Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial. Period: 2009-present
| 0 | ****** |
| 0.5 | * |
| 1 | *** |
| 2 | ****** |
| 2.5 | ** |
| 3 | ******* |
| 4 | ********* |
| 5 | ******* |
| 6 | *** |
| 7 | * |
| 8 | *** |
| 9 | *** |
| 10 | **** |
| 11 | *** |
| 14 | ** |
| 16 | * |
| 23 | * |
| 24 | * |
| 26 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.96 | 0.10 |
| The Marathon Test - Revision 2024 | 5 | 0.92 | 0.07 |
| Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 15 | 0.91 | 0.0007 |
| Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 5 | 0.89 | 0.08 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 5 | 0.86 | 0.08 |
| Tests by Alexi Edin (aggregate) | 4 | 0.86 | 0.13 |
| De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.84 | 0.06 |
| Numerologica (Andrei Udriște) | 7 | 0.83 | 0.04 |
| The Smell Test | 17 | 0.83 | 0.0010 |
| The Piper's Test | 28 | 0.81 | 0.00002 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 29 | 0.81 | 0.00002 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 7 | 0.80 | 0.05 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 40 | 0.78 | 0.000001 |
| Only idiots | 20 | 0.77 | 0.0008 |
| The Nemesis Test | 39 | 0.77 | 0.000002 |
| Bonsai Test | 4 | 0.77 | 0.18 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 46 | 0.76 | 0.0000003 |
| Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 12 | 0.76 | 0.01 |
| Dicing with death | 23 | 0.74 | 0.0005 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 33 | 0.73 | 0.00003 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 5 | 0.73 | 0.14 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 9 | 0.73 | 0.04 |
| The Mental Inventor (Neurolus Psychometrics) | 4 | 0.71 | 0.22 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 16 | 0.70 | 0.006 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.70 | 0.24 |
| Three Sonnets (Heinrich Siemens) | 4 | 0.68 | 0.24 |
| Tests by Iakovos Koukas (aggregate) | 5 | 0.68 | 0.17 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 35 | 0.67 | 0.00010 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 6 | 0.66 | 0.14 |
| The Gate | 15 | 0.66 | 0.01 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 12 | 0.64 | 0.03 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 28 | 0.64 | 0.0009 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.64 | 0.27 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 34 | 0.63 | 0.0003 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 12 | 0.63 | 0.04 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 45 | 0.63 | 0.00003 |
| The Sargasso Test | 38 | 0.62 | 0.0001 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 27 | 0.62 | 0.002 |
| De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.61 | 0.17 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 29 | 0.61 | 0.001 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 16 | 0.60 | 0.02 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.60 | 0.24 |
| Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | 0.59 | 0.30 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.59 | 0.003 |
| Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 6 | 0.59 | 0.19 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the fourth degree | 5 | 0.58 | 0.25 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 21 | 0.58 | 0.01 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.58 | 0.004 |
| The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.57 | 0.02 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 20 | 0.57 | 0.01 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 33 | 0.57 | 0.001 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.55 | 0.27 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 11 | 0.55 | 0.08 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 22 | 0.54 | 0.01 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 29 | 0.53 | 0.005 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 12 | 0.52 | 0.08 |
| The Final Test | 10 | 0.51 | 0.13 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 26 | 0.50 | 0.01 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.50 | 0.01 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 18 | 0.48 | 0.05 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 8 | 0.46 | 0.22 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 4 | 0.46 | 0.42 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 35 | 0.46 | 0.008 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 11 | 0.45 | 0.15 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 44 | 0.45 | 0.003 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 19 | 0.45 | 0.05 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 10 | 0.43 | 0.19 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 32 | 0.42 | 0.02 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 17 | 0.42 | 0.10 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 20 | 0.40 | 0.08 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 36 | 0.39 | 0.02 |
| Associative LIMIT | 28 | 0.39 | 0.04 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.38 | 0.04 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 35 | 0.36 | 0.04 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 35 | 0.35 | 0.04 |
| Genius Association Test | 30 | 0.35 | 0.06 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 4 | 0.35 | 0.54 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 19 | 0.35 | 0.14 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 15 | 0.34 | 0.20 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 36 | 0.31 | 0.07 |
| Isis Test | 35 | 0.31 | 0.08 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 35 | 0.26 | 0.12 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 10 | 0.24 | 0.48 |
| Numbers | 5 | 0.23 | 0.64 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 6 | 0.21 | 0.64 |
| Odds | 5 | 0.20 | 0.68 |
| Daedalus Test | 24 | 0.13 | 0.54 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 6 | 0.10 | 0.81 |
| Letters | 7 | -0.00 | 1.00 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 4 | -0.01 | 0.97 |
| Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | -0.10 | 0.84 |
| Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 7 | -0.11 | 0.78 |
| The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | -0.24 | 0.60 |
| Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 4 | -0.24 | 0.68 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 4 | -0.29 | 0.62 |
| Reason | 5 | -0.34 | 0.50 |
| Words | 7 | -0.58 | 0.15 |
| Logicaus Strictimanus 24 (Robert Lato) | 5 | -0.71 | 0.15 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 8 | -0.77 | 0.04 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.519 (N = 1685)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.72
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 A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 238 | 0.65 |
| Numerical | 106 | 0.63 |
| Spatial | 137 | 0.66 |
| Logical | 64 | 0.41 |
| Heterogeneous | 735 | 0.79 |
N = 1280
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.63
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| China | 3 | 23.0 |
| Spain | 7 | 8.0 |
| United_Kingdom | 3 | 6.0 |
| Korea_South | 3 | 5.0 |
| United_States | 17 | 4.0 |
| Germany | 4 | 3.5 |
| Greece | 3 | 3.0 |
Total number of countries: 27
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.
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed associative horizon | 8 | 0.90 | 0.02 |
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.52 | 0.02 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 11 | 0.46 | 0.14 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.37 | 0.08 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.30 | 0.16 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.30 | 0.16 |
| Observed behaviour | 19 | 0.28 | 0.24 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.27 | 0.20 |
| Year of birth | 64 | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.16 | 0.44 |
| Sex | 64 | 0.09 | 0.48 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 17 | 0.08 | 0.74 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.02 | 0.92 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.02 | 0.92 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 58 | -0.03 | 0.81 |
| Educational level | 59 | -0.04 | 0.76 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.06 | 0.78 |
| Disorders (own) | 61 | -0.06 | 0.64 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.06 | 0.76 |
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.07 | 0.74 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.08 | 0.71 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.08 | 0.71 |
| Father's educational level | 55 | -0.14 | 0.28 |
| Mother's educational level | 56 | -0.19 | 0.15 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.21 | 0.32 |
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 (2.3) | 0.55 (N = 251) |
|---|---|
| Below median (4.0) | 0.70 (N = 764) |
| Above median (4.0) | 0.64 (N = 1139) |
| Above 3rd quartile (8.5) | 0.62 (N = 314) |
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 65 to 69 | 2 | 3.0 |
| 60 to 64 | 1 | 2.0 |
| 50 to 54 | 3 | 2.0 |
| 45 to 49 | 5 | 10.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 8 | 6.5 |
| 35 to 39 | 6 | 1.5 |
| 30 to 34 | 12 | 4.5 |
| 25 to 29 | 13 | 4.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 7 | 3.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 3 | 6.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 2 | 11.0 |
| 17 | 2 | 4.0 |
N = 64
| Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 2 | 5.5 | 429 |
| 2010 | 4 | 2.0 | 320 |
| 2011 | 1 | 7.0 | 449 |
| 2012 | 3 | 0.0 | 275 |
| 2013 | 3 | 2.0 | 320 |
| 2014 | 1 | 2.5 | 345 |
| 2015 | 1 | 5.0 | 417 |
| 2016 | 2 | 6.5 | 445 |
| 2017 | 1 | 6.0 | 441 |
| 2018 | 4 | 3.0 | 369 |
| 2019 | 5 | 3.0 | 369 |
| 2020 | 6 | 6.0 | 441 |
| 2021 | 8 | 3.0 | 369 |
| 2022 | 3 | 4.0 | 389 |
| 2023 | 3 | 4.0 | 389 |
| 2024 | 5 | 4.0 | 389 |
| 2025 | 6 | 7.0 | 449 |
| 2026 | 6 | 12.0 | 561 |
N = 64
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.