What the Shipley-2 test is, from its 1940 origin to its three scales

0 The short answer

The Shipley-2 is a brief paper and pencil test that an examiner gives in 20 to 25 minutes to people aged 7 to 89, with a 40 item Vocabulary scale for crystallized knowledge and a choice between a 25 item Abstraction scale and a 12 item Block Patterns scale for fluid reasoning, and it descends from a scale Walter Shipley published in 1940. It is sold to qualified professionals (the WPS page lists Level C and the PAR page lists Level B), so an adult cannot simply buy the kit and test themselves, and we found no publisher page that offers a self administered online version. ACIS is one online option: its Quick form has 6 subtests, takes about 45 minutes and costs 15 dollars (read on October 29, 2026), but it is unsupervised and not clinical, and its result is never a Shipley-2 score. The decisive limit is that a two scale estimate built for an examiner's screening is a rough look, not a full battery.

1 What Is the Shipley-2, and Where Does the 1940 Scale Come From?

The Shipley-2 is the revised and restandardized edition of a brief scale that Walter C. Shipley described in 1940, and the lineage matters because its central idea, a vocabulary measure set beside a reasoning measure, comes from that first scale. Shipley's paper appeared in The Journal of Psychology under the title "A Self-Administering Scale for Measuring Intellectual Impairment and Deterioration" (volume 9, issue 2, pages 371 to 377). The title names the scale's purpose, which was measuring impairment and deterioration. The current WPS page states the logic that the Shipley-2 still uses: set what a person has learned beside how well they reason, and look at the discrepancy.

WPS's product page for the Shipley-2 says that since its original publication in 1940 the Shipley Institute of Living Scale has been widely used to assess cognitive functioning and impairment. It describes the Shipley-2 as revised and restandardized, with updated norms, an expanded age range, a nonverbal Block Patterns scale and unlimited use computer scoring, and it lists a publish date of 2009. We read it on October 29, 2026. The authorship differs between the pages we read. The WPS page names Walter C. Shipley, while the PAR page, read on October 29, 2026, names Walter C. Shipley, Christian P. Gruber, Thomas A. Martin and Amber M. Klein. The manual holds the authoritative credits.

The older literature gives the scale a second name. The Millisecond Software test library, read on October 29, 2026, implements only the abstract reasoning portion of the original Shipley test for researchers who use its experiment software, and it lists a 1954 reference by Horlick and Monroe on an alternate form of the Shipley-Hartford abstraction scale, so a search for the Shipley-Hartford scale leads back to the same lineage. That is why a search for "Shipley test" can mean three things: the 1940 original, the Shipley-2 of 2009, or a research software implementation of the original's reasoning half. This page is about the Shipley-2, and it refers to the others only when the distinction helps.

The wider story of how intelligence testing developed is told on the page on the history of IQ testing, and it is the right place to see where a 1940 scale sits among its contemporaries. One thread is worth pulling out here. The Wechsler batteries that came to dominate clinical practice include both a Vocabulary subtest and Block Design, and the Shipley-2 offers a paper, multiple choice cousin of that pairing in 20 to 25 minutes. The page on the Block Design test dates the Wechsler adaptation of the Kohs blocks to scales published in 1939, a year before Shipley's paper.

2 What Do the Vocabulary, Abstraction and Block Patterns Scales Contain?

The Shipley-2 has three scales, and an examiner gives Vocabulary plus either Abstraction or Block Patterns, so a typical administration contains two scales, not three. The formats below come from the WPS page (read on October 29, 2026) and the PAR page, and we describe formats only, because the items belong to the publisher and are not reproduced here.

The Vocabulary scale has 40 items. For each item the respondent looks at a target word and chooses, from four options, the word that is closest in meaning. WPS presents it as the measure of crystallized ability. In our reading, a four option format asks the respondent to recognize a close meaning and not to produce a definition, which is why it can be scored from a key without judgment. The page on vocabulary IQ tests explains how vocabulary tasks of different formats relate to general ability, and the ACIS Vocabulary subtest page describes the task family that ACIS uses and what a vocabulary result can reflect.

The Abstraction scale has 25 sequence completion items and, according to WPS, is similar to the items in the original Shipley. It is the fluid reasoning option that will feel familiar to anyone who knows the old test. A sequence completion task asks the respondent to detect the rule that governs a series and apply it to supply what comes next. The page on abstract reasoning tests covers that genre, what it leaves out and what a retest changes.

The Block Patterns scale is new in this edition. It has 12 multiple choice items based on the Kohs cube designs, and WPS offers it as the choice "when you need a nonverbal measure of fluid ability" or when an examiner prefers the simplicity of a multiple choice response format. The pages we read do not describe physical blocks, and the response format they list is multiple choice, so it is a paper format and not a repeat of the block building task that appears in the Wechsler scales. The page on the Block Design test explains why the physical version cannot be taken online and what normed spatial tasks replace it.

Three practical features follow from this design. The scales can be given to individuals or groups. WPS lists a computer scoring program that allows on screen administration, any combination of scales, and a choice between timed and untimed administration. And the publisher says the manual offers guidance on choosing between Abstraction and Block Patterns. That choice has a consequence for what a composite means, which the scoring section below explains. The WPS page also states that sample materials require a login, which is one reason this page does not show or paraphrase any item.

3 What Does the Shipley-2 Measure in CHC Terms?

In Cattell-Horn-Carroll terms the Shipley-2 samples two broad abilities, comprehension-knowledge (Gc) through Vocabulary and fluid reasoning (Gf) through Abstraction or Block Patterns, and it has no scale for working memory, processing speed or quantitative reasoning. The CHC model page lays out the three layer structure of general ability, broad abilities and narrow abilities, and the page on cognitive domains lists the broad abilities that a full battery covers. The Shipley-2, according to WPS, measures "crystallized knowledge," described as knowledge gained through education and experience, and "fluid reasoning," described as the capacity to use logic to learn and acquire new information or solve problems. Those descriptions line up with the CHC definitions of Gc and Gf.

The WPS page also states a rationale: research shows that crystallized ability is relatively stable, while fluid reasoning is affected by aging, injury and psychopathology, and by uncovering discrepancies between the two the Shipley-2 can provide evidence of cognitive deterioration. That sentence is the publisher's claim and not a finding we tested. It is the logic of the Impairment Index, and the later sections come back to how far such a discrepancy can be trusted. The page on crystallized intelligence tests shows how the Gc half of this contrast is measured elsewhere, and the ACIS Matrix Reasoning subtest page describes a fluid reasoning task of a different format.

Independent research complicates the neat two ability picture. In a confirmatory factor analysis in Assessment, Matthew Reynolds, Daniel Hajovsky, Jesse Pace and Christopher Niileksela analyzed Shipley-2 and WISC-IV data from children and adolescents. They report that the three Shipley-2 subtests for the most part measured what the manual described, but that Block Patterns measured visual spatial ability in addition to fluid ability, and that Abstraction was best considered a measure of psychometric g. In CHC terms, then, Block Patterns carries some visual processing (Gv) as well as Gf. The ACIS Visual Puzzles subtest page describes a different task that is classed under Gv, and it illustrates how a visual spatial ability is read apart from verbal knowledge.

A 2015 review adds a second view of the Abstraction scale. Geoffrey Davies and Adina Piovesana, writing in The Clinical Neuropsychologist, searched for tests of verbal abstract reasoning in adults and identified seven. The WAIS-IV Similarities subtest ranked highest, followed by the Shipley-2 Abstraction test and Gorham's Proverbs test, and the authors advised some caution for the latter two, in terms of construct purity for the Shipley-2 Abstraction test and age of normative data for the Proverbs test. In plain terms, the review ranked the Shipley-2 Abstraction test second and still advised caution about what it isolates.

What the Shipley-2 leaves out is as informative as what it includes. It has no working memory scale, so a reader who wants that ability should look at the page on the Letter Number Sequencing test, which covers the Wechsler working memory task. It has no speed scale, and the page on processing speed tests explains why speed is a separate ability that a vocabulary and reasoning pair cannot stand in for. And it is not a general measure of everything the page on what IQ measures describes, only a quick sample of two of its parts.

4 How Is the Shipley-2 Scored, and What Are Composites A and B and the Impairment Index?

The Shipley-2 turns raw scores into standard scores for each scale, adds one of two composites that pair Vocabulary with a fluid scale, and offers an Impairment Index for adults that compares vocabulary with abstract thinking. According to the WPS page (read on October 29, 2026), the test produces standard scores for the scales given, plus percentiles, age equivalents and confidence intervals. The PAR page lists the same outputs. A confidence interval is the band around an obtained score within which the true score is likely to lie, and the page on reliability and validity explains why every score needs one.

The two composites are defined by what goes into them. Composite A combines the Vocabulary score with the Abstraction score, and Composite B combines the Vocabulary score with the Block Patterns score. WPS says the two are interpreted very similarly and that both are standard scores reflecting overall cognitive ability. Because the fluid half differs, the two composites are not the same measurement. Reynolds and colleagues found that Block Patterns carried visual spatial variance as well as fluid variance, so in our reading Composite B includes a visual processing component that Composite A does not, and one person's two composites could differ because the fluid tasks differ, not only because of measurement error.

The Impairment Index is where the Shipley-2 keeps the concern in the title of the 1940 paper, impairment and deterioration. WPS says it is calculated only for adults and represents the discrepancy between vocabulary and abstract thinking. The AQ is calculated for people who completed Vocabulary and Abstraction, and the BQ for people who completed Vocabulary and Block Patterns, and both are calculated only for adults who are no longer in school. The publisher's calculator asks for four whole numbers: the Vocabulary raw score, age in years, years of school completed, and either the Abstraction or the Block Patterns raw score. The inclusion of years of school indicates that the index takes education into account, which is sensible, because vocabulary reflects schooling. WPS calls the AQ and BQ "derivative deficit scores" and says they have meaning only when used together with the primary scores, and it directs readers to chapter 3 of the manual for interpretation. We have not read the manual, so this page does not describe cutoffs or formulas.

WPS also publishes four case examples, and two of them show the limit of a flag. In one, an older woman's Impairment Index fell just below the publisher's "within normal limits" cutoff while her scale scores were average, further neuropsychological testing found nothing unusual, and a depression rating scale then pointed to significant depressive symptoms. In another, an examiner used the pattern of easy and hard items answered correctly on a protocol to question whether a very low result was a valid picture of the person. Both are the publisher's illustrations, not research findings, and they show the use the publisher intends: the index prompts a closer look and does not settle a diagnosis.

The standardization sample is described the same way on both pages. It has 2,826 individuals, said by WPS to be representative of the U.S. population in regard to ethnicity, gender and educational level and by PAR to be representative of U.S. Census statistics, with norms presented separately for children aged 7 to 19 and adults aged 17 to 89 and stratified by age. The pages do not give the dates of data collection, the sampling procedure or the participation rates, and they do not print the mean and standard deviation of the standard scores. The case examples on the WPS page treat a standard score of 100 as average, which points to the familiar IQ style metric, and the manual is the place to confirm it. The check is worth making, because the same rank sits at a different number on a scale with a different spread, as the page on the Cattell IQ scale shows. The page on how IQ scores are normed and the page on why a standard deviation of 15 matters explain what such a metric means.

5 Who May Buy and Give the Shipley-2, and What Does a Kit Cost?

The Shipley-2 is sold for use by qualified professionals, and the pages we read disagree on the qualification level, so any buyer should ask the seller which level applies before ordering. The WPS page lists "Level C required" and links to a page about qualification levels. The PAR page, read on October 29, 2026, lists Qualification Level B. The Stoelting listing, read the same day, does not state a level. Each seller applies its own policy, and the policy of the day governs the sale. The KBIT-2 page walks through how one major publisher defines Levels A, B and C, and this page does not assume that definition applies to the Shipley-2.

The reason for restricting sales is spelled out in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014), which we read in the open access edition. Standard 10.1 says that those who use psychological tests should confine their testing and related assessment activities to their areas of competence, as demonstrated through education, training, experience and appropriate credentials. Standard 10.3 adds that professionals should verify that persons under their supervision have appropriate knowledge and skills to administer and score tests. Standard 10.18 says that tests, including obsolete versions, should not be made available to the public or resold to unqualified test users. A qualification level is how a publisher puts those standards into practice at the point of sale.

PAR and Stoelting both list the Shipley-2 paper and pencil complete kit at 293 dollars, as read on October 29, 2026.

The kit holds the manual, 20 Vocabulary AutoScore forms, 10 Abstraction AutoScore forms and 10 Block Patterns forms on both listings. WPS and Stoelting both list each form type in packs of 25 at 86 dollars. A composite needs one Vocabulary form and one fluid form, so the 10 Abstraction forms and 10 Block Patterns forms in the kit allow at most 20 composites. None of these figures is what an adult pays to be tested. That fee is set by whoever gives the test, and no page we read states it.

Two consequences follow for the reader. If you want your own Shipley-2 result, the route is a psychologist or an organization that already owns the kit, and the useful question to ask is which scales and which composite they will give, because Composite A and Composite B differ. If you are considering buying the kit yourself, the seller will ask for credentials, and a result you scored yourself from the forms would not carry the weight of one an examiner administered under standard conditions. The page on professional IQ tests covers the standards a professional score is held to, and the page on official IQ tests compares the routes that count and what they cost.

6 Can You Take the Shipley-2 Online, for Free, or Practice With Its Questions?

An adult cannot take the Shipley-2 online as a consumer, because the publisher pages we read describe print forms, an examiner's computer scoring program and a scoring calculator, not a self administered test. The PAR page lists the administration format as print. The WPS page describes an unlimited use computer scoring program with on screen administration, which is a tool for the examiner and sits behind the same purchase and qualification as the kit. WPS also offers a free calculator, but it computes only the AQ and BQ and states that the primary scores, which come from standard test materials and the manual's scoring appendixes, are not available through it.

The nearest thing to a free online version is a different test. The Millisecond Software library, which serves researchers who run experiments in its software, lists a Shipley Test that implements only the abstract reasoning portion of the original test. According to the page, Form A runs the original 1940 questions and Form B uses alternate questions from Horlick and Monroe (1954), the duration is 8 minutes, the test has 20 questions, and licensing is included with an Inquisit license. The score the page names is a total correct out of 20. That is a half scale from the older edition, reported as a raw count, and not a Shipley-2 and not an IQ. The page is a useful market fact because it shows where the older test lives today, in research software and not in a consumer form.

What about practicing with Shipley-2 questions? We did not open or test any third party site that uses the Shipley name, so we cannot say what its questions are, whether they are normed, or whether they relate to the real scales. Three points still apply. The real items are the publisher's property and the sample materials sit behind a login, so material found elsewhere cannot be assumed to be the real thing. Standard 10.18 says tests should not be made available to the public, which is the reason examiners keep them secure. And practice changes the meaning of a score: the page on what an abstract reasoning retest changes reports that practice and coaching raise scores on that genre, so a practiced result no longer describes what a first encounter would have shown.

The practical advice is short. If the question is which test to take now, a normed online battery is the honest answer, and the page on where to take an IQ test lists every option, in person and online. If the question is which test a psychologist, school or employer wants, ask them to name it and explain why, because a different instrument will not substitute for the Shipley-2 in their records.

7 Why Is a 20 Minute Estimate So Popular in Research and Screening?

Researchers use the Shipley-2 because it gives a crystallized and a fluid estimate in about 20 to 25 minutes on paper, and the published studies show it serving as a quick measure of general level next to other variables, not as a diagnosis. The publisher says as much. Both the WPS and PAR pages describe the Shipley-2 as the choice when you need quick ability estimates, screen for cognitive dysfunction or qualify participants for research studies. The table below lists the studies we opened, with the way each one used the test.

The table supports three observations, and the third is ours. First, the test crosses populations: the same instrument was given to adolescent twins, university students, adults with a neurological condition and parents. Second, it often stands in for a general level or a proxy. In the multiple sclerosis study the Vocabulary scale entered a cognitive reserve measure with years of education, which is a use of the crystallized half alone. Third, the practical draws are the ones that fit the publisher's list: it is brief, it can be given on paper to individuals or groups, and its norms run from 7 to 89, so a family study can use one measure for a 14 year old and a parent. Those are reasons of convenience, and none of them is evidence of accuracy.

That last point deserves emphasis. A study that uses the Shipley-2 to describe participants is not a study that tests the Shipley-2. The six studies above asked about false memory, antisocial behavior, coping, grades, a breathing disorder and effort, and they relied on the test's norms. The next section turns to the research that does examine the instrument itself. The Standards make the same distinction in Standard 10.12, which asks that the interpretation of test scores consider other factors that may influence an outcome, including culture, educational level, effort, current mental state and the testing situation.

8 What Does Independent Research Say About the Shipley-2's Validity?

The independent evidence on the Shipley-2 itself is narrow: a PubMed search of titles and abstracts for "Shipley-2" on October 29, 2026 returned 11 records, only two of them examined the instrument rather than used it, and neither supports treating a 20 minute estimate as a full battery. That count is a search result, not a census of the literature, and it will miss work indexed elsewhere. We read the abstracts of the two studies below, not their full texts, so what follows is limited to what the abstracts state.

The first is the factor analysis by Reynolds and colleagues in Assessment, which used data from children and adolescents who took both the Shipley-2 and the WISC-IV. Beyond the construct findings already described, it reports two results that matter to a reader. The g factors derived from the WISC-IV and the Shipley-2 were similar but not identical, and based on WISC-IV derived g factors, 37 percent to 53 percent of the variance in Shipley-2 composites was explained by g. The authors also report that some of the reliable variance in the composites was due to something specific that the subtests had in common, not explained by psychometric g. In plain terms, a Shipley-2 composite is mostly but not entirely a general ability estimate, and between a third and a half of its variance tracks g in that sample, depending on the composite.

The same study estimated composite reliability at the subtest level and not at the item level, and found that the internal reliability estimates for the composites based on correlations between the subtests were substantially lower than those based on the items. The reason that matters is how a composite is built. In our reading, a score that rests on two scales has only two samples of behavior to average, however many items sit inside each scale, and item level estimates can make a short composite look more precise than the subtest level view does. The page on reliability and validity explains the difference between a score being consistent and a score measuring what a reader assumes.

The second study is the 2015 review by Davies and Piovesana, discussed earlier, which ranked the Shipley-2 Abstraction test second among seven adult verbal abstract reasoning tests and judged that it had sufficient validity to recommend its use, while advising caution about its construct purity. The review is about one scale of the Shipley-2, in adults, and its authors noted that for most of the tests they reviewed, construct validity was lacking while reliabilities were sufficient. It is the closest thing to an adult validity verdict that we found, and it is a qualified one.

What we did not find matters as much. We found no peer reviewed validation of the Impairment Index in our search, and no independent factor analysis of the Shipley-2 in adults. The manual may report such evidence, and we have not read it. The practical reading is straightforward. Use the Shipley-2 composite as a rough, publisher normed estimate of general level, take the Vocabulary scale as an estimate of acquired verbal knowledge, and treat the Impairment Index as a prompt for further assessment. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) say in Standard 10.2 that those who select tests and draw inferences from scores should be familiar with the relevant evidence of validity and reliability for the intended uses and be prepared to articulate a logical analysis supporting the inferences. That is the right test to apply to a Shipley-2 report.

9 How Precise Are a Two Scale Score and the Gap Between Vocabulary and Abstraction?

A two scale composite is a coarser instrument than a full battery, and the gap between its two halves is coarser still, so a Vocabulary versus Abstraction difference is a reason to look further and not a finding. The Standards are direct about gaps. Standard 2.4 asks that when a score interpretation emphasizes differences between two observed scores, reliability and precision data, including standard errors, be provided for those differences, and its comment notes that the reliability of change scores can be much lower than the reliabilities of the separate scores. A difference carries the error of both scores it is built from, which is why a gap is noisier than either of its parts. The sibling pages on the KBIT-2 and the RIAS-2 work through that arithmetic for their own scales, and the manual of the test in use holds the real values.

Large gaps are also common in general population samples. The page on index score differences reports how often sizable gaps between index scores appear in a general population sample, and the finding transfers as a principle: before reading a gap as unusual, a reader needs the base rate of that gap in the norm group, not only whether it exceeds measurement error. A gap that is statistically reliable can still be common. The Shipley-2 Impairment Index appears to handle part of this by using age and years of school, but the pages we read do not state its base rates, and the manual would.

Vocabulary scores also reflect language and schooling, so a low Vocabulary score paired with a good Abstraction score has ordinary explanations. A person who learned English as an adult, or who had limited schooling, will often show that pattern. The ACIS technical manual says verbal and knowledge tasks are affected by English proficiency and educational exposure, and the same caution applies to the Shipley-2. Standard 10.5 of the Standards asks that tests suit the characteristics and background of the test taker, including linguistic characteristics, and that professionals take into account the availability of norms and validity evidence for a population representative of the test taker. When none exist, interpretations should be qualified and presented as hypotheses. For the other direction, a low Abstraction score with a high Vocabulary score, the explanations include fatigue, low effort, anxiety or low mood, and Standard 10.12 asks that such factors be considered as alternative hypotheses. WPS's own case example, in which a flagged index led to a finding of depressive symptoms, is an illustration of that principle.

The age of the norms is a second source of imprecision. The Shipley-2 carries a 2009 publish date on the WPS page, so its norms cannot be newer than that, and the pages do not give the dates of data collection. Standard 5.9 asks that reports of norming studies include the dates of testing, and Standard 5.8 asks that norms refer to clearly described populations. In a meta-analysis in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Jakob Pietschnig and Martin Voracek estimated worldwide IQ gains across 1909 to 2013 of 0.41, 0.30, 0.28 and 0.21 IQ points a year for fluid, spatial, full scale and crystallized test performance, found them stronger for adults than for children, and reported that they have decreased in more recent decades. On those pooled averages, the fluid gain runs 0.20 points a year ahead of the crystallized gain, so ten years of drift would move a fluid minus crystallized difference by about 2 points, which is our arithmetic and an upper illustration, because the authors say the gains have slowed. It is small, and it is a reason to ask for the norm dates, not a correction anyone should apply.

10 Which Real Options Give an Adult an IQ Estimate, and How Do They Compare?

An adult who wants an IQ estimate has four kinds of route, a psychologist's full battery, a brief test an examiner gives, a normed online battery and an unnormed quiz, and the table sorts them by who supervises, whom the score is compared with, how long it takes and what you receive. Prices are the ones read on October 29, 2026, and they change.

Three rows need a note. The "other brief examiner tests" row sends you to the RIAS-2 page instead of repeating it, and the KBIT-2 page covers the general case for brief tests and qualification levels in detail. The last row follows from the definition of an IQ as a position within a reference group, which the page on how IQ scores are normed explains, so a quiz without a norm group cannot report one. And the Shipley-2 row shows a price that belongs to the professional who buys the kit, not to you.

11 How Does ACIS Compare With the Shipley-2, and What Conditions Does a Session Need?

ACIS Quick covers more abilities than the Shipley-2 and takes longer, it is unsupervised where the Shipley-2 is examiner given, and it is a different test with different norms, so the two results are never interchangeable. The Shipley-2 samples two abilities in 20 to 25 minutes. ACIS Quick has 6 subtests in 3 domains and takes about 45 minutes (the page on short IQ tests covers what a short battery costs you): Similarities and Vocabulary for verbal comprehension, Matrix Reasoning and Figure Weights for fluid reasoning, and Digit Span and Alphanumeric Sequencing for working memory. The verbal pair is the closest relative of the Shipley-2 Vocabulary scale, and the ACIS Vocabulary subtest page places the task in comprehension-knowledge (Gc). The fluid pair is the relative of Abstraction and Block Patterns, and the page on the Matrix Reasoning subtest places that task in fluid reasoning (Gf). The working memory pair has no Shipley-2 counterpart.

The reporting differs too. Every ACIS form reports a Full Scale IQ with its 95 percent confidence interval, indices on the standard scale (mean 100, standard deviation 15) and subtest scores as scaled scores from 1 to 19. ACIS has no Impairment Index and nothing in an ACIS report is designed to detect impairment, because ACIS is not a clinical instrument. The Shipley-2 has no working memory scale and reports a composite where ACIS reports a Full Scale IQ. The WPS page also lists the Shipley-2 as available in Spanish, while ACIS is available in English only. The page on verbal IQ tests goes deeper on the verbal side of this comparison.

The practical conditions for an unsupervised session are simple and they matter. Use a quiet room and a device with a screen big enough to see the tasks without squinting. Digit Span, Alphanumeric Sequencing and Arithmetic present their items as audio and need working sound, so test your speakers or headphones before you begin. ACIS allows breaks, saves progress between subtests and gives 30 days to finish, so there is no reason to push through fatigue. Standard 6.5 of the Standards says that test takers should be provided appropriate instructions, practice and other support necessary to reduce construct irrelevant variance, and in our reading a noisy room or silent speakers add exactly that kind of variance, so they belong to the method and are not courtesies. The page on cognitive ability tests and the page on IQ tests for adults compare what each online option offers.

The free trial is the way to check how a session feels before paying. It asks for no card, it allows one free trial per person, and the site refuses a second trial from the same email address or the same browser. Finished trial subtests are kept if you later unlock a form that includes them. The page on free IQ tests explains what a free test can and cannot report.

12 Where ACIS Sits, and What a Buyer Should Do

ACIS is an online, unsupervised, English only battery with adult norms, it is not a Shipley-2 and not a clinical screener, and a buyer should read its result as a normed look at where they stand and not as an official or diagnostic score. The limits come first. ACIS is not a clinical or diagnostic instrument. It is not for hiring, for school accommodations or for admission to high IQ societies. It cannot tell you whether you have a cognitive impairment, a learning disability or an attention condition, and a score on any single test, including a Shipley-2, cannot either. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) say in Standard 10.2 that those who select tests and draw inferences from scores should be familiar with the evidence of validity and reliability for the intended uses and be prepared to articulate a logical analysis supporting the inferences made. The APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation (2020) add, in Guideline 6, that psychologists select tools that show sufficient validity evidence for their uses and sufficient score reliability, and, in Guideline 7, that they use multiple sources of relevant and reliable information.

The strengths are real and bounded. ACIS norms cover adults aged 16 to 90, and every form reports a Full Scale IQ with its 95 percent confidence interval. It is a one time payment with no subscription: Quick costs 15 dollars, Optimized 30 dollars and Full Scale 50 dollars, all read on October 29, 2026, and prices can change. The Custom Test lets a buyer pick subtests at 5 dollars each. A free trial needs no card. The refund wording is: "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." That is a conditional refund, not an unconditional money back guarantee. The technical manual documents the instrument, and this page quotes no statistic from it.

The concrete next step depends on your goal. If a clinician, school or employer asked for a Shipley-2, ask them to say which scales and which composite they will give and why, and do not offer an online result in its place. If you want to see where you stand, open the Quick example report to see what a short form prints, start the free trial, and choose the form that covers the domains you care about. Do not report any online result as a Shipley-2.

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 entry says so. Prices and policies on commercial pages change, so check the seller before you pay.

1. WPS (Western Psychological Services). (Shipley-2) Shipley Institute of Living Scale Kit, product page, read on October 29, 2026. Authors, publish date, ages, scales, composites, Impairment Index, norms, time, qualification level, form prices and case examples. https://www.wpspublish.com/shipley-2.html
2. PAR, Inc. Shipley-2, product page. Authors, ages, administration time, qualification level, format, norms description, complete kit contents and price. Read on October 29, 2026. https://www.parinc.com/products/SHIPLEY-2
3. Stoelting Co. Shipley Institute of Living Scale, Second Edition (Shipley-2), product listing. Kit contents, kit and form prices, age range, time. Read on October 29, 2026. https://stoeltingco.com/Psychological-Testing/Shipley-Institute-of-Living-Scale--Second-Edition-Shipley-2~9794
4. Millisecond Software. Shipley Test, Inquisit test library page. Abstract reasoning portion of the original test, forms, duration, licensing, score output and references. Read on October 29, 2026. https://www.millisecond.com/library/shipleytest
5. Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration. The Journal of Psychology, 9(2), 371 to 377. Record verified through Crossref; the paper itself was not opened. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917704
6. Reynolds, M. R., Hajovsky, D. B., Pace, J. R., and Niileksela, C. R. (2016). What does the Shipley-2 measure for children and adolescents? Integrated and conjoint confirmatory factor analysis with the WISC-IV. Assessment, 23(1), 23 to 41. Abstract read through PubMed; full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115572695
7. Davies, G., and Piovesana, A. (2015). Adult verbal abstract reasoning assessment instruments and their clinimetric properties. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(7), 1010 to 1033. Abstract read through PubMed; full text not opened. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2015.1119889
8. Sajjadi, S. F., Sellbom, M., Gross, J., and Hayne, H. (2021). Dissociation and false memory: the moderating role of trauma and cognitive ability. Memory, 29(9), 1111 to 1125. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1963778
9. Dotterer, H. L., Tomlinson, R. C., Burt, S. A., Weigard, A. S., Klump, K. L., and Hyde, L. W. (2021). Neurocognitive abilities associated with antisocial behavior with and without callous-unemotional traits in a community sample. Neuropsychology, 35(4), 374 to 387. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000733
10. Vervoordt, S. M., Bradson, M. L., and Arnett, P. A. (2022). Avoidant coping is associated with quality of life in persons with multiple sclerosis with high cognitive reserve. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 37(7), 1527 to 1535. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acac049
11. Brambila-Tapia, A. J. L., Velarde-Partida, E. U., Carrillo-Delgadillo, L. A., Ramirez-De Los Santos, S., and Macias-Espinoza, F. (2024). Correlation between studying strategies, personal and psychological factors with academic achievement and intelligence in health sciences university students: a cross-sectional study. BMC Medical Education, 24(1), 881. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05839-8
12. Zelko, F. A., Stewart, T. M., Brogadir, C. D., Rand, C. M., and Weese-Mayer, D. E. (2018). Congenital central hypoventilation syndrome: broader cognitive deficits revealed by parent controls. Pediatric Pulmonology, 53(4), 492 to 497. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.23939
13. Hill, B. D., Womble, M. N., and Rohling, M. L. (2015). Logistic regression function for detection of suspicious performance during baseline evaluations using Concussion Vital Signs. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 22(3), 233 to 240. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2014.910215
14. Pietschnig, J., and Voracek, M. (2015). One century of global IQ gains: a formal meta-analysis of the Flynn effect (1909 to 2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 282 to 306. Abstract read through PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577701
15. 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 2.4, 5.8, 5.9, 6.5, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.12 and 10.18, read in the open access edition. https://www.testingstandards.net/open-access-files.html
16. American Psychological Association (2020). APA Guidelines for Psychological Assessment and Evaluation. Approved by the APA Council of Representatives, March 2020. Guidelines 6 and 7, read in an archived copy of the PDF. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-psychological-assessment-evaluation.pdf

14 Frequently Asked Questions