From Lorge-Thorndike to Form 8
The CogAT grew out of the 1954 Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests. Our page on that test covers how the word "intelligence" was dropped along the way.2,3
Our archive timeline credits the 1968 edition to Robert L. Thorndike and Elizabeth Hagen. The sources here confirm the 1968 date but name only the modern authors, David F. Lohman and Elizabeth P. Hagen.9,3
Two editions, eleven levels, up to three hours
Same composite, different child
Because the three batteries are reported separately, an uneven profile isn't averaged away.5 Set three battery scores, or load a preset, and compare the profile with the single average.
Illustrative scores on a mean-100 scale, with a simple average in place of the real composite rules, which our sources don't give.
Form 7: pictures, not words, for the youngest
Form 7, released in 2011, was redesigned to be fairer to English language learners while keeping most of what worked in Form 6.3 For kindergarten to grade 2 it uses pictures, so the only words are in the directions, which can be read in English or Spanish.9
For grades 3–12, an extra figure-matrices subtest raised the ceiling of the Nonverbal Battery for the most able students.9 Even so, research suggests the Form 7 nonverbal battery still hasn't fully removed the effect of culture.1
How well it agrees with other tests
The CogAT is one of the most commonly used tools for identifying gifted students in the US.1 A meta-analysis put its overall correlation with other identification tools at .63, and suggested using at least one more tool alongside it.2
Lohman and Naglieri, author of a rival nonverbal test, have argued for years over whose instrument gives valid scores.1 Some districts still use Form 6 because of limited funding.8 The CogAT is also accepted for entry to Intertel, a high-IQ society, at the 99th percentile.5
References
- [1]Investigating evidence for the validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test: a meta-analytic evaluation. Gifted Child Quarterly (2024). SAGE Journals (PDF).journals.sagepub.com
- [2]A meta-analytic evaluation: investigating validity evidence of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) (2023). ResearchGate.researchgate.net
- [3]Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). EBSCO Research Starters: Health and Medicine.ebsco.com
- [4]Lohman, D. F., & Gambrell, J. (2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (PDF).scottbarrykaufman.com (PDF)
- [5]Wikipedia contributors. Cognitive Abilities Test (accessed 30 Sept 2026).en.wikipedia.org
- [6]CogAT 7 overview. University of Minnesota, MSTP.survey.umn.edu
- [7]A meta-analytic evaluation: investigating evidence for the validity of the Cognitive Abilities Test (2024). ResearchGate.researchgate.net
- [8]CogAT Test (Cognitive Abilities Test). TestingMom (2026).testingmom.com
- [9]The ultimate guide to the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT). Origins Tutoring.originstutoring.com
Related historical tests
The 1954 group test the CogAT descends from. It gave two scores, verbal and nonverbal, where the CogAT gives three.
Another group test for kindergarten to grade 12 used in gifted screening. The OLSAT folds its scores into one School Ability Index, while the CogAT keeps three batteries separate.
Thurstone's classroom battery also reported separate ability scores. The CogAT narrows the idea to three reasoning domains used in school.
Form 7 correlated .76 with the WISC-IV in first graders. The WISC is the individual test schools often turn to after a group screen.
A picture-based matrix test for ages 5 to 11. Form 7 of the CogAT likewise moved its K–2 levels to pictures so language gets in the way less.
The Defense Department's battery, also introduced in 1968 and also given in high schools. It points students toward military careers, where the CogAT guides school placement.