0 | *** |
2 | * |
3 | ** |
4 | * |
5 | **** |
6 | ***** |
7 | **** |
8 | ****** |
9 | ******* |
10 | **** |
11 | ******* |
12 | ******* |
13 | ***** |
13.5 | * |
14 | ****** |
15 | ****** |
16 | ********** |
17 | *** |
18 | ** |
19 | ****** |
19.5 | * |
20 | **** |
21 | ** |
22 | * |
23 | **** |
24 | *** |
25 | ** |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
31 | * |
35 | * |
36 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(85) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 3 | 1.00 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 3 | 0.99 |
(49) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 3 | 0.96 |
(59) Association and Analogies (German) | 4 | 0.94 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 6 | 0.92 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 10 | 0.91 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.90 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 23 | 0.88 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.87 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 38 | 0.86 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 10 | 0.85 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 7 | 0.85 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 26 | 0.83 |
(7) The Final Test | 26 | 0.81 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 80 | 0.81 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 14 | 0.81 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 22 | 0.80 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 31 | 0.79 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.78 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 18 | 0.76 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 17 | 0.76 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 36 | 0.76 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.75 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 42 | 0.75 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 4 | 0.75 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.74 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 5 | 0.74 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 8 | 0.73 |
(15) Letters | 9 | 0.72 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.71 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 26 | 0.69 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 11 | 0.67 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 14 | 0.65 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 20 | 0.65 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 27 | 0.64 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.64 |
(29) Words | 10 | 0.62 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 12 | 0.62 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 30 | 0.62 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 14 | 0.62 |
(74) Cooijmans On-Line Test | 5 | 0.58 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.57 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 18 | 0.57 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 27 | 0.57 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 15 | 0.56 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 5 | 0.53 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.52 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 18 | 0.51 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 8 | 0.51 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 41 | 0.51 |
(73) Qoymans Automatic Test #3 | 4 | 0.50 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 113 | 0.49 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 39 | 0.48 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 13 | 0.47 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.47 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 13 | 0.45 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 45 | 0.45 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 27 | 0.43 |
(82) Reason | 19 | 0.43 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.41 |
(54) Test of Shock and Awe | 9 | 0.41 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 19 | 0.38 |
(11) Isis Test | 22 | 0.33 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 9 | 0.27 |
(55) Spatial Insight Test | 8 | 0.26 |
(56) Short Test For Genius | 4 | 0.12 |
(69) Odds | 9 | 0.11 |
(116) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 7 | 0.09 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 8 | 0.09 |
(68) Numbers | 14 | 0.05 |
(8) Female Intelligence Test | 3 | 0.03 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 6 | -0.02 |
(51) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 4 | -0.92 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.612 (weighted sum: 765.53)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.78
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(202) Cattell Verbal | 3 | 0.87 |
(237) Sigma Test | 6 | 0.87 |
(243) Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 4 | 0.83 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 6 | 0.78 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 14 | 0.76 |
(206) W-87 | 3 | 0.74 |
(239) Titan Test | 12 | 0.68 |
(214) Epiq Tests | 3 | 0.67 |
(238) 916 Test | 9 | 0.59 |
(226) Logima Strictica 24 | 5 | 0.57 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 50 | 0.57 |
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 11 | 0.56 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 23 | 0.55 |
(227) Concep-T | 5 | 0.35 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 15 | 0.35 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 13 | 0.34 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 8 | 0.29 |
(224) T.R.I. | 5 | 0.28 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 8 | 0.26 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 11 | 0.15 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 6 | 0.11 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 17 | 0.09 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 10 | 0.01 |
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 9 | 0.00 |
(217) G-test | 5 | -0.34 |
(230) Omega Contemplative Items Pool | 3 | -0.76 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.422 (weighted sum: 111.29)
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.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 2 | 1.00 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 2 | 1.00 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 2 | 1.00 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 2 | 1.00 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 2 | 1.00 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 2 | 1.00 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 2 | 1.00 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 2 | 1.00 |
Weighted average of correlations: 1.000
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 1.00
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 | g loading of Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 on that type |
---|---|
Verbal | 0.84 |
Numerical | 0.66 |
Spatial | 0.69 |
Logical | 0.63 |
Heterogeneous | 0.78 |
Balanced g loading = 0.72
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Belgium | 2 | 23.5 |
Norway | 3 | 22.0 |
Switzerland | 2 | 20.5 |
France | 2 | 20.0 |
Germany | 7 | 19.0 |
United_Kingdom | 7 | 18.0 |
Australia | 5 | 16.0 |
India | 3 | 16.0 |
United_States | 31 | 15.0 |
Canada | 4 | 14.5 |
Netherlands | 4 | 13.0 |
Spain | 3 | 13.0 |
Portugal | 2 | 11.0 |
Finland | 6 | 10.5 |
Italy | 4 | 10.5 |
Sweden | 5 | 9.0 |
Greece | 4 | 6.5 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.48 |
Educational level | 108 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 37 | 0.28 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 5 | 0.18 |
Mother's educational level | 106 | 0.15 |
Sex | 114 | 0.14 |
Father's educational level | 105 | 0.13 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 44 | 0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Rational | 37 | 0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted | 37 | 0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Rare | 37 | 0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel | 37 | 0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 37 | 0.07 |
Observed behaviour | 24 | 0.06 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 23 | 0.04 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 37 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Cold | 37 | -0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly | 37 | -0.04 |
Disorders (own) | 108 | -0.04 |
P.S.I.A. System factor | 21 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 44 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme | 37 | -0.09 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 107 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. True | 37 | -0.13 |
Year of birth | 114 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Just | 37 | -0.22 |
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 score | Upward g (n) | Downward g (n) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.78 (1250) | NaN (0) |
9 | 0.69 (826) | 0.74 (435) |
14 | 0.66 (549) | 0.75 (727) |
19 | 0.66 (225) | 0.73 (1070) |
48 | NaN (0) | 0.78 (1250) |
The internal statistics of this test, shown below, are of February 2023, so more recent than the above. Notice that this is a subtest of both the Revision 2004 and Revision 1010 of the Test For Genius.
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
60 to 64 | 1 | 5.0 |
55 to 59 | 5 | 12.0 |
50 to 54 | 7 | 14.0 |
45 to 49 | 9 | 19.0 |
40 to 44 | 13 | 16.0 |
35 to 39 | 15 | 21.0 |
30 to 34 | 15 | 14.0 |
25 to 29 | 24 | 13.0 |
22 to 24 | 14 | 12.8 |
20 or 21 | 2 | 13.5 |
18 or 19 | 5 | 9.0 |
17 | 4 | 14.5 |
16 | 2 | 10.5 |
N = 116
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2004 | 14 | 11.5 |
2005 | 18 | 13.5 |
2006 | 10 | 12.0 |
2007 | 13 | 16.0 |
2008 | 7 | 15.0 |
2009 | 6 | 23.0 |
2010 | 9 | 11.0 |
2011 | 10 | 14.0 |
2012 | 3 | 10.0 |
2013 | 3 | 5.0 |
2014 | 5 | 14.0 |
2015 | 12 | 10.5 |
2016 | 4 | 21.5 |
2019 | 1 | 23.0 |
2020 | 1 | 24.0 |
2022 | 1 | 19.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.46 (N = 117)
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.