Numerical Insight Test - Statistics

© Paul Cooijmans

Introduction

This test can no longer be taken. It is now part of The Marathon Test.

Scores on Numerical Insight Test as of 14 September 2024

Contents type: Numerical.   Period: 2003-2005

31 *
33 *
37 *
39 *
44 *
45 *
46 ****
47 **
48 **

Correlation of Numerical Insight Test with other mental ability tests

Test name n r
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 231.00
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato)30.99
Reason30.99
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test30.97
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai)70.82
Spatial Insight Test70.75
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve)50.67
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #470.58
The Final Test40.41
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg)30.19
Miscellaneous tests60.10

Weighted average of correlations: 0.647 (N = 51)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.80

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.

Estimated loadings of Numerical Insight 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 Numerical Insight Test on that type
Verbal110.72
Numerical70.90
Spatial100.90
Logical31.00
Heterogeneous110.79

N = 42

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

Balanced g loading = 0.86

National medians for Numerical Insight Test

Country n median score
Germany547.0

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 Numerical Insight Test

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

Correlation of Numerical Insight Test with personal details

Personalia n r
Disorders (parents and siblings)130.24
Year of birth140.23
Educational level130.14
Mother's educational level130.00
Father's educational level13-0.12
Disorders (own)13-0.30

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-0.45 (10)
Below median0.75 (48)
Above median0.16 (36)
Above 3rd quartile0.74 (9)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n Median score
55 to 59133.0
45 to 49147.0
40 to 44139.0
35 to 39246.0
30 to 34346.0
25 to 29131.0
22 to 24148.0
20 or 21241.5
17144.0
16148.0

N = 14

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median scoreprotonorm
2003446.0487
2004537.0386
2005546.0487

ryear taken × median score = 0.00 (N = 14)

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.