This test consisted of number series created by one of the Giga Society members. It was discontinued because solutions to several of its problems could be found on the Internet.
1 | * |
2 | * |
3 | ** |
4 | * |
6 | ** |
7 | * |
8 | **** |
9 | *** |
10 | *** |
12 | *** |
13 | ***** |
14 | *** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 3 | 1.00 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 3 | 0.99 |
Omega Contemplative Items Pool (Tommy Smith) | 4 | 0.98 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 3 | 0.98 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.98 |
Reason | 4 | 0.98 |
Letters | 3 | 0.97 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 4 | 0.97 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 4 | 0.96 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test | 3 | 0.94 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 3 | 0.94 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 4 | 0.92 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 3 | 0.90 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 3 | 0.88 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 4 | 0.86 |
The Nemesis Test | 4 | 0.86 |
Short Test For Genius | 3 | 0.85 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 3 | 0.82 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 3 | 0.80 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 7 | 0.77 |
KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 3 | 0.76 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 3 | 0.71 |
Numbers | 15 | 0.71 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 3 | 0.66 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.66 |
Spatial Insight Test | 3 | 0.65 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 8 | 0.65 |
Associative LIMIT | 5 | 0.65 |
Genius Association Test | 8 | 0.64 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 8 | 0.62 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | 0.61 |
Isis Test | 6 | 0.60 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 4 | 0.60 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 7 | 0.59 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.58 |
Evens | 6 | 0.55 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.37 |
Bonsai Test | 6 | 0.36 |
Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.29 |
Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 13 | 0.29 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.26 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.23 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.23 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 4 | 0.21 |
The Final Test | 9 | 0.20 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.11 |
The Sargasso Test | 5 | 0.03 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 9 | 0.01 |
Daedalus Test | 3 | 0.00 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 7 | -0.05 |
Cartoons of Shock | 6 | -0.05 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | -0.08 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 6 | -0.11 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 4 | -0.19 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 3 | -0.24 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 3 | -0.28 |
Narcissus' last stand | 3 | -0.34 |
The Test To End All Tests | 6 | -0.44 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 5 | -0.50 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 3 | -0.50 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.61 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 6 | -0.65 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.75 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.375 (N = 320, weighted sum = 120)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.61
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 Odds on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 75 | 0.41 |
Numerical | 33 | 0.83 |
Spatial | 27 | 0.57 |
Logical | 15 | 0.45 |
Heterogeneous | 77 | 0.68 |
N = 227
Balanced g loading = 0.59
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_States | 3 | 8.0 |
Greece | 3 | 7.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 4 | 0.47 |
Sex | 28 | 0.40 |
Observed behaviour | 6 | 0.37 |
Disorders (own) | 21 | -0.00 |
Year of birth | 26 | -0.06 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 21 | -0.09 |
Father's educational level | 21 | -0.10 |
Mother's educational level | 21 | -0.12 |
Educational level | 21 | -0.13 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 6 | -0.69 |
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 | 0.43 (41) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.51 (153) |
Above median | 0.43 (214) |
Above 3rd quartile | -0.50 (15) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
60 to 64 | 2 | 13.5 |
55 to 59 | 1 | 8.0 |
40 to 44 | 3 | 10.0 |
35 to 39 | 1 | 2.0 |
30 to 34 | 3 | 7.0 |
25 to 29 | 8 | 9.0 |
22 to 24 | 3 | 12.0 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 11.0 |
17 | 1 | 9.0 |
N = 26
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2002 | 10 | 8.0 |
2003 | 2 | 10.0 |
2004 | 5 | 10.0 |
2005 | 1 | 13.0 |
2006 | 1 | 9.0 |
2007 | 5 | 8.0 |
2008 | 2 | 8.0 |
2009 | 1 | 13.0 |
2010 | 1 | 12.0 |
2012 | 1 | 14.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.55 (N = 29)
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.