Contents type: Verbal. Period: 2003-2016
15 | * |
59 | * |
60 | * |
65 | * |
68 | * |
72 | * |
73 | * |
74 | ** |
75 | * |
76 | * |
77 | * |
78 | *** |
79 | **** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Words | 19 | 0.99 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.99 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 4 | 0.98 |
Letters | 19 | 0.98 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.85 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 4 | 0.84 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.82 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 4 | 0.82 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 8 | 0.80 |
Narcissus' last stand | 4 | 0.74 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.73 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 8 | 0.67 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 8 | 0.64 |
The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.63 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 5 | 0.61 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 4 | 0.59 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.57 |
Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.55 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 4 | 0.53 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.53 |
The Sargasso Test | 6 | 0.52 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.51 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 7 | 0.50 |
The Nemesis Test | 6 | 0.45 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.44 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.44 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 8 | 0.43 |
Associative LIMIT | 7 | 0.41 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 6 | 0.40 |
The Final Test | 6 | 0.36 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.34 |
The Test To End All Tests | 7 | 0.33 |
Genius Association Test | 9 | 0.31 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.31 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 5 | 0.29 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 6 | 0.29 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 5 | 0.25 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.22 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.16 |
Isis Test | 8 | 0.14 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 4 | 0.12 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 8 | 0.05 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 4 | -0.29 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 4 | -0.36 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | -0.80 |
Miscellaneous tests | 6 | -0.82 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.485 (N = 291)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.70
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 4 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.
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 The LAW - Letters And Words on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 95 | 0.80 |
Numerical | 17 | 0.62 |
Spatial | 26 | 0.60 |
Logical | 8 | 0.82 |
Heterogeneous | 81 | 0.65 |
N = 227
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.70
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_States | 8 | 73.5 |
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.
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.99 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.84 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.74 |
Observed behaviour | 4 | 0.74 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.69 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.55 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 7 | 0.53 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.39 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.37 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.34 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.26 |
Educational level | 19 | 0.19 |
Sex | 19 | 0.11 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 19 | 0.08 |
Year of birth | 19 | -0.11 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.22 |
Father's educational level | 17 | -0.32 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.32 |
Disorders (own) | 19 | -0.38 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.43 |
Mother's educational level | 18 | -0.47 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.55 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.56 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.99 |
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 (raw 68.0) | 0.70 (37) |
---|---|
Below median (raw 75.0) | 0.71 (106) |
Above median (raw 75.0) | 0.57 (152) |
Above 3rd quartile (raw 78.0) | 0.71 (45) |
These are computed from statistics like subtest reliabilities, subtest variances, and total test variance. This case illustrates excellently how a test with very high reliability can still be a bad, useless test, simply by being too easy and one-sided. To be a good test, high reliability is required but not sufficient, hence the computation of total test quality near the bottom of this report, based on quality of norms, hardness, resolution, validity, reliability, and robustness.
Standard error = 2.26 raw score points
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 subtests measure basically the same so there is almost no profile information in them, with a too low correlation (like .2 or lower) the subtests are so different that there is little point in combining them into a measure of general intelligence.
For the correlations of the subtests with total score, see the correlations table above in this report. For statistics per subtest, see the statistical reports of the pertinent subtests.