The CTONI-2 test explained, and what an adult can take

0 The short answer

The CTONI-2 (Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second Edition) is a PRO-ED test that measures general reasoning through six subtests, three built from pictures of familiar objects and three from geometric designs, and it is given to one person at a time by a qualified professional, so an adult cannot buy it and take it online. The publishers list it for ages 6 years 0 months through 89 years 11 months, with an administration time of 40 to 60 minutes (PAR) or 1 hour (PRO-ED and Pearson), and it differs from the TONI-4 by being longer, broader and built on two kinds of stimuli instead of one abstract figural format. For an adult who wants a normed online reasoning score, ACIS is one concrete option: the Full Scale form costs 50 dollars one time and takes about 175 minutes (prices read on October 29, 2026), and it is the form that reports a Nonverbal composite. The decisive limit is that ACIS is not the CTONI-2, is online, unsupervised, not clinical and in English only, and no online score replaces an evaluation by a psychologist.

1 What Is the CTONI-2, and Who Publishes It?

The CTONI-2 is a norm referenced test that uses nonverbal formats to measure general intelligence, published by PRO-ED and written by Donald D. Hammill, Nils Pearson and J. Lee Wiederholt, and it is aimed at people whose performance on traditional tests could be affected by language or motor impairments. We opened PRO-ED's CTONI-2 complete kit page on October 29, 2026. It lists the three authors, marks the kit description as 2009, and says the test is individually administered, takes 1 hour and covers ages 6-0 through 89-11. PAR's CTONI-2 product page and Pearson's CTONI-2 store page, both opened the same day, list the same age range and the same six subtests, so the test is sold through more than one catalog.

The publisher pages agree on what the test is for. PAR says it "uses nonverbal formats to measure general intelligence of children and adults" and adds that nonverbal tests are designed to use formats that minimize the influence of oral or written language. The three pages name the reasoning it samples as analogical reasoning, categorical classification and sequential reasoning, and PAR describes the model as three higher order abilities (analogies, categories and sequences) across two contexts, pictorial objects and geometric designs. None of the pages we read describes the test as a measure of memory, speed, vocabulary or knowledge, which is a useful boundary: this is a reasoning test with a single mode of presentation, not a battery that profiles several broad abilities.

The pages also report how the scores were built and what comes out of the test. PRO-ED says the test was normed on a large, representative national sample of about 2,827 people stratified by age, with all new normative data collected in 2007 and 2008, and PAR gives the figure as 2,827. Results are reported as standard scores, percentile ranks and age equivalents, per PRO-ED and Pearson. PRO-ED also claims that the reliability coefficients of the composite are mostly in the .90s with a few in the high .80s and that the test correlates in the high .70s with most well known intelligence tests. Those are the publisher's own statements, and the section on independent studies below shows why a reader should hold them beside outside evidence. The page on how IQ scores are normed explains what a norm sample is and why its age and date matter, and the page on reliability and validity explains the difference between a consistent score and a meaningful one.

Three features are described as improvements over the first edition. PRO-ED lists that floor effects have been eliminated, that the item bias study was expanded and that new oral instructions are provided for common non-English languages in the United States. The kit holds an examiner's manual, three picture books (for analogies, categories and sequences) and 25 examiner record forms, and Pearson lists the format as paper and pencil. We describe the kit by its contents only. This page reproduces no item, picture or score table, and it does not describe any task beyond the way the publisher describes its format.

2 What Are the Six CTONI-2 Subtests, and What Separates Pictorial From Geometric?

The six subtests form a three by two grid, with analogies, categories and sequences each given once with pictures of familiar objects and once with geometric designs, so the pictorial versus geometric split is a split in the stimulus, not in the kind of reasoning. The names are printed on all three publisher pages. The table below puts them in the grid that the publishers describe.

Pearson's page states the contrast in one line: pictorial items use familiar objects, and geometric items use unfamiliar designs. PAR's list of features says that both familiar and unfamiliar stimuli are used. The reason that matters is simple to state, and we draw it ourselves rather than from the publisher: a picture of an ordinary object can be recognized, so a pictorial item can draw on what a person knows about the world, while a geometric design offers less to recognize and leans more on seeing a rule in the figure alone. Whether the two contexts behave differently in practice is an empirical question that the independent studies below address.

The publishers describe the response in simple terms. PAR says that test takers must be capable of making a pointing response and that instructions can also be given by gestures, pantomime and sign language, with simple English instructions in the manual and oral instructions for other languages in an appendix. As we read it, that is how the language reduced claim works in practice: the examiner can explain the task without relying on the examinee's English, and the examinee answers by pointing.

A reader will also meet the names of the test's composite scores. Neither PRO-ED, PAR nor Pearson names any composite on the pages we read. The names come from a 2015 Columbia University doctoral dissertation by Laura Cimini, whose abstract in the DataCite record compares group means on the "CTONI-2 Pictorial Scale, Geometric Scale, and Full Scale composite scores." From that we can say that the test reports a pictorial composite, a geometric composite and an overall full scale composite. We cannot say more, because the examiner's manual is a restricted publisher document and we did not open it. If you see a CTONI-2 report, the manual's own definitions govern what each composite contains.

In Cattell-Horn-Carroll terms, the grid is a set of tasks in which the examinee works out a relation or rule among unfamiliar elements and applies it. ACIS describes fluid reasoning, abbreviated Gf, as solving unfamiliar problems, detecting relationships, forming concepts and applying rules without relying mainly on previously learned facts, and the page on the six broad cognitive domains places it among the abilities a profile separates. The grid fits that description, but the mapping is ours, not the publisher's. PRO-ED calls the construct general intelligence, and the independent evidence below suggests that the general factor is indeed what the composite mostly reflects.

3 How Does the CTONI-2 Differ From the TONI-4?

The CTONI-2 and the TONI-4 are both PRO-ED nonverbal tests for ages 6-0 through 89-11 given to one person at a time, but the CTONI-2 takes up to an hour with six subtests built on two kinds of stimuli, while the TONI-4 takes 15 to 20 minutes with one abstract figural format in two equivalent forms. We opened PRO-ED's TONI-4 complete kit page on October 29, 2026, and the table sets its facts beside those of the CTONI-2 page. The full treatment of the shorter test is on the page about the TONI-4.

Two differences carry the choice. The first is breadth. The TONI-4 samples one kind of item for a short time, and the CTONI-2 samples three reasoning types in two contexts for two to four times as long, which is our arithmetic from the 15 to 20 and 40 to 60 minute figures. A longer test with more varied tasks has more material behind its score, and the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014), which we opened in their open access edition, ask that reliability and precision information be provided for each score to be interpreted. The second difference is the pictorial context. The TONI-4 page stresses items without pictures or cultural symbols, so the CTONI-2 deliberately includes familiar objects, which makes it a test of a different design philosophy and not simply a longer TONI-4.

For an adult who has seen both names, the practical reading is this. Neither can be bought and taken online, neither is a profile of several broad abilities, and a psychologist chooses between them for a reason: a short figural screen of reasoning, or a longer test with a pictorial and a geometric composite. Another figural reasoning test, the one Raymond Cattell built in 1949 according to the ACIS culture fair page, is covered on the page about the Cattell Culture Fair IQ test.

4 Who May Buy and Give the CTONI-2, and Can an Adult Take It Online?

The CTONI-2 is sold to qualified professionals and given in person, the sellers do not agree on the qualification level, and none of the pages we read offers a self administered or online edition, so the route for an adult is an evaluation by a psychologist. PRO-ED's page labels the test Level C without defining the level on that page. PAR's page and Pearson's page both say Level B. We do not know why the listings differ, and a buyer should ask the seller who will receive the order. PAR's qualification levels page, which we opened on October 29, 2026, says Level B requires a degree from an accredited four year college or university in psychology, counseling, speech-language pathology or a closely related field plus coursework in test interpretation, psychometrics and measurement theory, or a license or certification from an agency that requires appropriate training and experience. It says Level C adds an advanced professional degree that provides appropriate training in administering and interpreting psychological tests, or the equivalent license or certification.

The kit price is the same on the three pages that print one. PRO-ED, PAR and Pearson each list the complete kit at 580 dollars, read on October 29, 2026. Pearson lists a pack of 25 record forms separately at 71 dollars.

A search for "ctoni 2 test online" that we ran on October 29, 2026 returned the publisher and retailer pages for the kit and its record forms. We found no self administered edition on any of them, and the sellers list the format as print or as paper and pencil. The APA guidance explains the logic of the restriction. The APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020), which we read from the approved text, open with a guideline that psychologists strive to develop and maintain their own competence in the selection, use, interpretation and communication of measures. A test sold to people with that training is meant to be read by someone who can weigh the score against other information, and the Standards comment on Standard 3.4 adds a second reason: where standardization cannot be ensured, as in unproctored administrations, results should be interpreted with caution.

If an adult wants a CTONI-2 score, the way to get one is to ask a psychologist, school psychologist or clinic whether it is part of the battery they use for the question being asked. The page on what counts as an official IQ test sets out the three routes institutions recognize and what each costs, and the page on where to take an IQ test compares the venues. If the question is only "how does my reasoning compare with other adults," the page on IQ tests for adults is the better starting point, and the rest of this page shows what an online normed battery can and cannot offer in its place.

5 What Are the Real Options for an Adult Who Searched for the CTONI-2?

An adult has four routes: an in person evaluation that may include the CTONI-2 or a similar nonverbal test, a free online screener, a practice test built for job screening, or a normed online battery, and the routes differ in who supervises, what they norm against and what the report contains. The table uses only facts we read on October 29, 2026, and it says "not stated" or "varies" where the pages we read do not give an answer.

Read the table by the question. If a professional has to document a concern about learning, attention, language or motor function, only the first two rows serve, and a nonverbal test is one of the tools a psychologist may choose for a person whose language would otherwise confound a result. If the question is curiosity about one's own reasoning, the page on the best online IQ tests compares normed online options, and the page on a free IQ test is a fair first step, with the caveat that a free screener rarely states its reference group. A practice test built for job screening trains a format and is not an IQ test, so its result is not comparable with a CTONI-2 or an ACIS score.

One other professional nonverbal test deserves a mention. Raven's 2 is Pearson's current version of Raven's Progressive Matrices, a matrix based reasoning instrument, and the page on what Raven's 2 is explains its scores and uses. It is a different test from both PRO-ED instruments, and a score from one cannot be read as a score on another.

6 What Does the CTONI-2 Measure, and Which ACIS Subtests Sample the Same Abilities?

The CTONI-2 samples one broad ability, fluid reasoning, in two stimulus contexts, while ACIS spreads its nonverbal tasks across fluid reasoning and visual processing and adds working memory and speed to its Nonverbal composite, so the two overlap on reasoning and differ on everything else. Read this as a map of overlap, not of equivalence. The CTONI-2 column uses what the publishers say and our CHC reading, flagged as ours. The ACIS column uses what each subtest page says, which we read before describing it.

The CTONI-2 row is the whole of its construct, and that is the point. The test is built so that a person can show reasoning without speaking, reading or writing, and the price of that design is narrowness: a CTONI-2 composite says nothing about vocabulary, number knowledge, memory span or how fast someone works. A broader battery reports those separately, and the page on the CHC model explains how the broad abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gv, Gwm and Gs) are defined.

Where ACIS differs most is in how it packages the nonverbal side. Its technical manual describes a Nonverbal composite (NVI) that "emphasizes nonverbal reasoning, visual spatial ability, working memory, and speed with minimal reliance on verbal content." That is a different mixture from a six subtest reasoning composite: it includes spatial, memory and speed tasks that the CTONI-2 does not sample. The ACIS page on IQ tests for non-native English speakers, which we read on October 29, 2026, says the Nonverbal composite is reported on the Full Scale form only, and the manual lists it among the composites available when its subtests are available. Layer Rotation, in the manual's words, "carries no words at all," and the Layer Rotation page adds that the instruction is carried by a mark on the layer rather than by a sentence. The page on nonverbal IQ tests in general covers the category beyond any one product, including why a nonverbal format is a statement about how a task is communicated and not about what it measures.

A nonverbal composite from ACIS and a CTONI-2 composite are different scores from different norm groups, so neither can be converted into the other. The ACIS technical manual is the place for the documentation behind a composite, and this page quotes no statistic from it.

7 What Do Independent Studies Say About the CTONI-2?

Independent evidence supports the CTONI-2 as a measure of general reasoning but not as a source of separate pictorial and geometric profiles, and one study of adults found its items too easy to separate higher ability people. We found three outside studies that we could open at the abstract level. We could not open the examiner's manual, a 2012 test review in the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment by Delen, Kaya and Ritter, or a chapter on the test in the Handbook of Nonverbal Assessment by Hammill and Pearson (2017), because publishers and journals restrict them, so nothing below depends on them.

The factor structure. Ryan McGill examined the structure of the test in a 2016 article in the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. According to the abstract record we opened, the analysis used exploratory factor analysis and higher order methods that are not reported in the examiner's manual, and the factor solutions showed several theoretically inconsistent loadings and low loadings. The hierarchical analysis found that the second order general factor accounted for large portions of the total and common variance, while the two first order factors accounted for little of the variance beyond it. McGill concluded that the CTONI-2 is a strong measure of general intelligence and that clinical interpretation should be limited to that level of the instrument. In plain terms, the full scale composite is the number the structure supports, and a gap between the pictorial and the geometric composite has weak support as a finding about a person. The section on reading a score returns to this.

An independent sample of adults. Jason Parkin, A. Alexander Beaujean, Michael Firmin, Xiao Qiu and Ruth Firmin studied the test in a 2018 article in the same journal, using an independent sample of young adults enrolled in a postsecondary institution. Their abstract says that the subtests appear to be measuring general intelligence, that the aggregate Full Scale score should be interpreted with caution when the instrument is used with adults suspected of having above average intelligence, that the item difficulties were too low to capture individual differences in adults with higher intelligence, and that the scores' reliability and their relations to measures of academic achievement are lower than what is typically expected for intelligence measures. The sample was college students, so the finding speaks to a population close to many online readers. The first point is the ceiling: if items are too easy, a high scoring adult reaches the top of the test and the score cannot rank people near the top. The page on high range IQ tests explains why measurement at the top is hard for any test, and the page on gifted testing for adults covers what a reader who suspects high ability should look for. The second point is the comparison with the publisher's statement that the composite's reliability is mostly in the .90s. Both can be true: the publisher's figures describe the standardization sample, and the independent study used a different, narrower sample.

Incentives and test performance. Laura Cimini's 2015 Columbia University dissertation, recorded in DataCite, randomly assigned 72 children aged 6 to 7 to verbal praise, token reinforcement or a standard administration, and compared the groups on the Pictorial Scale, Geometric Scale and Full Scale composites. The abstract reports no significant differences among the groups, and notes that the results were generally inconsistent with literature suggesting that young children do better with praise or tokens. With 72 children across three groups, a study of this size can miss small effects, so the fair reading is that no effect was detected, not that none exists. The sample is children, so it is not evidence about adults.

8 How Is a CTONI-2 Score Read?

A CTONI-2 score is a norm referenced result that places a person against the standardization sample, so its meaning depends on the scale printed in the manual, and the sound way to read it is to start with the full scale composite, treat any pictorial versus geometric gap as a hypothesis, and ask for the interval. PRO-ED and Pearson list the score types as standard scores, percentile ranks and age equivalents. The publisher pages we read do not print the standard score scale or the range of the composites, and the manual is where they are defined, so this page gives no CTONI-2 score ranges and no descriptive labels.

What can be said without the manual is general. A percentile rank states the share of the norm group a person equaled or exceeded, and a standard score states how far above or below the average the person sits in units of the standard deviation. On a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, which is the convention behind ACIS and most Wechsler type indices, a score of 115 sits one standard deviation above the mean. Whether the CTONI-2 composites use that scale is a fact for the manual, and we did not verify it. The page on why the standard deviation is 15 explains the convention, and the page on the difference between an IQ score and a percentile explains why the two should not be averaged or confused. A reader who has a score on a mean 100, standard deviation 15 scale can convert it with the IQ percentile calculator. An age equivalent, in our definition, restates a performance as the age whose typical performance matches it, and it is a different unit from a standard score, so it should never be compared with one.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) give the checks that apply. Standard 2.3 asks that for each total score, subscore or combination of scores to be interpreted, estimates of reliability and precision be reported, and its comment adds that reporting them only for total scores is not sufficient when subscores are also interpreted. The comment says specifically that composites formed from selected subtests within a battery are frequently proposed for predictive and diagnostic purposes and that users need information about their reliability. For the CTONI-2 that means the pictorial composite and the geometric composite each need their own evidence. Standard 2.4 adds that when a score interpretation emphasizes differences between two observed scores of an individual, reliability and precision data, including standard errors, should be provided for those differences. A gap between the pictorial and the geometric composite is exactly such a difference, and the structure study above found little unique variance for the two first order factors. The page on index score differences explains the two separate tests a gap must pass: it must exceed measurement error, and it must be uncommon among people at the same overall level.

Three practical rules follow: read the full scale composite first, ask the examiner for the interval around it, and treat a pictorial versus geometric difference as a question to explore and not as a finding. A nonverbal format changes how the task is communicated, not who the person is, so a score describes one session. Standard 3.18 echoes this when it says that test scores should not be the sole indicators used to characterize an individual's functioning, and that multiple sources of information should be used and alternative explanations considered.

9 Who Is the CTONI-2 For, and What Does Nonverbal Really Buy?

The CTONI-2 is built for people whose performance on traditional tests could be distorted by language or motor impairments, and a nonverbal format reduces that barrier without removing every influence of culture, schooling or familiarity with test tasks. The publisher's statement of purpose is specific: PRO-ED says the test is for people whose scores on traditional tests might be affected by language or motor impairments, and PAR says the same and notes the pointing response. That is an access argument, and the Standards give it a principle. Standard 3.2 says that test developers are responsible for minimizing the potential for tests being affected by construct irrelevant characteristics such as linguistic, communicative, cognitive, cultural or physical characteristics, and its comment says that unnecessary characteristics of this kind in the stimulus or response requirements can impede some individuals in demonstrating their standing on the intended construct. A pointing response and a pictorial format can be read as ways of meeting that principle.

The boundary is that "nonverbal" is not "culture free." Corentin Gonthier's 2022 review in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications examined the assumption that visuo-spatial reasoning tests are culture fair because they are nonverbal. The abstract says that the assumption of culture fairness is dubious at best, that the perception, manipulation and conceptualization of visuo-spatial information differ significantly across cultures in ways relevant to intelligence tests, and that cultural assumptions appear to be deeply ingrained in all visuo-spatial reasoning tests, to the extent that they disqualify the view of such tests as intrinsically culture fair. The review's model concerns Raven's matrices, with a brief discussion of other visuo-spatial reasoning tests, so it does not name the CTONI-2, and we do not say that it does. It does bear on the pictorial context: a picture of an everyday object depends on whether the object is everyday for the examinee. The page on culture fair IQ tests sets out the idea and its limits.

The APA guidance points the same way from the user's side. The APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) say that psychologists recognize the importance of considering age, gender, ethnicity, primary language and individual influences when selecting and administering tests, and that they endeavor to assess the language dominance and capacity of nonmonolingual clients to determine the appropriateness of the intended instrument. Choosing a nonverbal test for a person who is learning English is one such decision, and it is a decision a psychologist makes, with the person's history in view.

For an adult reader who is a non-native English speaker and wants an online score, the CTONI-2 is not an option, and the English instructions of an online test are the first thing to examine. The page on IQ tests for non-native English speakers explains which parts of an English battery move with language and which do not.

10 What Can an Adult Take Online, and Which ACIS Form Fits a Reasoning Question?

No online form is the CTONI-2, but an adult who wants a normed reasoning score can take ACIS, where the choice among Quick, Optimized, Full Scale and the Custom Test is a choice about which reasoning and visual subtests are included and whether the Nonverbal composite is reported. Every ACIS form is a one time payment with no subscription, breaks are allowed, progress is saved between subtests and the buyer has 30 days to finish. There is a free trial with no card, and one free trial is allowed per person. The counts below come from the subtest lists on the ACIS home page, read on October 29, 2026, and prices can change, so read them on the home page before paying.

Three consequences follow. First, a reader who wants mostly nonverbal tasks should know that Quick and Optimized also contain verbal subtests, which depend on English, so they are not nonverbal tests. The ACIS manual says verbal and knowledge tasks are affected by English proficiency and educational exposure. Second, the Custom Test allows a narrower buy: any domain you complete returns its full index score, and every subtest returns its scaled score. The visual spatial domain has three subtests (Visual Puzzles, Layer Rotation and Spatial Comprehension), which makes 15 dollars in our arithmetic and returns the index that the page on the Visual Spatial Index explains. The fluid reasoning domain has five (Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Visual Number Series, Logic Grid and Complex Relations), which makes 25 dollars in our arithmetic. At 10 subtests the Custom Test costs the same 50 dollars as the Full Scale form, and the Full Scale IQ needs the Full Scale battery. Third, a reader who wants to see how a report is laid out before paying can open the example reports linked in the boxes on this page.

A reasoning only test also leaves out domains that an adult may care about. The CTONI-2 names no subtest for speed, so a reader who wants that measured can look at the page on a normed processing speed test. A reader who wants a broad, general view of ability rather than one narrow slice can start from the page on cognitive ability tests. The point of listing these is not to sell more subtests: it is to say that the right online option depends on the question, and a nonverbal reasoning question is only one of the questions an adult can ask.

11 What Does an Unsupervised Session Need?

An unsupervised online session is only as clean as the room it is taken in, so a quiet room, a working screen, working sound for the audio subtests and a plan for breaks matter more than any trick, and a bad condition can look like a weak ability. Three ACIS subtests present their items as audio and need working sound: Digit Span, Alphanumeric Sequencing and Arithmetic. A reader who is deaf or hard of hearing, or who cannot play sound, should check before buying, and the free trial is a low cost way to find out how a session feels. Layer Rotation, by contrast, carries no words at all, according to the technical manual.

The Standards comment on Standard 3.4 explains why conditions count. It says that technology based testing adds concerns for standardization, that examinees working on older or slower equipment may be unfairly disadvantaged and that differences in the speed of devices or the fidelity of visuals can let construct irrelevant factors influence performance. It also says that where standardization cannot be ensured, as in unproctored administrations, results should be interpreted with caution. An in person CTONI-2 session solves that problem by putting a trained examiner in the room. An online session cannot, and the honest response is to control what you can and to read the result with that caution.

Practical steps are short. Use a computer or tablet with a screen large enough to see detail, close other tabs, silence notifications and use headphones if the room is noisy. Take breaks between subtests, not in the middle of one, since the Full Scale form runs about 175 minutes and progress is saved between subtests. Do not look up answers or accept help, because the score would then describe the helper.

12 Where ACIS Sits, and What a Buyer Should Do

ACIS is a normed online battery for adult personal use, and its strengths and its limits are the same fact: it is online, unsupervised, not clinical and in English only, so it is a fair way to see a reasoning and ability profile for yourself and the wrong tool for documentation, hiring, school accommodations or admission to a high IQ society. The facts about ACIS on this page were read on the ACIS home page on October 29, 2026. It reports a Full Scale IQ with a 95 percent confidence interval on every form, with scaled subtest scores from 1 to 19 and indices on the standard scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, and it offers adult norms for ages 16 to 90. The CTONI-2 is a different instrument for a different purpose: it is built for individual, supervised use with people whose language or motor profile makes other tests a poor fit, and it reaches ages down to 6.

The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) give the reading rules this page has used. Standard 2.3 asks for reliability and precision for each score or combination of scores to be interpreted, and its comment extends that to composites. Standard 2.4 asks for the same for differences between two scores. Standard 3.2 asks developers to minimize construct irrelevant linguistic and other barriers. Standard 3.4 and its comment ask for caution with unproctored administrations, and Standard 3.18 asks that scores not be the sole indicator of an individual's functioning. The APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) add that psychologists consider primary language and individual influences when selecting tests and strive to match instrument to examinee. Together they say what this page has argued: a score is evidence about one session and one construct, to be read with its precision and with other information. ACIS is not a substitute for a psychologist's assessment, and it is not a clinical or diagnostic instrument.

The ACIS guarantee is limited and should be read as written: "Full refund within 5 days if the report does not deliver the features described at checkout or a technical issue prevents you from accessing your results."

A buyer should do four concrete things. First, decide the purpose. If you need documentation for a school, a workplace or a clinical question, ask a psychologist and mention whether language or motor barriers are a concern, because the choice of a nonverbal test such as the CTONI-2 or the TONI-4 is theirs to make. Second, if you want a personal, normed reasoning score, choose the form that includes the subtests you care about, using the table above, and open the matching example report. Third, if English is not your first language, read the guide on non-native speakers before paying, since the instructions are in English. Fourth, start the free trial, which needs no card, and read your report as a description of one session with an interval around it, not as a verdict. The page on the official IQ test routes lists what each route costs and what it can be used for.

13 Sources Behind This Page

Every third party fact and figure on this page comes from the documents below, opened or verified on October 29, 2026, and any figure we calculated ourselves is labeled in the text as our arithmetic. Where we read only an abstract, the text says so. Prices, qualification levels and policies on commercial pages change, so check the page before you buy.

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: AERA. Standards 2.3, 2.4, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.18 and their comments. Open access edition: https://www.testingstandards.net/open-access-files.html
2. American Psychological Association (2020). APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation. Approved by the APA Council of Representatives, March 2020. Guidelines 1, 8 and 12 read from the approved text. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf
3. PRO-ED (n.d.). CTONI-2: Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second Edition, Complete Kit. Product page, read on October 29, 2026. https://proedinc.com/products-13015.html
4. PAR (n.d.). CTONI-2. Product page, read on October 29, 2026. https://www.parinc.com/products/CTONI-2
5. Pearson (n.d.). Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second Edition. Product page, read on October 29, 2026. https://pearsonassessments.com/store/en/usd/p/100000624
6. PRO-ED (n.d.). TONI-4: Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Fourth Edition, Complete Kit. Product page, read on October 29, 2026. https://proedinc.com/products-13410.html
7. PAR (n.d.). Qualification levels. Read on October 29, 2026. https://www.parinc.com/Support/Qualification-Levels
8. McGill, R. J. (2016). Investigation of the factor structure of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second Edition (CTONI-2) using exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(4), 339 to 350. Abstract read through the publisher record; full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282915610717
9. Parkin, J., Beaujean, A. A., Firmin, M. W., Qiu, X., and Firmin, R. L. (2018). Validity and reliability evidence for the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Second Edition scores from an independent sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(5), 423 to 435. Abstract read through the Semantic Scholar record; full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916688792
10. Cimini, L. (2015). The effects of positive examiner verbal comments and token reinforcement on the CTONI-2 performance of early elementary school children. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University. Abstract read through the DataCite record; full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.7916/D85X286N
11. Gonthier, C. (2022). Cross-cultural differences in visuo-spatial processing and the culture-fairness of visuo-spatial intelligence tests: an integrative review and a model for matrices tasks. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(1), article 11. Abstract read through Crossref. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00350-w

14 Frequently Asked Questions