The educational levels reported by test candidates are encoded as follows:
0 | ********* |
1 | *********************** |
2 | ********************************************************************************* |
3 | ********************************************************************************* ********************** |
4 | ***************************************************************************************** *********************************************************************************************** *********************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** |
5 | ********************************************************************************************** ************************************************************************************************ ******************************************************************* |
6 | ********************************************************************************** *************************************************************** |
7 | ************************************* |
n = 894
0 | ******** |
1 | ********************** |
2 | *********************************************************************** |
3 | ********************************************************** ***************************** |
4 | *********************************************************************************** *********************************************************************************************** *********************************************************************************************** ************************************************** |
5 | *********************************************************************************************** ************************************************************************************************* ******************************* |
6 | ************************************************************************************* ***************************************** |
7 | ********************************** |
n = 129
0 | * |
1 | * |
2 | ********** |
3 | **************** |
4 | ********************************************** |
5 | ********************************* |
6 | ******************* |
7 | *** |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(77) Analogies #1 | 7 | 0.66 |
(118) Divine Psychometry | 6 | 0.57 |
(76) Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 6 | 0.30 |
(72) Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 11 | 0.28 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 17 | 0.26 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 62 | 0.26 |
(13) Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 4 | 0.25 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 27 | 0.23 |
(85) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 16 | 0.23 |
(82) Reason | 38 | 0.22 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 50 | 0.22 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 34 | 0.21 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 31 | 0.20 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 93 | 0.17 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 107 | 0.15 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 18 | 0.15 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 76 | 0.14 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 183 | 0.13 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 103 | 0.12 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 18 | 0.12 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 40 | 0.11 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 53 | 0.10 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 122 | 0.10 |
(65) Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 5 | 0.09 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 92 | 0.09 |
(74) Cooijmans On-Line Test | 15 | 0.08 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 12 | 0.08 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 31 | 0.07 |
(56) Short Test For Genius | 11 | 0.06 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 170 | 0.06 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 38 | 0.04 |
(68) Numbers | 53 | 0.04 |
(55) Spatial Insight Test | 23 | 0.03 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 23 | 0.03 |
(7) The Final Test | 61 | 0.01 |
(51) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 14 | 0.01 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 103 | 0.01 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 38 | 0.01 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 54 | 0.01 |
(71) Numerical Insight Test | 13 | 0.00 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 144 | -0.00 |
(11) Isis Test | 74 | -0.01 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 52 | -0.01 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 37 | -0.01 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 88 | -0.02 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 56 | -0.02 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 94 | -0.02 |
(116) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 42 | -0.03 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 75 | -0.03 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 52 | -0.04 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 54 | -0.05 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 25 | -0.05 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 51 | -0.06 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 51 | -0.06 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 34 | -0.06 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 55 | -0.06 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 72 | -0.07 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 46 | -0.08 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 38 | -0.09 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 58 | -0.10 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 38 | -0.11 |
(59) Association and Analogies (German) | 5 | -0.12 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 19 | -0.12 |
(69) Odds | 21 | -0.12 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 105 | -0.13 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 34 | -0.13 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 82 | -0.13 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 48 | -0.14 |
(50) Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 11 | -0.14 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 53 | -0.17 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 34 | -0.17 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 37 | -0.18 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 12 | -0.19 |
(52) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 15 | -0.23 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 14 | -0.23 |
(115) De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 4 | -0.25 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 18 | -0.29 |
(114) Dicing with death | 11 | -0.32 |
(29) Words | 21 | -0.32 |
(54) Test of Shock and Awe | 16 | -0.33 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 28 | -0.35 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 33 | -0.43 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 18 | -0.47 |
(15) Letters | 20 | -0.48 |
(34) De Roskam | 4 | -0.50 |
(73) Qoymans Automatic Test #3 | 8 | -0.54 |
(22) Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieënproefwerk | 8 | -0.56 |
(81) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 6 | -0.56 |
(14) Low Countries Aptitude Test | 7 | -0.64 |
(86) Evens | 9 | -0.82 |
(8) Female Intelligence Test | 5 | -0.92 |
(49) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 4 | -0.93 |
Weighted average of correlations: -0.002 (N = 3824, weighted sum = -8.13)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: -0.05
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(203) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales for Children | 7 | 0.93 |
(208) California Test of Mental Maturity | 5 | 0.64 |
(244) Scholastic Aptitude Test (new) | 11 | 0.51 |
(243) Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 17 | 0.46 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 49 | 0.38 |
(238) 916 Test | 20 | 0.38 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 18 | 0.33 |
(237) Sigma Test | 22 | 0.33 |
(241) Ultra Test | 10 | 0.32 |
(232) GMAT | 4 | 0.30 |
(226) Logima Strictica 24 | 16 | 0.29 |
(214) Epiq Tests | 14 | 0.28 |
(227) Concep-T | 8 | 0.24 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 26 | 0.22 |
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 23 | 0.18 |
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 52 | 0.17 |
(233) Hoeflin Power Test | 7 | 0.16 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 33 | 0.14 |
(217) G-test | 8 | 0.11 |
(206) W-87 | 8 | 0.10 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 37 | 0.08 |
(239) Titan Test | 19 | 0.07 |
(229) Mega Test | 9 | 0.02 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 234 | -0.00 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 71 | -0.01 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 56 | -0.04 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 30 | -0.05 |
(247) Advanced Intelligence Test | 12 | -0.11 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 28 | -0.12 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 39 | -0.15 |
(230) Omega Contemplative Items Pool | 7 | -0.18 |
(219) Graduate Record Examination | 11 | -0.20 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 13 | -0.22 |
(204) Chimera High Ability Riddle Test | 5 | -0.26 |
(202) Cattell Verbal | 7 | -0.28 |
(200) American College Testing program | 15 | -0.29 |
(209) Drenth number series | 5 | -0.37 |
(205) Cito-toets | 12 | -0.39 |
(224) Test of Inductive Reasoning | 12 | -0.59 |
(213) Encephalist - R | 6 | -0.80 |
(228) Miller Analogies Test (raw; old version) | 7 | -0.89 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.054 (N = 993, weighted sum = 53.54)
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.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | 0.89 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 4 | 0.69 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 7 | 0.55 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 4 | 0.52 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 16 | 0.42 |
(116) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 4 | 0.30 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 4 | 0.28 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 5 | 0.17 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 5 | 0.13 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 5 | 0.13 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 5 | 0.12 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 14 | 0.05 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 5 | 0.02 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 6 | -0.04 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 15 | -0.07 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 9 | -0.62 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.160 (N = 112, weighted sum = 17.94)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: 0.40
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 Mother's educational level on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 952 | -0.25 |
Numerical | 253 | 0.08 |
Spatial | 412 | -0.00 |
Logical | 177 | 0.40 |
Heterogeneous | 1295 | 0.11 |
N = 3089
Balanced g loading = 0.07
Country | n | mean score |
---|---|---|
Chile | 3 | 6.00 |
Hungary | 2 | 6.00 |
Bulgaria | 8 | 5.75 |
Cuba | 2 | 5.50 |
Dominican_Republic | 2 | 5.50 |
El_Salvador | 2 | 5.50 |
Russia | 4 | 5.50 |
Iran | 5 | 5.40 |
Argentina | 7 | 5.29 |
Switzerland | 6 | 5.17 |
India | 25 | 5.12 |
New_Zealand | 4 | 5.00 |
Serbia | 2 | 5.00 |
Thailand | 3 | 5.00 |
South_Africa | 9 | 4.89 |
Romania | 7 | 4.86 |
Poland | 15 | 4.73 |
Philippines | 6 | 4.67 |
Nigeria | 5 | 4.60 |
United_States | 286 | 4.59 |
Israel | 7 | 4.57 |
Canada | 31 | 4.48 |
Greece | 25 | 4.44 |
United_Kingdom | 43 | 4.42 |
Korea_South | 17 | 4.41 |
Portugal | 5 | 4.40 |
Singapore | 5 | 4.40 |
Yugoslavia | 5 | 4.40 |
Malaysia | 3 | 4.33 |
France | 19 | 4.32 |
Austria | 12 | 4.25 |
Sweden | 59 | 4.20 |
Japan | 10 | 4.20 |
Australia | 17 | 4.00 |
China | 19 | 4.00 |
Czech_Republic | 3 | 4.00 |
Italy | 20 | 4.00 |
Norway | 13 | 4.00 |
Slovenia | 4 | 4.00 |
Germany | 72 | 3.93 |
Belgium | 21 | 3.90 |
Netherlands | 79 | 3.87 |
Finland | 28 | 3.79 |
Brazil | 12 | 3.75 |
Mexico | 7 | 3.57 |
Denmark | 13 | 3.46 |
Turkey | 14 | 3.43 |
Bosnia_and_Herzegovina | 4 | 3.25 |
Croatia | 2 | 3.00 |
Spain | 23 | 2.61 |
Slovakia | 2 | 2.50 |
Hong_Kong | 5 | 2.20 |
Cyprus | 3 | 2.00 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Father's educational level | 1009 | 0.60 |
Year of birth | 1024 | 0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 80 | 0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 80 | 0.10 |
Disorders (own) | 1021 | 0.05 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 47 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 80 | 0.00 |
Sex | 1024 | -0.00 |
Educational level | 1024 | -0.00 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 1020 | -0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.01 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 79 | -0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.04 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.06 |
Observed associative horizon | 36 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.15 |
Observed behaviour | 89 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 80 | -0.18 |
Observation: There is a significant moderate positive correlation of Father's educational level with Mother's educational level, reflecting assortative mating, one presumes. Virtually the same correlation is seen below for both the female and the male candidates separately, which makes sense given that the assortative mating took place before the candidate (child) was conceived, and can therefore not have been affected by the sex of the candidate. The fact that this correlation is so alike within-sex confirms that it is genuine, and also confirms that the statistic was reported correctly on the whole.
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 6 | 0.73 |
Father's educational level | 129 | 0.61 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.50 |
Year of birth | 129 | 0.23 |
Educational level | 129 | 0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.11 |
Disorders (own) | 129 | 0.09 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 129 | -0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.24 |
Observed associative horizon | 5 | -0.25 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.25 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.33 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.38 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.44 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.44 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.46 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.46 |
Observed behaviour | 7 | -0.50 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.60 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Father's educational level | 879 | 0.60 |
Year of birth | 894 | 0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 71 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 71 | 0.07 |
Disorders (own) | 891 | 0.04 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 47 | 0.01 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 890 | 0.01 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 71 | 0.00 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.02 |
Educational level | 894 | -0.02 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.03 |
Observed associative horizon | 31 | -0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.06 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.08 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 73 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.14 |
Observed behaviour | 82 | -0.15 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 71 | -0.17 |
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 | -0.05 (3824) | NaN (0) |
1 | -0.09 (3792) | 0.57 (39) |
2 | 0.11 (3677) | -0.14 (305) |
3 | 0.06 (3400) | -0.34 (809) |
4 | -0.21 (2949) | 0.11 (2302) |
5 | -0.28 (1453) | 0.13 (3150) |
6 | -0.41 (557) | 0.16 (3683) |
7 | NaN (0) | -0.05 (3824) |
Observation: Only downward of Mother's educational level 1 (a few years primary school) does this statistic have noticeable g loading. The upward g loading is even increasingly negative from level 4 (Secondary school completed) upward.
After seeing the statistics of candidate's, mother's, and father's educational levels, the following general observations can be made with significance:
These reports are based exclusively on statistics of high-range intelligence tests. Over the full range of I.Q. and the general population, the correlations of I.Q. scores with the indicators of educational level are known to be much higher than reported here. Likely, this difference has to do with phenomena like attenuation due to restriction of range, and Spearman's "law of diminishing returns" regarding g.