Statistics of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011

© July 2018 Paul Cooijmans

Norms

Scores on Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011

Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial, logical.   Period: 2011-present

10 *
11 *
18 *
21 **
22 ***
24 ****
25 ***
26 **
27 **
28 ***
29 ******
30 *****
31 ******
32 *****************
33 **********
34 *******
35 **************
36 ************
37 ******
38 **********
39 *
40 ****

Scores by males

n = 110

10 *
11 *
18 *
21 **
22 ***
24 **
25 **
26 **
27 *
28 ***
29 ******
30 *****
31 ******
32 **************
33 **********
34 *******
35 **************
36 ***********
37 ******
38 *********
39 *
40 ***

Scores by females

n = 10

24 **
25 *
27 *
32 ***
36 *
38 *
40 *

Correlation of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201331.00
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment90.98
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 201630.93
(42) The Marathon Test60.92
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5180.91
(28) The Test To End All Tests70.86
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man70.85
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 201670.85
(107) The Alchemist Test70.83
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010120.81
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test90.81
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test70.79
(48) Narcissus' last stand70.79
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test90.79
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 201630.79
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004160.77
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test90.75
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008180.73
(7) The Final Test40.72
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4190.70
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010150.69
(36) Reflections In Peroxide70.68
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004140.66
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201630.65
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree80.65
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test110.64
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 201630.63
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3260.60
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 540.58
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version80.58
(18) The Nemesis Test50.54
(25) The Sargasso Test90.53
(44) Associative LIMIT100.52
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree60.51
(1) Cartoons of Shock90.51
(10) Genius Association Test130.50
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010180.48
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree70.43
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude70.42
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words70.40
(24) Reason - Revision 2008180.39
(29) Words70.27
(5) Daedalus Test40.27
(11) Isis Test80.14
(15) Letters8-0.03

Weighted average of correlations: 0.637

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.80

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.

Correlation of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I50.92
(220) Cattell Culture Fair30.88
(247) Advanced Intelligence Test30.77
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I40.66
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests290.18

Weighted average of correlations: 0.395

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.

Estimated loadings of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 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 Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 on that type
Verbal0.79
Numerical0.76
Spatial0.86
Logical0.61
Heterogeneous0.77

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

Balanced g loading = 0.76

National medians for Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011

Country n median score
Germany1036.0
Italy336.0
Australia235.5
Bulgaria335.0
France335.0
United_Kingdom735.0
Sweden634.5
United_States4633.5
Brazil233.0
Slovenia232.0
Spain532.0
Canada331.0
South_Africa229.5
Finland228.0
Denmark227.0
Netherlands227.0

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 Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011

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

Correlation of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 with personal details

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Orderly100.69
P.S.I.A. Rational100.55
P.S.I.A. True100.51
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor120.32
P.S.I.A. Introverted100.31
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes90.30
Educational level1160.26
P.S.I.A. Cold100.26
P.S.I.A. System factor110.21
Mother's educational level1090.11
P.S.I.A. Just100.08
Observed behaviour60.07
Sex1200.06
Father's educational level1100.01
P.S.I.A. Extreme100.00
P.S.I.A. Cruel10-0.00
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.58-0.09
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor12-0.12
P.S.I.A. Rare10-0.12
Disorders (parents and siblings)115-0.14
P.S.I.A. Neurotic10-0.17
Year of birth118-0.18
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms11-0.19
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid10-0.19
Disorders (own)116-0.30
P.S.I.A. Antisocial10-0.77

Remarkable is that Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. has no significant relation with scores on this test. Disorders have a significant negative correlation as usual, in this case entirely due to the male candidates as can be seen in the within-sex tables below.

Correlation with personal details of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 - within females

Personalia n r
Disorders (own)100.58
Mother's educational level100.42
Disorders (parents and siblings)100.33
Educational level100.33
Father's educational level100.29
Year of birth100.25
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.8-0.14

Correlation with personal details of Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 - within males

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Orderly100.69
P.S.I.A. Rational100.55
P.S.I.A. True100.51
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor120.32
P.S.I.A. Introverted100.31
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes90.30
Educational level1060.27
P.S.I.A. Cold100.26
P.S.I.A. System factor110.21
Mother's educational level990.10
P.S.I.A. Just100.08
Observed behaviour60.07
Father's educational level1000.00
P.S.I.A. Extreme100.00
P.S.I.A. Cruel10-0.00
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.50-0.10
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor12-0.12
P.S.I.A. Rare10-0.12
P.S.I.A. Neurotic10-0.17
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid10-0.19
Disorders (parents and siblings)105-0.19
Year of birth108-0.21
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms10-0.22
Disorders (own)106-0.38
P.S.I.A. Antisocial10-0.77

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)
00.80 (415)NaN (0)
240.73 (340)0.83 (24)
270.53 (278)0.72 (113)
300.60 (247)0.77 (147)
330.42 (105)0.75 (266)
360.25 (57)0.80 (365)
380.35 (6)0.79 (406)
42NaN (0)0.80 (415)

Reliability

Reliability is somewhat lower than desirable (.9 is striven for), likely because most of the items are easy and infrequently missed, there only being a small number of hard problems in the test. But that is how the test was intended to be.

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
65 to 69133.0
60 to 64338.0
55 to 59135.0
50 to 54431.0
45 to 49735.0
40 to 44734.0
35 to 391236.5
30 to 341834.5
25 to 291830.0
22 to 241335.0
20 or 21832.0
18 or 191030.0
17334.0
16532.0
15633.0
13228.0

Scores by age - within females

Age class n median score
50 to 54125.0
35 to 39232.0
30 to 34231.5
25 to 29232.0
22 to 24138.0
20 or 21132.0
18 or 19124.0

Scores by age - within males

Age class n median score
65 to 69133.0
60 to 64338.0
55 to 59135.0
50 to 54331.0
45 to 49735.0
40 to 44734.0
35 to 391037.0
30 to 341634.5
25 to 291630.0
22 to 241235.0
20 or 21732.0
18 or 19931.0
17334.0
16532.0
15633.0
13228.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2011136.0
2012733.0
20131430.5
20141732.0
20151933.0
20162134.0
20172932.0
20181235.5

ryear taken × median score = 0.05 (n = 120)

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.