Evens consisted of 15 easy number series that were later included in The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016
7 | * |
13 | *** |
14 | ** |
15 | *********************** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 5 | 0.89 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 4 | 0.87 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 7 | 0.71 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 10 | 0.67 |
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 5 | 0.63 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 5 | 0.60 |
Odds | 6 | 0.55 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.50 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 12 | 0.46 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | 0.41 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.41 |
Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 13 | 0.41 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 6 | 0.40 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 7 | 0.38 |
Numbers | 8 | 0.38 |
Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 5 | 0.36 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 7 | 0.28 |
New York High I.Q. Society tests | 4 | 0.20 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 5 | 0.06 |
The Final Test | 9 | 0.05 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 4 | 0.00 |
Analogies #1 | 7 | -0.04 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 12 | -0.10 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.26 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.38 |
Cartoons of Shock | 5 | -0.83 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 4 | -0.90 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.271 (N = 175)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.52
The correlations here appear lower than they really are because of the strong ceiling effect.
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 Evens on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 67 | 0.60 |
Numerical | 14 | 0.67 |
Spatial | 12 | -0.32 |
Logical | 5 | -0.61 |
Heterogeneous | 25 | 0.46 |
N = 123
Balanced g loading = 0.16
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Sweden | 3 | 15.0 |
United_States | 3 | 15.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 10 | 0.33 |
Disorders (own) | 10 | 0.25 |
Educational level | 10 | 0.09 |
Year of birth | 23 | -0.01 |
Father's educational level | 9 | -0.71 |
Mother's educational level | 9 | -0.82 |
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 | 0.46 (193) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.46 (193) |
Above median | NaN (0) |
Above 3rd quartile | NaN (0) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
40 to 44 | 1 | 15.0 |
35 to 39 | 3 | 15.0 |
30 to 34 | 4 | 15.0 |
25 to 29 | 6 | 15.0 |
22 to 24 | 4 | 15.0 |
20 or 21 | 2 | 14.0 |
18 or 19 | 2 | 15.0 |
17 | 1 | 15.0 |
N = 23
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2002 | 27 | 15.0 |
2003 | 2 | 15.0 |
ryear taken × median score = NaN (N = 29)
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.