Contents type: Verbal, numerical, logical. Period: 2013-present
| 6 | * |
| 8 | ** |
| 10 | * |
| 14 | ** |
| 20 | * |
| 21 | * |
| 22 | ** |
| 23 | * |
| 24 | * |
| 31 | * |
| 40 | * |
| 43 | * |
| 44 | * |
| (Test index) Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| (41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 2 | 1.00 |
| (57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 3 | 1.00 |
| (58) Verbal Insight Test | 2 | 1.00 |
| (62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 2 | 1.00 |
| (63) Long Test For Genius | 2 | 1.00 |
| (69) Odds | 2 | 1.00 |
| (75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 2 | 1.00 |
| (79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 2 | 1.00 |
| (82) Reason | 2 | 1.00 |
| (107) The Alchemist Test | 2 | 1.00 |
| (42) The Marathon Test | 3 | 1.00 |
| (21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 4 | 1.00 |
| (54) Test of Shock and Awe | 3 | 1.00 |
| (47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 3 | 1.00 |
| (37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 3 | 0.89 |
| (36) Reflections In Peroxide | 6 | 0.86 |
| (12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 16 | 0.85 |
| (68) Numbers | 4 | 0.84 |
| (5) Daedalus Test | 5 | 0.83 |
| (0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 6 | 0.82 |
| (35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 10 | 0.82 |
| (105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.80 |
| (44) Associative LIMIT | 7 | 0.79 |
| (11) Isis Test | 6 | 0.79 |
| (48) Narcissus' last stand | 6 | 0.78 |
| (112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 4 | 0.75 |
| (18) The Nemesis Test | 6 | 0.75 |
| (66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 5 | 0.74 |
| (1) Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.71 |
| (46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 3 | 0.68 |
| (7) The Final Test | 6 | 0.66 |
| (30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 4 | 0.65 |
| (28) The Test To End All Tests | 7 | 0.65 |
| (16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 10 | 0.62 |
| (27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.61 |
| (33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.61 |
| (111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.60 |
| (10) Genius Association Test | 8 | 0.59 |
| (109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.58 |
| (104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 16 | 0.56 |
| (43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.55 |
| (15) Letters | 3 | 0.55 |
| (31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.51 |
| (103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 8 | 0.47 |
| (39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.47 |
| (45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.47 |
| (26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.45 |
| (19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.44 |
| (24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 10 | 0.43 |
| (32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.38 |
| (114) Dicing with death | 4 | 0.37 |
| (2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 9 | 0.36 |
| (4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 8 | 0.33 |
| (40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 10 | 0.28 |
| (106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 7 | 0.21 |
| (87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 4 | 0.16 |
| (23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 7 | 0.15 |
| (108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.11 |
| (3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 10 | 0.02 |
| (25) The Sargasso Test | 9 | -0.06 |
| (110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 3 | -0.19 |
| (29) Words | 3 | -0.41 |
| (80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 2 | -1.00 |
| (84) Bonsai Test | 2 | -1.00 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.551 (weighted sum: 196.11)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.74
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.
| (Test index) Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| (237) Sigma Test | 2 | 1.00 |
| (201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 2 | 1.00 |
| (220) Cattell Culture Fair | 2 | 1.00 |
| (225) Logima Strictica 36 | 2 | 1.00 |
| (231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 2 | 1.00 |
| (235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 2 | 1.00 |
| (240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 2 | 1.00 |
| (234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 4 | -0.20 |
| (242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 8 | -0.35 |
| (223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 2 | -1.00 |
| (246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 2 | -1.00 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.213 (weighted sum: 6.39)
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.
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 | g loading of The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 on that type |
|---|---|
| Verbal | 0.69 |
| Numerical | 0.77 |
| Spatial | 0.80 |
| Logical | 0.79 |
| Heterogeneous | 0.70 |
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.75
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Greece | 2 | 27.0 |
| United_States | 4 | 14.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| P.S.I.A. Orderly | 5 | 0.31 |
| Sex | 16 | 0.30 |
| Year of birth | 16 | 0.22 |
| P.S.I.A. Cold | 5 | 0.15 |
| Educational level | 16 | 0.14 |
| P.S.I.A. Cruel | 5 | 0.08 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 6 | 0.00 |
| P.S.I.A. Introverted | 5 | -0.02 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 16 | -0.04 |
| Observed behaviour | 5 | -0.06 |
| Father's educational level | 16 | -0.09 |
| P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 5 | -0.09 |
| Disorders (own) | 16 | -0.10 |
| P.S.I.A. Rare | 5 | -0.14 |
| P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 8 | -0.14 |
| P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 5 | -0.15 |
| P.S.I.A. True | 5 | -0.16 |
| P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 8 | -0.20 |
| Mother's educational level | 16 | -0.35 |
| P.S.I.A. System factor | 6 | -0.36 |
| P.S.I.A. Rational | 5 | -0.38 |
| P.S.I.A. Extreme | 5 | -0.54 |
| P.S.I.A. Just | 5 | -0.59 |
| P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 5 | -0.71 |
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 | 0.74 (356) | NaN (0) |
| 13 | 0.57 (295) | 0.85 (21) |
| 21.5 | 0.51 (204) | 0.80 (122) |
| 29 | 0.79 (87) | 0.77 (227) |
| 96 | NaN (0) | 0.74 (356) |
Using the two subtest reliabilities and applying a form of the Spearman-Brown formula, the reliability of this test is computed as .97
The subtests are Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version and The Final Test - Revision 2013, each having their own statistical report containing norms.
The standard error of measurement is 2.1 raw score point.
The average of the two subtest robustness values is .81
The overall test quality is .815
This is a monstrous test that owes much of its quality and enormously high ceiling to its chimeric, internally incongruous nature.