Statistics of the Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 as of 2 May 2023

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

5 *
6 *
7 **
9.5 **
12 **
13 *
14 *
16 ****
17 ****
18 *****
18.5 **
19 *******
20 ****
21 ***
22 *******
22.5 *
23 ******
24 ***
25 ***
25.5 *
26 **
27 **

Correlation of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 with other mental ability tests

Test name n r
Psychometric Qrosswords100.98
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 250.92
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree120.92
Cartoons of Shock90.91
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism90.89
Narcissus' last stand190.88
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree370.88
Reason - Revision 2008330.85
Cattell Culture Fair40.85
Reflections In Peroxide270.84
De Laatste Test - Herziening 201960.84
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test200.83
Divine Psychometry90.83
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016290.83
A Relaxing Test80.83
Associative LIMIT240.81
Test For Genius - Revision 2016220.81
The Test To End All Tests200.80
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016290.80
Test For Genius - Revision 200470.79
Verbal section of The Marathon Test170.79
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test250.79
The Marathon Test150.79
Test For Genius - Revision 201070.79
The Alchemist Test140.78
The Piper's Test130.78
Numerical section of The Marathon Test220.78
Numbers50.78
Test of the Beheaded Man240.77
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004130.77
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011300.75
Dicing with death160.75
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3380.75
Labyrinthine LIMIT50.75
Spatial section of The Marathon Test210.74
The Smell Test40.74
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008330.73
Only idiots110.72
The Final Test - Revision 2013100.69
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201090.69
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4290.69
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude210.66
Random Feickery40.64
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016220.64
The Sargasso Test340.64
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010310.64
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201390.63
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate)70.62
Genius Association Test250.62
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version140.59
The Nemesis Test190.59
Daedalus Test110.58
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree230.57
The Final Test90.57
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5340.57
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5270.55
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 201640.52
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004120.45
Isis Test210.42
Letters60.38
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai)70.33
Miscellaneous tests140.31
The LAW - Letters And Words60.31
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #470.30
Words60.25
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales90.13
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 201960.11
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate)70.04
Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate)5-0.04
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate)6-0.05
Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate)4-0.40

Weighted average of correlations: 0.690 (N = 1110)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.83

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 4 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

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.

Typeng loading of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 on that type
Verbal1840.78
Numerical650.81
Spatial880.88
Logical440.88
Heterogeneous4650.84

N = 846

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

Balanced g loading = 0.84

National medians for The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

Country n median score
Germany621.5
United_States2420.0
Japan419.5
Greece319.0
Korea_South618.5
United_Kingdom317.0

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 3 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
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007190.67
Observed behaviour90.60
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007190.55
PSIA Just - Revision 2007190.55
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007190.51
PSIA True - Revision 2007190.44
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007190.41
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007190.33
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007190.31
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007190.29
Father's educational level570.26
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007190.25
Year of birth640.21
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007190.20
Mother's educational level590.19
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007190.19
Sex640.16
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007190.15
Educational level630.12
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007190.06
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms100.01
Disorders (own)63-0.06
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 200719-0.09
Disorders (parents and siblings)62-0.12
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes10-0.44

Estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges

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 quartile0.81 (210)
Below median0.78 (385)
Above median0.72 (701)
Above 3rd quartile0.61 (426)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n Median score
65 to 69318.0
60 to 64119.0
55 to 59216.0
50 to 54420.3
45 to 49619.0
40 to 44817.0
35 to 39519.0
30 to 34923.0
25 to 291219.0
22 to 24419.3
20 or 21423.5
18 or 19319.0
17220.0
15123.0

N = 64

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
20161119.0
2017316.0
20181018.5
2019323.0
20201319.0
20211321.0
2022821.0
2023323.0

ryear taken × median score = 0.69 (N = 64)

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

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.