Over the past twenty years I have been collecting various kinds of data for thousands of test candidates. This report deals with the predictive validity of a number of variables with regard to certain types of objectively observable misbehaviour that, sadly, occur in a small fraction of the candidates.
Insults, threats, and (re)tests under false names are common responses of these people when they are disappointed about their scores or otherwise dismayed. Notice that the false names are an implicit insult, as they result from their thinking "if he sees my real name he will deliberately give me a too low score to make it match my earlier score(s) on his tests or because he does not like me".
The fact they use this reasoning reveals their own dishonesty; this thought can only occur to them because it reflects what they would do in my place, or, as one says, "Ill doers are ill deemers".
To correlate misbehaviour to other statistics I added a field that contains 0 in the case of misbehavers and 1 in the case of people with objectively observable markedly positive, constructive behaviour. I left it blank in all other cases. Leaving these "neutral" cases blank rather than giving them, for instance, .5, makes this study more sensitive. The following statistics result:
Contents type: Assessment.
0 | ****************************************************************** |
1 | ******************************************************************* |
n = 113
0 | **************************************************************** |
1 | ************************************************* |
n = 20
0 | ** |
1 | ****************** |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 5 | 0.86 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.84 |
(52) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 6 | 0.83 |
(56) Short Test For Genius | 13 | 0.81 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 10 | 0.73 |
(65) Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 5 | 0.65 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 14 | 0.64 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 7 | 0.59 |
(77) Analogies #1 | 5 | 0.58 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 9 | 0.57 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test (Two-barrelled) | 6 | 0.54 |
(81) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 5 | 0.53 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 70 | 0.49 |
(11) Isis Test | 15 | 0.47 |
(85) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 16 | 0.46 |
(69) Odds | 7 | 0.44 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 11 | 0.41 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.41 |
(70) A-22 - Early experimental association test in Netherlandic, 27 items (maximum score 31) | 5 | 0.40 |
(76) Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 5 | 0.38 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 11 | 0.37 |
(72) Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 6 | 0.35 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 28 | 0.34 |
(68) Numbers | 28 | 0.34 |
(7) The Final Test | 26 | 0.33 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 16 | 0.32 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.31 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 13 | 0.28 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 19 | 0.28 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 12 | 0.26 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 16 | 0.25 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 16 | 0.23 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 8 | 0.22 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 24 | 0.21 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 21 | 0.19 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.18 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 21 | 0.16 |
(51) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 13 | 0.12 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 23 | 0.07 |
(54) Test of Shock and Awe | 7 | 0.06 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 13 | 0.05 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 23 | 0.03 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 5 | -0.02 |
(82) Reason | 14 | -0.08 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 7 | -0.30 |
(55) Spatial Insight Test | 6 | -0.36 |
(74) Cooijmans On-Line Test | 6 | -0.50 |
(50) Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 5 | -0.53 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 5 | -0.91 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.301
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.55
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.
Note: One should realize this is a point-biserial correlation (where one of the variables is a dichotomy, which through its limited variance suppresses the size of the correlation) so the actual g loading of positive, constructive behaviour combined with the reverse of insulting behaviour may be higher than shown above.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(210) Drenth analogies | 3 | 1.00 |
(228) Miller Analogies Test (raw; old version) | 3 | 0.99 |
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 5 | 0.88 |
(227) Concep-T | 3 | 0.86 |
(205) Cito-toets | 5 | 0.30 |
(238) 916 Test | 6 | 0.23 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 41 | 0.23 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 14 | 0.11 |
(239) Titan Test | 15 | 0.07 |
(208) California Test of Mental Maturity | 7 | 0.03 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 14 | 0.02 |
(248) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 8 | 0.00 |
(229) Mega Test | 14 | -0.01 |
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 13 | -0.04 |
(206) W-87 | 5 | -0.07 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 13 | -0.10 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 9 | -0.12 |
(204) Chimera High Ability Riddle Test | 5 | -0.12 |
(237) Sigma Test | 7 | -0.13 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 15 | -0.14 |
(217) G-test | 4 | -0.19 |
(200) American College Testing program | 4 | -0.26 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 18 | -0.27 |
(233) Hoeflin Power Test | 7 | -0.28 |
(202) Cattell Verbal | 6 | -0.36 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 13 | -0.46 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 19 | -0.49 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 3 | -0.50 |
(213) Encephalist - R | 4 | -0.56 |
(230) Omega Contemplative Items Pool | 5 | -0.61 |
(243) Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 9 | -0.63 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 4 | -0.70 |
(219) Graduate Record Examination | 7 | -0.76 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 5 | -0.83 |
Weighted average of correlations: -0.095
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.
Remark: The non-positive correlation with tests by others may indicate that insulting, misbehaving persons are (even) more dishonest in reporting their other scores than are candidates in general; for instance, more likely to report only their highest scores, or to report incorrect high scores.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(68) Numbers | 4 | 0.87 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 5 | 0.71 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 10 | -0.13 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.303
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.55
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 | g loading of Observed behaviour on that type |
---|---|
Verbal | 0.51 |
Numerical | 0.65 |
Spatial | 0.48 |
Logical | 0.18 |
Heterogeneous | 0.55 |
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.47
Country | n | mean score |
---|---|---|
Finland | 3 | 1.00 |
Malta | 2 | 1.00 |
Turkey | 2 | 1.00 |
Belgium | 5 | 0.80 |
Canada | 3 | 0.67 |
Netherlands | 23 | 0.65 |
United_States | 46 | 0.57 |
South_Africa | 2 | 0.50 |
United_Kingdom | 4 | 0.50 |
Sweden | 7 | 0.43 |
Australia | 5 | 0.40 |
Italy | 3 | 0.33 |
Germany | 4 | 0.25 |
Brazil | 2 | 0.00 |
Greece | 3 | 0.00 |
New_Zealand | 2 | 0.00 |
Spain | 3 | 0.00 |
For reasons of privacy, only countries with 2 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the unrounded means, and then alphabetic.
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. True | 29 | 0.70 |
Observed associative horizon | 46 | 0.61 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 41 | 0.55 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme | 29 | 0.39 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly | 29 | 0.32 |
Educational level | 78 | 0.32 |
P.S.I.A. Rare | 29 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted | 29 | 0.25 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 41 | 0.18 |
P.S.I.A. Rational | 29 | 0.17 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 71 | 0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 29 | 0.16 |
P.S.I.A. System factor | 24 | 0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 29 | 0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Cold | 29 | 0.05 |
Father's educational level | 66 | -0.08 |
Mother's educational level | 68 | -0.15 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 31 | -0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Just | 29 | -0.19 |
Disorders (own) | 82 | -0.24 |
Year of birth | 123 | -0.24 |
Sex | 133 | -0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 29 | -0.37 |
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 7 | -0.38 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel | 29 | -0.40 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 9 | -0.68 |
P.S.I.A. True and Ethics (the latter combines True with the reverse of Cruel) are good at identifying misbehavers, while Extreme, Cruel, and Antisocial also help. But the question is if the P.S.I.A. would still work this well if explicitly used for selection; candidates might try to manipulate the outcome by answering dishonestly.
Interesting newcomers are Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes and Candidate's self-estimated I.Q., but their n is too low to make these promising correlations with observed behaviour significant. Observed associative horizon is an obvious good correlate of behaviour, but as it concerns an assessment it is of less practical value than an actual personality test score.
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Disorders (own) | 10 | 0.33 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 9 | 0.32 |
Observed associative horizon | 6 | 0.25 |
Year of birth | 18 | 0.20 |
Mother's educational level | 7 | -0.50 |
Father's educational level | 7 | -0.61 |
Educational level | 10 | -0.62 |