12 | * |
29 | ** |
30 | * |
34 | * |
35 | ** |
36 | ** |
38 | ** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ****** |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 19 | 0.98 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 4 | 0.98 |
(29) Words | 19 | 0.95 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 4 | 0.91 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 7 | 0.84 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.83 |
(68) Numbers | 4 | 0.80 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.72 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 7 | 0.70 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 4 | 0.69 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 5 | 0.64 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 7 | 0.59 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.58 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 7 | 0.56 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | 0.53 |
(7) The Final Test | 6 | 0.48 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 6 | 0.48 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 5 | 0.47 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.46 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 6 | 0.44 |
(11) Isis Test | 7 | 0.44 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 5 | 0.43 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 7 | 0.42 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 9 | 0.38 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.37 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.29 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 4 | 0.18 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 4 | -0.12 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 4 | -0.13 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 4 | -0.35 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | -0.51 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.562
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.75
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 7 | 0.54 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 4 | 0.03 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 4 | -0.34 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.170
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 Letters on that type |
---|---|
Verbal | 0.81 |
Numerical | 0.78 |
Spatial | 0.65 |
Logical | 0.75 |
Heterogeneous | 0.60 |
Balanced g loading = 0.72
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_States | 9 | 39.0 |
Sweden | 2 | 37.5 |
Greece | 2 | 34.0 |
United_Kingdom | 2 | 34.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 7 | 0.89 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 7 | 0.65 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 10 | 0.61 |
P.S.I.A. Rational | 7 | 0.50 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted | 7 | 0.45 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 7 | 0.37 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme | 7 | 0.34 |
P.S.I.A. System factor | 6 | 0.34 |
Educational level | 21 | 0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Rare | 7 | 0.21 |
Observed associative horizon | 3 | 0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly | 7 | 0.15 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 21 | 0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 10 | 0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Cold | 7 | 0.10 |
Sex | 22 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. True | 7 | 0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Just | 7 | 0.01 |
Year of birth | 22 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel | 7 | -0.18 |
Disorders (own) | 21 | -0.33 |
Father's educational level | 19 | -0.34 |
Mother's educational level | 20 | -0.48 |
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 5 | -0.50 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 7 | -0.70 |
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 (201) | NaN (0) |
12 | 0.75 (201) | NaN (0) |
20 | 0.64 (167) | NaN (0) |
29 | 0.64 (167) | NaN (0) |
30 | 0.46 (123) | NaN (0) |
32 | 0.42 (113) | NaN (0) |
34 | 0.42 (113) | 0.92 (4) |
35 | 0.41 (112) | 0.97 (12) |
36 | 0.38 (109) | 0.95 (17) |
37 | 0.39 (94) | 0.95 (17) |
38 | 0.39 (94) | 0.76 (73) |
39 | 0.17 (34) | 0.75 (149) |
40 | NaN (0) | 0.75 (201) |
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
50 to 54 | 2 | 34.0 |
45 to 49 | 3 | 39.0 |
40 to 44 | 2 | 34.0 |
35 to 39 | 2 | 39.5 |
30 to 34 | 1 | 40.0 |
25 to 29 | 4 | 36.5 |
22 to 24 | 1 | 40.0 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 38.0 |
17 | 3 | 36.0 |
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2003 | 3 | 36.0 |
2004 | 2 | 32.5 |
2005 | 2 | 37.0 |
2007 | 1 | 40.0 |
2008 | 1 | 40.0 |
2010 | 2 | 39.5 |
2011 | 2 | 34.5 |
2012 | 1 | 38.0 |
2013 | 2 | 34.0 |
2014 | 2 | 38.5 |
2015 | 4 | 37.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.15 (n = 22)
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.
The items of this test perform well in item analysis, which is also expressed in the very high reliability of the test.