedure. After the test, the subject seemed happy with her performance and was excited to know how she had done and what her IQ was.

16

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The scoring key was used to calculate the scores for each subtest on form A and B. These scores were then added to find the raw scores separately on each form. The raw scores of both form A and A were added to calculate total raw score. This was then converted into and IQ score and percentile rank by referring to provided norms. Percentage of Correct Responses (no. of correct responses x 100/total items) where x = IQ score, = is the mean of the population(100) and is the standard deviation of the population (16)

(Table 1) Number and % of Correct Responses Subtests Correct responses (Form A) 8/13 8/14 6/13 5/10 27/50 Correct responses (Form B) 6/13 10/14 7/13 9/10 32/50 Cumulative Scores Form A+B

Series Classifications Matrices Conditions TOTAL

14/26 18/28 13/26 14/20 59/100

53.84% 64.28% 50% 70%

(Table 2) Scores Obtained by the Subject Raw Score (Form A + Form B) IQ Score Percentile Rank Z Score 59/100 117 86 +1.06

17

INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION

CFIT is deemed a culture fair test as being a non-verbal test of intelligence. It reduces the influences of education and socio-cultural environmental factors, only employing figures and abstract shapes. It is a measure of fluid intelligence. Fluid intelligence (Gf) taps the level of complexity of relationships which an individual can perceive and act upon when he doesn't have recourse to answers to such complex issues already stored in memory. It is concerned with basic processes of reasoning and other mental activities that depend only minimally on learning and acculturation. Therefore, tests of Gf have little informational content and require the ability to see complex relationships between simple elements like number and letter series, figure classification, figure analogies, spatial visualization, block designs, matrices, and so forth. (Colom & Abad, 2007) The subject was a 44 year old married female architect who had graduated from CEPT Ahemdabad. She has been working professionally for about 15+ years, taking a break when she had her daughter for about 8 years and has even taught as guest faculty in private colleges. She is the eldest daughter, with 2 younger brothers. In her school level, she had always been one of the brightest students, normally securing one of the top 3 ranks in all her exams and studied in the PCMB stream in 11th and 12th. Apart from her schooling and education, she has always expressed an explicit interest in learning more about any topic that she comes across. During the test, she seemed calm and composed, attempting each part with swiftness and not focusing on any particular part. No impatience or fidgeting was detected and she seemed very interested in what she was doing. The subject obtained a raw score of 59 and a Z score of +1.06. These scores were then converted into an IQ score of 117. IQ scores are standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16. They typically follow what is known as a normal distribution, a bell-shaped curve in which the majority of scores lie near or around the average score. The subject who had obtained an IQ score of 117, falls into the HIGH AVERAGE category. This score was also translated in a percentile rank which indicates that 86% of the cases in the standardization sample fall below the subjects score. The IQ score was then translated into a z score. A Z-Score is a statistical measurement of a score's relationship to the mean in a group of scores. A Z-score of 0 means the score is the same as the mean. A Z-score can also be positive or negative, indicating whether it is above or below the mean and by how many standard deviations. The subject obtained a Z-Score of 1.06, which means that his IQ is +1.06 points above the mean. On the basis of all this information we can conclude that this person is high average in his intellect and intelligence, which is a measure of fluid ability. Both form A and B were administered to the subject as it gives us a more reliable score. Administering only form A is known as the short form of the test while administering both is called the full test. The two-form design provides allows a brief rest period between forms to reduce fatigue and aid test-taking morale. By observing the subjects scores on Form A- 27/50 to a 32/50 on Form B, we notice an improvement in her performance on the test, which can be attributed to practice. Since the two forms of the test are parallel forms, the nature of the items are similar and hence the same set of abilities are required to complete the forms. So we see a transfer of learning from one form to another.
18

The score obtained on CFIT is a pooled estimate of 4 distinct abilities, measured by the 4 subtests. The subtests measure the following: Series Test - sequential thinking Classification Test - generalization and discrimination skills Matrices Test- Reasoning and analogy

Conditions Test - spatial perception and mental rotation

On the basis of table 1, we see that the subjects score on the Conditions test is the highest, answering 70% or 14/20 questions correctly. From this we can infer that her spatial perception and mental rotation abilities are far more developed than her ability to reason and form and understand the relation between two abstract objects. This was demonstrated by her score on the Matrices test, where she only answered 50% or 13/26 questions correctly. Due to her high average score on the test, we can say that the subject the ability to see complex relationships between simple elements like number and letter series, figure classification, figure analogies, spatial visualization, block designs, matrices, and so forth. She can tap the level of complexity of relationships where perceiving and acting upon things when she doesn't have recourse to answers to such complex issues already stored in memory. As stated in the case history of the subject, she has always been a bright student both in school and college, bagging the top scores in all the exams. Keeping this in mind, we can say that her IQ score on this test corresponds fairly with her academic achievement. However, we should be careful about making predictions about school as it involves both fluid and crystallized intelligence, also including other factors such as attention span, memory etc. Fluid intelligence is also required in positions which require a lot of novel problem solving. Taking into account the subjects chosen field of profession, architecture and her score on the test, which is 117, we can definitely see the correspondence and relation between the two. The CFIT is a timed test with a limited amount of time allotted for each subtest which increasing difficulty- combination of speed and power test. Therefore, an untimed version of the test would have been more culture fair as different cultures have different attitudes towards time and punctuality. In one culture, a person may have to work as hard as possible when he is in a timed situation whereas somewhere else, this may not be the case

CONCLUSION
The subject achieved an IQ score of 117, which puts her in the high average category of intelligence. In accordance with her IQ score, the subject was placed in the 86th percentile, which put her IQ score above 86% of the people who were a part of the standardisation sample.

19

References

Cattell, R. B. (n.d.). Technical Manual. In R. B. Cattell, Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test. 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 Behaviour. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

20