Open Access Articles- Top Results for Cattell Culture Fair III

Cattell Culture Fair III

The CFIT or Culture Fair Intelligence Test was developed by Raymond B. Cattell in an attempt to produce an IQ test that accurately estimated intelligence irrespective of environmental factors.[1] Scholars have subsequently concluded that this attempt was not wholly successful.[2] Cattell argued after developing the test that general intelligence (g) consists of fluid intelligence and crystallized intelligence.

Unlike the most widely used IQ tests, such as the current editions of the Wechsler and Stanford–Binet tests,[3] which report IQ scores as "deviation IQs" with 15 IQ points corresponding to one standard deviation above or below the norming sample median, Cattell used a deviation of 24. This means about 68.2 percent of test-takers would have scores between 76 and 124 for as long as the norms were representative, compared to scoring between 85 and 115 on most current tests.[4]


Raymond Cattell developed his Culture Fair test in the 1940s to study intelligence across the cultures of "civilized countries." In the process of developing the test, he also developed his now widely accepted theory that human intelligence, rather than having the structure of a general factor and many specific factors as proposed by Charles Spearman, has two discernable group factors, "fluid intelligence" and "crystallized intelligence."[5]

Cultural and age differences

See also: CHC_Theory

Crystallized intelligence (gc) refers to that aspect of cognition in which initial intelligent judgments have become crystallized as habits. Fluid intelligence]] (gf) is in several ways more fundamental and shows in tests requiring responses to entirely new situations. Before biological maturity individual differences between gf and gc will be mainly a function of differences in cultural opportunity and interest. Among adults, however these discrepancies will also reflect differences in age because the gap between gc and gf will tend to increase with experience which raises gc (whereas it has been shown that with increase in age some decay of gf occurs).

Current use

The Cattell Culture Fair test is now little used because it did not achieve the goal of being free from the influence of culture on learners.[6] Some high-IQ societies, for example The Triple Nine Society, accept the CFIT-III as one of a variety of old and new tests for admission to the society. A combined raw score of 85 on forms A and B is required for admission.[7]


Direct concept validity

Direct concept validity (sometimes called construct validity) refers to the degree to which a certain scale correlates with the concept or construct (i.e., source trait) which it purports to measure. Concept validity is thus measured by correlating the scale with the pure factor and this can only be carried out by performing a factor analysis. The relatively high loading of the Culture Fair Intelligence scale on the fluid intelligence factor indicates that the Culture Fair scale does, in fact, have a reasonably high direct concept validity with respect to the concept of fluid intelligence.

The Culture Fair intelligence measure loaded higher on the "General Intelligence" factor than it did on the "Achievement" factor, which is consistent with the concept of the CFIT's being a measure of "fluid" rather than "crystallized" intelligence.[8]

Convergent validity

Convergent Validity is the extent to which the Culture fair test correlates with other tests of intelligence, achievement, and aptitude. Downing et al. (1965) obtained the relationships between the Culture Fair Intelligence Test and other intelligence tests.

Correlations of the Culture Fair with other tests[9]
Mean I Test (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
96 Culture Fair Intelligence Test IQ (1) 1.00 .49 .69 .62 .63 .72
87 Otis Beta Test IQ (2) 1.00 .80 .69 .45 .66
90 Pintner Test IQ (3) 1.00 .81 .55 .79
92 WISC Verbal IQ (4) 1.00 .55 .79
93 WISC Performance IQ (5) 1.00 .79
92 WISC Full Scale IQ (6) 1.00

See also


  1. ^ Cattell, Raymond (1949). Culture Free Intelligence Test, Scale 1, Handbook. Champaign, [Illinois]]: Institute of Personality and Ability. 
  2. ^ Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The Raven Progressive Matrices and the Culture Fair Intelligence Test represent commendable efforts to develop tests on which groups from different cultures score equally well. It is now recognized, however, that constructing test items whose content is independent of experiences that vary from culture to culture is probably impossible. 
  3. ^ Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry. The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Table 2.1 Major Examples of Current Intelligence Tests. ISBN 9780521739115. Lay summary (9 February 2012).  Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L., eds. (2012). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. chapters 8-13, 15-16 (discussing Wechsler, Stanford-Binet, Kaufman, Woodcock-Johnson, DAS, CAS, and RIAS tests). ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Lay summary (28 April 2013). 
  4. ^ Hunt, Earl (2011). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-521-70781-7. Lay summary (28 April 2013). 'average' intelligence, that is the median level of performance on an intelligence test, receives a score of 100, and other scores are assigned so that the scores are distributed normally about 100, with a standard deviation of 15. Some of the implications are that: 1. Approximately two-thirds of all scores lie between 85 and 115. 2. Five percent (1/20) of all scores are above 125, and one percent (1/100) are above 135. Similarly, five percent are below 75 and one percent below 65. 
  5. ^ Tucker, William H. (2009). The Cattell Controversy: Race, Science, and Ideology. University of Illinois Press. pp. 50–52. ISBN 978-0-252-03400-8. Lay summary (30 August 2010). 
  6. ^ Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Culture-fair tests are not completely devoid of the effects of culture. Although the tests are nonverbal, cultural differences exist in areas other than language.  Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald. Psychological Assessment. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxvii. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Lay summary (4 September 2013). Raymond Cattell (1940) argued many years ago for efforts to develop culture free/fair tests because of the lack of portability of tests across different cultures. He led the way in attempting to define and develop tests where the effects of cultural and linguistic differences could be parsed out. However, this is a daunting task as pointed out by Wicherts et al. (2010) where tests such as the Raven's matrices, considered by many to be a nonverbal tests of spatial reasoning and not particularly impacted by culture etc., do not necessarily function as a measure of intelligence in sub-Saharan Africa.  Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Lay summary (31 August 2013). Behavior that members of one cultural group view as intelligent might well be perceived by members of another as foolish, misguided, or even antisocial. And so, as testing expert Alexander Wesman pointed out as early as 1968, the 'ingenious mining methods' that cross-cultural investigators have used in their attempts to discover 'the "native intelligence" [that] lies buried in pure form deep in the individual' are in fact 'not ingenious, but ingenuous.' (citing "Intelligent Testing," American Psychologist 23 (1968): 267-74.)  Lohman, David F. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 12: Identifying Gifted Students: Nontraditional Uses of Traditional Measures". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Since the earliest days of mental testing, psychologists have struggled with the problem of accounting for differences in opportunity to learn, especially those differences moderated by exposure to the language of testing. ... The use of culture-and language-reduced or so-called 'nonverbal' tests stretches from the form boards of Itard through Army Beta to the performance battery of the Wechsler scales, the Progrssive Matrices test (Raven, 1938), the Nonverbal Battery of the Cognitive Abilities Test (Thorndike & Hagen, 1963), and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998). The most important disadvantage of this approach is that the abilities measured by nonverbal tests—especially those that use only figural reasoning items—under-represent the construct of intelligence. 
  7. ^ Triple Nine Society. "Triple Nine Society - Admission". Retrieved 22 April 2014. Cattell A & B combined raw score 85 
  8. ^ Cattell, R.B., Krug, S.E., Barton, K. (1973). Technical Supplement for the Culture Fair Intelligence Tests, Scales 2 and 3. Champaign: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
  9. ^ Downing, Gertrude (1965). The Preparation of Teachers for Schools in Culturally Deprived Neighborhoods (The Bridge Project) The Final Report. 


  • Cattell, R. B. La theorie de l'intelligence fluide et cristallisee sa relation avec les tests "culture fair" et sa verification chez les enfants de 9 a 12 ens. Reoue de Psychologie Appliquee, 1967, 17, 3, 135154.
  • Cattell, R. B. La teoria dell' intelligenza fluida e cristallizzata: Sua relazione con i tests "culture fair" e sue verifica in bambini dai 9 ai 12 anni. (The theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: Its relationship to culture free tests and its verification in 9 to 12-year-old children.) Bollettino di Psicologia Applicata, 1968, 8890, 322.
  • Cattell, R. B. Abilities: Their structure growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971, p. 79.
  • Cattell, R. B., Barton, K., & Dielman, T. E. Prediction of school achievement from motivation, personality and ability measures. Psychological Reports, 1972, 3O, 35-43.
  • Cattell, R. B., & Butcher, J. The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis, Ind.: BobbsMerrill, 1968, pp. 165–166.