0 | * |
1 | ***** |
2 | * |
4 | * |
5 | * |
6 | *** |
7 | * |
8 | * |
9 | * |
12 | ** |
15 | ** |
16 | * |
17 | *** |
18 | ** |
19 | ** |
21 | *** |
22 | * |
23 | ******** |
24 | ** |
25 | *** |
27 | **** |
28 | **** |
29.5 | * |
30 | **** |
32 | *** |
33 | ** |
34 | ** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 6 | 0.98 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 5 | 0.96 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.95 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 4 | 0.94 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 4 | 0.94 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.93 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 4 | 0.92 |
Spatial Insight Test | 5 | 0.92 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 23 | 0.92 |
Cartoons of Shock | 14 | 0.91 |
The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.91 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 24 | 0.91 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 6 | 0.90 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.89 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 24 | 0.88 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 22 | 0.87 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.86 |
Narcissus' last stand | 22 | 0.86 |
The Gate | 5 | 0.86 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 23 | 0.85 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 22 | 0.85 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.84 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 20 | 0.82 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 14 | 0.81 |
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 12 | 0.81 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 31 | 0.80 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 19 | 0.80 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 28 | 0.79 |
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 10 | 0.79 |
Only idiots | 14 | 0.79 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 14 | 0.79 |
Associative LIMIT | 26 | 0.79 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 23 | 0.79 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 16 | 0.79 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 34 | 0.79 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 29 | 0.78 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 13 | 0.78 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 28 | 0.78 |
Dicing with death | 15 | 0.78 |
The Final Test | 12 | 0.78 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 19 | 0.77 |
The Test To End All Tests | 25 | 0.77 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 26 | 0.76 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 32 | 0.76 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 23 | 0.76 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 15 | 0.75 |
The Smell Test | 11 | 0.75 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 16 | 0.74 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 8 | 0.74 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 12 | 0.74 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 25 | 0.74 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 22 | 0.73 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 18 | 0.73 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 29 | 0.72 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 20 | 0.72 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 7 | 0.71 |
Miscellaneous tests | 20 | 0.70 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 5 | 0.70 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 7 | 0.69 |
Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato) | 6 | 0.69 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 14 | 0.69 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 29 | 0.68 |
The Piper's Test | 20 | 0.68 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 11 | 0.68 |
The Sargasso Test | 33 | 0.67 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.66 |
The Nemesis Test | 27 | 0.66 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.65 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | 0.65 |
Letters | 5 | 0.65 |
Genius Association Test | 27 | 0.65 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 24 | 0.63 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 11 | 0.62 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 5 | 0.61 |
Words | 5 | 0.57 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 6 | 0.55 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 7 | 0.53 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 5 | 0.51 |
Reason | 8 | 0.50 |
Daedalus Test | 21 | 0.48 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 4 | 0.42 |
Isis Test | 22 | 0.42 |
Numbers | 6 | 0.14 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | -0.57 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.748 (N = 1285)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.86
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 Test of the Beheaded Man on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 210 | 0.86 |
Numerical | 67 | 0.86 |
Spatial | 116 | 0.89 |
Logical | 58 | 0.76 |
Heterogeneous | 518 | 0.86 |
N = 969
Balanced g loading = 0.85
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Spain | 3 | 32.0 |
Belgium | 3 | 28.0 |
Germany | 6 | 24.5 |
United_States | 26 | 20.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen, later Lynn and Becker:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 4 | 0.52 |
Educational level | 61 | 0.48 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.34 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.31 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.23 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.22 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.16 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.13 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.09 |
Observed behaviour | 13 | 0.06 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.05 |
Father's educational level | 57 | 0.02 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.01 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.01 |
Sex | 64 | -0.03 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.05 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.05 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 16 | -0.05 |
Mother's educational level | 57 | -0.06 |
Year of birth | 64 | -0.14 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.15 |
Disorders (own) | 61 | -0.17 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.25 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 59 | -0.26 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.37 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 16 | -0.43 |
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 (raw 12.0) | 0.81 (410) |
---|---|
Below median (raw 23.0) | 0.82 (922) |
Above median (raw 23.0) | 0.71 (514) |
Above 3rd quartile (raw 27.5) | 0.48 (105) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 1 | 15.0 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 17.0 |
50 to 54 | 3 | 8.0 |
45 to 49 | 5 | 25.0 |
40 to 44 | 6 | 26.5 |
35 to 39 | 12 | 22.0 |
30 to 34 | 5 | 23.0 |
25 to 29 | 14 | 23.0 |
22 to 24 | 7 | 22.0 |
20 or 21 | 6 | 13.5 |
18 or 19 | 2 | 15.8 |
17 | 1 | 12.0 |
N = 63
Year taken | n | median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2006 | 7 | 24.0 | 464 |
2007 | 3 | 28.0 | 520 |
2008 | 1 | 22.0 | 423 |
2009 | 1 | 16.0 | 385 |
2010 | 2 | 19.5 | 413 |
2011 | 1 | 8.0 | 362 |
2012 | 4 | 24.0 | 464 |
2013 | 3 | 18.0 | 401 |
2014 | 2 | 15.0 | 379 |
2015 | 3 | 6.0 | 349 |
2016 | 3 | 12.0 | 370 |
2017 | 3 | 17.0 | 390 |
2018 | 3 | 2.0 | 325 |
2019 | 3 | 18.0 | 401 |
2020 | 7 | 17.0 | 390 |
2021 | 5 | 25.0 | 482 |
2022 | 2 | 16.5 | 388 |
2023 | 6 | 22.0 | 423 |
2024 | 5 | 33.0 | 650 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.01 (N = 64)
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.