Fluid intelligence tests are already incredibly unreliable, and this study isn't particularly well done.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't feel like the authors defend the hypothesis very well.
It's an interesting concept, but I don't feel like the authors defend the hypothesis very well.
Calling Raven's Progressive Matrices, a measure of "reasoning about novel problems" when it's far from novel in psychology, and most of your test subjects are psychology students?
By the way, I think they mean that Raven's Matrices test (somehow) for an ability to reason about problems that are new to the test subject, not that the test itself is new.