These statistics are based on scores on these tests (there are several of them combined in this report) as reported by candidates taking I.Q. tests from I.Q. Tests for the High Range.
| 128 | ** |
| 130 | * |
| 131 | * |
| 132 | * |
| 133 | * |
| 134 | * |
| 135 | *** |
| 136 | * |
| 137 | ************ |
| 138 | * |
| 139 | **** |
| 140 | ***** |
| 141 | ***** |
| 142 | ***** |
| 143 | ** |
| 144 | ****** |
| 145 | * |
| 146 | * |
| 148 | * |
| 149 | * |
| 150 | ** |
| 151 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.94 | 0.04 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 5 | 0.91 | 0.07 |
| European I.Q. Test | 5 | 0.87 | 0.08 |
| The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.83 | 0.10 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.81 | 0.07 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | 0.79 | 0.17 |
| Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 12 | 0.73 | 0.02 |
| Evens | 7 | 0.71 | 0.08 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.70 | 0.12 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 8 | 0.69 | 0.07 |
| Encephalist - R (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.68 | 0.25 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 10 | 0.63 | 0.06 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 7 | 0.60 | 0.14 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 11 | 0.52 | 0.10 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 5 | 0.52 | 0.30 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 19 | 0.51 | 0.03 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.50 | 0.32 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 14 | 0.50 | 0.07 |
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 10 | 0.45 | 0.17 |
| Analogies #1 | 6 | 0.42 | 0.36 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 10 | 0.37 | 0.26 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 6 | 0.37 | 0.40 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 6 | 0.35 | 0.44 |
| Genius Association Test | 13 | 0.33 | 0.26 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 11 | 0.32 | 0.30 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 7 | 0.32 | 0.44 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 12 | 0.31 | 0.30 |
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.31 | 0.25 |
| New York High I.Q. Society tests | 7 | 0.30 | 0.46 |
| Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 6 | 0.29 | 0.50 |
| Words | 6 | 0.28 | 0.52 |
| Associative LIMIT | 5 | 0.27 | 0.60 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 4 | 0.26 | 0.64 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 7 | 0.25 | 0.52 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 37 | 0.24 | 0.15 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 8 | 0.22 | 0.54 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 8 | 0.22 | 0.54 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.18 | 0.76 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 10 | 0.17 | 0.62 |
| Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 6 | 0.15 | 0.74 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 5 | 0.14 | 0.76 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 6 | 0.13 | 0.76 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 10 | 0.12 | 0.71 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 13 | 0.12 | 0.68 |
| Concep-T (Laurent Dubois) | 4 | 0.10 | 0.87 |
| The Nemesis Test | 5 | 0.10 | 0.84 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 6 | 0.06 | 0.90 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 14 | 0.06 | 0.81 |
| The Final Test | 19 | 0.04 | 0.84 |
| Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 6 | 0.04 | 0.92 |
| Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 6 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 16 | -0.03 | 0.92 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 15 | -0.05 | 0.87 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 8 | -0.06 | 0.87 |
| W-87 (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) | 4 | -0.06 | 0.92 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 15 | -0.09 | 0.74 |
| Numbers | 11 | -0.12 | 0.68 |
| Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 7 | -0.16 | 0.68 |
| Long Test For Genius | 12 | -0.16 | 0.60 |
| Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 9 | -0.27 | 0.44 |
| Bonsai Test | 6 | -0.27 | 0.54 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 15 | -0.30 | 0.27 |
| Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 8 | -0.34 | 0.37 |
| Spatial Insight Test | 4 | -0.37 | 0.52 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 7 | -0.39 | 0.34 |
| Reason | 6 | -0.47 | 0.28 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | -0.54 | 0.36 |
| The Sargasso Test | 6 | -0.56 | 0.22 |
| F.N.A. (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | -0.57 | 0.32 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 6 | -0.61 | 0.17 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 5 | -0.88 | 0.08 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 4 | -0.97 | 0.10 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.183 (N = 609)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.43
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.
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 Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 157 | 0.47 |
| Numerical | 40 | 0.59 |
| Spatial | 62 | -0.15 |
| Logical | 22 | -0.20 |
| Heterogeneous | 125 | 0.36 |
N = 406
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.21
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| United_States | 14 | 143.5 |
| United_Kingdom | 5 | 142.0 |
| Unknown | 6 | 139.5 |
| Australia | 5 | 137.0 |
| Sweden | 5 | 137.0 |
| Finland | 3 | 135.0 |
Total number of countries: 23
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.
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 6 | 0.53 | 0.24 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 15 | 0.37 | 0.16 |
| Father's educational level | 37 | 0.22 | 0.18 |
| Educational level | 40 | 0.22 | 0.17 |
| Observed behaviour | 17 | 0.04 | 0.87 |
| Mother's educational level | 38 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 40 | -0.10 | 0.52 |
| Sex | 57 | -0.22 | 0.10 |
| Observed associative horizon | 7 | -0.26 | 0.52 |
| Disorders (own) | 41 | -0.32 | 0.04 |
| Year of birth | 55 | -0.37 | 0.006 |
The goal of estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges 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 (137.0) | 0.78 (N = 271) |
|---|---|
| Below median (140.0) | 0.67 (N = 352) |
| Above median (140.0) | 0.14 (N = 268) |
| Above 3rd quartile (143.0) | 0.08 (N = 111) |