Statistics of the Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 as of 18 September 2019

Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial.   Period: 2016-present

6 *
7 **
9.5 *
16 ***
17 **
18 **
19 ***
20 **
22 ***
22.5 *
23 *
24 **
26 *
27 *

Correlation of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords41.00
(5) Daedalus Test41.00
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism40.99
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree40.99
(107) The Alchemist Test40.98
(36) Reflections In Peroxide50.97
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 201680.96
(114) Dicing with death30.95
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201680.95
(1) Cartoons of Shock50.93
(48) Narcissus' last stand50.93
(113) The Piper's Test30.90
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test100.89
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test60.89
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 201670.88
(18) The Nemesis Test70.87
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment100.84
(44) Associative LIMIT100.83
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 580.82
(28) The Test To End All Tests50.81
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree120.80
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4120.76
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test70.76
(24) Reason - Revision 2008130.75
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201370.75
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201040.75
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test60.74
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008130.73
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3140.73
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree100.72
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man90.72
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test70.71
(42) The Marathon Test50.68
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201050.62
(7) The Final Test50.62
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010100.60
(10) Genius Association Test100.59
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201370.58
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 200430.56
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 201670.55
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude60.55
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011110.53
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200460.52
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version80.50
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5140.47
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200460.44
(25) The Sargasso Test110.44
(11) Isis Test60.38
(15) Letters40.14
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words40.07
(29) Words40.02

Weighted average of correlations: 0.705 (weighted sum: 258.00)

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.84

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.

Correlation of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests90.30

Weighted average of correlations: 0.300 (weighted sum: 2.70)

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.

Estimated loadings of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 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 The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 on that type
Verbal0.74
Numerical0.80
Spatial0.89
Logical0.90
Heterogeneous0.84

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

Balanced g loading = 0.83

National medians for The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

Country n median score
Japan222.0
Greece221.5
United_States720.0
Korea_South318.0
Germany317.0

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 The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

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

Correlation of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 with personal details

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Neurotic31.00
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor31.00
P.S.I.A. True30.99
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid30.97
P.S.I.A. Rational30.96
P.S.I.A. Introverted30.92
P.S.I.A. Rare30.90
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor30.88
P.S.I.A. Orderly30.83
P.S.I.A. Extreme30.83
P.S.I.A. Cold30.77
P.S.I.A. System factor30.75
Observed behaviour40.70
P.S.I.A. Just30.54
Father's educational level220.41
Mother's educational level230.34
Year of birth250.33
Educational level240.12
Sex250.07
Disorders (parents and siblings)23-0.15
Disorders (own)23-0.15
P.S.I.A. Antisocial3-0.46
P.S.I.A. Cruel3-0.98

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)
00.84 (366)NaN (0)
160.66 (262)0.90 (40)
190.73 (216)0.72 (139)
220.42 (124)0.77 (209)
240.74 (15)0.84 (359)
30NaN (0)0.84 (366)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
55 to 59118.0
50 to 54214.5
45 to 49418.0
40 to 4439.5
35 to 39213.0
30 to 34323.0
25 to 29417.5
22 to 24221.0
20 or 21221.0
18 or 19122.0
17220.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
20161119.0
2017316.0
20181018.5
2019221.5

ryear taken × median score = 0.57 (n = 26)

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.