The Psychological Record

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 141–149 | Cite as

Assessing the Effects of a Relational Training Intervention on Fluid Intelligence Among a Sample of Socially Disadvantaged Children in Bangladesh

  • Micah Amd
  • Bryan Roche
Original Article


A growing consensus is that performances on standardized intelligence tests can be positively influenced by interventions that focus on improving relational reasoning. One such intervention, known as SMART (Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training), consists of presenting participants with increasingly complex exemplars of relational reasoning tasks involving premises associated along same-as, opposite-of, more-than, and less-than relations. Following multiple training and testing sessions involving these relations, increased fluency in SMART is related to enhanced performances on tests of intellectual ability (Cassidy et al., 2016). The current study expands upon previous investigations on SMART in two ways. First, we explored whether the amount of training undertaken can predict changes in intelligence test performances. Second, we assessed whether SMART training could be effective for a non-English speaking, socioeconomically disadvantaged cohort. Changes in intelligence were assessed via administrations of the standard Raven’s Progressive Matrices before and after SMART training. Our results show that the stage of SMART training completed is positively related to changes in Ravens’ performances and that such training can be effective for non-English cohorts.


Relational reasoning Intelligence Applied learning theory 



The authors thank Mr. Korvi Rakshand and the JAAGO school staff for their assistance and patience, without whom the current work would not have been possible.


Preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by grant # 2015/24159-4 from the Sao Paulo Research foundation (FAPESP), as well as from the the Irish Research Council (IRC), to the first author.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The current research complied with the ethical and child protection guidelines set forth by the Federal University of Sao Carlos.

Conflict of Interest

In accordance with Springer policy and our ethical obligation as researchers, we declare that the second author is a co-founder, scientific advisor and shareholder of, which commercially distributes the SMART behavioral intervention examined in the current study. This potential conflict of interest has been disclosed fully to the Editor.


  1. Adey, P., Csapó, B., Demetriou, A., Hautamäki, J., & Shayer, M. (2007). Can we be intelligent about intelligence? Why education needs the concept of plastic general ability. Educational Research Review, 2(2), 75–97. Scholar
  2. Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. Scholar
  3. Amd, M., & Roche, B. (2016). A derived transformation of emotional functions using self-reports, implicit association tests, and frontal alpha asymmetries. Learning & Behavior, 44(2), 175–190. Scholar
  4. Bakhiet, S., Haseeb, B., Seddieg, I., Cheng, H., & Lynn, R. (2015). Sex differences on raven's standard progressive matrices among 6 to 18 year olds in Sudan. Intelligence, 50, 10–13. Scholar
  5. Blackledge, J. T. (2003). An introduction to relational frame theory: Basics and applications. The Behavior Analyst Today, 3(4), 421–433. Scholar
  6. Burns, G. L., & Staats, A. W. (1981). Intelligence and child development: What intelligence is and how it is learned and functions. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 104(2), 237–301.Google Scholar
  7. Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. Scholar
  8. Carpenter, P. A., Just, M. A., & Shell, P. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. Scholar
  9. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., Colbert, D., Stewart, I., & Grey, I. M. (2016). A relational frame skills training intervention to increase general intelligence and scholastic aptitude. Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 222–235. Scholar
  10. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2011). A relational frame training intervention to raise intelligence quotients: A pilot study. The Psychological Record, 61(2), 173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassidy, S., Roche, B., & O'Hora, D. (2010). Relational frame theory and human intelligence. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 37–51. Scholar
  12. Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1–22. Scholar
  13. Cockcroft, K., Alloway, T., Copello, E., & Milligan, R. (2015). A cross-cultural comparison between south african and british students on the wechsler adult intelligence scales third edition (WAIS-III). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 297. Scholar
  14. Daley, T. C., Whaley, S. E., Sigman, M. D., Espinosa, M. P., & Neumann, C. (2003). IQ on the rise: The flynn effect in rural kenyan children. Psychological Science, 14(3), 215–219. Scholar
  15. Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. (2014). Comparing ability and self-report trait emotional intelligence, fluid intelligence, and personality traits in career decision. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 174–178. Scholar
  16. Dixon, M., Whiting, S., Rowsey, K., & Belisly, J. (2014). Assessing the relationship between intelligence and the PEAK relational training system. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(9), 1208–1213. Scholar
  17. Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6(3), 241-252Google Scholar
  18. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. Scholar
  19. Fox, M. C., & Charness, N. (2010). How to gain eleven IQ points in ten minutes: Thinking aloud improves raven's matrices performance in older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(2), 191–204. Scholar
  20. Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (2001). Relational frame theory: A post-skinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, T., Petrov, A., & Sederberg, P. (2015). Do we really become smarter when our fluid-intelligence test scores improve? Intelligence, 48, 1–14. Scholar
  22. Hayes, J., & Stewart, I. (2016). Comparing the effects of derived relational training and computer coding on intellectual potential in school-age children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(3), 397–411. Scholar
  23. Jäeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Shah, P. (2011). Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 108(25), 10081–10086. Scholar
  24. Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 3–9. Scholar
  25. Mackintosh, N. J., & Bennett, E. S. (2005). What do raven's matrices measure? An analysis in terms of sex differences. Intelligence, 33(6), 663–674. Scholar
  26. McIlvane, W. J., & Dube, W. V. (2003). Stimulus control topography coherence theory: Foundations and extensions. The Behavior Analyst, 26(2), 195–213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Miele, F. (1979). Cultural bias in the WISC. Intelligence, 3(2), 149–163. Scholar
  28. Moran, A. P. (1986). The reliability and validity of raven's standard progressive matrices for irish apprentices. Applied Psychology, 35(4), 533–538. Scholar
  29. Moran, L., Stewart, I., McElwee, J., & Ming, S. (2010). Brief report: The training and assessment of relational precursors and abilities (TARPA): A preliminary analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1149–1153. Scholar
  30. Naskar, S. K., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2006). Handling of prepositions in English to Bengali machine translation. In Proceedings of the Third ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on Prepositions (pp. 89–94). Association for Computational Linguistics, Trento, Italy, April 6. East Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
  31. O'Toole, C., Barnes-Holmes, D., Murphy, C., O'Connor, J., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2009). Relational flexibility and human intelligence: Extending the remit of skinner's verbal behavior. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 9(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  32. Owen, K. (1992). The suitability of raven's standard progressive matrices for various groups in south africa. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(2), 149–159. Scholar
  33. Parra, I., & Ruiz, F. J. (2016). The effect on intelligence quotient of training fluency in relational frames of coordination. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 16(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  34. Raven, J. (2000). The raven's progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. Scholar
  35. Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1993). Manual for raven progressive matrices and vocabulary scales by JC raven, JH court and J. Raven; section 2; Coloured progressive matrices. Oxford: Psychologist Press.Google Scholar
  36. Roche, B., Cassidy, S., & Stewart, I. (2013). Nurturing genius: Using relational frame theory to address a foundational aim of psychology. In T. Kashdan & J. Ciarrochi (Eds.), Cultivating well-being: Treatment innovations in positive psychology, acceptance and commitment therapy, and beyond (pp. 267–302). Oakland, CA: New Harbinger.Google Scholar
  37. Rohde, T. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability. Intelligence, 35(1), 83–92. Scholar
  38. Ruud, A. E. (2015). Five scenarios for Bangladesh. Retrieved from
  39. Sefcek, J. A., Miller, G. F., & Figueredo, A. J. (2016). Development and validation of an 18-item medium form of the ravens advanced progressive matrices. SAGE Open, 6(2), 215824401665191. Scholar
  40. Smoke, K. L. (1932). An objective study of concept formation. Psychological Monographs, 42(4), i-46. Scholar
  41. Staats, A. W. (1971). Child learning, intelligence, and personality: Principles of a behavioral interaction approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  42. Staats, A. W. (2012). The marvelous learning animal: What makes human behavior unique. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  43. Sternberg, R. J. (1988). The raising of intelligence: A selected history of attempts to raise retarded intelligence. University of Illinois Press., 101, 142. Scholar
  44. Sternberg, R. J. (2008). Increasing fluid intelligence is possible after all. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 105, 6791–6792. Scholar
  45. te Nijenhuis, J., Bakhiet, S. F., van den Hoek, M., Repko, J., Allik, J., Žebec, M. S., Sukhanovskiy, V., & Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Spearman's hypothesis tested comparing sudanese children and adolescents with various other groups of children and adolescents on the items of the standard progressive matrices. Intelligence, 56, 46–57. Scholar
  46. Thirus, J., Starbrink, M., & Jansson, B. (2016). Relational frame theory, mathematical and logical skills: A multiple exemplar training intervention to enhance intellectual performance. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 16(2), 141–155.Google Scholar
  47. Valencia, R. R. (1984). Reliability of the raven coloured progressive matrices for anglo and for Mexican-American children. Psychology in the Schools, 21(1), 49–52.<49::AID-PITS2310210109>3.0.CO;2-H.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vizcaino-Torres, R., Ruiz, F., Luciano, C., Lopez-Lopez, J., Barbero-Rubio, A., & Gil, E. (2015). The effect of relational training on intelligence quotient: A case study. Psicothema, 27(2), 120–127. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Sao CarlosSao CarlosBrazil
  2. 2.Maynooth UniversityDublinIreland
  3. 3.McGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations