This test can no longer be taken. It has been succeeded by the English Long Test For Genius. Statistics of its subtests are in separate reports: Associatie; Analogieën; Space, Time and Hyperspace. The spatial subtest was weighted by 3 in the total score.
Contents type: Verbal, spatial. Period: 1996-2005
| 27 | * |
| 40 | * |
| 49 | * |
| 55 | * |
| 64 | *** |
| 74 | * |
| 76 | * |
| 83 | * |
| 88 | ** |
| 94 | * |
| 99 | * |
| 100 | * |
| 115 | * |
| Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| De Laatste Test | 3 | 0.98 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 16 | 0.94 |
| Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 16 | 0.92 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 3 | 0.92 |
| Drenth number series | 5 | 0.89 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 16 | 0.79 |
| Short Test For Genius | 7 | 0.74 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 3 | 0.69 |
| Numbers | 12 | 0.69 |
| Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 3 | 0.56 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 8 | -0.09 |
| Hoeflin Power Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 3 | -0.12 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 8 | -0.48 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.631 (N = 103)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.79
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.
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 Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 38 | 0.92 |
| Numerical | 17 | 0.87 |
| Spatial | 16 | 0.97 |
| Heterogeneous | 16 | 0.76 |
N = 87
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.88
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 14 | 79.5 |
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.
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen, later Lynn and Becker:
| Personalia | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| Educational level | 9 | 0.68 |
| Observed behaviour | 5 | 0.65 |
| Sex | 16 | 0.36 |
| Mother's educational level | 5 | 0.09 |
| Father's educational level | 5 | 0.08 |
| Year of birth | 16 | -0.30 |
| Disorders (own) | 6 | -0.39 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 5 | -0.74 |
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 | 0.67 (21) |
|---|---|
| Below median | 0.60 (71) |
| Above median | 0.82 (51) |
| Above 3rd quartile | 0.71 (25) |
Computed from the three subtest reliabilities using a form of the Spearman-Brown formula.
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.