本研究的研究目的為：(1)探討APM的測驗結構；(2)依據認知測量取向，探討APM的解題歷程；(3)探討影響APM之構念效度的可能因素；(4)根據「認知測量測驗編製模式」和電腦技術發展「新編圖形推理能力測驗」，並驗證該測驗的構念效度；(5)從測驗編製和實證分析比較APM與「新編圖形推理能力測驗」；(6)發展「新編圖形推理能力測驗」的「自動命題及施測系統」。
根據研究結果，本研究的主要結論如下：
一、APM的測驗結構：無論是以高中生樣本、大學生樣本或是整體樣本做為分析資料，皆顯示單因素模式較能解釋APM的測驗結構。惟主要因素的解釋量不高，顯示尚有其他影響因素。
二、APM的解題歷程：Carpenter等人（1990）提出的「列中維持等值」、「數量成對漸進」、「相加或相減」、「三種值的分佈」和「二種值的分佈」等五種解題規則可以解釋作答者在測驗情境中歸納和演繹的歷程。
三、APM的構念效度：APM的解題歷程除了需要歸納和演繹的能力外，還需要「較高層次抽象思考能力」、「目標管理能力」、「心智彈性」、「答題策略」和「學習效應」等與測量目標無關的能力。因此影響APM的構念效度。
四、「新編圖形推理能力測驗」的構念效度：本研究參考前述有關APM的研究結果，並依據「認知測量測驗編製模式」編製「新編圖形推理能力測驗」。研究結果顯示：(1)該測驗符合單因素模式；(2)該測驗中所操弄之「列中維持等值」、「數量成對漸進」、「相加或相減」和「三種值的分佈」等四種解題規則可以解釋作答者在測驗情境中歸納和演繹的歷程；(3)「新編圖形推理能力測驗」具有甚佳的合理廣度。
五、「新編圖形推理能力測驗」和APM的比較：由於「新編圖形推理能力測驗」在測驗編製過程中，能確實掌握與測驗目標相關的認知歷程，並能有效的排除與測驗目標無關的影響因素。使得實證分析的結果顯示「新編圖形推理能力測驗」的構念效度較APM為佳。
六、「自動命題及施測系統」的功能：(1)可根據特定輸入，自動產生具有特定試題內容特徵、特定試題難度，但具有不同表面特徵的試題；(2)可根據特定輸入，控制作答者的答題流程；(3)可以進行線上自動命題，即時施測；(4)可紀錄測驗訊息、試題訊息和答題訊息等三種訊息，以供診斷和研究之用。
本研究最後提出建議，以供測驗的使用者和後續研究者參考。

The study contains the following purposes: (1) exploring the test-structure of Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrics (APM), (2) examining the process of solving APM, (3) investigating possible factors that affect the construct validity of APM, (4) developing New Figure Reasoning Test (NFRT), using cognitive measurement approach test design model and computer technology, (5) contrasting APM and NFRT from the viewpoints of test designing and empirical analysis, and (6) developing an automatic item-generation and online testing system for NFRT.
The main findings of the research results can be summarized as follows.
1.Test-structure of APM: The one-factor model can better explain the response patterns of both the high-school samples and the college samples. Since the main factor can not account for the variance validly, some other factors are believed to affect the test-structure.
2.Problem-solving process of APM: Constant in low rule, quantitative pairwise progression rule, figure addition or subtraction rule, distribution of three values rule, and distribution of two values rules─five problem-solving rules proposed by Carpenter et al. (1990)─can explain clearly how the testers induct and deduct while working on APM.
3.Other factors that affect the construct validity of APM: In addition to ability of induction and deduction, abilities not related to measurement goals─such as abstract thinking ability at a higher level, goal-management ability, mental flexibility, strategies of problem-solving, and learning ability─are all required by the process of solving APM. APM henceforth has poor construct validity.
4.Construct validity of NFRT: The construct validity of NFRT can be revealed by the following: (a) the test-structure of NFRT meets one-factor model; (b) Constant in low rule, quantitative pairwise progression rule, figure addition or subtraction rule, and distribution of three values rule can account for how the testers induct or deduct in the problem-solving process; (c) NFRT has a good nomothetic span.
5.Contrast between NFRT and APM: Unlike APM, NFRT has drawn attention of the researcher when he designs the test not only to more carefully control the cognitive process related to the measurement goal, but also to exclude affective factors that are not related to the measurement goals. The contrast between the empirical results of NFRT and APM reveal that the construct validity of the former is better than the latter.
6.Functions of automatic item-generation and online testing system: Responding to a specific input, the system can produce a test item with specific content features and specific difficulty, and yet various surface features. Secondly, the system can control the testing process according to specific inputs. Moreover, the system can generate an item automatically and give it out immediately. Finally, the system can keep track of the information of testing process, item features and testers’ response.
The study concludes with suggestions for using the two tests and further research.