For information, here are statistics of the scores on this test as reported by high-range test candidates, in the form of normalized "I.Q." with a standard deviation of 16:
95 | * |
100 | * |
108 | * |
111 | * |
114 | * |
119 | * |
122 | * |
126 | * |
127 | * |
128 | * |
129 | * |
130 | *** |
132 | *** |
133 | *** |
135 | * |
136 | ****** |
137 | ******* |
138 | **** |
140 | ****** |
142 | ********* |
144 | *** |
145 | * |
146 | *** |
147 | * |
148 | * |
149 | ******* |
150 | ** |
152 | ** |
156 | * |
165 | * |
169 | * |
173 | * |
181 | * |
183 | *** |
n = 73
95 | * |
100 | * |
108 | * |
111 | * |
114 | * |
119 | * |
122 | * |
126 | * |
127 | * |
129 | * |
130 | ** |
132 | *** |
133 | *** |
135 | * |
136 | ***** |
137 | ****** |
138 | **** |
140 | ****** |
142 | ******* |
144 | *** |
146 | *** |
147 | * |
149 | ******* |
150 | ** |
152 | ** |
156 | * |
165 | * |
169 | * |
173 | * |
181 | * |
183 | *** |
n = 8
128 | * |
130 | * |
136 | * |
137 | * |
142 | ** |
145 | * |
148 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 4 | 0.99 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 4 | 0.91 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 8 | 0.85 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 6 | 0.59 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 4 | 0.49 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 4 | 0.49 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 10 | 0.39 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 4 | 0.36 |
(7) The Final Test | 9 | 0.32 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 5 | 0.30 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 8 | 0.29 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.29 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 4 | 0.28 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 10 | 0.21 |
(68) Numbers | 18 | 0.18 |
(85) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 11 | 0.17 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 20 | 0.11 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 4 | 0.10 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 5 | 0.04 |
(76) Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 9 | -0.01 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 6 | -0.05 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 10 | -0.06 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 24 | -0.07 |
(69) Odds | 5 | -0.08 |
(65) Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 8 | -0.09 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 4 | -0.11 |
(56) Short Test For Genius | 8 | -0.11 |
(81) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 9 | -0.18 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | -0.23 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 6 | -0.29 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 7 | -0.32 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | -0.33 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 4 | -0.35 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 11 | -0.38 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | -0.45 |
(82) Reason | 4 | -0.74 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.80 |
(51) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 4 | -0.88 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 5 | -0.94 |
(74) Cooijmans On-Line Test | 4 | -0.98 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.021 (N = 296, weighted sum = 6.14)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.14
Remark: These correlations show that the test has as good as no g loading in this group of (high-range) candidates. This is mostly due to the speeded nature of the test, which removes any g loading in the high range. For a small part it is caused by fraud, for instance by candidates taking the test after extensive practising with the test itself, so being well acquainted with the test's contents and intended answers.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 9 | 0.93 |
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 6 | 0.91 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 5 | 0.67 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 4 | 0.59 |
(205) Cito-toets | 4 | 0.54 |
(209) Drenth number series | 13 | 0.53 |
(239) Titan Test | 5 | 0.51 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 27 | 0.45 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 10 | 0.29 |
(210) Drenth analogies | 4 | 0.27 |
(233) Hoeflin Power Test | 5 | 0.21 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 14 | 0.03 |
(212) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 9 | 0.01 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 8 | -0.02 |
(237) Sigma Test | 5 | -0.19 |
(229) Mega Test | 7 | -0.57 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.324 (N = 135, weighted sum = 43.78)
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 |
---|---|---|
(76) Analogies subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 3 | 0.53 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 3 | 0.24 |
(81) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius (Netherlandic) | 3 | -0.13 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 3 | -0.42 |
(68) Numbers | 3 | -0.43 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 5 | -0.58 |
Weighted average of correlations: -0.177 (N = 20, weighted sum = -3.54)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading among females: -0.42
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 Cattell Culture Fair on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 83 | -0.19 |
Numerical | 28 | 0.15 |
Spatial | 40 | 0.25 |
Logical | 13 | -0.95 |
Heterogeneous | 69 | 0.43 |
N = 233
Balanced g loading = -0.06
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Greece | 2 | 158.0 |
France | 3 | 152.0 |
United_Kingdom | 4 | 149.0 |
United_States | 4 | 142.5 |
Belgium | 6 | 141.0 |
Finland | 20 | 137.5 |
Germany | 4 | 136.5 |
Netherlands | 24 | 136.5 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.61 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 8 | 0.61 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.47 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.21 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.19 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.15 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.14 |
Mother's educational level | 33 | 0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.13 |
Disorders (own) | 38 | 0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.11 |
Year of birth | 75 | 0.10 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.09 |
Sex | 81 | 0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 5 | 0.04 |
Observed associative horizon | 8 | 0.01 |
Father's educational level | 33 | -0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 5 | -0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 5 | -0.10 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 34 | -0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 5 | -0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 5 | -0.16 |
Observed behaviour | 15 | -0.37 |
Educational level | 38 | -0.42 |
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) |
---|---|---|
95 | 0.14 (296) | NaN (0) |
98 | 0.05 (291) | NaN (0) |
104 | 0.05 (284) | NaN (0) |
110 | 0.05 (284) | NaN (0) |
116 | -0.15 (277) | NaN (0) |
122 | -0.16 (273) | NaN (0) |
128 | -0.23 (266) | NaN (0) |
129 | -0.29 (261) | NaN (0) |
130 | -0.34 (248) | NaN (0) |
131 | -0.33 (242) | NaN (0) |
132 | -0.33 (242) | 0.60 (4) |
133 | -0.36 (211) | 0.59 (29) |
134 | -0.48 (181) | 0.59 (29) |
137 | -0.48 (169) | 0.62 (77) |
140 | -0.51 (120) | 0.55 (120) |
142 | -0.57 (71) | 0.51 (178) |
143 | -0.76 (29) | 0.51 (178) |
146 | -0.74 (28) | 0.54 (182) |
152 | -0.70 (13) | 0.60 (227) |
158 | -0.49 (4) | 0.63 (233) |
164 | -0.49 (4) | 0.63 (233) |
170 | -0.49 (4) | 0.61 (234) |
176 | -0.49 (4) | 0.51 (245) |
182 | NaN (0) | 0.43 (261) |
183 | NaN (0) | 0.14 (296) |
Remark: The "Downward" column shows that the test never reaches a normal g loading (say, .7 or more), even when the (possibly fraudulent) top several scores are excluded.