0 | * |
9 | * |
12 | ** |
16 | * |
17 | * |
18 | * |
20 | * |
21 | ** |
24 | **** |
30 | *** |
33 | * |
35 | * |
37 | * |
38 | *** |
39 | * |
40 | ** |
41 | ** |
42 | ** |
44 | * |
45 | * |
46 | * |
49 | ** |
50 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 9 | 0.95 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 8 | 0.95 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 12 | 0.94 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 5 | 0.93 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 31 | 0.90 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 12 | 0.86 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 9 | 0.86 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 8 | 0.85 |
(15) Letters | 6 | 0.85 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 15 | 0.84 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 13 | 0.83 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 14 | 0.82 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 16 | 0.82 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.82 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 13 | 0.82 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.82 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.82 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 14 | 0.80 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.80 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 14 | 0.77 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 7 | 0.77 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 16 | 0.77 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 8 | 0.76 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 9 | 0.75 |
(114) Dicing with death | 6 | 0.75 |
(29) Words | 8 | 0.75 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.75 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.74 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 8 | 0.71 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 12 | 0.71 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 31 | 0.70 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.68 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 14 | 0.68 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 30 | 0.68 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 14 | 0.67 |
(7) The Final Test | 9 | 0.66 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.66 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 14 | 0.66 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 17 | 0.66 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 16 | 0.64 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 11 | 0.64 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 31 | 0.64 |
(11) Isis Test | 10 | 0.63 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.61 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 13 | 0.58 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 16 | 0.57 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 22 | 0.52 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 9 | 0.47 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 4 | 0.46 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.46 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 11 | 0.40 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 9 | 0.38 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 6 | 0.38 |
(82) Reason | 4 | -0.44 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 5 | -0.83 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 4 | -0.93 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.688 (N = 672, weighted sum = 462.31)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.83
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 4 | 0.77 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 5 | 0.64 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 6 | 0.62 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 4 | 0.55 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 9 | 0.55 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 5 | 0.53 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.18 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 17 | -0.04 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.367 (N = 54, weighted sum = 19.81)
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 Verbal section of The Marathon Test on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 116 | 0.83 |
Numerical | 47 | 0.83 |
Spatial | 74 | 0.80 |
Logical | 27 | 0.66 |
Heterogeneous | 226 | 0.84 |
N = 490
Balanced g loading = 0.79
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Spain | 3 | 45.0 |
India | 2 | 38.0 |
South_Africa | 2 | 36.5 |
Canada | 2 | 34.0 |
United_Kingdom | 3 | 30.0 |
United_States | 7 | 24.0 |
Finland | 2 | 22.5 |
Germany | 3 | 21.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.85 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.68 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.67 |
Observed behaviour | 7 | 0.54 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 6 | 0.54 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.44 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.33 |
Educational level | 36 | 0.29 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.06 |
Sex | 36 | 0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.02 |
Mother's educational level | 35 | 0.02 |
Father's educational level | 35 | -0.02 |
Year of birth | 36 | -0.07 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 35 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.20 |
Disorders (own) | 35 | -0.21 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.23 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 4 | -0.29 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.35 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.53 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.58 |
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 | 0.83 (672) | NaN (0) |
14 | 0.76 (583) | 0.81 (12) |
24 | 0.74 (469) | 0.74 (211) |
34 | 0.57 (323) | 0.75 (291) |
39 | 0.65 (186) | 0.82 (430) |
44 | 0.62 (28) | 0.81 (568) |
The below statistics are based on only the last 24 candidates because, before that, the internal data of The Marathon Test were stored differently (not per subtest).
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 1 | 24.0 |
55 to 59 | 2 | 45.0 |
50 to 54 | 1 | 18.0 |
45 to 49 | 5 | 40.0 |
40 to 44 | 3 | 35.0 |
35 to 39 | 1 | 9.0 |
30 to 34 | 3 | 41.0 |
25 to 29 | 7 | 24.0 |
22 to 24 | 1 | 49.0 |
N = 24
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2010 | 1 | 24.0 |
2011 | 1 | 40.0 |
2012 | 3 | 38.0 |
2013 | 3 | 18.0 |
2014 | 2 | 35.5 |
2015 | 2 | 22.5 |
2016 | 2 | 23.0 |
2017 | 1 | 21.0 |
2018 | 1 | 9.0 |
2019 | 4 | 45.0 |
2020 | 3 | 39.0 |
2021 | 1 | 40.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.14 (N = 24)
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.