Statistics of the Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 as of 8 August 2020

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

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

Correlation of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 with other tests by I.Q. Tests for the High Range

(Test index) Test name n r
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords60.99
(1) Cartoons of Shock70.93
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree70.93
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism60.92
(48) Narcissus' last stand90.90
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016130.88
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016130.86
(107) The Alchemist Test60.86
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment110.85
(68) Numbers40.85
(36) Reflections In Peroxide100.84
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test150.84
(44) Associative LIMIT150.83
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test110.81
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5100.79
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201070.79
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016120.78
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree160.78
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4160.78
(114) Dicing with death50.77
(28) The Test To End All Tests100.76
(42) The Marathon Test90.75
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3230.75
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test90.72
(24) Reason - Revision 2008170.71
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man140.70
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013100.69
(5) Daedalus Test60.69
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test100.67
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201080.67
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008170.67
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 200440.66
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010170.65
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201390.63
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test100.62
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200490.61
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree160.60
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude100.58
(10) Genius Association Test160.58
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016120.57
(18) The Nemesis Test110.56
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version100.55
(7) The Final Test70.54
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200490.54
(25) The Sargasso Test160.49
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5180.46
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011140.39
(11) Isis Test100.33
(15) Letters50.24
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words50.18
(29) Words50.13
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #44-0.57

Weighted average of correlations: 0.673 (N = 549, weighted sum = 369.32)

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.82

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.

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

(Test index) Test name n r
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests140.20
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales4-0.97

Weighted average of correlations: -0.059 (N = 18, weighted sum = -1.07)

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.

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.

Typeng loading of The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 on that type
Verbal1180.73
Numerical310.82
Spatial470.87
Logical230.84
Heterogeneous2010.82

N = 420

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

Balanced g loading = 0.81

National medians for The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016

Country n median score
Canada223.0
Greece221.5
United_States1219.5
Germany418.5
Japan318.0
Korea_South318.0

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. System factor - Revision 2007100.76
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007100.71
Observed behaviour60.68
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007100.67
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007100.55
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007100.53
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007100.49
Father's educational level320.42
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007100.41
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007100.40
Year of birth360.36
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007100.36
Mother's educational level330.33
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007100.30
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007100.26
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007100.13
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007100.10
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007100.10
Sex360.09
Educational level350.04
Disorders (own)34-0.02
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms5-0.02
Disorders (parents and siblings)34-0.05
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 200710-0.08
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes6-0.92

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)
00.82 (549)NaN (0)
16.40.72 (443)0.99 (4)
190.73 (378)0.77 (165)
21.60.42 (206)0.75 (277)
240.60 (58)0.80 (473)
30NaN (0)0.82 (549)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
65 to 69118.0
60 to 64119.0
55 to 59216.0
50 to 54214.5
45 to 49418.0
40 to 44413.3
35 to 39319.0
30 to 34523.0
25 to 29618.5
22 to 24221.0
20 or 21324.0
18 or 19122.0
17220.0

N = 36

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
20161119.0
2017316.0
20181018.5
2019323.0
2020919.0

ryear taken × median score = 0.44 (N = 36)

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.