This test was always meant as an easier and less serious test compared to real high-range tests. One should not take scores on it too seriously, especially in the later years when a small part of the candidates was likely cheating and making use of answers they had not found by themselves.
Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial, logical. Period: 2011-2024
| 3 | * |
| 10 | * |
| 11 | * |
| 18 | ** |
| 20 | ** |
| 21 | ** |
| 22 | ** |
| 23 | *** |
| 24 | **** |
| 25 | *** |
| 26 | **** |
| 27 | *** |
| 28 | ******* |
| 29 | ******** |
| 30 | ********* |
| 31 | ************* |
| 32 | *********************** |
| 33 | ******************* |
| 34 | ****************** |
| 35 | ****************************** |
| 36 | ****************** |
| 37 | **************** |
| 38 | ********** |
| 39 | ************ |
| 40 | ******* |
| 41 | ** |
| 42 | * |
n = 202
| 3 | * |
| 10 | * |
| 11 | * |
| 18 | ** |
| 20 | ** |
| 21 | ** |
| 22 | ** |
| 23 | *** |
| 24 | ** |
| 25 | ** |
| 26 | **** |
| 27 | ** |
| 28 | ****** |
| 29 | ******** |
| 30 | ******* |
| 31 | ************ |
| 32 | ******************** |
| 33 | ***************** |
| 34 | ****************** |
| 35 | **************************** |
| 36 | ***************** |
| 37 | *************** |
| 38 | ********* |
| 39 | ************ |
| 40 | ****** |
| 41 | ** |
| 42 | * |
n = 18
| 24 | ** |
| 25 | * |
| 27 | * |
| 28 | * |
| 30 | ** |
| 31 | * |
| 32 | *** |
| 33 | * |
| 35 | ** |
| 36 | * |
| 37 | * |
| 38 | * |
| 40 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 4 | 0.94 | 0.10 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.94 | 0.10 |
| De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.93 | 0.04 |
| Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 6 | 0.90 | 0.05 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 6 | 0.89 | 0.05 |
| The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.88 | 0.0002 |
| Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieproefwerk | 7 | 0.87 | 0.03 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 26 | 0.86 | 0.00001 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 7 | 0.86 | 0.04 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 29 | 0.85 | 0.000008 |
| Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 4 | 0.84 | 0.14 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 5 | 0.84 | 0.10 |
| Three Sonnets (Heinrich Siemens) | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 12 | 0.82 | 0.006 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 30 | 0.82 | 0.000009 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 22 | 0.82 | 0.0002 |
| Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 13 | 0.82 | 0.005 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 21 | 0.81 | 0.0003 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 5 | 0.81 | 0.11 |
| The Smell Test | 10 | 0.81 | 0.02 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 42 | 0.80 | 0.0000003 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 29 | 0.79 | 0.00003 |
| Dicing with death | 17 | 0.79 | 0.002 |
| Advanced Intelligence Test (Randy Myers) | 7 | 0.78 | 0.06 |
| The Piper's Test | 15 | 0.77 | 0.004 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 14 | 0.77 | 0.006 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 21 | 0.76 | 0.0008 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 40 | 0.75 | 0.000003 |
| De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 5 | 0.74 | 0.13 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 18 | 0.74 | 0.002 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 24 | 0.73 | 0.0005 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 48 | 0.73 | 0.0000006 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 22 | 0.73 | 0.0009 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 27 | 0.71 | 0.0003 |
| Only idiots | 11 | 0.68 | 0.03 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.68 | 0.25 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 6 | 0.68 | 0.12 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 28 | 0.68 | 0.0004 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 27 | 0.66 | 0.0008 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 16 | 0.64 | 0.01 |
| The Sargasso Test | 34 | 0.64 | 0.0002 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 42 | 0.63 | 0.00006 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 22 | 0.62 | 0.004 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 13 | 0.62 | 0.03 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 38 | 0.61 | 0.0002 |
| Tests by Iakovos Koukas (aggregate) | 7 | 0.61 | 0.13 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 46 | 0.60 | 0.00005 |
| Numerologica (Andrei Udriște) | 4 | 0.59 | 0.30 |
| Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 8 | 0.58 | 0.12 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 49 | 0.58 | 0.00006 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 52 | 0.58 | 0.00004 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 12 | 0.56 | 0.06 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 11 | 0.56 | 0.08 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 36 | 0.55 | 0.001 |
| The Nemesis Test | 24 | 0.55 | 0.009 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 19 | 0.53 | 0.02 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.53 | 0.003 |
| A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 24 | 0.53 | 0.01 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 10 | 0.52 | 0.12 |
| The Final Test | 7 | 0.52 | 0.20 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 5 | 0.52 | 0.30 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 15 | 0.52 | 0.05 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 31 | 0.52 | 0.005 |
| Daedalus Test | 18 | 0.51 | 0.04 |
| Associative LIMIT | 32 | 0.50 | 0.006 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 12 | 0.48 | 0.11 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 11 | 0.46 | 0.14 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.46 | 0.07 |
| Genius Association Test | 35 | 0.45 | 0.008 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.45 | 0.01 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 42 | 0.45 | 0.004 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 16 | 0.42 | 0.10 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 12 | 0.42 | 0.16 |
| The Gate | 5 | 0.32 | 0.52 |
| Isis Test | 27 | 0.30 | 0.12 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | 0.27 | 0.64 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.24 | 0.50 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.20 | 0.60 |
| Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 9 | 0.19 | 0.60 |
| Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 4 | 0.12 | 0.84 |
| Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 5 | 0.06 | 0.90 |
| The LAW - Letters And Words | 8 | 0.05 | 0.90 |
| Tests by Marc-André Nydegger (aggregate) | 4 | 0.02 | 0.97 |
| Letters | 9 | -0.01 | 0.97 |
| Tests by Arne Andre Gangvik (aggregate) | 5 | -0.18 | 0.71 |
| Words | 8 | -0.18 | 0.64 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.615 (N = 1534)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.78
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 4 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.
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 Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 228 | 0.75 |
| Numerical | 101 | 0.79 |
| Spatial | 135 | 0.80 |
| Logical | 60 | 0.68 |
| Heterogeneous | 596 | 0.81 |
N = 1120
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.77
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| China | 4 | 36.5 |
| Australia | 4 | 35.0 |
| Bulgaria | 3 | 35.0 |
| France | 3 | 35.0 |
| Germany | 29 | 35.0 |
| Romania | 3 | 35.0 |
| Turkey | 4 | 35.0 |
| United_States | 67 | 35.0 |
| United_Kingdom | 10 | 34.5 |
| Finland | 5 | 34.0 |
| Sweden | 9 | 34.0 |
| Canada | 8 | 33.0 |
| Italy | 4 | 33.0 |
| Netherlands | 3 | 33.0 |
| Slovenia | 3 | 33.0 |
| Nigeria | 5 | 32.0 |
| Spain | 5 | 32.0 |
| South_Africa | 3 | 30.0 |
| Unknown | 7 | 28.0 |
| Korea_South | 3 | 27.0 |
Total number of countries: 49
For reasons of privacy, only countries with 3 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the medians, and then alphabetic.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed associative horizon | 4 | 0.69 | 0.24 |
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.37 | 0.05 |
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.32 | 0.09 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.30 | 0.12 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.29 | 0.12 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.25 | 0.18 |
| Educational level | 209 | 0.23 | 0.001 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.16 | 0.40 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.15 | 0.44 |
| Observed behaviour | 20 | 0.14 | 0.52 |
| Mother's educational level | 198 | 0.13 | 0.06 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.11 | 0.54 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 20 | 0.10 | 0.66 |
| Father's educational level | 199 | 0.08 | 0.28 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.07 | 0.71 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.07 | 0.71 |
| Sex | 221 | 0.06 | 0.38 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 29 | 0.03 | 0.84 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 29 | -0.06 | 0.76 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 29 | -0.07 | 0.71 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 208 | -0.08 | 0.26 |
| Year of birth | 218 | -0.08 | 0.24 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 29 | -0.09 | 0.62 |
| Disorders (own) | 211 | -0.15 | 0.03 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 21 | -0.32 | 0.15 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 29 | -0.40 | 0.03 |
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
The goal of estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges 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 these values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
| Below 1st quartile (31.0) | 0.63 (N = 562) |
|---|---|
| Below median (34.0) | 0.68 (N = 847) |
| Above median (34.0) | 0.65 (N = 730) |
| Above 3rd quartile (36.0) | 0.63 (N = 460) |
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 65 to 69 | 4 | 32.0 |
| 60 to 64 | 4 | 34.0 |
| 55 to 59 | 3 | 35.0 |
| 50 to 54 | 7 | 32.0 |
| 45 to 49 | 9 | 35.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 12 | 34.5 |
| 35 to 39 | 20 | 35.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 33 | 34.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 36 | 32.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 25 | 35.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 16 | 33.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 24 | 34.0 |
| 17 | 8 | 33.0 |
| 16 | 5 | 32.0 |
| 15 | 8 | 32.5 |
| 14 | 2 | 36.0 |
| 13 | 2 | 28.0 |
| Age unknown | 3 | 21.0 |
N = 221
| Age class | n | Median raw |
|---|---|---|
| 50 to 54 | 1 | 25.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 1 | 37.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 3 | 32.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 3 | 30.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 3 | 28.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 1 | 38.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 3 | 31.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 1 | 24.0 |
| 17 | 1 | 35.0 |
| 14 | 1 | 35.0 |
N = 18
| Age class | n | Median raw |
|---|---|---|
| 65 to 69 | 4 | 32.0 |
| 60 to 64 | 4 | 34.0 |
| 55 to 59 | 3 | 35.0 |
| 50 to 54 | 6 | 33.5 |
| 45 to 49 | 9 | 35.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 11 | 34.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 17 | 36.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 30 | 34.5 |
| 25 to 29 | 33 | 32.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 23 | 35.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 13 | 34.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 23 | 34.0 |
| 17 | 7 | 33.0 |
| 16 | 5 | 32.0 |
| 15 | 8 | 32.5 |
| 14 | 1 | 37.0 |
| 13 | 2 | 28.0 |
| Age Unknown | 3 | 21.0 |
N = 202
| Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 1 | 35.0 | 426 |
| 2012 | 7 | 33.0 | 394 |
| 2013 | 14 | 30.5 | 368 |
| 2014 | 17 | 32.0 | 383 |
| 2015 | 19 | 33.0 | 394 |
| 2016 | 21 | 34.0 | 406 |
| 2017 | 29 | 32.0 | 383 |
| 2018 | 28 | 34.0 | 406 |
| 2019 | 24 | 34.0 | 406 |
| 2020 | 25 | 35.0 | 426 |
| 2021 | 17 | 35.0 | 426 |
| 2022 | 6 | 37.0 | 490 |
| 2023 | 6 | 31.0 | 373 |
| 2024 | 7 | 36.0 | 454 |
N = 221
Item statistics are not published as that would help candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score on the remaining problems (item-rest correlation) and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are revised, replaced, or removed, possibly resulting in a revised version of the test.
[Statistics of earlier version of the Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test] [Statistics index page]