Normative Data and Reliability of the Moving Shapes Paradigm

  • Zahra Shahrivar Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Research Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Mehdi Tehrani-Doost Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Research Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
  • Anahita Khorrami Banaraki Brain and Cognition Clinic, Institute for Cognitive Science Studies, Tehran, Iran.
  • Azar Mohammadzadeh Research Center for Cognitive and Behavioral Sciences, Roozbeh Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Children, Moving Shapes Paradigm, Norm, Reliability


Objective: Moving Shapes paradigm is a test that evaluates intentionality as a theory of mind (ToM) component. This study aimed to assess the normative data and reliability of this test in a community sample of 9-11-year-old children.

Method: A total of 398 children aged between 9 and 11 years were recruited from mainstream elementary schools through a random cluster sampling. All participants were evaluated using the Moving Shapes paradigm. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the test was administered again after 2-4 weeks.

Results: The intentionality mean score was 29.70 (+5.88) out of 60. There was no significant difference between girls and boys in test scores. Age was not significantly related to the paradigm variables scores. Ten percent of the participants achieved the scores below 22, and 10% above 37. Cronbach’s Alfa was 0.40 for the intentionality score. The test-retest reliability was fair to good (0.43 - 0.79) for different groups of animations. The inter-rater agreement was 80%.

Conclusion: The study found that the Moving shapes paradigm is a reliable instrument to evaluate intentionality in normal school-aged children.


1. Premack D, Woodruff G. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioral and brain sciences. 1978;1(4):515-26.
2. Korkmaz B. Theory of Mind and Neurodevelopmental Disorders of Childhood. Pediatric Research. 2011;69(8):101-8.
3. Wyl A. Mentalisierung und Theory of Mind. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie. 2014;63(9):730-7.
4. Wimmer H, Perner J. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition. 1983;13(1):103-28.
5. Zaitchik, D. When representations conflict with reality: The preschooler's problem with false beliefs and “false” photographs. Cognition; 1990: 35(1), 41-68.
6. Gallagher HL, Happé F, Brunswick N, Fletcher PC, Frith U, Frith CD. Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: an fMRI study of ‘theory of mind’ in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(1):11-21.
7. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines. 2001;42(2):241-51.
8. Egeth M, Kurzban R. Representing metarepresentations: Is there Theory of Mind-specific cognition? Consciousness and Cognition. 2009;18(1):244-54.
9. Roeyers H., Buysse A., Ponnet K., & Pichal B. Advancing advanced mind-reading tests: empathic accuracy in adults with a pervasive developmental disorder. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001; 42:271-8.
10. Dennett, DC. The intentional stance. MIT Press; 1987.
11. Berry DS, Misovich SJ, Kean KJ, Baron RM. Effects of disruption of structure and motion on perceptions of social causality. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1992;18(2):237-44.
12. Berry DS, Springer K. Structure, motion, and preschoolers' perceptions of social causality. Ecol Psychol. 1993;5(4):273-83.
13. Rochat P, Morgan R, Carpenter M. Young infants' sensitivity to movement information specifying social causality. Cognitive development. 1997;12(4):537-61.
14. Akhtar N, Martinez-Sussmann C. Intentional communication. Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations. 2007:201-20.
15. Heider F, Simmel M. An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol. 1944;57(2):243-59.
16. Oatley K, Yuill N. Perception of personal and interpersonal action in a cartoon film. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1985;24(2):115-24.
17. Rimé B, Boulanger B, Laubin P, Richir M, Stroobants K. The perception of interpersonal emotions originated by patterns of movement. Motivation and emotion. 1985;9(3):241-60.
18. Abell F, Happe F, Frith U. Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cognitive Development. 2000;15(1):1-16.
19. Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith C. Movement and mind: A functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement pattern. Neuroimage. 2000;12: 314-25.
20. Mohammadzadeh A, Tehrani-doost M, Banaraki AK. Evaluation of ToM (intentionality) in primary school children using movement shape paradigm. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012;32: 69-73.
21. Shahrivar Z, Tehrani‐Doost M, Khorrami Banaraki A, Mohammadzadeh A, Happe F. Normative data and psychometric properties of a Farsi translation of the strange stories test. Autism Research. 2017;10(12):1960-7.
22. Tehrani Doost M, Shahrivar Z, Khorrami Banaraki A, Mohammad Zadeh A. Validity of the “moving shapes” paradigm: A test to evaluate the ability to understand others’ intentionality. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology. 2017;23(3):294-305.
23. Clark, J. H. The Ishihara test for color blindness. Amer. J. Physiol. Opt., 1924; 5: 269–276.
24. Birch J. Efficiency of the Ishihara test for identifying red‐green colour deficiency. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 1997;17(5):403-8.
25. Castelli F, Frith C, Happé F, Frith U. Autism, Asperger syndrome and brain mechanisms for the attribution of mental states to animated shapes. Brain. 2002;125(8):1839-49.
26. Knickmeyer R, Baron-Cohen S, Raggatt P, Taylor K, Hackett G. Fetal testosterone and empathy. Hormones and Behavior. 2006;49(3):282-92.
27. Putallaz M, Hellstern L, Sheppard BL, Grimes CL, Glodis KA. Conflict, Social competence, and gender: Maternal and peer contexts. Early Education and Social Development. 1995;6(4): 433–47.
28. Calero CI, Salles A, Semelman M, Sigman M. Age and gender dependent development of Theory of Mind in 6- to 8-years old children. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7, 281.
29. Devine RT, Hughes C. Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child development. 2013;84(3):989-1003.
30. Thompson RB, Thornton B. Gender and theory of mind in preschoolers’ group effort: Evidence for timing differences behind children’s earliest social loafing. J Soc Psychol. 2014;154(6):475-9.
31. Wellman HM, Liu D. Scaling of theory‐of‐mind tasks. Child development. 2004;75(2):523-41.
How to Cite
Shahrivar Z, Tehrani-Doost M, Khorrami Banaraki A, Mohammadzadeh A. Normative Data and Reliability of the Moving Shapes Paradigm. Iran J Psychiatry. 15(2):143-149.
Original Article(s)