Of the four CAT4 batteries, spatial reasoning is the one parents know least about. It’s not a school subject. There’s no spatial-reasoning equivalent of times-tables to drill. And yet it’s a strong predictor of later success in maths, science, engineering, and design, which is why it sits in the test at all.
This post walks through the two CAT4 spatial sub-tests — figure analysis and figure recognition — with worked examples, and explains why a child can be brilliant at maths and still struggle here, or be a confident reader and surprise everyone with a high spatial score.
What spatial reasoning actually is
Spatial reasoning is the ability to manipulate shapes in your head: rotate them, fold them, unfold them, see which 3D object a 2D net would form, picture what a stack of blocks looks like from a different angle. It’s a distinct skill from arithmetic and from verbal comprehension. Some of the strongest evidence in cognitive science is that spatial reasoning predicts later STEM achievement above and beyond what general IQ predicts — that is, two children with the same overall reasoning score can have very different STEM trajectories depending on their spatial ability.
The encouraging finding from the same research literature is that spatial reasoning is trainable. Practice with the right kind of activities measurably improves it, more so than for the other batteries. We’ll come back to that.
Figure analysis
The CAT4 figure analysis sub-test shows your child a square of paper that’s been folded one or more times and then had a hole punched through it. The question: what does the paper look like when it’s unfolded?
Worked example. A square is folded in half left-to-right. A single hole is punched through both layers near the top-left corner of the folded shape. When unfolded, the paper has two holes — symmetrical across the fold line, one near the top-left and one near the top-right.
Harder example. A square is folded in half top-to-bottom and then in half left-to-right. A hole is punched in the middle of the now-quartered shape. When unfolded, the paper has four holes, one in each quadrant, symmetrical across both fold lines.
Children who do well on figure analysis tend to have spent time folding and cutting actual paper — making snowflakes, origami, or just experimenting. The skill isn’t memorising the answer; it’s having a mental model of “fold + cut” that they can run forwards and backwards.
Figure recognition
The figure recognition sub-test shows a complex figure — typically a shape made of several overlapping or interlocking elements — and asks the child to find that figure hidden inside a larger, busier picture. The target shape can be rotated, flipped, or partially obscured.
Worked example. The target is a small ‘L’ shape made of two rectangles. The picture is a busy line drawing with dozens of rectangles, some forming letters, some forming patterns. The child has to scan the picture, mentally rotate the ‘L’ through every orientation, and identify the spot where the lines match. Often the right answer is rotated 90° clockwise, which trips up children who only look for the original orientation.
This one is partly about reasoning and partly about visual scanning discipline. Children who race through it tend to miss the rotated version. Children who go too slowly run out of time.
Why a strong-maths child can score lower than you’d expect
Maths attainment in primary school is mostly arithmetic, with some basic geometry. It rewards procedural fluency: if you can apply the right algorithm reliably, you do well. Spatial reasoning rewards a different cognitive style — visualising, manipulating, predicting — and the two skills don’t always co-develop.
What this means in practice: a Year 5 child who is a star at written multiplication and division can score modestly on the spatial battery, and the school report will pick that up. It isn’t a failure mode. It’s information about the child’s profile, which the school can use to stretch them in the right direction. Strong-arithmetic, weaker-spatial profiles benefit a lot from explicit spatial practice — much more than from extra arithmetic drill — and the gap usually closes within a year if the child is given the right activities.
What helps
The list of things that build spatial reasoning is unusually concrete:
- Lego, Magna-Tiles, marble runs, and similar construction toys. The act of assembling a 3D object from a 2D instruction sheet is exactly the skill the test measures.
- Origami and paper-folding. Direct training for the figure-analysis sub-test.
- Jigsaw puzzles, especially ones where the pieces don’t have obvious colour cues. Edge-matching is a spatial scan.
- Drawing 3D objects from different angles. Even a five-minute exercise — “draw your pencil case from above, then from the side” — moves the needle.
- Video games involving navigation and rotation. Tetris is the classic; building games like Minecraft count too. The research evidence here is genuinely strong, including in girls, where parents sometimes worry the visual-spatial skills are being under-developed.
- The Puzzitron spatial sub-tests. Figure analysis (paper-fold-and-punch) and figure recognition (find the embedded shape) are both available, and the questions are written to match the CAT4 format closely.
What helps less than parents expect: more arithmetic, more reading, more “general puzzles”. Spatial reasoning is a specific muscle, and you build it with specific activities.
Useful next reads
- The parent’s guide to CAT4 — what CAT4 is and isn’t.
- Verbal reasoning explained — companion post for the verbal battery.
- Why timed practice can harm an anxious child — relevant if your child finds the spatial questions stressful.