Various taxonomies of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM) items have been proposed in the literature to account for performance on the test. In the present article, three such taxonomies based on information processing, namely Carpenter, Just and Shell's [Carpenter, P.A., Just, M.A., & Shell, P., (1990). What one intelligence test measures: A theoretical account of the processing in the Raven Progressive Matrices test. Psychological Review, 97, 404-431.] as completed by Mackintosh and Bennett [Mackintosh, N.J., & Bennett, E.S., (2005). What do Raven's Matrices measure? An analysis in terms of sex differences. Intelligence, 33, 663-674.], DeShon, Chan and Weissbein's [DeShon, R.P., Chan, D., & Weissbein, D.A., (1995). Verbal overshadowing effects on Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for multidimensional performance determinants. Intelligence, 21, 135-155.], and Dillon, Pohlmann and Lohman's [Dillon, R.F., Pohlmann, J.T., & Lohman, D.F., (1981). A factor analysis of Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices freed of difficulty factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41, 1295-1302.], were examined to assess the extent to which they fit APM data from two large samples of university students. Gender differences hypotheses based on the examined APM item taxonomies were also tested. Results indicate that none of the tested models achieved a good fit, and that item difficulty seemed to be the main determinant of the APM's dimensionality. Gender differences analyses also provided inconsistent support for the information-processing based taxonomies. Results are discussed in terms of potential statistical artifacts and of the weak reliability of the proposed item classifications. (Contains 7 tables.)