The Picture Arrangement test was first used by Decroly (1914) but gained major attention when it was included in the WWI army IQ tests. However the test never really caught on, but in the 1930s, David Wechsler decided to include it in his scales. Of the 7 items Wechsler originally picked, 3 were stolen from the army tests, and 4 were stolen from the “king” cartoon strips that appeared in The New Yorker.

In his excellent book A Question of Intelligence: The IQ Debate in America, former Fortune magazine editor Daniel Seligman describes what it was like to take the Wechsler Picture Arrangement:  

…you get to look at several cards–at least three, sometimes as many as seven–each of which shows a drawing.  The drawings look like panels in comic strips.  You are asked to arrange the cards from left to right so that the drawings tell some kind of meaningful story; in some cases, more than one sequence is allowed to be meaningful.  Picture Arrangement measures, among other things, your ability to anticipate and to engage in “social planning”…Possibly evidencing his weakness in social planning, the tape at this point records a frustrated sixty-four-year-old mumbling to himself in anguish and occasionally expressing delight at a solution.  His final score was nothing to boast about.

There’s a stereotype that libertarians can be a bit autistic so it’s kind of funny that the brilliant libertarian Seligman would struggle on the most social of the Wechsler subtests. Libertarianism also caused more direct problems for Seligman on the other social subtest Comprehension, which straight up asked him to explain why a certain libertarian ideas needed prevention. The feisty Seiligman replied by saying the preventive laws were unneeded, forcing the psychologist to restate the question in a way that didn’t require Seligman to agree with the premise.

Shortly after the great Wechsler died, the Picture Arrangement subtest was dropped from the scale, probably because the test is time consuming, difficult to administer, and doesn’t cluster well with any of the major abilities measured by the WAIS.

Nonetheless I decided to include it in the PAIS (Pumpkin Adult Intelligence Scale) and the 12 items selected have proven to be extremely satisfactory.

Although the test is a pretty good measure of g, Wechsler noted that mental retardates sometimes did well, even when they failed other tests. Conversely, I have noticed that high IQ autistics often do poorly, even when they do well on every other test.

Wechsler claimed psychopaths often do well, but I haven’t seen any real data.

The test measures big picture thinking, the ability to get the idea, size up social situations, see the forest not the trees.

It may also measure sense of humor, and in the case of the Wechsler version, New York Jewish sense of humor.

When I tried the test on the regulars at a pool hall I frequent, their scores out of 12 were 9,8,8,5,5,2,1. The mean was 5.4 with an SD of 3.1. This is a good estimate for Canadians a whole since pool hall customers are a pretty random sample of the population but keep in mind that Canadians are about 3 IQ points brighter than Americans. If we assume the mean of 5.4 = IQ 100 + 3, and the SD of 3.1 = 15, we can perhaps crudely convert to IQ equivalencies (U.S. norms.

Not surprisingly, the mean for my largely brilliant readers was much higher: 8.2 (SD = 2.2).

Nine of my readers also supplied data on their SATs/ACTs. This subset was even brighter still, with a mean of 9.6 (SD = 1.88). Their SATS/ACTs equated to IQs with a mean of 126 (SD = 16) (U.S. norms). If we equate the means and SDs, we get a second method to convert to IQ equivalencies.