Statistics of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

© November 2015 Paul Cooijmans

Norms

Scores on Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial, logical.   Period: 2013-present

0 *
18 *
19 *
20 *
22 *
23 *
25 **
26 **
27 **
28 **
29 *
30 **
31 *
32 *
33 *
34 *
36 *
37 ***
38 *
39 *
41 *
44 *
46 *

Scores by males

n = 26

0 *
18 *
19 *
23 *
25 **
26 **
27 **
28 **
29 *
30 **
32 *
34 *
36 *
37 ***
38 *
39 *
41 *
44 *
46 *

Scores by females

n = 4

20 *
22 *
31 *
33 *

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(28) The Test To End All Tests30.98
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #580.97
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment50.90
(29) Words30.88
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words30.87
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 200880.87
(15) Letters30.87
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011100.81
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test (Two-barrelled)40.79
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree60.75
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man60.74
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test40.70
(48) Narcissus' last stand30.65
(1) Cartoons of Shock120.59
(44) Associative LIMIT80.56
(10) Genius Association Test90.52
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004110.51
(7) The Final Test60.44
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude30.43
(36) Reflections In Peroxide30.43
(24) Reason - Revision 200880.42
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test80.40
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201340.31
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3160.30
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201090.29
(25) The Sargasso Test80.21
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010110.19
(18) The Nemesis Test4-0.07
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200410-0.16
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 20109-0.27

Weighted average of correlations: 0.472

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.69

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 3 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

Remark: The statistics of this test (insofar correlation-based) suffer a bit from the fact that relatively many of the candidates are new and have no known scores on other tests yet.

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests9-0.54

Weighted average of correlations: -0.538

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 3 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

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.

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans - for females

(Test index) Test name n r
(1) Cartoons of Shock30.97
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 330.86

Weighted average of correlations: 0.915

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.96

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 3 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

Estimated loadings of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 on particular item types

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.

Typeg loading of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 on that type
Verbal0.81
Numerical0.44
Spatial0.30
Logical0.65
Heterogeneous0.71

Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.

Balanced g loading = 0.58

National medians for Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Country n median score
France236.5
Germany235.0
Netherlands234.0
Sweden331.0
Spain230.0
India228.5
United_States623.5

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 2 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the medians, and then alphabetic.

Correlation with national I.Q.'s of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with personal details

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Just60.88
P.S.I.A. Rational60.74
P.S.I.A. Orderly60.72
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor70.55
P.S.I.A. True60.49
P.S.I.A. System factor60.47
Educational level270.38
P.S.I.A. Cold60.22
Sex300.14
P.S.I.A. Extreme60.10
P.S.I.A. Rare60.09
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor70.04
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms40.02
Father's educational level25-0.00
Mother's educational level26-0.02
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid6-0.03
P.S.I.A. Neurotic6-0.10
P.S.I.A. Introverted6-0.13
Disorders (parents and siblings)27-0.20
Disorders (own)27-0.29
Year of birth29-0.30
P.S.I.A. Antisocial6-0.52
P.S.I.A. Cruel6-0.53
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.16-0.53

Correlation with personal details of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 - within females

Personalia n r
Father's educational level30.99
Educational level30.79
Year of birth30.69
Disorders (own)3-0.99
Disorders (parents and siblings)3-0.99

Correlation with personal details of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 - within males

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Just60.88
P.S.I.A. Rational60.74
P.S.I.A. Orderly60.72
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor70.55
P.S.I.A. True60.49
P.S.I.A. System factor60.47
Educational level240.38
P.S.I.A. Cold60.22
P.S.I.A. Extreme60.10
P.S.I.A. Rare60.09
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor70.04
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms40.02
Father's educational level22-0.02
Mother's educational level23-0.03
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid6-0.03
P.S.I.A. Neurotic6-0.10
Disorders (parents and siblings)24-0.12
P.S.I.A. Introverted6-0.13
Disorders (own)24-0.23
Year of birth26-0.37
P.S.I.A. Antisocial6-0.52
P.S.I.A. Cruel6-0.53
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.14-0.57

Estimated g factor loadings upward and downward of particular scores

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 scoreUpward g (n)Downward g (n)
00.69 (205)NaN (0)
23.50.59 (131)0.84 (18)
29.50.15 (73)0.55 (118)
35.50.23 (34)0.68 (146)
80NaN (0)0.69 (205)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
70 to 74125.0
50 to 54233.0
45 to 49436.5
40 to 44432.5
35 to 39337.0
30 to 34229.0
25 to 29728.0
22 to 24134.0
20 or 21144.0
18 or 19418.5

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2013326.0
20141532.0
20151227.5

ryear taken × median score = 0.24 (n = 30)

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 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. So far there appear to be no problematic items in this test.

Correlations of sections with total score

Verbal0.88
Numerical0.81
Spatial0.82
Logical0.73

Correlations between sections

Verbal × Numerical0.55
Verbal × Spatial0.63
Verbal × Logical0.60
Numerical × Spatial0.57
Numerical × Logical0.48
Spatial × Logical0.44

These correlations show that the sections are indeed tapping into different sets of factors and thus providing a meaningful profile. Were they high or very high, that would mean the sections were all measuring the same, and there would be no point in having sections. Ideal values for between-section correlations are about .5 to .6.

Section histograms

Prop. = proportion of candidates outscored in this section.

Verbal

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.017 (0.033) *
80.083 (0.133) ***
100.167 (0.200) **
110.233 (0.267) **
120.317 (0.367) ***
130.450 (0.533) *****
140.617 (0.700) *****
150.783 (0.867) *****
160.900 (0.933) **
170.950 (0.967) *
180.983 (1.000) *

Numerical

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.017 (0.033) *
30.083 (0.133) ***
40.183 (0.233) ***
50.283 (0.333) ***
60.400 (0.467) ****
70.500 (0.533) **
80.617 (0.700) *****
90.717 (0.733) *
100.817 (0.900) *****
120.950 (1.000) ***

Spatial

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.033 (0.067) **
30.133 (0.200) ****
40.250 (0.300) ***
50.400 (0.500) ******
60.617 (0.733) *******
70.767 (0.800) **
80.817 (0.833) *
90.850 (0.867) *
100.917 (0.967) ***
110.983 (1.000) *

Logical

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.017 (0.033) *
20.067 (0.100) **
30.200 (0.300) ******
40.483 (0.667) ***********
4.50.683 (0.700) *
50.717 (0.733) *
60.783 (0.833) ***
70.883 (0.933) ***
7.50.950 (0.967) *
90.983 (1.000) *