Statistics of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

© February 2019 Paul Cooijmans

Norms

Scores on Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial, logical.   Period: 2013-present

0 *
2 *
10 *
11 *
15 *
18 *
19 **
20 *
22 **
23 **
24 *
25 **
26 ****
27 **
28 ***
29 ****
30 ***
31 *
32 ***
33 *
34 **
36 *
37 ******
38 *
39 **
40 **
41 **
42 **
44 **
45 *
46 *
48 *

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment100.91
(107) The Alchemist Test60.90
(48) Narcissus' last stand70.88
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude100.88
(42) The Marathon Test50.87
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree50.86
(5) Daedalus Test50.85
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 560.85
(36) Reflections In Peroxide70.84
(28) The Test To End All Tests70.83
(44) Associative LIMIT130.83
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5170.83
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree70.83
(18) The Nemesis Test100.81
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 201660.77
(11) Isis Test60.77
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 201660.76
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016100.75
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 201660.75
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man110.74
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test70.74
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree110.73
(25) The Sargasso Test150.72
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201660.72
(10) Genius Association Test130.72
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011210.71
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201360.69
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test80.63
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test90.61
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010140.60
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008160.58
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004170.56
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test90.55
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test160.54
(7) The Final Test80.54
(1) Cartoons of Shock140.54
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 200450.48
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010210.46
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3310.45
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010160.40
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004180.38
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version100.31
(24) Reason - Revision 2008160.18

Weighted average of correlations: 0.636

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.80

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

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests15-0.07

Weighted average of correlations: -0.070

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 5 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.

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans - for females

(Test index) Test name n r
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #521.00
(7) The Final Test21.00
(24) Reason - Revision 200821.00
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 200821.00
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 201621.00
(1) Cartoons of Shock30.97
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 330.86

Weighted average of correlations: 0.968

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.98

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

Estimated loadings of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 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.

Typeg loading of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 on that type
Verbal0.84
Numerical0.71
Spatial0.71
Logical0.58
Heterogeneous0.82

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

Balanced g loading = 0.73

National medians for Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Country n median score
United_Kingdom439.5
France236.5
Canada236.0
Netherlands234.0
Germany431.0
Spain430.0
United_States1530.0
Sweden629.5
India228.5
Korea_South326.0

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 Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

Correlation of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 with personal details

Personalia n r
Observed behaviour60.86
Observed associative horizon40.80
P.S.I.A. Rational100.60
P.S.I.A. Just100.48
P.S.I.A. Cold100.46
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor110.46
P.S.I.A. System factor100.40
P.S.I.A. True100.40
Educational level580.38
P.S.I.A. Orderly100.31
P.S.I.A. Rare100.17
P.S.I.A. Introverted100.15
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor110.08
Sex590.06
Father's educational level560.03
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid100.02
P.S.I.A. Extreme100.01
Mother's educational level57-0.03
P.S.I.A. Neurotic10-0.08
Disorders (parents and siblings)57-0.11
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms7-0.15
Year of birth59-0.20
Disorders (own)57-0.35
P.S.I.A. Antisocial10-0.35
P.S.I.A. Cruel10-0.40
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes4-0.72

Correlation with personal details of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 - within females

Personalia n r
Educational level40.78
Year of birth40.58
Father's educational level40.55
Mother's educational level40.09
Disorders (own)4-0.96
Disorders (parents and siblings)4-0.96

Correlation with personal details of Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 - within males

Personalia n r
Observed behaviour60.86
Observed associative horizon30.82
P.S.I.A. Rational100.60
P.S.I.A. Just100.48
P.S.I.A. Cold100.46
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor110.46
P.S.I.A. System factor100.40
P.S.I.A. True100.40
Educational level530.39
P.S.I.A. Orderly100.31
P.S.I.A. Rare100.17
P.S.I.A. Introverted100.15
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor110.08
Father's educational level510.03
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid100.02
P.S.I.A. Extreme100.01
Mother's educational level52-0.03
Disorders (parents and siblings)52-0.08
P.S.I.A. Neurotic10-0.08
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms7-0.15
Year of birth54-0.22
Disorders (own)52-0.33
P.S.I.A. Antisocial10-0.35
P.S.I.A. Cruel10-0.40
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes4-0.72

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)
00.80 (467)NaN (0)
240.74 (279)0.66 (45)
300.50 (138)0.67 (231)
360.48 (100)0.68 (293)
80NaN (0)0.80 (467)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
70 to 74125.0
65 to 69130.0
60 to 64137.0
50 to 54233.0
45 to 49834.0
40 to 44737.0
35 to 39729.0
30 to 34630.0
25 to 291228.5
22 to 24633.0
20 or 21144.0
18 or 19618.5
15140.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2013326.0
20141532.0
20151328.0
2016834.5
20171329.0
2018526.0
2019334.0

ryear taken × median score = 0.28 (n = 60)

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. So far there appear to be no problematic items in this test.

Correlations of sections with total score

Verbal0.84
Numerical0.83
Spatial0.79
Logical/Mixed0.80

Correlations between sections

Verbal × Numerical0.55
Verbal × Spatial0.48
Verbal × Logical/Mixed0.57
Numerical × Spatial0.58
Numerical × Logical/Mixed0.57
Spatial × Logical/Mixed0.58

These correlations show that the sections are indeed tapping into different sets of factors and thus providing a meaningful profile. Were they high or very high, that would mean the sections would all be measuring the same, and there would be no point in having sections.

Ideal values for between-section correlations are about .5 to .6. This is so because on the one hand one wants sections to provide a profile and therefore have imperfect intercorrelations (measure different abilities) and on the other hand one wants sections to correlate positively or there would be no point in having a total score over them.

Section histograms

Prop. = proportion of candidates outscored in this section.

Verbal

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.017 (0.033) **
20.042 (0.050) *
30.058 (0.067) *
40.075 (0.083) *
60.092 (0.100) *
80.133 (0.167) ****
90.175 (0.183) *
100.208 (0.233) ***
110.300 (0.367) ********
120.425 (0.483) *******
130.567 (0.650) **********
140.700 (0.750) ******
150.800 (0.850) ******
160.900 (0.950) ******
170.967 (0.983) **
180.992 (1.000) *

Numerical

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.008 (0.017) *
10.025 (0.033) *
20.042 (0.050) *
30.100 (0.150) ******
40.217 (0.283) ********
50.317 (0.350) ****
60.392 (0.433) *****
70.483 (0.533) ******
80.600 (0.667) ********
90.683 (0.700) **
100.775 (0.850) *********
110.858 (0.867) *
120.908 (0.950) *****
130.967 (0.983) **
140.992 (1.000) *

Spatial

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.017 (0.033) **
10.042 (0.050) *
20.058 (0.067) *
30.108 (0.150) *****
40.208 (0.267) *******
50.350 (0.433) **********
60.525 (0.617) ***********
70.658 (0.700) *****
80.717 (0.733) **
90.775 (0.817) *****
100.867 (0.917) ******
110.942 (0.967) ***
120.983 (1.000) **

Logical

ScoreProp.# scores (* = 1 score)
00.025 (0.050) ***
20.083 (0.117) ****
30.192 (0.267) *********
40.383 (0.500) **************
4.50.508 (0.517) *
50.583 (0.650) ********
60.708 (0.767) *******
70.825 (0.883) *******
7.50.892 (0.900) *
80.925 (0.950) ***
90.958 (0.967) *
100.983 (1.000) **