Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial. Period: 2016-present
1 | **** |
2 | ***** |
3 | *** |
4 | ****** |
5 | * |
6 | *** |
7 | *** |
8 | **** |
9 | *** |
12 | ** |
15 | * |
16 | * |
23 | ** |
24 | * |
27 | * |
28 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | 0.95 |
(114) Dicing with death | 5 | 0.95 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 5 | 0.90 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 9 | 0.90 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.88 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 7 | 0.87 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 6 | 0.85 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 5 | 0.82 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.81 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 10 | 0.81 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 8 | 0.80 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 11 | 0.80 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 16 | 0.78 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.77 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 8 | 0.75 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 8 | 0.71 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 23 | 0.71 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 4 | 0.71 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.70 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 22 | 0.70 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 7 | 0.69 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 15 | 0.68 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 14 | 0.67 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 8 | 0.65 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.65 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 10 | 0.64 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 10 | 0.64 |
(11) Isis Test | 13 | 0.57 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 13 | 0.56 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 16 | 0.55 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 16 | 0.55 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 11 | 0.55 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 5 | 0.54 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 26 | 0.53 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 19 | 0.51 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 4 | 0.49 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 11 | 0.46 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.44 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 6 | 0.42 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 10 | 0.38 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.35 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 12 | 0.34 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 20 | 0.34 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 7 | 0.18 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 10 | -0.23 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.607 (N = 505, weighted sum = 306.76)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.78
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.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.56 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 15 | 0.44 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.465 (N = 19, weighted sum = 8.83)
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.
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 Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 78 | 0.86 |
Numerical | 31 | 0.79 |
Spatial | 55 | 0.73 |
Logical | 22 | 0.61 |
Heterogeneous | 198 | 0.74 |
N = 384
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.74
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 13.5 |
United_Kingdom | 2 | 6.5 |
United_States | 13 | 6.0 |
Greece | 2 | 5.5 |
China | 3 | 5.0 |
Australia | 2 | 4.5 |
Korea_South | 4 | 3.0 |
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 of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed behaviour | 10 | 0.61 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.43 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.27 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.26 |
Educational level | 38 | 0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.23 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.23 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.22 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.21 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.19 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 10 | 0.03 |
Father's educational level | 36 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 10 | -0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 10 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 10 | -0.07 |
Mother's educational level | 36 | -0.07 |
Disorders (own) | 37 | -0.16 |
Year of birth | 41 | -0.17 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 37 | -0.20 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 6 | -0.20 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 10 | -0.29 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 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 both values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
Raw score | Upward g (N) | Downward g (N) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.78 (505) | NaN (0) |
3 | 0.75 (380) | 0.43 (93) |
6 | 0.71 (239) | 0.71 (279) |
9 | 0.84 (66) | 0.64 (423) |
12 | 0.60 (15) | 0.69 (441) |
40 | NaN (0) | 0.78 (505) |
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 3.0 |
65 to 69 | 1 | 4.0 |
60 to 64 | 4 | 9.5 |
55 to 59 | 2 | 17.5 |
50 to 54 | 1 | 6.0 |
45 to 49 | 3 | 8.0 |
40 to 44 | 3 | 23.0 |
35 to 39 | 4 | 3.0 |
30 to 34 | 7 | 9.0 |
25 to 29 | 6 | 4.0 |
22 to 24 | 3 | 5.0 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 7.0 |
18 or 19 | 1 | 8.0 |
17 | 1 | 2.0 |
N = 41
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2016 | 5 | 4.0 |
2017 | 5 | 3.0 |
2018 | 5 | 7.0 |
2019 | 6 | 3.0 |
2020 | 20 | 9.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.59 (N = 41)
Remark: This rise of scores into 2020 may have been caused by people submitting answers with the Prize of the Behead Man in mind, which ended on 21 December of that year. In that case, it need not point to a lack of robustness of the test, and the below computation of Robustness is then too low. If so, this will set itself straight in later years.
Verbal | 0.92 |
Numerical | 0.94 |
Spatial | 0.91 |
Verbal × Numerical | 0.78 |
Verbal × Spatial | 0.75 |
Numerical × Spatial | 0.83 |
Prop. = proportion of candidates outscored in this section.
Score | Prop. | # scores (* = 1 score) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.061 (0.122) | ***** |
2 | 0.220 (0.317) | ******** |
3 | 0.451 (0.585) | *********** |
4 | 0.646 (0.707) | ***** |
5 | 0.768 (0.829) | ***** |
6 | 0.854 (0.878) | ** |
9 | 0.902 (0.927) | ** |
12 | 0.963 (1.000) | *** |
Score | Prop. | # scores (* = 1 score) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.207 (0.415) | ***************** |
1 | 0.524 (0.634) | ********* |
2 | 0.695 (0.756) | ***** |
3 | 0.780 (0.805) | ** |
4 | 0.817 (0.829) | * |
5 | 0.841 (0.854) | * |
6 | 0.866 (0.878) | * |
7 | 0.890 (0.902) | * |
8 | 0.915 (0.927) | * |
9 | 0.951 (0.976) | ** |
10 | 0.988 (1.000) | * |
Score | Prop. | # scores (* = 1 score) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.110 (0.220) | ********* |
1 | 0.341 (0.463) | ********** |
2 | 0.549 (0.634) | ******* |
3 | 0.744 (0.854) | ********* |
4 | 0.866 (0.878) | * |
5 | 0.902 (0.927) | ** |
6 | 0.939 (0.951) | * |
8 | 0.976 (1.000) | ** |
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.