Statistics of the Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test

© February 2013 Paul Cooijmans

Norms

Scores on Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test

Contents type: Spatial.   Period: 2004-present

4 *
7 *
9 *
11 *
12 *
14 *
15 ***
16 *****
17 ****
17.5 *
18 *****
19 **********
20 ********
21 ****
22 ***
23 *
24 ****
25 **
26 *
27 *
28 **

Correlation of Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts50.85
(44) Associative LIMIT360.81
(84) Bonsai Test70.78
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man100.70
(55) Spatial Insight Test110.69
(28) The Test To End All Tests120.68
(18) The Nemesis Test90.67
(69) Odds80.65
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment170.63
(7) The Final Test190.61
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4260.57
(10) Genius Association Test360.55
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice180.55
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004330.55
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004280.53
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2220.52
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201060.48
(63) Long Test For Genius90.48
(68) Numbers120.43
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 201060.42
(1) Cartoons of Shock140.40
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test70.37
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test70.33
(42) The Marathon Test70.32
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5130.32
(54) Test of Shock and Awe90.29
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004330.27
(82) Reason200.27
(11) Isis Test70.25
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test70.22
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace150.15
(25) The Sargasso Test110.13
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008130.11
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3100.10
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test80.10
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius90.07
(24) Reason - Revision 200813-0.04
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius11-0.10

Weighted average of correlations: 0.445

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.67

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 5 score pairs. All known pairs are used to obtain the true, honest statistics; correlations have not been artificially inflated by leaving out ceiling scores, outliers or other anomalies.

Correlation of Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(220) Cattell Culture Fair50.87
(238) 916 Test70.66
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version170.63
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48110.60
(224) T.R.I.50.49
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests60.46
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I160.43
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination120.43
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales60.37
(225) Logima Strictica 36190.23
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw)5-0.07
(239) Titan Test6-0.15
(226) Logima Strictica 605-0.17
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.)6-0.49

Weighted average of correlations: 0.360

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 5 score pairs. All known pairs are used to obtain the true, honest statistics; correlations have not been artificially inflated by leaving out ceiling scores, outliers or other anomalies.

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 Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test 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 Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test on that type
Verbal0.63
Numerical0.66
Spatial0.68
Logical0.43
Heterogeneous0.63

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

Balanced g loading = 0.61

National medians for Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test

Country n median score
Belgium325.0
Norway223.0
Germany222.5
Sweden522.0
United_Kingdom220.0
Spain219.5
Finland719.0
Canada418.5
Australia217.5
Greece417.0
United_States1216.0

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 of Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test with personal details

Personalia n r
Observed associative horizon70.43
P.S.I.A. Antisocial230.39
Year of birth600.32
Observed behaviour180.25
P.S.I.A. System factor210.24
P.S.I.A. Rare230.19
P.S.I.A. Rational230.17
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes40.16
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor320.15
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid230.10
P.S.I.A. Neurotic230.08
P.S.I.A. Orderly230.05
Sex60-0.00
P.S.I.A. Cruel23-0.01
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor32-0.03
P.S.I.A. Cold23-0.04
Mother's educational level56-0.05
P.S.I.A. Extreme23-0.05
P.S.I.A. True23-0.07
Father's educational level54-0.07
P.S.I.A. Introverted23-0.08
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms14-0.09
P.S.I.A. Just23-0.11
Disorders (own)58-0.12
Disorders (parents and siblings)58-0.22
Educational level58-0.27

Correlation with national I.Q.s of Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test

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

Estimated g factor loadings Upward and Downward of specific scores

In parentheses the number of score pairs on which that estimated g factor loading is based. The Upward and Downward values are calculated including the pertinent score itself. It is normal that g factor loadings go down when the range is restricted, so some inevitable depression must be taken into account.

ScoreUpward (n)Downward (n)
00.67 (544)NaN (0)
130.61 (513)NaN (0)
150.60 (510)0.81 (12)
170.55 (411)0.64 (97)
190.48 (207)0.63 (375)
210.42 (72)0.65 (444)
230.68 (37)0.66 (459)
25NaN (0)0.66 (519)
30NaN (0)0.67 (544)

Reliability

Remark: The reliability of this test (.84) is somewhat lower than what is striven for and achieved in most tests (.9). This is largely due to the relatively low number of problems in the test (30). This reliability in turn puts an upper limit on the correlations with any other variables, and hence on the test's g loading, which as a result is also somewhat lower than usual. These lower values are not a problem in this case because it concerns a subtest, and not an I.Q. test in its own right. By combining the test with another test, the combined reliability becomes well over .9.

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
55 to 59216.5
50 to 54315.0
45 to 49417.5
40 to 44818.3
35 to 39618.5
30 to 34920.0
25 to 291320.0
22 to 24821.0
20 or 21418.0
18 or 19317.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
20041119.0
2005718.0
20061120.0
2007920.0
2008721.0
2009221.5
2010416.3
2011619.0
2012218.0
2013121.0

ryear taken × median score = 0.03 (n = 60)

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.