Assessment & Research

An item analysis of Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices among participants with Down syndrome.

Facon et al. (2010) · Research in developmental disabilities 2010
★ The Verdict

Raven's Matrices items behave the same for kids with Down syndrome as for matched peers, so you can safely use the test for group matching in research.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess or conduct research with kids with Down syndrome or other intellectual disabilities.
✗ Skip if Clinicians only working with cerebral palsy who already need deeper error analysis.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Bruno and his team looked at every single item on Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices. They asked: do the puzzles behave the same way for kids with Down syndrome as for other kids?

They matched three groups by raw score: the kids with Down syndrome, the kids with other intellectual disabilities, and 46 typically developing kids. Then they compared how hard each item felt to each group.

02

What they found

The item difficulties lined up almost perfectly across groups. A puzzle that was tricky for one group was tricky for the others in the same spot.

In plain words, the test did not suddenly become unfair when kids with Down syndrome took it. You can trust the scores for matching participants in research.

03

How this fits with other research

Denis et al. (2011) repeated the same item check in Williams syndrome and got the same green light: scores can be used for matching.

Hopkins et al. (2023) extended the idea to cerebral palsy but found a twist. Total scores looked equal, yet the kids with CP made qualitatively different errors. The tool is still fair, but you need to peek at error types, not just totals.

Taken together, the three papers say: RCPM works for cross-group matching in Down syndrome and Williams syndrome, but in cerebral palsy you should dig deeper than the headline number.

04

Why it matters

If you run studies that include kids with Down syndrome, you can keep using Raven's Matrices to match groups without fear of built-in bias. When you expand to kids with cerebral palsy, add a quick error-pattern check so you do not miss subtle differences hidden behind similar total scores.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Keep using RCPM raw scores to match participants with Down syndrome to controls—no extra adjustments needed.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
144
Population
down syndrome, intellectual disability, neurotypical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

Standardized tests are widely used in intellectual disability research, either as dependent or control variables. Yet, it is not certain that their items give rise to the same performance in various groups under study. In the present work, 48 participants with Down syndrome were matched on their raw score on Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices (RCPM) with 48 participants with intellectual disability of undifferentiated etiology and 48 typical children. An item analysis was then conducted using the transformed item difficulties method, a statistical approach designed to detect differential item functioning between groups. Results showed that the difficulty of items was highly similar for the three groups. It is concluded that RCPM can be used with considerable confidence in comparative studies including typical, Down syndrome and intellectually disabled participants of undifferentiated etiology. Some methodological implications of these findings are discussed.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2010 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2009.09.011