0 | ** |
14 | * |
16 | * |
19 | *** |
20 | * |
21 | * |
22 | ** |
22.5 | * |
23 | * |
23.5 | * |
24 | ** |
25 | *** |
26 | ** |
26.5 | * |
27 | ****** |
28 | *** |
29 | **** |
30 | * |
31 | ********* |
32 | ************ |
33 | ***** |
34 | ********** |
34.5 | ** |
35 | ***** |
36 | ***** |
37 | **** |
37.5 | ** |
38 | ***** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ***** |
41 | **** |
41.5 | ** |
42 | ** |
43 | * |
44 | *** |
44.5 | * |
45 | * |
46 | * |
47 | ***** |
48 | * |
49 | * |
49.5 | ** |
50 | * |
51 | * |
n = 124
0 | ** |
14 | * |
16 | * |
19 | ** |
20 | * |
21 | * |
22 | ** |
22.5 | * |
23 | * |
23.5 | * |
24 | ** |
25 | *** |
26 | ** |
26.5 | * |
27 | ****** |
28 | *** |
29 | *** |
31 | ********* |
32 | ************ |
33 | ***** |
34 | ********* |
34.5 | ** |
35 | ***** |
36 | **** |
37 | **** |
37.5 | ** |
38 | ***** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ***** |
41 | *** |
41.5 | ** |
42 | ** |
43 | * |
44 | ** |
44.5 | * |
45 | * |
46 | * |
47 | ***** |
48 | * |
49 | * |
49.5 | ** |
50 | * |
51 | * |
n = 7
19 | * |
29 | * |
30 | * |
34 | * |
36 | * |
41 | * |
44 | * |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Ultra Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 5 | 0.97 |
Associative LIMIT | 88 | 0.90 |
Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 7 | 0.90 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 9 | 0.85 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 18 | 0.83 |
Miller Analogies Test (raw; old version) | 4 | 0.83 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 28 | 0.79 |
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 9 | 0.78 |
The Piper's Test | 15 | 0.78 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 4 | 0.78 |
Only idiots | 11 | 0.77 |
Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 6 | 0.77 |
G-test (Nikos Lygeros) | 4 | 0.77 |
Narcissus' last stand | 19 | 0.77 |
Dicing with death | 15 | 0.75 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 18 | 0.75 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 28 | 0.75 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 42 | 0.75 |
The Test To End All Tests | 31 | 0.73 |
Short Test For Genius | 6 | 0.72 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 22 | 0.71 |
Long Test For Genius | 20 | 0.71 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 12 | 0.71 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 12 | 0.71 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 15 | 0.70 |
The Final Test | 34 | 0.70 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 10 | 0.67 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 4 | 0.66 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 25 | 0.65 |
The Gate | 4 | 0.65 |
The Marathon Test | 20 | 0.64 |
The Smell Test | 11 | 0.64 |
Odds | 8 | 0.64 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 26 | 0.64 |
Analogies #1 | 4 | 0.64 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 28 | 0.63 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.63 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 22 | 0.61 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 16 | 0.61 |
The Nemesis Test | 27 | 0.61 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 24 | 0.60 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 13 | 0.59 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 11 | 0.59 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.58 |
Spatial Insight Test | 9 | 0.58 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 34 | 0.58 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 25 | 0.57 |
Isis Test | 27 | 0.56 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 49 | 0.56 |
The Sargasso Test | 41 | 0.56 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 21 | 0.55 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 18 | 0.54 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 22 | 0.52 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 17 | 0.52 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 29 | 0.52 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.52 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 34 | 0.51 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 12 | 0.50 |
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 8 | 0.46 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 28 | 0.46 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 44 | 0.44 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 27 | 0.44 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 43 | 0.44 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 49 | 0.44 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 35 | 0.43 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 11 | 0.43 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 33 | 0.43 |
916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 10 | 0.42 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 16 | 0.42 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 20 | 0.42 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 11 | 0.41 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 19 | 0.41 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 43 | 0.39 |
Letters | 11 | 0.39 |
Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 6 | 0.38 |
Cartoons of Shock | 25 | 0.37 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 43 | 0.37 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 10 | 0.36 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 35 | 0.36 |
Daedalus Test | 15 | 0.35 |
W-87 (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) | 5 | 0.35 |
Miscellaneous tests | 46 | 0.34 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 13 | 0.33 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 9 | 0.33 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 14 | 0.31 |
Numbers | 17 | 0.31 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 9 | 0.31 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 33 | 0.30 |
Advanced Intelligence Test (Randy Myers) | 5 | 0.30 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 89 | 0.30 |
Bonsai Test | 8 | 0.29 |
Reason | 14 | 0.29 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 26 | 0.27 |
Omega Contemplative Items Pool (Tommy Smith) | 5 | 0.25 |
Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieënproefwerk | 5 | 0.21 |
Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 6 | 0.21 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 8 | 0.20 |
The Blue Test (Andres Gomez Emilsson) | 4 | 0.19 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 8 | 0.17 |
Words | 10 | 0.17 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 4 | 0.14 |
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 13 | 0.12 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 9 | 0.11 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 8 | 0.07 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 19 | 0.03 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 10 | 0.02 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 10 | 0.01 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 8 | -0.03 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 7 | -0.04 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 7 | -0.16 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 20 | -0.33 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 15 | -0.35 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 11 | -0.35 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 5 | -0.36 |
Graduate Record Examination | 4 | -0.41 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 5 | -0.43 |
Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato) | 8 | -0.63 |
Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 6 | -0.78 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.481 (N = 2202)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.69
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 Genius Association Test on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 386 | 0.75 |
Numerical | 122 | 0.71 |
Spatial | 252 | 0.58 |
Logical | 85 | 0.57 |
Heterogeneous | 700 | 0.72 |
N = 1545
Balanced g loading = 0.67
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_Kingdom | 7 | 37.0 |
Finland | 6 | 35.8 |
Germany | 8 | 35.0 |
United_States | 43 | 35.0 |
Australia | 3 | 34.0 |
Spain | 4 | 32.5 |
Canada | 8 | 32.0 |
Italy | 5 | 32.0 |
Korea_South | 4 | 31.5 |
Sweden | 10 | 31.0 |
Greece | 3 | 27.0 |
South_Africa | 3 | 26.5 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen, later Lynn and Becker:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.43 |
Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.39 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.32 |
Observed behaviour | 34 | 0.24 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.24 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.21 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.18 |
Father's educational level | 111 | 0.12 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.10 |
Disorders (own) | 124 | 0.08 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.07 |
Educational level | 124 | 0.06 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.04 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 123 | 0.01 |
Sex | 131 | 0.01 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.03 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.04 |
Year of birth | 130 | -0.07 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.09 |
Mother's educational level | 114 | -0.12 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.12 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.14 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 15 | -0.14 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 30 | -0.21 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.31 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.39 |
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 | 0.38 (440) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.54 (1276) |
Above median | 0.68 (1091) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.65 (518) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 29.0 |
65 to 69 | 1 | 27.0 |
55 to 59 | 5 | 34.0 |
50 to 54 | 9 | 35.0 |
45 to 49 | 14 | 36.5 |
40 to 44 | 16 | 35.5 |
35 to 39 | 14 | 36.0 |
30 to 34 | 17 | 32.0 |
25 to 29 | 22 | 34.0 |
22 to 24 | 13 | 31.5 |
20 or 21 | 7 | 37.0 |
18 or 19 | 5 | 32.0 |
17 | 2 | 35.0 |
16 | 4 | 31.5 |
N = 130
Year taken | n | median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2003 | 9 | 38.0 | 449 |
2004 | 27 | 31.0 | 365 |
2005 | 14 | 34.5 | 417 |
2006 | 3 | 41.0 | 479 |
2007 | 5 | 32.0 | 378 |
2008 | 6 | 36.0 | 433 |
2009 | 3 | 44.5 | 515 |
2010 | 4 | 29.3 | 349 |
2011 | 6 | 38.8 | 452 |
2012 | 2 | 31.3 | 372 |
2013 | 2 | 31.0 | 365 |
2014 | 3 | 36.0 | 433 |
2015 | 5 | 31.0 | 365 |
2017 | 4 | 19.5 | 279 |
2018 | 6 | 32.0 | 378 |
2019 | 6 | 36.0 | 433 |
2020 | 8 | 30.5 | 358 |
2021 | 6 | 35.3 | 430 |
2022 | 3 | 32.0 | 378 |
2023 | 1 | 34.0 | 407 |
2024 | 8 | 43.0 | 502 |
ryear taken × median score = -0.13 (N = 131)
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.