10 | * |
11 | * |
18 | * |
20 | * |
21 | ** |
22 | *** |
23 | * |
24 | **** |
25 | *** |
26 | *** |
27 | ** |
28 | ****** |
29 | ******** |
30 | ******** |
31 | *********** |
32 | ********************** |
33 | ***************** |
34 | ***************** |
35 | ************************* |
36 | *********************** |
37 | *********** |
38 | ************* |
39 | ******** |
40 | ***** |
n = 179
10 | * |
11 | * |
18 | * |
20 | * |
21 | ** |
22 | *** |
23 | * |
24 | ** |
25 | ** |
26 | *** |
27 | * |
28 | ****** |
29 | ******* |
30 | ******* |
31 | *********** |
32 | ******************* |
33 | *************** |
34 | ***************** |
35 | *********************** |
36 | ********************** |
37 | *********** |
38 | ************ |
39 | ******* |
40 | **** |
n = 16
24 | ** |
25 | * |
27 | * |
29 | * |
30 | * |
32 | *** |
33 | * |
35 | ** |
36 | * |
38 | * |
39 | * |
40 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 5 | 0.93 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 7 | 0.91 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 13 | 0.88 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 14 | 0.87 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 14 | 0.84 |
(22) Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieënproefwerk | 5 | 0.83 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 12 | 0.81 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 32 | 0.81 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 5 | 0.81 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.80 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 13 | 0.80 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 14 | 0.80 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 12 | 0.76 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.76 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.74 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.69 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 35 | 0.69 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 20 | 0.68 |
(114) Dicing with death | 8 | 0.68 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 16 | 0.68 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 20 | 0.67 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 15 | 0.67 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 10 | 0.63 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.61 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 5 | 0.61 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.58 |
(7) The Final Test | 7 | 0.58 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 32 | 0.57 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 22 | 0.56 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 5 | 0.56 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 16 | 0.55 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 39 | 0.55 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 12 | 0.55 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 17 | 0.54 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 31 | 0.52 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 21 | 0.51 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 17 | 0.49 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.46 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 14 | 0.45 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 10 | 0.45 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 14 | 0.42 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 7 | 0.40 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 32 | 0.40 |
(11) Isis Test | 14 | 0.35 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 13 | 0.34 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 26 | 0.34 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 9 | 0.30 |
(29) Words | 7 | 0.27 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.23 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.20 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 24 | 0.18 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 27 | 0.17 |
(15) Letters | 8 | -0.03 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.567 (N = 838, weighted sum = 475.08)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.75
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 4 | 0.88 |
(247) Advanced Intelligence Test | 5 | 0.83 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 8 | 0.75 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 4 | 0.72 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 4 | 0.66 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 5 | 0.53 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | 0.36 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 45 | 0.25 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 5 | 0.06 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.417 (N = 84, weighted sum = 34.99)
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 Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 172 | 0.73 |
Numerical | 50 | 0.78 |
Spatial | 81 | 0.74 |
Logical | 41 | 0.61 |
Heterogeneous | 296 | 0.76 |
N = 640
Balanced g loading = 0.72
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
China | 3 | 37.0 |
Italy | 3 | 36.0 |
Australia | 4 | 35.0 |
Bulgaria | 3 | 35.0 |
France | 3 | 35.0 |
Germany | 25 | 35.0 |
Romania | 3 | 35.0 |
Turkey | 3 | 35.0 |
United_Kingdom | 9 | 35.0 |
Finland | 5 | 34.0 |
Sweden | 9 | 34.0 |
United_States | 60 | 34.0 |
Slovakia | 2 | 33.5 |
Brazil | 2 | 33.0 |
Canada | 8 | 33.0 |
El_Salvador | 2 | 33.0 |
India | 2 | 33.0 |
Netherlands | 3 | 33.0 |
Slovenia | 3 | 33.0 |
Nigeria | 5 | 32.0 |
Spain | 5 | 32.0 |
South_Africa | 3 | 30.0 |
Mexico | 2 | 29.5 |
Denmark | 2 | 27.0 |
Korea_South | 2 | 25.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.46 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.45 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.42 |
Educational level | 190 | 0.26 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.22 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 13 | 0.15 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.15 |
Mother's educational level | 180 | 0.13 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.13 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.09 |
Sex | 196 | 0.05 |
Father's educational level | 182 | 0.04 |
Observed behaviour | 14 | 0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.08 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 189 | -0.09 |
Year of birth | 194 | -0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.11 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 15 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.17 |
Disorders (own) | 190 | -0.19 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.43 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Disorders (own) | 16 | 0.42 |
Mother's educational level | 16 | 0.42 |
Educational level | 16 | 0.23 |
Year of birth | 16 | 0.18 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 16 | 0.15 |
Father's educational level | 16 | 0.13 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.46 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.45 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.42 |
Educational level | 173 | 0.27 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.22 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 13 | 0.15 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.15 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.13 |
Mother's educational level | 163 | 0.13 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.09 |
Father's educational level | 165 | 0.04 |
Observed behaviour | 14 | 0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 21 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.11 |
Year of birth | 177 | -0.11 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 172 | -0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.17 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 13 | -0.25 |
Disorders (own) | 173 | -0.26 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 21 | -0.43 |
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 | 0.75 (838) | NaN (0) |
23 | 0.68 (739) | 0.85 (37) |
25 | 0.71 (711) | 0.70 (113) |
28 | 0.61 (646) | 0.69 (135) |
30 | 0.58 (592) | 0.72 (273) |
31 | 0.65 (520) | 0.62 (359) |
32 | 0.52 (434) | 0.65 (446) |
34 | 0.61 (307) | 0.69 (516) |
35 | 0.62 (282) | 0.70 (604) |
36 | 0.57 (183) | 0.71 (708) |
37 | 0.14 (57) | 0.74 (747) |
38 | 0.74 (21) | 0.74 (808) |
42 | NaN (0) | 0.75 (838) |
Remark: Reliability is a bit low, and this is caused by the easy nature of the test, as a result of which most of the scores are concentrated in a fairly small part of the test's possible range. This is also a cause of the somewhat low g loading. The easiness of the test also lowers overall test quality.
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 33.0 |
60 to 64 | 4 | 35.0 |
55 to 59 | 3 | 35.0 |
50 to 54 | 6 | 31.5 |
45 to 49 | 8 | 35.0 |
40 to 44 | 12 | 34.5 |
35 to 39 | 19 | 35.0 |
30 to 34 | 29 | 34.0 |
25 to 29 | 31 | 32.0 |
22 to 24 | 21 | 35.0 |
20 or 21 | 15 | 34.0 |
18 or 19 | 20 | 34.0 |
17 | 8 | 33.0 |
16 | 5 | 32.0 |
15 | 8 | 32.5 |
14 | 1 | 35.0 |
13 | 2 | 28.0 |
N = 195
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
50 to 54 | 1 | 25.0 |
40 to 44 | 1 | 39.0 |
35 to 39 | 3 | 32.0 |
30 to 34 | 2 | 31.5 |
25 to 29 | 3 | 29.0 |
22 to 24 | 1 | 38.0 |
20 or 21 | 2 | 31.0 |
18 or 19 | 1 | 24.0 |
17 | 1 | 35.0 |
14 | 1 | 35.0 |
N = 16
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 33.0 |
60 to 64 | 4 | 35.0 |
55 to 59 | 3 | 35.0 |
50 to 54 | 5 | 32.0 |
45 to 49 | 8 | 35.0 |
40 to 44 | 11 | 34.0 |
35 to 39 | 16 | 36.0 |
30 to 34 | 27 | 34.0 |
25 to 29 | 28 | 32.5 |
22 to 24 | 19 | 35.0 |
20 or 21 | 13 | 35.0 |
18 or 19 | 19 | 34.0 |
17 | 7 | 33.0 |
16 | 5 | 32.0 |
15 | 8 | 32.5 |
13 | 2 | 28.0 |
N = 178
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2011 | 1 | 36.0 |
2012 | 7 | 33.0 |
2013 | 14 | 30.5 |
2014 | 17 | 32.0 |
2015 | 19 | 33.0 |
2016 | 21 | 34.0 |
2017 | 29 | 32.0 |
2018 | 28 | 34.0 |
2019 | 24 | 34.0 |
2020 | 25 | 35.0 |
2021 | 12 | 35.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.31 (N = 197)
As seen above and below under "Robustness…", scores have crept up over the years. This may be caused by answer leakage, which is relatively more likely on a free test as this is. If it continues, measures will be taken such as revision and/or no longer making the test freely available. The problem with rising scores through answer leakage is that the later norms become unfair (too low) for the earlier candidates and for the honest candidates, and that one is rewarding fraud and punishing honesty.
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.
[Statistics of earlier version of the Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test] [Statistics index page]