TYPE Original Research

PUBLISHED 19 March 2024

DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

Adaptation of the Intelligence

OPEN ACCESS Structure Test, Latvian version:
psychometric properties
EDITED BY
Jakob Pietschnig,
University of Vienna, Austria

REVIEWED BY
Rudolf Debelak, Inese Jokste 1*, Ingrida Trups-Kalne 1, Jelena Lubenko 2,
University of Zurich, Switzerland Inga Millere 3,4 and Jelena Kolesnikova 1,5
Ramón García Perales,
University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain 1
Psychology Laboratory, Riga Stradiņs University, Riga, Latvia, 2 Aspris Wellbeing Centre, Dubai, United
*CORRESPONDENCE
Arab Emirates, 3 Faculty of Public Health and Social Welfare, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia,
Inese Jokste
4
Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Riga Stradiņs University, Riga, Latvia,
[Link]@[Link]
5
Department of Health Psychology and Paedagogy, Riga Stradiņs University, Riga, Latvia

RECEIVED 11October 2023

ACCEPTED 12 February 2024 The Intelligence Structure Test (IST-2000R) is created to measure reasoning
PUBLISHED 19 March 2024
abilities and knowledge through verbal, numerical, and figural domains. The
CITATION
qualities of IST-2000R have shown its potential to be adapted and standardized
Jokste I, Trups-Kalne I, Lubenko J,
Millere I and Kolesnikova J (2024) Adaptation in a Latvian sample to be used in psychological evaluation and research, thus
of the Intelligence Structure Test, Latvian satisfying the need for reliable measurement. The aim of this study was to
version: psychometric properties.
investigate the psychometric properties of the Latvian version of IST-2000R.
Front. Psychol. 15:1319983.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983 The adaptation sample consisted of 1,017 participants aged 15–65 (M = 31.8;
COPYRIGHT
SD = 10.94), of whom 36% were male. Participants were tested using the
© 2024 Jokste, Trups-Kalne, Lubenko, Millere supervised offline administration mode ([Link]). The Ethics Committee of
and Kolesnikova. This is an open-access Riga Stradins University (RSU), Riga, Latvia, approved the study. The data show
article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License
that the psychometric properties of the Latvian version of IST-2000R are in line
(CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction with scientific norms. Thus, the test is considered to be reliable and may be used
in other forums is permitted, provided the for psychological evaluation and research.
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s)
are credited and that the original publication
in this journal is cited, in accordance with KEYWORDS
accepted academic practice. No use,
intelligence, adaptation, validity, psychometric properties, intelligence structure test
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms. (IST-2000R)

Introduction
The ability to understand complex ideas, learn from experience, engage in reasoning, and
adapt effectively to the environment are some of the traits attributable to intelligence. There
are different concepts and theories of intelligence, all of which attempt to clarify the
phenomenon (Van Tassel-Baska, 2005). Among these theories, there are two main approaches:
so-called domain-general perspective models and domain-specific models. These two models
differ mainly in understanding the dimensionality of intelligence. The domain-general
perspective model considers intelligence to be a one-dimensional trait and has been described
in the works of Galton, Binet, and others. The domain-specific model, on the other hand, with
such authors as Thurstone, Gardener, and others, proposed that there are specific types of
intelligence (Sternberg, 2020).
Another important aspect of understanding intelligence is so-called fluid and crystallized
intelligence. According to Horn and Cattell (1966), fluid intelligence reflects the functioning
of the central nervous system, which is the genetically determined ability to solve tasks and
use analytical reasoning. Whereas crystallized intelligence is developed through experience/
learning, considering also cultural background.

Frontiers in Psychology 01 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

In the framework of the above-mentioned approaches, several should be included to measure the intended construct in the intended
intelligence measurements have been developed. Binet-Simon IQ test’s sample (Albano, 2018). No matter how the CTT approach might
most recent version (SB5; Roid, 2003); Cattel’s Culture Fair Intelligence be criticized, it serves well to establish the different levels of difficulty
test (Cattell, 1940); Raven Progressive Matrices, first published in for items and the discriminating ability of the items. Item analysis is
1938, followed by renewed versions in 1940, 1956, 1998, and 2000 usually performed by calculating the difficulty and discrimination
(Strauss et al., 2006); Wechsler’s Test of Intelligence (Wechsler, 1997). indices (item-total correlation). As noted by Lange (1967), it is an
The Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, first published appropriate method for deciding on the selection or rejection of the
in 1977 and followed by renewed versions, include both models test items.
(Woodcock et al., 2001) and, among them, the Intelligence Structure Surely, apart from the classical test theory, the Rasch model was
Test 2000 R (Intelligenz-Struktur-Test, IST-2000R; Liepmann also used as an approach for investigating different intelligence tests.
et al., 2007). For example, on gene–environment interaction and the heritability of
There are several approaches and theories based on which the intelligence in childhood (van Leeuwen et al., 2008), determining
different intelligence measurements were created. Underlying the learning occurrence and learning rate applying computer-
IST-2000R is Thurstone’s (1947) understanding of intelligence as administered intelligence test (Verguts and De Boeck, 2000),
consisting of multiple abilities. This basic principle is referred to as establishing homogeneity of verbal reasoning tasks of the Intelligence
multi-trait determination of intelligence and is described in the works Structure Test Battery (IST) (Amthauer, 1973), and others. The use of
of Vernon (1961), Guttman (1965), Guilford (1967), Cattell (1987), Rasch analyses in measuring abilities, including reasoning abilities,
and others, followed by the assumption of the proposed model as a increases slowly. Still, it would be a valuable addition for further
hierarchical structure. The convergence of these two principles research, as it applies a statistical model predicting the mathematical
(Carroll, 1993) is the foundation for rationality in the development of relationship between an item and trait, instead of item correlation in
IST-2000R (Beauducel et al., 2010). classical test theory (Medvedev and Krägeloh, 2022). It shows a
The IST-2000R is based on Thurstone and Cattell intelligence promising field of possibilities for further research of the IST-2000R
theories, measuring verbal, numerical, and figural reasoning Latvian version using other approaches to establish a deeper
abilities with a composite score indicating general reasoning ability understanding of the measurements.
and verbal, numeric, and figural knowledge with a composite score
indicating general knowledge (Liepmann et al., 2007). Based on
Horn’s and Cattel’s theory of fluid and crystallised intelligence, the Psychometric properties of Intelligence
model describes general intelligence as consisting of two parts: Structure Test
fluid intelligence, which is characterized by traits of central
nervous system functioning abilities, and crystallized intelligence, In the adaptation process of IST-2000R to Latvian, researchers
which is rather dependent on gained experience and cultural followed the original test development procedure that includes
context (Horn and Cattell, 1966). Following Thurstone’s several reliability and validity aspects, including internal
understanding of intelligence as a domain-specific model, consistency, split-half reliability, item analyses, and factor structure
IST-2000R includes verbal, numerical, and figural domains. The described in more detail. Calculations of difficulty and
knowledge part, on the other hand, is not divided into task groups discrimination indices (item-total correlation) help to prevent
but consists of 84 tasks equally divided between the subgroups of researchers from being biased as to the items that would seemingly
verbal, numerical, and figural knowledge, and the time limit is “work better” or “would be placed better” (O'Connor and Eskey,
somewhat flexible, not exceeding 40 min whatsoever (Beauducel 2005). It is especially important for ability or intelligence tests that
et al., 2010). ask items to be arranged from the easiest to the most difficult, and
they must be evaluated not from the experience or beliefs of the
researchers but from a scientific perspective.
Approaches in psychometric properties’ In the CTT framework, the item difficulty index refers to the
evaluation for intelligence tests percentage of correct responses given to the test item, which is
obtained by dividing the number of correct responses by the total
Classical test theory, in the framework of which the evaluation of number of responses. In general, higher values point to the lower
IST-2000R psychometric properties was done in this research, has difficulty of the item, and vice versa; lower values point to the
several advantages: it is relatively easy to use in different testing greater difficulty of an item (Penfield, 2013). Although it could
situations, the mathematical procedures used for estimation are rather be understood that the optimal difficulty index would be about 50%
simple, and a relatively small sample is needed to establish the required of correct responses, for most tests, the range of 0.30–0.70 is
parameter estimates (Van der Elst et al., 2013). However, it has also believed to be most informative regarding distinguishing between
received some criticism for being examined-sample-dependent in individuals. Depending on the purpose of the test, a variety of
terms of discrimination and difficulty indices (Bichi, 2015) and test- difficulty levels might be needed for the items (Kaplan and
sample dependent on the individual achievement level (Embretson Saccuzzo, 2009). The main task of intelligence tests is to evaluate the
and Reise, 2000). abilities of different individuals, so there is in fact a need for items
It must be considered that when measuring abilities, be they of different levels of difficulty. The main idea of the nine task groups
learning abilities or intellectual abilities, not only the population in IST-2000R is that items start from the simpler, so the difficulty
sample should be considered, but also the purpose of the test and the index should be rather high, and closer to the end of the task group,
intended use. When testing intelligence, difficult and easy items the items should have a rather small difficulty index. Also, it should

Frontiers in Psychology 02 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

be noted that having these items ordered from the largest to the Construct validity
smallest difficulty index would be advisable.
The discrimination index (item-total correlation) is another There are two ways factor analysis is used: confirming the
important analysis to test items and their ability to differentiate proposed structure (confirmatory factor analyses) and investigating
individuals. The discrimination index (item-total correlation) the structure (exploratory factor analyses) (Olkin and Sampson,
measures the difference between the percentage of tested 2001). In cases where there is no specific theory on how many latent
individuals with the highest scores, the top 27% scorers, who factors are present in the measurement and the relationship between
obtained the correct response, and the percentage of those who them is not clear, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a helpful tool for
obtained lower scores, the bottom 27%. The range between the investigating the number of latent factors and the relationship between
lowest 27% and highest 27% score is considered optimal to them (Shou et al., 2022). When there is an available EFA analysis for
distinguish individuals with respect to the variable measured. the instrument, confirmation factor analysis greatly contributes to
Higher discrimination indices (item-total correlation) show a understanding the measurement by comparing it with the existing
better ability to determine the difference, or discriminate, between theoretical model and thus confirming its fit or finding an unfitting
those individuals with high test scores and those with low ones. It factor structure (Tavakol and Wetzel, 2020).
is also important to notice the connection between the difficulty
index and discrimination index (item-total correlation), and it Dimensionality and differential item functioning
must be noted that there is a general rule—as the difficulty of an In psychometrics, the validation of the model often assumes that
item increases, discrimination approaches zero (O'Connor and unobservable constructs are created from observed variables, where
Eskey, 2005). the constructs are compared across different groups (e.g., male and
female), assuming that the constructs are invariant (Sass and Schmitt,
2013). When comparing scalar and metric models, if the overall
Reliability model’s fit does not appear to be significantly worse, it may be assumed
that items across the groups do not significantly impact the model fit
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to determine the (Putnick and Bornstein, 2016). However, this is not always accurate,
internal consistency of the Intelligence Structure Test. A value of and there is a need to assess the unidimensionality by checking
0.7–0.8 is considered an acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha for whether the general factor is strong enough to assume sufficient
most measurements; accordingly, values substantially lower indicate unidimensionality (McDonald, 1999). An item or test score is
an unreliable scale (Field, 2017). Furthermore, as was noted by Kline considered unidimensional if the systematic differences within the
(1999), generally, Cronbach’s alpha of ≥0.8 would be considered to item variance are only due to one latent variable. Test scores could also
be a good fit, but values of 0.8 and above are more appropriate for be multidimensional, as test items may measure more than one
cognitive tests, including intelligence tests. psychological process (Bejar, 1983), and in such cases, the test should
As IST-2000R has been adapted to several languages, it is be able to reflect those processes (Ziegler and Hagemann, 2015). To
important to see and compare Cronbach’s alpha for these versions. The test the unidimensionality of items, several techniques could be used,
reasoning part of IST shows appropriate Cronbach’s alpha values for including exploratory factor analyses (EFA), confirmatory factor
intelligence tests, according to Kline (1999): the original German analyses (CFA), and item response techniques (IRT), each with its own
version from 0.72 (verbal reasoning) to 0.94 (numerical reasoning) advantages (Ziegler and Hagemann, 2015). Marcoulides and Yuan
(Bühner et al., 2006); the English version from 0.86 (verbal reasoning) (2017) have proposed a range of adjectives associated with certain
to 0.95 (numerical reasoning) (Beauducel et al., 2010); and the values of the RMSEA (0.01 = “excellent,” 0.05 = “close,” 0.08 = “fair” and
Lithuanian version from 0.93 (figural reasoning) to 0.98 (numerical 0.10 = “poor”) and the CFI (0.99 = “excellent,” 0.95 = “close,” 0.92 = “fair”
reasoning) (Šimelionienė and Gintilienė, 2011). However, Cronbach’s and 0.90 = “poor”), which might be helpful while describing the
alpha values for the Italian version show appropriate values according goodness of model fit.
to Field (2017) for verbal reasoning (0.70) and numerical reasoning Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis means examining
(0.70), but weak values for figural reasoning (0.41) (Pellerone et al., responses given to the items to establish whether these responses
2015). It shows that in all versions, the reliability of numerical differ because of sex, age, native language, or other aspects, and to
reasoning is the strongest. make sure that everyone is given equal probability to respond to the
The analysis was then continued with the split-half reliability item according to their true ability levels. This analysis can
procedure, which provides another measure of reliability. The items be performed by calculating various statistics, including Mantel–
are randomly split into two parts, and the score of each part is Haenszel, which can be carried out using jMetrik (Annan-Brew, 2021).
obtained. To establish split-half reliability, the parts are then In the analyses, each item is classified as having either A-, B-, or
correlated. Reliability is interpreted as a correlation coefficient, C-level DIF. Items with A-level DIF are considered to be a good fit
where high correlations would show strong reliability (Kline, 1999). item. B level points to moderate level of DIF and C-level items to large
The results for the English version range from 0.60 to 0.92 for task level of DIF. A-level DIF is applicable if (a) the chi-square statistic is
groups, the lowest for sentence completion and highest for 0.92 <3.84 and the value of p >0.05 or (b) the common odds ratio is
number series; and from 0.87 to 0.92 for subscales, for a reasoning between 0.65 and 1.53. Items with B-level DIF are seen as questionable,
total of 0.96 (Beauducel et al., 2010). For the Lithuanian version, and to establish B level, the chi-square statistics, value of p, and
from 0.84 to 0.96, the lowest for verbal similarities and the highest common odds ratio should differ from both A and C levels. For items
for number series, reasoning total of 0.97 (Dragūnevičius and with C-level DIF, (a) the common odds ratio is <0.53 and the upper
Gintilienė, 1998). bound of the 95% confidence interval for the common odds ratio is

Frontiers in Psychology 03 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

<0.65, or (b) the common odds ratio is >1.89 and the lower bound for IST-2000R. Testing was supervised by trained test administrators
the 95% confidence interval for the common odds ratio is >1.53 and psychologists.
(Meyer, 2014). Based on the results of the first phase of the research, the necessary
adjustments were made to some verbal reasoning items for which
discrimination indices (item-total correlation) were out of the normal
Method range—negative or lower than 0.2. Such results show that items do not
differentiate individuals according to the trait that is being measured.
The research to form a culturally appropriate and psychometrically To improve the psychometric properties of verbal scales, an expert
correct Latvian version of IST-2000R had two phases. group was formed to investigate the face validity of items with too low
discrimination indices (item-total correlation). This was done by
interviewing participants of different age groups and different
The first phase educational levels and asking about the thought process and the
reasons for choosing the answer they chose as the correct one. At the
Measurements same time, consultations with experts in different scientific fields
Sociodemographic questionnaire: sex, age, education level, and helped to work out the best and most precise options for translating
native language. answer choices (distractors) from English into Latvian. The corrected
The first Latvian language version of IST-2000R (Beauducel et al., items were then tested in a pilot study (n = 30) and included in the
2010) was prepared by the research team. The reasoning part of second Latvian version of IST-2000R.
IST-2000R consists of verbal, numerical, and figural tasks. Sentence Changes were made in 18 items: nine in sentence completion, six
completion, verbal analogies, and similarities are verbal task groups; in verbal analogies, and three in verbal similarities. In addition, based
calculations, number series, and numerical signs are numerical task on the results of the difficulty indices, the order of some items within
groups; and figure selection, cubes, and matrices are figural task the groups was changed. In the numerical and figural task groups,
groups. Together, there are nine task groups, each consisting of neither items nor their order within the groups were changed.
20 tasks. There were three types of adjustments for items following the first
phase of the research: a more precise form of item and/or distractor
Participants translation; the replacement of a distractor; and the full replacement
In the first phase of the adaptation of the Latvian version of the of the item.
IST-2000R, there were 266 participants aged 16–67 (M = 27.5; An example of more precise item translation would be items from
SD = 10.94). Of them, 61.7% were female. For 94% of the participants, verbal analogies. The English version of the item was “Nerve:
Latvian is the native language or is used daily in communication line = pupil:…? (a) sight (b) eye (c) shield (d) radiation (e) light” which
within the family. 22.9% are still at school, 15.85 have secondary was translated into Latvian exactly in the same way. However, the
education, 5.6% have vocational education, 15.8% are university difficulty index and discrimination index (item-total correlation) were
students, and 39.8% have higher education. too low, at 0.16 and 0.26, respectively. Looking into the German
version of the same item, “Leitung = Pupille:? (a) Sehen (b) Auge (c)
Procedure Blende (d) Strahlung (e) Licht,” instead of “shield” the word “Blende”
For adaptation purposes, the English version of IST-2000R was is used, which translates as “photo diaphragm.” As the translation
used (Beauducel et al., 2010). Detailed psychometric properties of from German more precisely corresponds to the analogy used in this
the test can be found in the IST English version Manual (Beauducel task group, it was decided to use the translation from the German
et al., 2010), and the main indices are shown in the result part of this version further. After the adjustments, the difficulty index (0.32) and
article, compared to the data of the Latvian sample. Latvian discrimination index (item-total correlation) (0.29) improved.
translations were made of all instructions included in the test In the task group of verbal similarities, the replacement of
booklet and standardized protocols for test administrators. The distractor was used for one of the items. The answer was translated
translation was done by two professional translators after several from English (the German version is the same): “(a) infarct (b) Aids
psychology experts with appropriate English knowledge reviewed (c) scurvy (d) flu (e) polio (f) diabetes” and the task is to find two
the translation. The test administrators then underwent a short words that are meaningfully connected. During the first phase of the
training. Training included an introduction to the theoretical basis research, the difficulty index and discrimination index (item-total
of IST-2000R, its structure, and standardized testing procedure. This correlation) were too low, at 0.03 and 0.10, respectively. As “scurvy” is
was specifically done to ensure that the data were gathered in a a disease that is rare and barely known for many, the alternative
standardized way. During the training, the purpose of the research— distractor was chosen—“anemia,” which, similarly to “scurvy,”
establishing the psychometric properties of the Latvian version of describes the state of a significant deficit of a nutrient (in the case of
IST-2000R—was also explained. “scurvy”—vitamin C; “anemia”—iron). After the replacement of the
In the first phase, the first Latvian version of the IST-2000R test distractor difficulty index and discrimination index (item-total
was used. The research took place in April and May 2019. Participants correlation), they slightly improved to 0.12 and 0.19, respectively, and
were invited to participate in this research via the RSU webpage, as this item is the last in the task group, it is meant to be difficult, so
which was advertised on social networks and mass media. The sample these results can be acceptable.
was formed based on convenience and snowball principles. Testing And finally, there was a case of a full replacement of the item in
was carried out using the paper–pencil method both individually and the sentence completion task group. Item “The opposite of comfort
in groups, which is supported by the administration principles of is…? (a) disappointment (b) mitigation (c) discouragement (d)

Frontiers in Psychology 04 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

despair (e) suppression.” The word “discouragement” is not easy to The sample for the second phase of the research was formed
translate into Latvian, and it would be either a two-word phrase like according to the principles of the stratified sample, with the aim of
“losing one’s courage” or “demotivation.” Using “demotivation” did not including participants from all regions of Latvia as well as aiming for
show good results. So, it was decided to replace the item with “The a specific number of participants in each age group. Participants were
opposite of ‘balance’ is…? (a) zero gravity, (b) vacuum, (c) chaos, (d) recruited for the research through the RSU website, social networks,
equilibrium, (e) anarchy,” which has similar principles as the original media, TV, and radio interviews with the researchers.
item. After the replacement difficulty index (0.52) and discrimination When applying, participants read and signed the participant’s
index (item-total correlation) (0.75). informed consent form for participation in the study and were able to
It must be noted that all corrections were communicated and choose the place and time of testing. Before testing, the study
coordinated with the holders of the ownership rights of the test— participants received information about the study. When testing
Hogrefe Publishing Group. participants younger than 18 years old, the consent of parents or legal
guardians was obtained. The testing took place at RSU and universities,
schools, and libraries in different regions of Latvia and was
The second phase administered by psychologists who had undergone previous training
to ensure the standardized testing procedure (see Procedure in the
Measurements first phase of the research) and were assisted by psychology students
Sociodemographic questionnaire: sex, age, education level, and of RSU. Exploro Ltd. created the computerized version of IST-2000R
native language. for the needs of the second phase of the study.
The Latvian version of IST-2000R (Ļubenko et al., 2022) (second Data were collected during March–October 2020, considering
version). The reasoning part of the IST-2000R Latvian version consists COVID-19 recommendations. The duration of the test for the
of 180 items divided into three parts: verbal, numerical, and figural reasoning part was 1 h and 20 min. Computerised testing was carried
reasoning, each consisting of three task groups in which 20 items are out in small groups (up to 15 people). After completing the test, the
included. In each of the three parts, there are five specific stimuli respondents received brief feedback on their results by email. The RSU
(verbal, numerical, or figural) as the possible answer choices to the Psychology Laboratory conducted the adaptation research process of
task given. Only one of those choices is the most precise, and the other the IST-2000R Latvian version in Latvia.
four are distractors. The chosen answer is considered right or wrong,
making this a dichotomous scale.
Results
Participants
In the second phase of the research, there were 1,017 To have an overall understanding of the results of the IST-2000R
participants aged 15–65 (M = 31.8; SD = 12.67), of whom 36.2% Latvian version test, the descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
were male. Latvian was the native language for 86% of participants, These results are from the second phase of the research.
13% mentioned Russian, 0.4% mentioned other languages, and 13% The reliability of the IST-2000R Latvian version reasoning part
did not mention their native language. The sample consisted of was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha and split-half reliability.
several age groups: 15–18 (13.85%), 19–20 (10.2%), 21–25 (14.15%), Cronbach’s alpha for task groups ranged from 0.74 to 0.90. The
26–30 (16.1%), 31–40 (21.9%), 41–50 (14.0%), and 10% were lowest were for sentence completion and matrices, and the rest were
50 years old and older. In the age group 15–18, 69% already had above or nearly above (for example, figure selection a = 0.079),
basic education or lower, 13% had vocational education, and 18% which is advisable for intelligence tests according to Kline (1999).
had secondary education. In the age group 19–20, 8.7% had basic The results for the subgroups were verbal a = 0.92, numerical
education, 21.2% had secondary vocational education, 67.3% had a = 0.96, and figural a = 0.88. The total Cronbach’s alpha for the
secondary education, and 2.8% had higher education. In the age reasoning part was 0.97.
group 21–25, 3.5% had basic education, 11.8% had secondary The split-half reliability ranges from r = 0.60 to r = 0.92 (p < 0.001),
vocational education, 48.3% had secondary education, and 36.4% showing moderate to strong correlations between items in task groups.
had higher education. In the age group 26–30, 3.7% had basic The strongest correlation is for number series (r = 0.92), and the
education, 11.1% had secondary vocational education, 21.6% had weakest, but still acceptable, is for sentence completion (r = 0.60). For
secondary education, and 63.6% had higher education. In the age the subgroups, the results were as follows: verbal r = 0.88, numerical
group 31–40, 4.6% had basic education, 11.4% had secondary r = 0.95, and figural r = 0.84. For the total reasoning part, it was r = 0.96
vocational education, 14.6% had secondary education, and 69.4% (see Table 2).
had higher education. In the age group 41–50, 2.9% had basic The items in each task group are arranged in accordance with
education, 16.8% had secondary vocational education, 8.0% had their difficulty level—each task group starts with easier items and
secondary education, and 69.4% had higher education. In the age finishes with the most difficult, except figure selection and cubes,
group 50 years and older, there were no participants with only basic where, because of the little shift in the stimuli, there is a tendency for
education; 20.8% had secondary vocational, 18.8% had secondary, items to become more difficult toward the middle of the task group
and 50.4% had higher education. and then pick up from more easy ones to most difficult again. In the
numerical and figural subgroups, the placement of items was not
Procedure changed; it was the same as in the English (and German) versions. In
The Ethics Committee of Riga Stradins University (RSU), Riga, the verbal subgroup, however, the items were placed in order
Latvia, approved the study. according to the data from the first phase of the study, so the

Frontiers in Psychology 05 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics of the reasoning part of the IST-2000R Latvian version.

M SD Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum

Sentence completion 12.16 3.65 −0.52 −0.19 0.00 20.00

Verbal analogies 10.83 4.35 −0.42 −0.81 1.00 19.00

Verbal similarities 10.99 4.63 −0.63 −0.60 0.00 20.00

Calculations 11.48 4.92 −0.11 −0.82 0.00 20.00

Number series 9.87 5.91 0.13 −1.15 0.00 20.00

Numerical signs 12.24 4.93 −0.46 −0.89 0.00 19.00

Figure selection 10.84 4.12 −0.16 −0.51 0.00 20.00

Cubes 10.39 3.84 −0.12 −0.29 0.00 20.00

Matrices 9.68 3.44 −0.33 −0.32 0.00 19.00

Verbal reasoning 33.96 11.17 −0.63 −0.51 1.00 56.00

Numerical reasoning 33.48 13.66 −0.21 −0.81 2.00 59.00

Figural reasoning 30.86 9.08 −0.24 −0.27 0.00 54.00

Reasoning total 98.12 30.13 −0.52 −0.37 12.00 158.00

TABLE 2 Psychometric properties of the IST-2000R Latvian version.

Cronbach’s alpha Split-half Kendall’s Tau Range of Range of

LV (ENG) correlation correlation LV difficulty discrimination
LV (ENG) (ENG) indices indices (item-total
correlation)
Verbal reasoning 0.92 (0.86) 0.88 (0.87) — — —

Sentence
0.74 0.60 −0.72 0.40–0.89 0.13–0.79
completion (SC)

Verbal analogies (VA) 0.83 0.72 −0.86 0.16–0.94 0.25–0.89

Verbal
0.86 0.78 −0.86 0.12–0.86 0.19–0.90
similarities (VS)

Numerical reasoning 0.96 (0.95) 0.95 (0.96) — — —

Calculations (CA) 0.90 0.85 −0.90 0.18–0.98 0.05–0.95

Number series (NSe) 0.93 0.92 −0.91 0.12–0.94 0.19–0.96

Numerical signs (NSi) 93 87 −0.96 0.01–0.99 0.00–0.95

Figural reasoning 0.88 (0.88) 0.84 (0.89) — — —

Figure selection (FS) 0.79 0.77 −0.58 0.21–0.77 0.35–0.76

Cubes (CU) 0.80 0.77 −0.67 0.05–0.79 0.05–0.84

Matrices (MA) 0.74 0.62 −0.68 0.12–0.91 0.15–0.64

Reasoning 0.97 (0.95) 0.96 (0.96) — — —

placement of the items is not the same as in the English and German Kendall’s Tau coefficients for IST task groups range from −0.72 to
versions (and some of the items were changed as well, adjusting them −0.86 for verbal reasoning, from −0.90 to −0.96 for numeral
to the needs of language and culture). reasoning, and from −0.58 to −0.68 for figural reasoning (see Table 2).
The item difficulty indices are shown in Table 2. As the Intelligence The most appropriate item sequence is found in numerical reasoning
Structure Test items are dichotomous—coded as 0 or 1—the index task groups, where the items in task groups start from the easiest and
range varies between 0 and 1. It shows how many of the participants finish with the most difficult tasks (see Appendix Figure A3). In figure
in the research have chosen the correct answer. reasoning task groups, it is rather typical to have a sequence of item
Kendall’s Tau correlation coefficients between the difficulty difficulty to start from item 1 and gradually increase at item 10, then
indices of the items and the sequence number of the items in each task there is a slight change in the task stimuli, and item 11 tends to
group show the gradual increase in difficulty within each task group. be easier, and the following items gradually increase in difficulty level
The correlation coefficient should be negative and as close to −1 as u to item 20 (see Appendix Figure A3). In verbal task groups, there are
possible, which would show that the difficulty of the item grows some inconsistencies in the item sequence and item difficulty level.
according to the sequence of the item. However, in general, there is quite a good tendency for the difficulty

Frontiers in Psychology 06 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

level to grow from easier items at the beginning of the task group to (AGFI) value is 0.96. The root mean square residual (RMR) value is
the most difficult at the end (see Appendix Figure A2). 0.50, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is
The range of discrimination indices (item-total correlation) is 0.027. The comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.988. The root mean
shown in Table 2. The results for verbal reasoning task groups range square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.048. Overall, the
from 0.19 to 0.90, for numerical reasoning task groups from 0.00 to model fit appears to be acceptable.
0.96, and for figural reasoning task groups from 0.05 to 0.84 (see When comparing the results of CFA to the English version of
Table 2). There are several items that fall out of the normal range IST-2000R, based on which the translations for adaptation were made,
(0.20–0.80). However, it must be noted that intelligence test items we can see pretty similar results (see Table 4).
should vary widely in terms of difficulty to be able to measure very low
intellectual abilities with a difficulty index above 0.8 as well as very
high intellectual abilities with a difficulty index below 0.2. Such a Dimensionality analyses
tendency in these data shows that there are a number of participants
that were able to deal only with the easiest tasks and some that were The unidimensional model was checked for each of the nine test
able to deal with the most difficult tasks. groups. The analyses were done using CFA with a DWLS estimator.
Table 3 shows correlations between task groups, providing The results for the sentence completion task group show a
evidence for the positive relationship of reasoning task groups as chi-square value of 227.702 (df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI)
measuring the same construct—reasoning altogether and verbal, value is 0.974. The comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.988, showing
numerical, and figural reasoning when looking at correlations between a close relative fit. The standardized root mean square residual
specific task groups. So for verbal reasoning tasks, correlations range (SRMR) value is 0.061, and the root mean square error of
from 0.63 to 0.69; for numerical reasoning tasks, correlations range approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.019, showing a close absolute fit.
from 0.55 to 0.75; and for figural reasoning tasks, from 0.43 to 0.55. However, two of the items seem to have low factor loadings; when
For reasoning altogether, correlations range from 0.27 to 0.75, showing checking the model without those two items, it improved slightly
evidence of a close relationship between different task groups. The (SMRS = 0.060; CFI = 0.990). Both of those items had very low
results are similar to the results of the English version (Beauducel discrimination (item-total correlation) indices, and both seemed to
et al., 2010). assume more general everyday knowledge than verbal reasoning.
Verbal analogies task group shows the chi-square value is 210.767
(df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.985. The
Confirmatory factor analyses comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.996, showing excellent relative
fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is 0.055.
An investigation of the structure of the reasoning part model of The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.016,
IST-2000R (Latvian version) was carried out using confirmatory showing a close absolute fit.
factor analysis using RStudio (N = 1,017). Lavaan was used for Verbal similarities task group shows the chi-square value is
maximum likelihood (ML) confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the 251.595 (df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.989. The
nine reasoning part aggregates. Three reasoning content factors comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.996, showing excellent relative
(verbal, numerical, and figural) and a total reasoning factor were fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is 0.057.
postulated. The model fits quite well with the data (see Figure 1). The The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.022,
chi-square value is 80.435 (df = 24; p < 0.001). The goodness-of-fit showing a close absolute fit. No issues with the items were found for
index (GFI) value is 0.98, and the adjusted goodness-of-fit index the verbal analogies or verbal similarities task groups.

TABLE 3 Correlations between task groups.

Task group SC VA VS CA NSe NSi FS CU MA

Sentence 0.68 0.63 0.54 0.46 0.54 0.51 0.27 0.47
completion (SC)

Verbal 0.52 0.69 0.63 0.51 0.63 0.56 0.31 0.54

analogies (VA)

Verbal 0.47 0.59 0.53 0.45 0.54 0.49 0.27 0.49

similarities (VS)

Calculations (CA) 0.34 0.49 0.44 0.55 0.75 0.54 0.37 0.50

Number series (NSe) 0.30 0.45 0.41 0.61 0.58 0.46 0.36 0.50

Numerical 0.34 0.45 0.44 0.69 0.63 0.56 0.41 0.57

signs (NSi)

Figure selection (FS) 0.27 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.43 0.49 0.43 0.55

Cubes (CU) 0.20 0.29 0.30 0.32 0.38 0.42 0.54 0.44

Matrices (MA) 0.25 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.43 0.42 0.48 0.48
The lower triangle of the matrix—Great Britain sample: N = 1894, the upper triangle of the matrix—Latvia sample: N = 1019.

Frontiers in Psychology 07 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

FIGURE 1
Confirmatory factor analysis model for reasoning part of the IST-2000R Latvian version.

TABLE 4 Confirmatory factor analysis for the nine reasoning tasks group.

Task group Verbal reasoning Numerical reasoning Figural reasoning

Sentence completion 0.78 (0.62)

Verbal analogies 0.88 (0.80)

Verbal similarities 0.82 (0.75)

Calculations 0.83 (0.80)

Number series 0.66 (0.76)

Mathematical signs 0.87 (0.84)

Figure selection 0.75 (0.77)

Cubes 0.53 (0.68)

Matrices 0.75 (0.66)

Comparison of the Latvian and English versions of IST-2000R. The bold values is Latvian.

The results for the calculations task group from the Numerical fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is
Reasoning Scale show the chi-square value is 549.349 (df = 170). The 0.123. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.987. The comparative fit index is 0.064, showing a fair absolute fit. Factor loadings are rather high
(CFI) value is 0.990, showing excellent relative fit. The standardized for this task group (above 0.5), except for one item. When excluding
root mean square residual (SRMR) value is 0.090. The root mean this item, the absolute fit slightly improves (SRMR = 0.101;
square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.048, showing a RMSA = 0.064), but not enough. It must be noted that the item is
close absolute fit. All items show rather high factor loadings. the last one in the task group, meaning that it is meant to be difficult
Number series task group shows the chi-square value is 1053.996 to solve, and also that the time limit might restrict individuals’
(df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.991. The ability to give the correct answer.
comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.992, showing excellent relative Figure selection task group shows the chi-square value is
fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is 0.095. 639.407 (df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is
The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.074, 0.924. The comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.923, showing a
showing a fair absolute fit. In this case, too, the factor loadings are fair relative fit. The standardized root mean square residual
rather high. (SRMR) value is 0.088. The root mean square error of
Numerical signs task group shows the chi-square value is 841.72 approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.054, showing a close absolute
(df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.981. The fit. The peculiarity of this task group is a slight stimulus change
comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.983, showing a close relative in the middle of the task group, and there is a tendency for item

Frontiers in Psychology 08 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

difficulty to decrease toward item 128 and increase Item 30 content-wise does not seem really arbitrable to any of
again afterwards. the genders specifically. The item is from task group verbal
Cubes task group shows the chi-square value is 2273.856 analogies, where one must find an analogy that is in accordance
(df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.883. The with the analogy given in the task “chronic: acute = constant:…?”
comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.857, showing a poor relative The item-total correlation is 0.38 for male and 0.51 for female. The
fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is difficulty index is 0.45 for male and 0.55 for female.
0.114. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) Items 44 and 46 are both from the verbal similarities task group,
value is 0.175, showing a poor absolute fit. One of the items shows where one must identify which two of six given words make a pair
very low factor loading, but even excluding this item does not that classifies most precisely. In both cases, the correct answers
improve the results for them to be acceptable. The item in question include closing items, which might be more easily classified as
is again one of the last items, and it is expected to be difficult. female. The item-total correlation for item 44 is 0.63 for male and
Also, the time limit might have affected the number of correct 0.57 for female and the difficulty index is 0.74 for male and 0.83 for
items given. female. The item-total correlation for item 46 is 0.71 for male and
Matrices task group shows the chi-square value is 791.165 0.62 for female, and the difficulty index is 0.68 for male and 0.76
(df = 170). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.913. The for female.
comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.856, showing a poor relative There are 11 items with B-level DIF for verbal reasoning tasks.
fit. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is Two of these items, in favor of male, include chemistry and
0.118. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value geography content. The rest, those in favor of female, include
is 0.062, showing a fair absolute fit. In this case, there are two items content about architecture, nature, travel, medicine, etc.
with very low factor loadings; excluding them, the fit indices Numerical reasoning tasks operate only with numbers and
improve (CFI = 0.919; RMSEA = 0.053). Again, the two items in calculations using logic, and there is no verbal context; however,
question are the last ones in the task group, and the same there are also seven B-level DIF items, one of which is in favour
considerations apply. of female.
Figural reasoning tasks include only shapes, forms, and
patterns. However, four B-level DIF items were also found there,
Differential item functioning one of which was in favor of female.

Additionally, the model was tested for dimensionality on a

categorical variable—sex. According to Chen (2007), invariance Discussion
level is rejected if, comparing the models, RMSEA increases by
≥0.010–0.015 and CFI decreases by ≤0.005–0.010. In our case, The aim of the research was reached, and the Intelligence
RMSEA decreases from 0.048 to 0.046 and CFI increases from 0.988 Structure Test was adapted for use within the Latvian culture and
to 0.989, meaning the invariance should not be fully rejected. language context. The reliability of the Latvian IST version was
Altogether, the scalar model shows the chi-square value is 96.518 tested by evaluating Cronbach’s alpha and split-half reliability;
(df = 48; p < 0.001). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) value is 0.978. psychometric properties were tested by item discrimination index
The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is 0.028. (item-total correlation), item difficulty index, and Kendall’s Tau; as
The comparative fit index (CFI) value is 0.988. The root mean well as confirmatory factor analyses were performed to prove factor
square error of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0.048. Overall, the validity; additionality was investigated by investigating the
model fit appears to be acceptable. unidimensionality and the presence of DIF items. The research
To establish the presence of DIF, Mantel–Haenszel analyses results were analyzed according to the principles of classical test
(jMetrik) for each item were done using sex as a dependent variable. theory and compared with the results of the Intelligence Structure
From all 180 items in IST, five items exhibited C levels of DIF and Test adaptation into English, Lithuanian, and Italian languages.
22 items exhibited B levels of DIF, showing a large and moderate Internal consistency for all task groups was acceptable, and for
amount of DIF. All the C levels of DIF were found in the verbal most of them, except Sentence Completion and Matrices (a = 0.74),
subscale; from that, one item (item 14) exhibited DIF for male and it reached over 0.80, which is advisable for intelligence tests,
four (items 3, 30, 44, and 46) for female, respectively. according to Kline (1999). Furthermore, the appropriate reliability
Item 14 from the sentence completion task group includes a was supported by the results of the split-half reliability method,
description of a mechanism. As such, it might be understood better showing that the correlations between the items in the task groups
by male than female. The difficulty index also points to the fact that ranged from moderate to very strong. The sentence completion task
it is 0.45 for male and 0.29 for female. However, the mechanism in group showed the weakest of all test groups, but still a rather strong
question is a simple, everyday mechanism that does require a deep correlation. Similarly, very strong evidence for reliability is found
understanding of mechanics. The item-total correlation is almost in the German (Bühner et al., 2006), English (Beauducel et al.,
the same for male (0.35) and female (0.36). 2010), and Lithuanian (Šimelionienė and Gintilienė, 2011) versions
The content of item 3 includes a description of clothing, which of the Intelligence Structure Tests. For the Italian version, however,
might be better understood by female. However, it is one of the Cronbach’s alpha values show appropriate values, according to Field
easiest items, with a difficulty index of 0.87 for male and 0.92 for (2017), for the verbal reasoning (0.70) and the numerical reasoning
female. The item-total correlation is 0.32 for male and 0.37 (0.70), but are weak for the figural reasoning (0.41) (Pellerone
for female. et al., 2015).

Frontiers in Psychology 09 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

Verbal reasoning tasks had the most work put in, as the items of the Intelligence Structure Test. First, only the factorial validity
carry not only language but also cultural context. Translation into was described in this article; however, it would be valuable to check
Latvian was rather challenging while trying to keep items as identical the convergent validity by comparing results with other intelligence
to the original version as possible and as Latvian language and culture tests. The current research was carried out within the framework of
appropriate as needed to be understood correctly. Items in verbal classical test theory; however, there is enough evidence that using
reasoning tasks are mostly arranged according to difficulty. However, the Rasch modeling approach would be beneficial to get a more
the items were placed in order according to the data from the first precise insight into the item–latent factor relationship. Another
phase of the study, so the placement of the items is not the same as in field of more specific research would be not just the general
the English and German versions. Some of the items were adjusted population but specifically targeted individuals with presumably a
to the specificity of the Latvian language and culture. The range of bit higher and a bit lower than average level of intelligence, to get
discrimination indices (item-total correlation) for verbal reasoning insight into the group specifics and possibly to prove existing
task groups show appropriate abilities to distinguish individuals with strategized norms or the necessity to change those. As described
higher and lower ability levels. Also, in verbal task groups, there seem above, participants were mainly Latvian as their native language;
to be some slight inconsistencies in the item sequence and item however, some of them were bilingual (about 13.4%), which could
difficulty level, but in general, there is quite a good tendency for the have affected the results of this investigation, specifically in verbal
difficulty level to increase from easier items at the beginning of the task groups.
task group to the most difficult at the end (see Picture 1). In this article, only part of the greater research is described; it
In numerical reasoning tasks, no changes were made following also involved the adaptation of the knowledge part of the test as well
the study’s first phase. These task groups seem to have the most as the standardization of both parts. As the Latvian version of the
appropriate item sequence, where the items in the task groups start Intelligence Structure Test is not only adapted but also standardized
with the easiest and finish with the most difficult tasks. However, it (Ļubenko et al., 2022), it would be of use to a wide range of
must be noted that in these task groups, the discrimination indices specialists, starting from psychologists in private practices and
(item-total correlation) do fall out of range, and some items were school psychologists, to help students find out their strengths and
not answered correctly by anyone or participants did not have weaknesses, for organizations, and psychologists working for
enough time. It is mostly attributed to the calculation task group organization in making decisions on specific positions.
and the numerical signs task group (see Picture 2).
In figural reasoning tasks, no changes were made following the
pilot study. However, there is a rather interesting tendency for the Data availability statement
sequence of item difficulty to start from item 1 and gradually
increase at item 10, then there is a slight change in the task stimuli, The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will
and item 11 tends to be easier again, and following items gradually be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
increase in difficulty level up to item 20 (see Picture 3). However, it
does not affect the discrimination abilities of the task group
very much. Ethics statement
As to the factor structure of the Intelligence Structure Test, it was
evaluated by confirmatory factor analyses using RStudio. Results The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics
generally indicate an acceptable model fit, as it is in the English Committee of Riga Stradins University. The studies were conducted
version (Beauducel et al., 2010). However, checking the model for in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements.
unidimensionality, a few issues were found for some task groups in Written informed consent for participation in this study was provided
numerical and figural reasoning subscales; the invariance cannot by the participants' legal guardians/next of kin.
be fully rejected, and additionally, the Mantel–Haesnze method for
differential item functioning clearly shows that from 180 items in IST,
five items have C levels of DIF and 22 items have B levels of DIF. All Author contributions
C-level DIF items are found in verbal reasoning tasks; some of them
might be explained by typical sex differences, but not all. None of IJ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources,
these items were excluded from the test, as it would impact the Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IT-K: Data
integrity of the measurement. However, intelligence tests in general curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
are revised more often than any of the other tests, as they at least JL: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision,
partly depend on changes in the cultural context of society. As an Writing – review & editing. IM: Supervision, Writing – review &
example, such a simple item as a mechanical clock might lose its place editing. JK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation,
in everyday life’s context as electronic devices become more and more Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review
used for reading time. Such items might become less relevant in the & editing.
future. The existing version of the Intelligence Structure Test Latvian
version shall be revised in the foreseeable future, and the knowledge
of unidimensionality and DIF-level items will be integrated into Funding
the study.
Some limitations are still present in this research, and those The authors declare that no financial support was received for the
should be considered in continuing work with the Latvian version research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Frontiers in Psychology 10 [Link]

Jokste et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1319983

Conflict of interest organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could endorsed by the publisher.
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary material
Publisher’s note
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors at: [Link]
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated full#supplementary-material

References
Amthauer, R. (1973). Intelligenz-Struktur-Test LS. T. 70. Handan-weisung fair die Medvedev, O. N., and Krägeloh, C. U. (2022). “Rasch Measurement Model” in Handbook
durchfiihrung und auswertung. Gottingen: Verlag fur Psychologie. Eds. Amthauer, R., of assessment in mindfulness research. eds. O. N. Medvedev, C. U. Krägeloh, R. J. Siegert and
Brocke, B., Liepmann, D., and Beauducel, A. Intelligenz-Struktur-Test 2000 (I-S-T 2000). N. N. Singh (Cham: Springer) doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-77644-2_4-1
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Meyer, J. P. (2014). Applied measurement with jMetrik. London: Routledge.
Annan-Brew, R. K. (2021). Sensitivity of DIFAS, jMetrik and STATA software in
O'Connor, T. R., and Eskey, M. T. (2005). “Types of scales and indexes” in Encyclopedia
determining gender DIF using MH procedure. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 6, 1–24. doi:
of social measurement. ed. I. K. Kempf-Leonard (Elsevier), 443–453.
10.29126/24570060
Albano, A. (2018). Introduction to educational and psychological measurement using R. Olkin, I., and Sampson, A. R. (2001). “Multivariate analysis: overview. In Neil J.
Available at: [Link] Smelser, N.J.” in Paul B. Baltes, P.B. (Eds.) international encyclopedia of the social &
behavioral sciences. Pergamon, 10240–10247. doi: 10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00472-1
Beauducel, A., Liepmann, D., Brocke, B., and Amthauer, R. (2010). Intelligence
structure test: English version of the Intelligenz-Struktur-test 2000 R I-S-T 2000 R. Pellerone, M., Passanisi, A., and Bellomo, M. F. (2015). Identity development, intelligence
Göttingen: Hogrefe. structure, and interests: a cross-sectional study in a group of Italian adolescents during the
decision-making process. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 8, 239–249. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S88631
Bejar, I. I. (1983). Achievement testing: Recent advances. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Penfield, R. D. (2013). “Item analysis” in eds. K. F. Geisinger, B. A. Bracken, J. F. Carlson, J.-
Bichi, A. A. (2015). Item analyses using derived science achievement test data. Int. J. I. C. Hansen, N. R. Kuncel, and S. P. Reise, APA handbook of testing and assessment in
Sci. Res. 4, 1655–1662. psychology, Vol. 1. Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational
Bühner, M., Ziegler, M., Krumm, S., and Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2006). Ist der I-S-T 2000 psychology, American Psychological Association. 121–138. doi: 10.1037/14047-007
R Rasch-skalierbar? [is the I-S-T 2000 R Rasch scaleable?]. Diagnostica 52, 119–130. doi: Putnick, D. L., and Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and
10.1026/0012-1924.52.3.119 reporting: the state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Dev. Rev.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. 41, 71–90. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2016.06.004
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roid, G. H. (2003). Standford-Binet intelligence scales. 5th Edn (SB:V). Itasca, IL:
Cattell, R. B. (1940). Culture fair intelligence test (CFIT) [database record]. APA Riverside Publishing. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 19, 235–244. doi:
PsycTests. doi: 10.1037/t14354-000 10.1177/082957350401900113

Cattell, R.B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth, and action. Amsterdam: Elsevier Sass, D. A., and Schmitt, T. A. (2013). “Testing measurement and structural
Science Publishers B. V. invariance” in Handbook of quantitative methods for educational research. ed. T. Teo
(Rotterdam: Sense Publishers)
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834 Shou, Y., Sellbom, M., and Chen, H.-F. (2022). “Fundamentals of measurement in
clinical psychology” in Comprehensive clinical psychology. eds. J. G. Gordon and G. J. G.
Dragūnevičius, K., and Gintilienė, G. (1998). Lithuanian I-S-T version: reliability and Asmundson. 2nd ed (Elsevier), 13–35. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818697-8.00110-2
validity. Psichologija 18, 47–64. doi: 10.15388/Psichol.1998.4450
Sternberg, R. (2020). “A history of research on intelligence: part 2: psychological theory,
Embretson, S. E., and Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. research, and practice in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” in The Cambridge handbook
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. of intelligence. ed. R. Sternberg (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 31–46.
Field, A. (2017). Discovering statistics using SPSS (5th ed.). London, UK: Sage Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., and Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of
Publications Ltd. neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary. 3rd Edn. Oxford:
Guilford, J. R. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Oxford University Press.
Guttman, L. (1965). “A faceted definition of intelligence” in Studies in psychology. Scripta Šimelionienė, A., and Gintilienė, G. (2011). Intelligence structure of 16–18 years old
Hierosolymitana. ed. R. Eiferman, vol. 14 (Jerusalem: The Hebrew University), 166–181. intellectually gifted students. Psichologija 44, 42–56. doi: 10.15388/Psichol.2011.44.2549
Horn, J. L., and Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and Tavakol, M., and Wetzel, A. (2020). Factor analysis: a means for theory and instrument
crystallized general intelligences. J. Educ. Psychol. 57, 253–270. doi: 10.1037/h0023816 development in support of construct validity. Int. J. Med. Educ. 11, 245–247. doi:
10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a
Kaplan, R. M., and Saccuzzo, D. P. (2009) Psychological testing principles, applications,
and issues (7th Edn.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis development and expansion of the
vectors of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Van der Elst, W., Ouwehand, C., van Rijn, P., Lee, N., Van Boxtel, M., and Jolles, J. (2013).
Lange, P. C. (1967). Future Developments. Teach. Coll. Rec. 68, 284–325. doi: The shortened raven standard progressive matrices: item response theory-based psychometric
10.1177/016146816706801010 analyses and normative data. Assessment 20, 48–59. doi: 10.1177/1073191111415999
van Leeuwen, M., van den Berg, S. M., and Boomsma, D. I. (2008). A twin-family Van Tassel-Baska, J. (2005). Gifted programs and services: what are the
study of general IQ. Learn. Individ. Differ. 18, 76–88. doi: 10.1016/[Link].2007.04.006 nonnegotiables? Theory Pract. 44, 90–97. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4402_3
Liepmann, D., Beauducel, A., Brocke, B., and Amthauer, R. (2007). Intelligenz- Verguts, T., and De Boeck, P. (2000). A Rasch model for detecting learning while solving an
Struktur-Test 2000 R (I-S-T 2000 R). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. intelligence test. Appl. Psychol. Meas. 24, 151–162. doi: 10.1177/01466210022031589
Ļubenko, J., Jokste, I., and Trups-Kalne, I., un Koļesņikova, J. (2022). Intelekta
Vernon, P. E. (1961). The structure of human abilities. London: Methuen
struktūras tests: (I-S-T 2000). R latviešu valodas versija: Rokasgrāmata. Rīga: Rīgas
Stradiņa universitāte. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–third edition (WAIS-III)
[database record]. APA PsycTests. doi: 10.1037/t49755-000
Marcoulides, K. M., and Yuan, K.-H. (2017). New ways to evaluate goodness of fit: a
note on using equivalence testing to assess structural equation models. Struct. Equ. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., and Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III tests
Model. 24, 148–153. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2016.1225260 of cognitive ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: a unified treatment. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Ziegler, M., and Hagemann, D. (2015). Testing the Unidimensionalityof items: pitfalls
Associates Publishers. and loopholes. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 31, 231–237. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000309

Frontiers in Psychology 11 [Link]