Contents type: Verbal. Period: 2003-2016
12 | * |
29 | ** |
30 | * |
34 | * |
35 | ** |
36 | ** |
38 | ** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ****** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 4 | 0.99 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 19 | 0.98 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.97 |
Words | 19 | 0.95 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.85 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 4 | 0.85 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 4 | 0.84 |
Numbers | 4 | 0.80 |
Narcissus' last stand | 4 | 0.77 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 6 | 0.76 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 4 | 0.73 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.72 |
The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.67 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 5 | 0.65 |
Cartoons of Shock | 7 | 0.63 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.62 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 4 | 0.61 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 7 | 0.60 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 5 | 0.58 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.55 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 4 | 0.55 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | 0.53 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.53 |
Associative LIMIT | 7 | 0.51 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 9 | 0.50 |
The Test To End All Tests | 8 | 0.50 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.47 |
The Nemesis Test | 6 | 0.44 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.43 |
Isis Test | 9 | 0.42 |
The Sargasso Test | 7 | 0.40 |
Genius Association Test | 11 | 0.39 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 6 | 0.38 |
The Final Test | 7 | 0.38 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.34 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 5 | 0.30 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 7 | 0.29 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 9 | 0.27 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 9 | 0.26 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.26 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 4 | 0.24 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 9 | 0.19 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 4 | 0.18 |
Miscellaneous tests | 8 | 0.03 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 9 | -0.01 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 6 | -0.04 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 4 | -0.13 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | -0.19 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | -0.34 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | -0.51 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.477 (N = 329)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.69
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 Letters on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 106 | 0.77 |
Numerical | 23 | 0.65 |
Spatial | 27 | 0.65 |
Logical | 9 | 0.43 |
Heterogeneous | 91 | 0.66 |
N = 256
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.63
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_States | 9 | 39.0 |
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 Orderly - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.91 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 8 | 0.89 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.70 |
Observed behaviour | 4 | 0.67 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.56 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.49 |
Educational level | 21 | 0.27 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.20 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 21 | 0.11 |
Sex | 22 | 0.09 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.07 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.06 |
Year of birth | 22 | -0.10 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.13 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.14 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.32 |
Disorders (own) | 21 | -0.33 |
Father's educational level | 19 | -0.34 |
Mother's educational level | 20 | -0.48 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.67 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.69 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.73 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.77 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.84 |
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 35.0) | 0.52 (43) |
---|---|
Below median (raw 38.5) | 0.64 (174) |
Above median (raw 38.5) | 0.63 (83) |
Above 3rd quartile (raw 40.0) | NaN (0) |
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 |
N = 22
Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2003 | 3 | 36.0 | 367 |
2004 | 2 | 32.5 | 355 |
2005 | 2 | 37.0 | 371 |
2007 | 1 | 40.0 | 440 |
2008 | 1 | 40.0 | 440 |
2010 | 2 | 39.5 | 423 |
2011 | 2 | 34.5 | 357 |
2012 | 1 | 38.0 | 376 |
2013 | 2 | 34.0 | 356 |
2014 | 2 | 38.5 | 391 |
2015 | 4 | 37.0 | 371 |
N = 22
Item statistics are not published as that would help candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score on the remaining problems (item-rest correlation) and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are revised, replaced, or removed, possibly resulting in a revised version of the test.