This is the analogies subtest of the Netherlandic version of the Long Test For Genius, no longer in use. Currently only the English version of the Test For Genius (Revision 2016) is in use, to prevent candidates from comparing the different language versions to thus gain an advantage. Also, there was very little interest in the non-English versions.
The lack of interest is regrettable, since the problems of the Netherlandic verbal subtests, just as those of the non-verbal subtests, are of an exceptional quality. Some of them live on in the English Test For Genuis, and those that have no English versions are now revived in De Golfstroomtest - Revision 2019.
Contents type: Verbal. Period: 1996-2005
| 3 | * |
| 7 | * |
| 10 | ** |
| 11 | * |
| 12 | ** |
| 13 | * |
| 14 | ** |
| 15 | *** |
| 19 | * |
| 21 | * |
| 22 | * |
| 26 | * |
| Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| De Laatste Test | 3 | 0.99 |
| Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 16 | 0.92 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 17 | 0.87 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 3 | 0.83 |
| Short Test For Genius | 7 | 0.78 |
| Drenth number series | 6 | 0.76 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 3 | 0.70 |
| Numbers | 12 | 0.69 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 17 | 0.59 |
| Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 3 | 0.40 |
| Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 10 | 0.38 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 9 | -0.01 |
| Hoeflin Power Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 3 | -0.29 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.638 (N = 109, weighted sum = 70)
Estimated g factor 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.
| Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| (65) Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 3 | 0.90 |
| (57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 4 | 0.87 |
| (81) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 4 | 0.84 |
| (220) Cattell Culture Fair | 3 | 0.53 |
| (68) Numbers | 3 | -0.01 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.652 (N = 17, weighted sum = 11.08)
Estimated g factor loading among females: 0.81
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.
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 | n | g loading of Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 23 | 0.82 |
| Numerical | 18 | 0.84 |
| Spatial | 17 | 0.93 |
| Heterogeneous | 16 | 0.70 |
N = 74
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.83
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 15 | 14.0 |
| Belgium | 2 | 11.0 |
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 this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
| Personalia | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| Educational level | 9 | 0.71 |
| Sex | 17 | 0.41 |
| Observed behaviour | 5 | 0.38 |
| Father's educational level | 6 | 0.35 |
| Mother's educational level | 6 | 0.30 |
| Year of birth | 17 | -0.24 |
| Disorders (own) | 7 | -0.25 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 6 | -0.40 |
| Personalia | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| Year of birth | 4 | -0.62 |
| Personalia | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| Educational level | 7 | 0.76 |
| Father's educational level | 5 | 0.33 |
| Mother's educational level | 5 | 0.25 |
| Disorders (own) | 5 | -0.34 |
| Year of birth | 13 | -0.37 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 5 | -0.57 |
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 these values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
| Below 1st quartile | 0.60 (27) |
|---|---|
| Below median | 0.62 (67) |
| Above median | 0.84 (64) |
| Above 3rd quartile | 0.89 (51) |
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 40 to 44 | 2 | 13.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 4 | 17.5 |
| 30 to 34 | 3 | 12.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 6 | 14.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 1 | 3.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 1 | 7.0 |
N = 17
| Year taken | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 5 | 13.0 |
| 1997 | 2 | 7.5 |
| 1999 | 3 | 15.0 |
| 2000 | 1 | 19.0 |
| 2001 | 1 | 15.0 |
| 2002 | 1 | 7.0 |
| 2004 | 3 | 15.0 |
| 2005 | 1 | 12.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.09 (N = 17)
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.