Statistics of Verbal section of The Marathon Test

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on Verbal section of The Marathon Test as of 25 October 2024

Contents type: Verbal.   Period: 2005-2024

0 *
9 *
12 **
16 *
17 *
18 **
19 *
20 **
21 **
24 ****
28 *
30 ****
32 *
33 **
34 *
35 ***
37 *
38 ***
39 *
40 **
41 **
42 **
43 *
44 *
45 *
46 *
48 *
49 **
50 **

Correlation of Verbal section of The Marathon Test with other mental ability tests

Test name n r
The Gate50.93
De Roskam40.91
The Marathon Test440.90
The Test To End All Tests180.90
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani)80.89
Psychometric Qrosswords120.88
Narcissus' last stand150.87
Cartoons of Shock130.87
The Piper's Test130.86
Letters60.85
A Relaxing Test (David Miller)130.85
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4230.83
Test of the Beheaded Man210.82
The LAW - Letters And Words60.82
Test For Genius - Revision 2010100.82
Dicing with death130.81
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree100.81
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5230.81
Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate)40.80
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010120.79
Test For Genius - Revision 2016190.79
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism100.78
The Smell Test100.78
Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate)40.78
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick)70.77
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016190.76
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2100.75
Words80.75
The Sargasso Test260.74
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011250.74
Only idiots90.74
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini)150.73
Reflections In Peroxide210.73
Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate)40.72
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016220.71
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010280.68
Numerical section of The Marathon Test440.68
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test430.67
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004180.67
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5190.66
The Final Test90.66
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude200.66
Associative LIMIT230.66
The Nemesis Test210.64
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström)50.64
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree220.64
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate)60.63
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai)70.63
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004190.63
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016200.62
Spatial section of The Marathon Test440.61
Miscellaneous tests160.61
The Final Test - Revision 201370.61
Genius Association Test230.56
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008230.55
Isis Test150.55
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016200.55
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3310.55
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner)50.53
De Laatste Test - Herziening 201950.51
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate)50.50
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato)80.50
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai)130.49
Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato)40.49
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test260.49
Test For Genius - Revision 2004100.45
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree190.44
Reason - Revision 2008230.43
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version120.42
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201360.38
Daedalus Test140.38
Labyrinthine LIMIT130.34
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate)50.28
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate)70.23
Cattell Culture Fair50.23
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales70.11
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 201640.11
Epiq Tests (aggregate)70.10
Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate)4-0.33
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 20195-0.35
Reason4-0.44
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai)4-0.66
916 Test (Laurent Dubois)4-0.73
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #45-0.83
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice4-0.93

Weighted average of correlations: 0.630 (N = 1193)

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

Estimated loadings of Verbal section of The Marathon Test 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.

Typeng loading of Verbal section of The Marathon Test on that type
Verbal1580.84
Numerical850.80
Spatial1200.76
Logical410.57
Heterogeneous4410.82

N = 845

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

Balanced g loading = 0.76

National medians for Verbal section of The Marathon Test

Country n median score
Spain345.0
Canada330.0
United_Kingdom330.0
United_States827.0
Germany521.0

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.

Correlation with national I.Q.'s of Verbal section of The Marathon Test

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

Correlation of Verbal section of The Marathon Test with personal details

Personalia n r
Observed behaviour100.90
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007150.60
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007150.59
PSIA True - Revision 2007150.54
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007150.50
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007150.47
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007150.45
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms90.44
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007150.36
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007150.35
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007150.34
Educational level480.27
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007150.22
PSIA Just - Revision 2007150.15
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007150.14
Mother's educational level450.06
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007150.04
Sex490.03
Father's educational level440.01
Year of birth49-0.09
Disorders (parents and siblings)47-0.13
Disorders (own)49-0.27
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 200715-0.27
PSIA Cruel - Revision 200715-0.32
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes8-0.68

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.

Below 1st quartile (raw 21.0)0.76 (267)
Below median (raw 33.0)0.73 (586)
Above median (raw 33.0)0.59 (595)
Above 3rd quartile (raw 41.0)0.65 (288)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n Median score
70 to 74130.0
65 to 69124.0
55 to 59444.0
50 to 54426.5
45 to 49735.0
40 to 44538.0
35 to 39521.0
30 to 34541.0
25 to 291027.0
22 to 24338.0
20 or 21230.5
18 or 19229.5

N = 49

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median scoreprotonorm
2005124.0366
2006537.0414
2008138.0427
2009225.0367
2010422.0358
2011140.0440
2012338.0427
2013318.0330
2014235.5411
2015222.5360
2016223.0362
2017121.0355
201819.0265
2019445.0502
2020339.0432
2021434.0398
2022348.0512
2023430.0379
2024335.0410

ryear taken × median score = 0.17 (N = 49)

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

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.