Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial. Period: 2006-2016
4 | * |
10 | * |
17 | * |
19 | *** |
22 | * |
24 | ** |
24.5 | * |
25 | ** |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
28 | **** |
29 | ***** |
31 | ***** |
32 | **** |
33 | ** |
34 | ***** |
35 | **** |
36 | *** |
37 | ** |
39 | * |
41 | ** |
42 | * |
n = 50
4 | * |
17 | * |
19 | *** |
22 | * |
24 | ** |
24.5 | * |
25 | ** |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
28 | **** |
29 | *** |
31 | ***** |
32 | *** |
33 | ** |
34 | ***** |
35 | **** |
36 | *** |
37 | ** |
39 | * |
41 | * |
42 | * |
n = 5
10 | * |
29 | ** |
32 | * |
41 | * |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 4 | 0.98 |
Dicing with death | 4 | 0.97 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 6 | 0.96 |
Narcissus' last stand | 7 | 0.94 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 7 | 0.94 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 11 | 0.92 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 11 | 0.91 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 15 | 0.91 |
The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.91 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.90 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 4 | 0.90 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 6 | 0.89 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.87 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.86 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 10 | 0.86 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.86 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.85 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 24 | 0.85 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 7 | 0.84 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.84 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 7 | 0.80 |
The Final Test | 23 | 0.78 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 4 | 0.77 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.77 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | 0.76 |
Bonsai Test | 11 | 0.76 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 22 | 0.76 |
Associative LIMIT | 22 | 0.75 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 9 | 0.74 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 10 | 0.73 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 28 | 0.73 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 22 | 0.73 |
The Test To End All Tests | 17 | 0.73 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.71 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 10 | 0.71 |
916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 4 | 0.70 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.70 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 4 | 0.69 |
The Nemesis Test | 13 | 0.69 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 8 | 0.69 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 14 | 0.68 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.68 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 4 | 0.68 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 27 | 0.67 |
Analogies #1 | 6 | 0.66 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.65 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 23 | 0.64 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 15 | 0.64 |
Letters | 7 | 0.63 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 22 | 0.63 |
Miscellaneous tests | 19 | 0.63 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 21 | 0.62 |
Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.62 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.62 |
Spatial Insight Test | 5 | 0.61 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 15 | 0.59 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.59 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 16 | 0.58 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 12 | 0.56 |
Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 4 | 0.56 |
Daedalus Test | 6 | 0.56 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 12 | 0.55 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.55 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 8 | 0.54 |
Short Test For Genius | 5 | 0.52 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 9 | 0.50 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 11 | 0.48 |
The Sargasso Test | 22 | 0.47 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 5 | 0.47 |
Words | 7 | 0.43 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 4 | 0.42 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 12 | 0.42 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.41 |
Isis Test | 14 | 0.40 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 5 | 0.39 |
Reason | 9 | 0.38 |
Genius Association Test | 25 | 0.37 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.33 |
Numbers | 11 | 0.24 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 7 | 0.20 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 9 | 0.11 |
Odds | 6 | -0.05 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 10 | -0.07 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 6 | -0.10 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 6 | -0.22 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | -0.34 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 7 | -0.39 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 4 | -0.64 |
Evens | 5 | -0.83 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.618 (N = 925)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.79
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.
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 Cartoons of Shock on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 203 | 0.81 |
Numerical | 64 | 0.66 |
Spatial | 102 | 0.83 |
Logical | 37 | 0.75 |
Heterogeneous | 282 | 0.79 |
N = 688
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.76
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Germany | 4 | 36.5 |
India | 3 | 36.0 |
Spain | 4 | 33.5 |
Canada | 3 | 32.0 |
United_States | 16 | 30.0 |
Finland | 4 | 29.0 |
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.
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed behaviour | 12 | 0.79 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.76 |
Observed associative horizon | 8 | 0.61 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.60 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.58 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.55 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.55 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.52 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.51 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 12 | 0.49 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.49 |
Educational level | 49 | 0.28 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.13 |
Father's educational level | 45 | 0.07 |
Sex | 55 | 0.06 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.03 |
Year of birth | 55 | -0.01 |
Disorders (own) | 49 | -0.05 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.07 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 49 | -0.10 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.13 |
Mother's educational level | 48 | -0.14 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.27 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.28 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.30 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 4 | -0.83 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Father's educational level | 5 | 0.81 |
Year of birth | 5 | 0.50 |
Educational level | 5 | 0.48 |
Mother's educational level | 5 | 0.13 |
Disorders (own) | 5 | -0.58 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 5 | -0.90 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed behaviour | 12 | 0.79 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.76 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.60 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.58 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.55 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.55 |
Observed associative horizon | 7 | 0.54 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.52 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.51 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 12 | 0.49 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.49 |
Educational level | 44 | 0.32 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.13 |
Disorders (own) | 44 | 0.06 |
Father's educational level | 40 | 0.06 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.03 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 44 | 0.03 |
Year of birth | 50 | -0.07 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.07 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.13 |
Mother's educational level | 43 | -0.17 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.27 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.28 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.30 |
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 26.0) | 0.79 (220) |
---|---|
Below median (raw 31.0) | 0.72 (542) |
Above median (raw 31.0) | 0.60 (413) |
Above 3rd quartile (raw 34.0) | 0.47 (177) |
Notice: These reliability coefficients and the other internal statistics below are based on 46 instead of 55 candidates, the first 9 of the 55 submissions having been stored in a different way (those were from candidates who took all of the constituent subtests of Cartoons of Shock, so that their score on the latter could be computed by summing the scores).
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 2 | 29.5 |
55 to 59 | 1 | 36.0 |
50 to 54 | 3 | 26.0 |
45 to 49 | 5 | 34.0 |
40 to 44 | 4 | 35.0 |
35 to 39 | 5 | 34.0 |
30 to 34 | 6 | 26.8 |
25 to 29 | 8 | 29.5 |
22 to 24 | 7 | 32.0 |
20 or 21 | 2 | 26.5 |
18 or 19 | 1 | 35.0 |
17 | 1 | 29.0 |
15 | 1 | 24.0 |
N = 46
Year taken | n | Mean score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2006 | 5 | 28.0 | 387 |
2007 | 2 | 34.0 | 465 |
2008 | 4 | 33.8 | 462 |
2009 | 3 | 29.7 | 406 |
2010 | 3 | 19.7 | 316 |
2011 | 3 | 30.3 | 414 |
2012 | 1 | 42.0 | 620 |
2013 | 4 | 31.8 | 430 |
2014 | 7 | 30.7 | 414 |
2015 | 12 | 29.0 | 406 |
2019 | 1 | 31.0 | 418 |
2020 | 1 | 39.0 | 537 |
N = 46
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.