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 | ** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Psychometric Qrosswords | 10 | 0.98 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 5 | 0.92 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 12 | 0.92 |
Cartoons of Shock | 9 | 0.91 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 9 | 0.89 |
Narcissus' last stand | 19 | 0.88 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 37 | 0.88 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 33 | 0.85 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | 0.85 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 27 | 0.84 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.84 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 20 | 0.83 |
Divine Psychometry | 9 | 0.83 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 29 | 0.83 |
A Relaxing Test | 8 | 0.83 |
Associative LIMIT | 24 | 0.81 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 22 | 0.81 |
The Test To End All Tests | 20 | 0.80 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 29 | 0.80 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.79 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.79 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 25 | 0.79 |
The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.79 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.79 |
The Alchemist Test | 14 | 0.78 |
The Piper's Test | 13 | 0.78 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 22 | 0.78 |
Numbers | 5 | 0.78 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 24 | 0.77 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 13 | 0.77 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 30 | 0.75 |
Dicing with death | 16 | 0.75 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 38 | 0.75 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 5 | 0.75 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 21 | 0.74 |
The Smell Test | 4 | 0.74 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 33 | 0.73 |
Only idiots | 11 | 0.72 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 10 | 0.69 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 9 | 0.69 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 29 | 0.69 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 21 | 0.66 |
Random Feickery | 4 | 0.64 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 22 | 0.64 |
The Sargasso Test | 34 | 0.64 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 31 | 0.64 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.63 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 7 | 0.62 |
Genius Association Test | 25 | 0.62 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 14 | 0.59 |
The Nemesis Test | 19 | 0.59 |
Daedalus Test | 11 | 0.58 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 23 | 0.57 |
The Final Test | 9 | 0.57 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 34 | 0.57 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 27 | 0.55 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 4 | 0.52 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 12 | 0.45 |
Isis Test | 21 | 0.42 |
Letters | 6 | 0.38 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 7 | 0.33 |
Miscellaneous tests | 14 | 0.31 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.31 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 7 | 0.30 |
Words | 6 | 0.25 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 9 | 0.13 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.11 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 7 | 0.04 |
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
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 The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 184 | 0.78 |
Numerical | 65 | 0.81 |
Spatial | 88 | 0.88 |
Logical | 44 | 0.88 |
Heterogeneous | 465 | 0.84 |
N = 846
Balanced g loading = 0.84
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Germany | 6 | 21.5 |
United_States | 24 | 20.0 |
Japan | 4 | 19.5 |
Greece | 3 | 19.0 |
Korea_South | 6 | 18.5 |
United_Kingdom | 3 | 17.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.67 |
Observed behaviour | 9 | 0.60 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.55 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.55 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.51 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.44 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.41 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.33 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.31 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.29 |
Father's educational level | 57 | 0.26 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.25 |
Year of birth | 64 | 0.21 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.20 |
Mother's educational level | 59 | 0.19 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.19 |
Sex | 64 | 0.16 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.15 |
Educational level | 63 | 0.12 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 19 | 0.06 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 10 | 0.01 |
Disorders (own) | 63 | -0.06 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 19 | -0.09 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 62 | -0.12 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 10 | -0.44 |
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 | 0.81 (210) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.78 (385) |
Above median | 0.72 (701) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.61 (426) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 18.0 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 19.0 |
55 to 59 | 2 | 16.0 |
50 to 54 | 4 | 20.3 |
45 to 49 | 6 | 19.0 |
40 to 44 | 8 | 17.0 |
35 to 39 | 5 | 19.0 |
30 to 34 | 9 | 23.0 |
25 to 29 | 12 | 19.0 |
22 to 24 | 4 | 19.3 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 23.5 |
18 or 19 | 3 | 19.0 |
17 | 2 | 20.0 |
15 | 1 | 23.0 |
N = 64
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2016 | 11 | 19.0 |
2017 | 3 | 16.0 |
2018 | 10 | 18.5 |
2019 | 3 | 23.0 |
2020 | 13 | 19.0 |
2021 | 13 | 21.0 |
2022 | 8 | 21.0 |
2023 | 3 | 23.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.69 (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.