0 | ******* |
1 | ***** |
2 | ************ |
3 | ************************** |
3.5 | ** |
4 | *************************** |
5 | ********** |
6 | ***** |
6.5 | * |
7 | *** |
8 | * |
10 | * |
Remark: The very low resolution of the test is due to the test's brevity and makes it unsuitable as a standalone test.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(69) Odds | 4 | 0.92 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.87 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 10 | 0.85 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 6 | 0.80 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 15 | 0.78 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 18 | 0.77 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 57 | 0.75 |
(114) Dicing with death | 7 | 0.74 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.74 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.70 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 45 | 0.69 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.68 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 38 | 0.68 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 7 | 0.67 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 17 | 0.66 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 17 | 0.65 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.65 |
(68) Numbers | 7 | 0.64 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.64 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 12 | 0.61 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 46 | 0.60 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.58 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 19 | 0.58 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 12 | 0.58 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 15 | 0.58 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 25 | 0.57 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 18 | 0.57 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 11 | 0.56 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 13 | 0.54 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 21 | 0.54 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 38 | 0.54 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 4 | 0.51 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 14 | 0.51 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 42 | 0.50 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 31 | 0.49 |
(7) The Final Test | 10 | 0.48 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 35 | 0.48 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 28 | 0.47 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 57 | 0.46 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.45 |
(15) Letters | 7 | 0.45 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 49 | 0.44 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 30 | 0.43 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 17 | 0.42 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 31 | 0.41 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 17 | 0.41 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 36 | 0.37 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 20 | 0.35 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 17 | 0.33 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 15 | 0.31 |
(29) Words | 7 | 0.30 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 35 | 0.24 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 6 | 0.17 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 33 | 0.15 |
(11) Isis Test | 24 | 0.06 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 4 | -0.33 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.522 (N = 1177, weighted sum = 614.23)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.72
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 5 | 0.88 |
(226) Logima Strictica 24 | 5 | 0.77 |
(238) 916 Test | 4 | 0.66 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 36 | 0.24 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 7 | 0.22 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 7 | 0.18 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 6 | 0.16 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 12 | 0.15 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 7 | 0.07 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 6 | 0.05 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | -0.15 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | -0.45 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.221 (N = 104, weighted sum = 23.03)
Please be aware that correlations with these external tests are in most cases affected (depressed, typically) by one or more of the following: (1) Little overlap with the object test because of the much lower ceilings and inherent ceiling effects of the tests used in regular psychology; (2) Candidates reporting scores selectively, for instance only the higher ones while withholding lower ones; (3) Candidates reporting, or having been reported by psychometricians, incorrect scores.
These are estimated g factor loadings, but against homogeneous tests (containing only particular item types) as opposed to non-compound heterogeneous tests. Although tending to surprise the lay person, it is not uncommon for tests to have high loadings on item types they do not actually contain themselves. Such loadings reflect the empirical fact that most tests for mental abilities measure primarily g, regardless of their contents; that the major part of test score variance is caused by g, and only a minor part by factors germane to particular item types. It is of key importance to understand that this is a fact of nature, a natural phenomenon, and not something that was built into the tests by the test constructors.
Type | n | g loading of Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 227 | 0.67 |
Numerical | 30 | 0.84 |
Spatial | 169 | 0.69 |
Logical | 50 | 0.51 |
Heterogeneous | 353 | 0.72 |
N = 829
Balanced g loading = 0.69
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
France | 2 | 5.0 |
Greece | 2 | 5.0 |
Norway | 2 | 4.5 |
Poland | 2 | 4.5 |
Canada | 3 | 4.0 |
India | 3 | 4.0 |
Netherlands | 3 | 4.0 |
Spain | 3 | 4.0 |
Italy | 6 | 3.5 |
Japan | 2 | 3.5 |
Korea_South | 4 | 3.5 |
Portugal | 2 | 3.5 |
United_Kingdom | 3 | 3.5 |
China | 3 | 3.0 |
Germany | 5 | 3.0 |
Sweden | 5 | 3.0 |
United_States | 24 | 3.0 |
Austria | 3 | 2.0 |
Turkey | 2 | 2.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 6 | 0.80 |
Observed behaviour | 18 | 0.57 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.28 |
Educational level | 86 | 0.23 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.22 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 6 | 0.18 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.17 |
Mother's educational level | 84 | 0.16 |
Sex | 100 | 0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.13 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.09 |
Father's educational level | 82 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 16 | 0.05 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 85 | -0.04 |
Year of birth | 100 | -0.04 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.07 |
Disorders (own) | 87 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.18 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.27 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.31 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.42 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.46 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 16 | -0.47 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 16 | -0.54 |
In parentheses the number of score pairs on which that estimated g factor loading is based. The goal of this is to verify the hypothesis that g becomes less important, accounts for a smaller proportion of the variance, at higher I.Q. levels. The mere fact of restricting the range like this also depresses the g loading compared to computing it over the test's full range, so it would be normal for both values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
Raw score | Upward g (N) | Downward g (N) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.72 (1177) | NaN (0) |
2.8 | 0.61 (843) | 0.73 (296) |
3.3 | 0.63 (520) | 0.71 (631) |
3.8 | 0.64 (486) | 0.72 (666) |
15 | NaN (0) | 0.72 (1177) |
The relatively low reliability results from the brevity of the test, which is used as a subtest of a larger test. Item analysis shows that the items of this test are performing well. No bad items have been found so far, but several are of extreme difficulty. This low reliability, together with the low resolution, makes the test unsuitable as a standalone test.
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 3.0 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 2.0 |
55 to 59 | 4 | 4.5 |
50 to 54 | 4 | 2.0 |
45 to 49 | 9 | 4.0 |
40 to 44 | 9 | 4.0 |
35 to 39 | 15 | 3.0 |
30 to 34 | 12 | 3.0 |
25 to 29 | 19 | 3.5 |
22 to 24 | 7 | 4.0 |
20 or 21 | 5 | 4.0 |
18 or 19 | 8 | 2.5 |
17 | 3 | 3.0 |
16 | 1 | 2.0 |
N = 100
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2011 | 11 | 3.0 |
2012 | 4 | 3.5 |
2013 | 4 | 3.0 |
2014 | 11 | 4.0 |
2015 | 17 | 3.0 |
2016 | 10 | 3.0 |
2017 | 10 | 4.0 |
2018 | 7 | 4.0 |
2019 | 12 | 3.0 |
2020 | 14 | 4.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.39 (N = 100)
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 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.