These statistics are based on scores on this test as reported by candidates taking I.Q. tests from I.Q. Tests for the High Range.
Contents type: Numerical.
| 7 | * |
| 11 | *** |
| 13 | ** |
| 14 | ** |
| 16 | *** |
| 17 | **** |
| 18 | *** |
| 19 | ** |
| 20 | ** |
| 21 | ***** |
| 22 | **** |
| 23 | *** |
| 24 | ******** |
| 25 | ***** |
| 26 | ****** |
| 27 | ******** |
| 28 | ********* |
| 29 | ******** |
| 30 | ************** |
| 31 | ****** |
| 32 | ****** |
| 33 | ****** |
| 34 | ******* |
| 35 | **** |
| 37 | * |
| 38 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hoeflin Power Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 1.00 | 0.08 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 6 | 0.97 | 0.03 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 6 | 0.92 | 0.04 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 13 | 0.87 | 0.002 |
| Low Countries Aptitude Test | 4 | 0.86 | 0.13 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 8 | 0.86 | 0.02 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 10 | 0.85 | 0.01 |
| Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 6 | 0.84 | 0.06 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 4 | 0.84 | 0.14 |
| Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 5 | 0.83 | 0.10 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 5 | 0.83 | 0.10 |
| Numerical Insight Test | 7 | 0.82 | 0.05 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 9 | 0.78 | 0.03 |
| Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 10 | 0.75 | 0.03 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 13 | 0.73 | 0.01 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.72 | 0.03 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 10 | 0.72 | 0.03 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 10 | 0.71 | 0.03 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 26 | 0.70 | 0.0005 |
| Tests by Arne Andre Gangvik (aggregate) | 4 | 0.69 | 0.24 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 9 | 0.69 | 0.05 |
| Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 13 | 0.69 | 0.02 |
| Associative LIMIT | 18 | 0.68 | 0.005 |
| Bonsai Test | 6 | 0.68 | 0.12 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 20 | 0.67 | 0.004 |
| Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato) | 14 | 0.66 | 0.02 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 22 | 0.66 | 0.003 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 10 | 0.64 | 0.05 |
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 15 | 0.64 | 0.02 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 10 | 0.63 | 0.06 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 13 | 0.62 | 0.03 |
| Odds | 8 | 0.62 | 0.10 |
| Genius Association Test | 23 | 0.62 | 0.004 |
| The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.62 | 0.04 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 37 | 0.60 | 0.0003 |
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 10 | 0.60 | 0.07 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 5 | 0.60 | 0.24 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 5 | 0.57 | 0.26 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 27 | 0.57 | 0.004 |
| Dicing with death | 4 | 0.57 | 0.34 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 25 | 0.56 | 0.006 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 7 | 0.55 | 0.17 |
| The Final Test | 16 | 0.55 | 0.03 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 12 | 0.55 | 0.07 |
| Long Test For Genius | 8 | 0.54 | 0.16 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.52 | 0.12 |
| Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 7 | 0.51 | 0.22 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 9 | 0.50 | 0.15 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.49 | 0.09 |
| Spatial Insight Test | 9 | 0.49 | 0.16 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 8 | 0.49 | 0.19 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 32 | 0.49 | 0.007 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.48 | 0.10 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 12 | 0.48 | 0.11 |
| Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 12 | 0.48 | 0.11 |
| Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 28 | 0.48 | 0.01 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 7 | 0.47 | 0.25 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 19 | 0.46 | 0.05 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 25 | 0.45 | 0.03 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.44 | 0.12 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 5 | 0.43 | 0.38 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 12 | 0.42 | 0.16 |
| Words | 6 | 0.42 | 0.36 |
| The Blue Test (Andres Gomez Emilsson) | 4 | 0.41 | 0.48 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 26 | 0.41 | 0.04 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 17 | 0.39 | 0.12 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 11 | 0.39 | 0.22 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 20 | 0.36 | 0.12 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 9 | 0.35 | 0.34 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 12 | 0.31 | 0.30 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 6 | 0.30 | 0.50 |
| Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 35 | 0.30 | 0.08 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 11 | 0.29 | 0.37 |
| The Sargasso Test | 15 | 0.29 | 0.28 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.25 | 0.38 |
| Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 9 | 0.24 | 0.48 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.24 | 0.57 |
| Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 5 | 0.17 | 0.74 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.17 | 0.57 |
| The LAW - Letters And Words | 4 | 0.16 | 0.78 |
| The Piper's Test | 4 | 0.13 | 0.81 |
| Numbers | 14 | 0.13 | 0.64 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 30 | 0.11 | 0.54 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 9 | 0.10 | 0.76 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 24 | 0.08 | 0.71 |
| Isis Test | 13 | 0.07 | 0.81 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 7 | 0.07 | 0.87 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.07 | 0.81 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 24 | 0.03 | 0.90 |
| The Smell Test | 4 | 0.02 | 0.97 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 24 | -0.02 | 0.92 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 10 | -0.03 | 0.94 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 6 | -0.05 | 0.90 |
| Only idiots | 4 | -0.10 | 0.87 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 18 | -0.12 | 0.62 |
| Reason | 9 | -0.15 | 0.66 |
| The Nemesis Test | 9 | -0.16 | 0.64 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 7 | -0.18 | 0.66 |
| Letters | 5 | -0.19 | 0.71 |
| Concep-T (Laurent Dubois) | 5 | -0.24 | 0.64 |
| Daedalus Test | 9 | -0.47 | 0.18 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 7 | -0.57 | 0.16 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 6 | -0.61 | 0.17 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | -0.63 | 0.20 |
| A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 8 | -0.77 | 0.04 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 4 | -0.91 | 0.12 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.405 (N = 1252)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.64
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 Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 203 | 0.65 |
| Numerical | 97 | 0.63 |
| Spatial | 181 | 0.63 |
| Logical | 54 | -0.08 |
| Heterogeneous | 349 | 0.65 |
N = 884
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.50
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 3 | 32.0 |
| China | 6 | 31.5 |
| Japan | 4 | 31.5 |
| Finland | 3 | 30.0 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 30.0 |
| Sweden | 10 | 28.5 |
| Croatia | 3 | 28.0 |
| Poland | 3 | 28.0 |
| Germany | 12 | 27.5 |
| India | 3 | 27.0 |
| Korea_South | 5 | 27.0 |
| Unknown | 14 | 26.5 |
| United_Kingdom | 4 | 26.5 |
| France | 3 | 25.0 |
| Greece | 3 | 25.0 |
| United_States | 12 | 23.0 |
| Italy | 4 | 21.5 |
| Turkey | 4 | 21.0 |
Total number of countries: 36
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.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.42 | 0.13 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 7 | 0.34 | 0.40 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.33 | 0.24 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.32 | 0.26 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.30 | 0.28 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.28 | 0.32 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 17 | 0.25 | 0.32 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.21 | 0.44 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.18 | 0.52 |
| Year of birth | 113 | 0.12 | 0.22 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.10 | 0.71 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.04 | 0.90 |
| Educational level | 77 | 0.03 | 0.78 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 14 | 0.01 | 0.97 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 14 | -0.00 | 1.00 |
| Mother's educational level | 75 | -0.01 | 0.92 |
| Sex | 122 | -0.02 | 0.87 |
| Disorders (own) | 78 | -0.03 | 0.78 |
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 14 | -0.04 | 0.90 |
| Father's educational level | 75 | -0.06 | 0.62 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 76 | -0.06 | 0.60 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 14 | -0.10 | 0.71 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 14 | -0.13 | 0.64 |
| Observed behaviour | 20 | -0.15 | 0.50 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 14 | -0.16 | 0.54 |
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
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 (22.0) | 0.54 (N = 365) |
|---|---|
| Below median (28.0) | 0.54 (N = 873) |
| Above median (28.0) | 0.47 (N = 415) |
| Above 3rd quartile (31.0) | 0.49 (N = 112) |