Attention
Figure Matching Test
Also called: reflection-impulsivity task, conceptual tempo task, identical figures matching task
Measure reflection and impulsivity: participants find the one figure of six that matches a standard exactly, scored by errors and time to the first choice.
7-10 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 16
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 2
What it measures
A measure of reflection and impulsivity: how carefully people compare similar figures before choosing. Each screen shows a figure above six that look almost the same, and participants choose the one that is exactly the same, choosing again after a wrong choice until they find it. The main score is the number of wrong choices, with the mean time to the first choice.
Constructs
- Reflection and impulsivity (conceptual tempo)
- Careful visual comparison
- Speed and accuracy when the answer is uncertain
Research uses
- Impulsivity and attention research
- Cognitive style research
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The figure matching test measures reflection and impulsivity, the cognitive style Kagan called conceptual tempo: how long people compare similar alternatives before choosing when the right answer is not obvious. Each screen shows a standard figure above six variants. One variant is exactly the same as the standard, and each of the others differs from it in one detail. Participants choose the identical one by click, tap or the 1 to 6 keys. After a wrong choice they are told so, that figure is greyed out, and they choose again until they find the identical one. There is no time limit.
More about the paradigm
Kagan and colleagues (1964) and Kagan (1965) introduced this method with drawings of familiar objects for children, and Cairns and Cammock (1978) lengthened it to 20 items. Here the figures are abstract and drawn by our code: a frame with seven marks, one at the center and six around it, each mark one of ten kinds (a dot, a triangle, a cross, short lines, a square, a chevron, a pair of dots, an arc, a bar or a corner) in one of two to four forms. Five variants each change one mark, a different one each time, to another form of the same kind. The standard session is 20 items in one fixed order, the same for everyone, after 2 practice items in which a wrong choice also shows where it differs. The identical figure takes each of the six places three or four times.
The method's two classic scores are reported. The main score is the number of wrong choices over all items, and the mean time from each screen's onset to the first choice is reported with it. Fast first choices with many errors are what Kagan called impulsive, and slow first choices with few errors reflective. The number of items right at the first choice is also reported (chance is one in six). Researchers who use the integrated scores of Salkind and Wright (1977) compute them from standardized errors and times within their own sample. Presses under 100 ms are counted as anticipations. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Errorscount
- Wrong choices over all test items, before each right one.
- Lower is better
- Mean Time to First Choicems
- Mean time from each screen's onset to the first choice.
- Read with errors: short times with many errors are impulsive, long times with few errors reflective
- Right at First Choicecount
- Items whose first choice was the identical figure.
- Higher is better; chance is one item in six
- Anticipationscount
- Presses under 100 ms from the screen's onset. They are not taken as choices.
- Lower is better
- Planned Itemstrials
- Items the session planned to show.
- Informational
- Total Itemstrials
- Items completed in the scored run.
- Fewer than planned is flagged for review
Use and evidence
16 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 43% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 344 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 5 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2023 | 2 |
| 2022 | 4 |
| 2021 | 4 |
| 2020 | 6 |
| 2019 | 4 |
| 2018 | 4 |
| 2017 | 10 |
| 2016 | 4 |
| 2015 | 8 |
| 2014 | 9 |
| 2013 | 6 |
| 2012 | 5 |
| 2011 | 6 |
| 2010 | 10 |
| 2009 | 8 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 7 |
| 2006 | 6 |
| 2005 | 9 |
| 2004 | 8 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 4 |
| 2001 | 10 |
| 2000 | 4 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 4
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 67
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 2
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Screen
- A standard figure above six variants in two rows of three, each a frame with 7 marks, one at the center and 6 around it. One variant is identical; each other variant changes 1 mark to another form of the same kind.
- Marks
- 10 kinds in 2 to 4 forms each: a dot, a triangle, a cross, short lines, a square, a chevron, a pair of dots, an arc, a bar and a corner. A figure holds 7 different kinds, in a circle, square, hexagon or octagon frame.
- Answer
- Click or tap a figure, or press 1 to 6. A wrong choice is greyed out and the participant chooses again until the identical figure is found. No time limit; presses within 100 ms of the screen are counted and not taken.
- Items
- 20 items (standard; 16 or 12), the first of one fixed list in its fixed order, the same for everyone. The identical figure takes each place 3 or 4 times in 20 items and twice in the first 12.
- Practice
- 2 items; a wrong choice also circles the mark that differs.
- Between items
- Correct shows for 600 ms, then a 400 ms blank.
- Scores
- Wrong choices over all items, the mean time to the first choice, and the items right at the first choice.
Classic versions use drawings of familiar objects, 12 items for children and 20 in a longer version. These figures are abstract and drawn by our code, so norms of the classic test do not apply.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: figure_matching_test from the scored run, one per item, judged on the first choice among six figures with no time limit (chance 1 in 6). Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One place on 90% of first choices invalidates when accuracy is not above chance; the identical figure takes each place about equally often. First choices under 200 ms on at least half the items invalidate. A run short of its planned items is flagged for review.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Number of items | 20 (standard) | 20 (standard), 16, 12 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops and tablets. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Figure Matching Test in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert and Phillips, 1964; Kagan, 1965), with the standard settings (number of items: 20). The main score was errors (wrong choices over all test items, before each right one).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Kagan, J., Rosman, B. L., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: Significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093830
- Kagan, J. (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36(3), 609-628. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126908
- Cairns, E., & Cammock, T. (1978). Development of a more reliable version of the Matching Familiar Figures Test. Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 555-560. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.14.5.555Twenty items for a more reliable score.
- Messer, S. B. (1976). Reflection-impulsivity: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1026-1052. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1026Review of the method and its two scores.
- Salkind, N. J., & Wright, J. C. (1977). The development of reflection-impulsivity and cognitive efficiency: An integrated model. Human Development, 20(6), 377-387. https://doi.org/10.1159/000271569Integrated scores from errors and time, computed within a sample.
- Viator, R. E., Wu, Y.-J., & Viator, A. S. (2022). Testing the validity and reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test-2021: An updated behavioral measure of reflection-impulsivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 977808. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.977808Choosing again after a wrong choice, with adults.
Source papers
- Kagan J (1965). Reflection-impulsivity and reading ability in primary grade children. Child Development, 36(3):609-628.Paradigm source, Children
- Viator RE, Wu Y-J, Viator AS (2022). Testing the validity and reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test-2021: An updated behavioral measure of reflection-impulsivity. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:977808.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Figure Matching Test take?
About 7 to 10 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops and tablets. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Errors, Mean Time to First Choice, Right at First Choice, Anticipations, Planned Items and Total Items. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Figure Matching Test used in research?
16 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 43% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 344 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Figure Matching Test have?
In the published research, 4 papers report its test-retest reliability and 2 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Number of items (20 (standard), 16, 12). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests