Analogies #1 Statistics

© 2003 Paul Cooijmans

Norms (G = raw score)

Note: item 6 has been removed.

G Protonorm
0 207 or lower
1 247
2 280
3 307
4 327
5 340
6 353
7 379
8 381
9 387
10 407
11 413
12 447
13 487
14 540
15 560
16 580
17 600
18 627
19 647
20 667
21 687
22 707
23 733
24 753

Scores (out of 24)

# testees: 30
Mean: 8.4
SD: 3.9
Male mean: 8.6
Female mean: 6 (2 persons)

00*
01*
03**
04***
05*
07***
08***
09****
10*
11**
12*****
13*
14***

Correlation with other tests

Test#cor
Test of Shock and Awe40.97
Short Test For Genius40.82
Mega Test50.76
Cooijmans Intelligence Test80.75
Titan Test50.66
Test To End All Tests50.62
Unknown tests50.61
Numbers70.59
Final Test90.47
Qoymans Multiple-Choice110.46
Mysterium Entrance Exam50.45
Space, Time & Hyperspace140.35
Analogies of LTFG90.31
Intern. High IQ Soc. Ultimate IQ Test40.19
Association Subtest of LTFG90.17
Cooijmans OnLine Test40.17
NVCP40.14
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #37-0.04
Long Test For Genius6-0.08
Evens6-0.21
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #27-0.31
Logima Strictica 364-0.56

This test has recently fused with the Evens number series into the Test of Shock and Awe.

Used for norming are scores from tests correlating .35 and higher. Prior scores are converted to a scale with a standard deviation of 15 where needed [and were in 2008 converted to protonorms using the initial protonorm formula], and ranks of raw and prior scores are equated. Norms for scores above 14 are extrapolated.

Additional statistics March 2008

© Mar 2008 Paul Cooijmans

Remark: The problems from this test are now part of the test "Cartoons of Shock". The problems in themselves are good, but the original version "Analogies #1" was too short to have sufficient reliability in its own right, and was from the start on meant as an experimental test.

Scores

0 *
1 *
3 **
4 ***
5 *
7 ***
8 ***
9 ****
10 *
11 **
12 *****
13 *
14 ***
16 *

Correlation with other tests

Test#cor
Test of Shock and Awe70.92
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 190.82
Titan Test50.66
The Final Test110.62
Unknown tests50.61
Numbers70.59
Space, Time and Hyperspace160.56
Mega Test60.48
Mysterium Entrance Exam50.45
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius110.43
Analogies of Long Test For Genius110.42
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1140.39
The Test To End All Tests80.37
Long Test For Genius80.32
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #380.03
Evens70.01
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #27-0.31

Weighted average of correlations: 0.439

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.66

Ranking in above table is based on the unrounded correlations. All available data is present in this table, no tests are left out except for those with less than 5 score pairs. All known pairs are used to obtain the true, honest statistics; correlations are not artificially inflated by leaving out ceiling scores, outliers or other anomalies.

National averages

Country# scoresAverage score
United_States89.8
Sweden27.5

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 2 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the unrounded averages.

Correlation with personal details

Personalia#cor
Mother's educational level50.88
Father's educational level50.76
PSIA Deviance factor50.59
Is male290.22
PSIA Ethics factor50.16
Number of characters in candidate's name as registered31-0.06
Year of birth20-0.11
GAIA - Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms5-0.12
Educational level5-0.64
PSIA System factor (phased out)3-0.88

Correlation with national IQs

Correlation of this test with national average IQs published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

Reliability and standard error

Using the "split-half" method:

Scores by age

Age group# CandidatesAverage score
70 to 7418.0
40 to 4438.7
35 to 39214.5
30 to 3459.0
25 to 2948.8
22 to 2429.5
20 or 2149.0
1425.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken# CandidatesAverage score
1999311.0
2001116.0
2002109.9
2003410.8

Correlation year taken vs average score = -0.00
n = 28

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

Item statistics are not published as that would help future candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score (validity of the item in this test) and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are removed or revised, resulting in a revised version of the test.