Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 Statistics

© December 2016 Paul Cooijmans

Norms

Scores on Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5

Contents type: Verbal.   Period: 2008-present

-4.5 *
5 *
27 *
31 *
34 *
35.5 *
42 *
42.5 *
43 *
45 *
46 *
46.5 *
47 **
48 *
48.5 *
55 *
57 *
65.5 *
66 **
66.5 *
67 *
68 ***
68.5 *
70 **
70.5 *
71 *****
72 ***
73 ***
73.5 **
75 **
76.5 *
77 *
78 **
78.5 *
80 *
80.5 *
81 *
81.5 *
82 **
82.5 *
83 *
83.5 *
97 *

Correlation of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 201650.98
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4100.95
(28) The Test To End All Tests120.94
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords50.94
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011120.92
(48) Narcissus' last stand90.91
(42) The Marathon Test70.89
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment230.87
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008580.84
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test90.83
(1) Cartoons of Shock200.80
(18) The Nemesis Test100.79
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test90.78
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man140.77
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004150.75
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test90.74
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice100.74
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude110.73
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2100.72
(36) Reflections In Peroxide100.70
(15) Letters70.70
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004260.67
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4140.67
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test90.66
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 201670.66
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words70.65
(25) The Sargasso Test150.64
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version120.64
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004290.63
(29) Words70.59
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test210.58
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3210.58
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree70.57
(44) Associative LIMIT170.55
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree80.53
(11) Isis Test170.51
(24) Reason - Revision 2008580.50
(7) The Final Test150.44
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010100.43
(10) Genius Association Test200.41
(82) Reason110.39
(68) Numbers60.38
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010200.35
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201360.31
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010150.29
(55) Spatial Insight Test50.27
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #360.22
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 201660.17
(5) Daedalus Test80.16
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace50.14

Weighted average of correlations: 0.633

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

Correlation of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(239) Titan Test70.93
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version50.70
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam80.60
(238) 916 Test70.59
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination60.49
(225) Logima Strictica 3690.23
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests250.15
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 4880.07
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I150.04
(248) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version)10-0.74

Weighted average of correlations: 0.213

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, 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 Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans - for females

(Test index) Test name n r
(1) Cartoons of Shock21.00
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 321.00
(7) The Final Test21.00
(10) Genius Association Test21.00
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test21.00
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 201021.00
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200421.00
(44) Associative LIMIT21.00
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 421.00
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 201621.00
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 200840.87
(24) Reason - Revision 200840.62
(18) The Nemesis Test2-1.00

Weighted average of correlations: 0.798

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.89

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

Estimated loadings of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 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 Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 on that type
Verbal0.79
Numerical0.66
Spatial0.74
Logical0.67
Heterogeneous0.84

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

Balanced g loading = 0.74

National medians for Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5

Country n median score
China475.0
United_States1472.5
Bulgaria270.5
India269.0
Germany468.3
Spain467.8
Finland261.3
Canada256.8
Portugal249.0
Greece743.0

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 Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5

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

Correlation of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 with personal details

Personalia n r
Observed associative horizon90.72
Observed behaviour170.36
P.S.I.A. True170.33
P.S.I.A. Rational170.33
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor220.31
P.S.I.A. Cold170.29
P.S.I.A. Introverted170.27
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor220.24
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes80.23
P.S.I.A. Neurotic170.19
Sex600.14
P.S.I.A. Rare170.12
P.S.I.A. System factor190.10
P.S.I.A. Just170.10
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms120.09
P.S.I.A. Extreme170.09
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid170.08
P.S.I.A. Orderly170.02
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.15-0.01
Educational level56-0.03
Mother's educational level55-0.08
Father's educational level53-0.14
Disorders (own)56-0.18
Disorders (parents and siblings)56-0.20
Year of birth58-0.22
P.S.I.A. Antisocial17-0.23
P.S.I.A. Cruel17-0.26

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)
-1000.80 (683)NaN (0)
570.60 (365)0.75 (180)
70.80.48 (197)0.76 (392)
770.66 (26)0.78 (576)
84.6NaN (0)0.79 (670)
100NaN (0)0.80 (683)

Reliability

Remark: The very high reliability is a logical result of the very high number of items (200), which more than compensates for the depressing effect of the three-option multiple-choice nature of the items.

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
60 to 64173.5
55 to 59273.8
50 to 54142.5
45 to 49676.3
40 to 44667.8
35 to 39578.0
30 to 341069.5
25 to 291468.5
22 to 24766.5
20 or 21469.0
18 or 19234.5
17165.5

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2008771.0
2009757.0
20101072.0
2011669.8
2012871.0
2013675.3
2014568.0
2015373.5
2016948.5

ryear taken × median score = -0.22 (n = 61)

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.