4 | * |
10 | * |
17 | * |
19 | *** |
22 | * |
24 | ** |
24.5 | * |
25 | ** |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
28 | **** |
29 | ***** |
31 | **** |
32 | **** |
33 | ** |
34 | ***** |
35 | **** |
36 | *** |
37 | ** |
41 | ** |
42 | * |
n = 48
4 | * |
17 | * |
19 | *** |
22 | * |
24 | ** |
24.5 | * |
25 | ** |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
28 | **** |
29 | *** |
31 | **** |
32 | *** |
33 | ** |
34 | ***** |
35 | **** |
36 | *** |
37 | ** |
41 | * |
42 | * |
n = 5
10 | * |
29 | ** |
32 | * |
41 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 6 | 0.97 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 4 | 0.97 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 3 | 0.96 |
(54) Test of Shock and Awe | 11 | 0.92 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 13 | 0.91 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 6 | 0.90 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.88 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 7 | 0.88 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 7 | 0.82 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 7 | 0.82 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 19 | 0.81 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 16 | 0.81 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 19 | 0.80 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 19 | 0.80 |
(7) The Final Test | 23 | 0.78 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 16 | 0.78 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.77 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 5 | 0.77 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 7 | 0.76 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 11 | 0.76 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 19 | 0.74 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 3 | 0.74 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 25 | 0.72 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.71 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 16 | 0.70 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 8 | 0.70 |
(85) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 4 | 0.69 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 24 | 0.69 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 8 | 0.69 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 3 | 0.69 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 7 | 0.69 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 12 | 0.68 |
(49) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 3 | 0.68 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 20 | 0.67 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 9 | 0.67 |
(77) Analogies #1 | 6 | 0.66 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 12 | 0.65 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 18 | 0.64 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 17 | 0.62 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.62 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.62 |
(55) Spatial Insight Test | 5 | 0.61 |
(51) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 3 | 0.59 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.59 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 12 | 0.59 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 5 | 0.58 |
(15) Letters | 6 | 0.58 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 12 | 0.55 |
(56) Short Test For Genius | 5 | 0.52 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 5 | 0.49 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.49 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 11 | 0.48 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 12 | 0.42 |
(82) Reason | 9 | 0.38 |
(11) Isis Test | 12 | 0.37 |
(29) Words | 6 | 0.32 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.30 |
(58) Verbal Insight Test | 3 | 0.24 |
(68) Numbers | 11 | 0.24 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 8 | 0.24 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 22 | 0.18 |
(69) Odds | 6 | -0.05 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 5 | -0.36 |
(86) Evens | 5 | -0.83 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.627
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.79
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 3 | 0.95 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 8 | 0.89 |
(238) 916 Test | 3 | 0.87 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 3 | 0.81 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 4 | 0.76 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 5 | 0.64 |
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 3 | 0.52 |
(229) Mega Test | 4 | 0.41 |
(248) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 7 | 0.20 |
(239) Titan Test | 9 | 0.15 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 9 | 0.11 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 22 | -0.11 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 5 | -0.23 |
(237) Sigma Test | 3 | -0.49 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 5 | -0.53 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 3 | -0.63 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.193
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.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 3 | 0.97 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 4 | 0.96 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.965
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.98
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 | g loading of Cartoons of Shock on that type |
---|---|
Verbal | 0.77 |
Numerical | 0.42 |
Spatial | 0.82 |
Logical | 0.79 |
Heterogeneous | 0.83 |
Balanced g loading = 0.73
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Germany | 4 | 36.5 |
India | 3 | 36.0 |
Canada | 3 | 32.0 |
Korea_South | 2 | 31.5 |
Finland | 4 | 29.0 |
United_Kingdom | 2 | 29.0 |
United_States | 15 | 29.0 |
Spain | 3 | 28.0 |
Netherlands | 2 | 27.5 |
Sweden | 2 | 27.5 |
Italy | 2 | 21.5 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed behaviour | 10 | 0.73 |
Observed associative horizon | 8 | 0.61 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 11 | 0.39 |
P.S.I.A. System factor | 14 | 0.33 |
Educational level | 47 | 0.32 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel | 15 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. True | 15 | 0.26 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 15 | 0.25 |
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 12 | 0.21 |
P.S.I.A. Cold | 15 | 0.21 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 15 | 0.19 |
P.S.I.A. Rational | 15 | 0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 20 | 0.11 |
Father's educational level | 43 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted | 15 | 0.06 |
Sex | 53 | 0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 15 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly | 15 | 0.00 |
Year of birth | 53 | -0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Rare | 15 | -0.04 |
Mother's educational level | 46 | -0.07 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 47 | -0.08 |
Disorders (own) | 47 | -0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Just | 15 | -0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 20 | -0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme | 15 | -0.28 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 3 | -0.97 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 3 | 1.00 |
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 | 10 | 0.73 |
Observed associative horizon | 7 | 0.54 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 11 | 0.39 |
Educational level | 42 | 0.37 |
P.S.I.A. System factor | 14 | 0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel | 15 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. True | 15 | 0.26 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 15 | 0.25 |
P.S.I.A. Cold | 15 | 0.21 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 15 | 0.19 |
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 9 | 0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Rational | 15 | 0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 20 | 0.11 |
Father's educational level | 38 | 0.07 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 42 | 0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted | 15 | 0.06 |
Disorders (own) | 42 | 0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 15 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly | 15 | 0.00 |
P.S.I.A. Rare | 15 | -0.04 |
Year of birth | 48 | -0.07 |
Mother's educational level | 41 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Just | 15 | -0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 20 | -0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme | 15 | -0.28 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 3 | -0.97 |
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 score | Upward g (n) | Downward g (n) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.79 (635) | NaN (0) |
23 | 0.72 (527) | 0.78 (37) |
27 | 0.69 (433) | 0.77 (168) |
31 | 0.54 (278) | 0.71 (378) |
35 | 0.46 (59) | 0.79 (558) |
39 | 0.92 (12) | 0.79 (585) |
51 | NaN (0) | 0.79 (635) |
Note: These reliability coefficients and the other internal statistics below are based on 44 instead of 53 candidates, the first 9 of the 53 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 | 2 | 34.0 |
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 |
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2006 | 5 | 31.0 |
2007 | 2 | 34.0 |
2008 | 4 | 34.0 |
2009 | 3 | 28.0 |
2010 | 3 | 26.0 |
2011 | 3 | 32.0 |
2012 | 1 | 42.0 |
2013 | 4 | 38.0 |
2014 | 7 | 29.0 |
2015 | 12 | 28.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.02 (n = 44)
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.