Solving the Raven Progressive Matrices by adults with intellectual disability with/without Down syndrome: different cognitive patterns as indicated by eye-movements.
Adults with ID use a slower response-elimination eye pattern on Raven matrices, so interpret low scores as possible strategy issues, not fixed ability.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Vakil et al. (2012) watched adults solve Raven puzzles while an eye tracker recorded every glance. Half the adults had Down syndrome, half had other intellectual disabilities, and a third group had typical development.
The team wanted to see if different groups used different eye-movement strategies to solve the same puzzles.
What they found
The typical adults finished more puzzles and used a smart scanning plan. They looked at key parts first and skipped wrong answers.
Both disability groups used a slower plan: they looked at every choice and crossed off wrong ones. Eye paths were the same whether the adult had Down syndrome or another cause of ID.
How this fits with other research
Goharpey et al. (2013) saw the same slow plan in kids with ID, so the pattern starts early and lasts into adulthood.
Cashon et al. (2013) also used eye tracking in ID and found slower first looks, matching the sluggish start seen here.
Ballester-Plané et al. (2016) praise the Raven for giving rich data in adults with cerebral palsy; Eli’s study shows the rich data can mislead if you forget that ID solvers use a different plan.
Why it matters
When you give the Raven to an adult with ID, a low score may reflect strategy, not lack of ability. Watch how the client scans the page or ask them to talk through choices. If they are crossing off one by one, teach a quicker key-feature scan before you label the score as final.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before you record a Raven score, watch the client’s eyes for at least one item; if they scan every choice, prompt them to find the missing piece first, then re-test.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Raven matrices are used for assessing fluid intelligence and the intellectual level of groups with low intelligence. Our study addresses qualitative analysis of information processing in Raven matrices performance among individuals with intellectual disability with that of their typically developed (TD) counterparts. Twenty-three adults with non-specific intellectual disability (NSID), 15 adults with Down syndrome (DS) and 35 children with TD matched for mental age, participated. Participants solved the Raven's Colored Progressive Matrices and five items from the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices while having their eye movements monitored. The overall percent of correct answers was significantly higher for the TD group compared to two ID group. Comparison of the eye movement pattern of each group indicated that the TD group spent more time on the matrices before shifting to the options, than the two ID groups. The TD group made significantly less switches from one rejoins to another, than the ID groups. The difference in the scanning pattern between the TD and the ID groups is interpreted as a reflection of two different types of strategies, Constructive matching and Response elimination, respectively. There were no differences in eye scanning between participants with NSID and those with DS.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2012 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.11.009