Statistics of Labyrinthine LIMIT

Scores on Labyrinthine LIMIT as of 19 June 2024

Contents type: Spatial, logical.   Period: 2004-present

• n: 25
• Median: 21.0
• Quartile deviation: 4.0
• Range: 44
• Maximum possible: 60
• Male median: 21.0 (n = 25)
• Proportion of males among candidates: 1.000
• Hardness: 0.59
• Resolution: 0.41

Correlation of Labyrinthine LIMIT with other mental ability tests

Weighted average of correlations: 0.454 (N = 520)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.67

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 3 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

Estimated loadings of Labyrinthine LIMIT on particular item types

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.

N = 403

Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.

Balanced g loading = 0.65

National medians for Labyrinthine LIMIT

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 3 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the medians, and then alphabetic.

Correlation with national I.Q.'s of Labyrinthine LIMIT

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen, later Lynn and Becker:

• r = 0.39 (n = 25)

Correlation of Labyrinthine LIMIT with personal details

Estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges

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.

Reliability

Since the reliability of the Daedalus Test can not be computed due to its one-item nature, the compound reliability of Labyrinthine LIMIT can also not be computed, and therefore the error of measurement can also not be computed.

Internal consistency

The correlation between the two subtests is .34.

For the correlations of the subtests with total score, see the correlations table above in this report.

Ideal values for correlations between subtests are around .5, thus being a compromise between the test's ability to yield a "profile" and its ability to provide an indication of general intelligence. With a too high correlation (like .8 or higher) the sections measure basically the same so there is almost no profile information in them, with a too low correlation (like .2 or lower) the sections are so different that there is little point in combining them into a measure of general intelligence.

Robustness and overall test quality

• Robustness by month = 0.75 (r_{raw scores × months} = -0.14)
• Quality = 0.582

Further internal statistics

Further internal statistics are reported at subtest level in the reports of the Daedalus Test and Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test.

[More statistical reports]