Contents type: Numerical, spatial. Period: 2013-present
3 | ***** |
6 | * |
6.5 | * |
7 | *** |
8 | *** |
9 | * |
9.5 | * |
10 | **** |
10.5 | ** |
11 | *** |
12 | **** |
13 | ** |
13.5 | * |
14 | * |
14.5 | * |
15 | **** |
16 | ** |
16.5 | * |
17 | *** |
17.5 | * |
18 | ** |
19 | * |
19.5 | * |
20 | *** |
21 | *** |
22 | * |
25 | * |
26 | *** |
27 | ** |
30 | * |
31.5 | * |
37 | * |
Test name | n | r | p value |
---|---|---|---|
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the fourth degree | 4 | 1.00 | 0.08 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 4 | 0.94 | 0.10 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 4 | 0.89 | 0.12 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 4 | 0.85 | 0.14 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 30 | 0.85 | 0.000005 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | 0.84 | 0.10 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 28 | 0.84 | 0.00001 |
Odds | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 5 | 0.82 | 0.10 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 20 | 0.82 | 0.0004 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 6 | 0.82 | 0.07 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 36 | 0.81 | 0.000002 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 7 | 0.78 | 0.05 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 10 | 0.78 | 0.02 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 23 | 0.76 | 0.0004 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.76 | 0.0001 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 19 | 0.76 | 0.001 |
Narcissus' last stand | 16 | 0.75 | 0.003 |
The Final Test | 8 | 0.75 | 0.05 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 25 | 0.75 | 0.0002 |
The Marathon Test | 16 | 0.72 | 0.005 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 13 | 0.72 | 0.01 |
The Piper's Test | 16 | 0.71 | 0.006 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 31 | 0.71 | 0.00010 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.71 | 0.00007 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 41 | 0.71 | 0.000007 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.70 | 0.03 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 13 | 0.70 | 0.02 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 33 | 0.70 | 0.00008 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 15 | 0.70 | 0.01 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 7 | 0.69 | 0.10 |
Reason | 4 | 0.68 | 0.24 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 30 | 0.67 | 0.0003 |
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 10 | 0.67 | 0.05 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 11 | 0.66 | 0.04 |
Only idiots | 12 | 0.66 | 0.03 |
Daedalus Test | 20 | 0.65 | 0.005 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.65 | 0.001 |
Genius Association Test | 25 | 0.64 | 0.002 |
The Gate | 7 | 0.64 | 0.12 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 7 | 0.64 | 0.12 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 23 | 0.61 | 0.005 |
Associative LIMIT | 25 | 0.60 | 0.003 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 10 | 0.59 | 0.08 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 10 | 0.57 | 0.08 |
Dicing with death | 14 | 0.57 | 0.04 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 12 | 0.55 | 0.07 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 21 | 0.55 | 0.02 |
Miscellaneous tests | 23 | 0.53 | 0.01 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 7 | 0.53 | 0.19 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 40 | 0.52 | 0.001 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 31 | 0.52 | 0.005 |
The Nemesis Test | 22 | 0.51 | 0.02 |
Cartoons of Shock | 9 | 0.50 | 0.15 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 20 | 0.49 | 0.03 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 28 | 0.49 | 0.01 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 28 | 0.47 | 0.02 |
The Test To End All Tests | 17 | 0.46 | 0.07 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 29 | 0.46 | 0.02 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 4 | 0.44 | 0.44 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.44 | 0.07 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 15 | 0.41 | 0.12 |
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 7 | 0.39 | 0.34 |
Numbers | 6 | 0.38 | 0.38 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 10 | 0.37 | 0.26 |
The Smell Test | 10 | 0.36 | 0.28 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 32 | 0.36 | 0.05 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.31 | 0.38 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 18 | 0.30 | 0.20 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 28 | 0.29 | 0.12 |
Isis Test | 23 | 0.26 | 0.24 |
The Sargasso Test | 27 | 0.20 | 0.30 |
Letters | 4 | 0.18 | 0.76 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 4 | 0.12 | 0.84 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 4 | 0.12 | 0.84 |
Words | 4 | 0.08 | 0.90 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 6 | -0.11 | 0.81 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | -0.53 | 0.37 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.591 (N = 1267)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.77
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 Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 177 | 0.69 |
Numerical | 88 | 0.75 |
Spatial | 123 | 0.83 |
Logical | 52 | 0.68 |
Heterogeneous | 516 | 0.77 |
N = 956
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.74
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
China | 4 | 22.5 |
Spain | 5 | 16.0 |
Germany | 3 | 12.0 |
Korea_South | 3 | 11.0 |
United_Kingdom | 4 | 11.0 |
United_States | 12 | 10.3 |
Italy | 3 | 8.0 |
Total number of countries: 32
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 |
---|---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 4 | 0.85 | 0.14 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.52 | 0.04 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.43 | 0.09 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.38 | 0.12 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.38 | 0.12 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.34 | 0.17 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.33 | 0.19 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.28 | 0.26 |
Observed behaviour | 17 | 0.25 | 0.32 |
Educational level | 60 | 0.25 | 0.06 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.20 | 0.42 |
Sex | 64 | 0.18 | 0.15 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.18 | 0.46 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.16 | 0.52 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 17 | 0.14 | 0.57 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 9 | 0.08 | 0.81 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 17 | -0.00 | 1.00 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 59 | -0.03 | 0.81 |
Year of birth | 63 | -0.08 | 0.54 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 17 | -0.09 | 0.74 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 17 | -0.14 | 0.57 |
Disorders (own) | 61 | -0.19 | 0.13 |
Mother's educational level | 55 | -0.22 | 0.10 |
Father's educational level | 55 | -0.23 | 0.08 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 11 | -0.25 | 0.42 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 17 | -0.26 | 0.28 |
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if the 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 (raw 10.0) | 0.76 (N = 463) |
---|---|
Below median (raw 14.3) | 0.61 (N = 703) |
Above median (raw 14.3) | 0.66 (N = 545) |
Above 3rd quartile (raw 19.8) | 0.72 (N = 159) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 16.5 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 17.5 |
55 to 59 | 1 | 30.0 |
50 to 54 | 3 | 13.0 |
45 to 49 | 3 | 15.0 |
40 to 44 | 7 | 14.0 |
35 to 39 | 7 | 13.5 |
30 to 34 | 8 | 14.0 |
25 to 29 | 13 | 14.5 |
22 to 24 | 8 | 13.0 |
20 or 21 | 2 | 16.5 |
18 or 19 | 4 | 14.0 |
17 | 1 | 11.0 |
16 | 3 | 7.0 |
N = 64
Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2013 | 2 | 6.0 | 303 |
2014 | 8 | 15.8 | 424 |
2015 | 5 | 9.5 | 360 |
2016 | 2 | 18.0 | 447 |
2017 | 1 | 3.0 | 280 |
2018 | 1 | 10.0 | 369 |
2019 | 8 | 14.5 | 413 |
2020 | 8 | 11.8 | 392 |
2021 | 8 | 15.5 | 424 |
2022 | 5 | 15.0 | 417 |
2023 | 5 | 20.0 | 482 |
2024 | 9 | 15.0 | 417 |
2025 | 2 | 11.5 | 392 |
N = 64
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.
Numerical × Spatial | 0.68 | (p value: 0.00000005) |
Ideal values for correlations between sections are around .5, thus being a compromise between the test's ability to yield a "profile" and its ability to provide an indication of general intelligence. With a too high correlation (like .8 or higher) the sections measure basically the same so there is almost no profile information in them, with a too low correlation (like .2 or lower) the sections are so different that there is little point in combining them into a measure of general intelligence.
Prop. = proportion of candidates outscored in this section. In parentheses the proportion outscored for any possible scores higher than the present score but lower than the next-higher score in the table.
Score | Prop. | # scores (* = 1 score) |
---|---|---|
3 | 0.039 (0.078) | ***** |
4 | 0.094 (0.109) | ** |
5 | 0.117 (0.125) | * |
6 | 0.195 (0.266) | ********* |
6.5 | 0.273 (0.281) | * |
7 | 0.344 (0.406) | ******** |
8 | 0.469 (0.531) | ******** |
8.5 | 0.563 (0.594) | **** |
9 | 0.641 (0.688) | ****** |
9.5 | 0.703 (0.719) | ** |
10 | 0.750 (0.781) | **** |
11 | 0.805 (0.828) | *** |
12 | 0.875 (0.922) | ****** |
13 | 0.930 (0.938) | * |
14 | 0.961 (0.984) | *** |
17 | 0.992 (1.000) | * |
Score | Prop. | # scores (* = 1 score) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.055 (0.109) | ******* |
0.5 | 0.117 (0.125) | * |
1 | 0.148 (0.172) | *** |
1.5 | 0.180 (0.188) | * |
2 | 0.227 (0.266) | ***** |
2.5 | 0.273 (0.281) | * |
3 | 0.313 (0.344) | **** |
4 | 0.359 (0.375) | ** |
4.5 | 0.391 (0.406) | ** |
5 | 0.445 (0.484) | ***** |
6 | 0.531 (0.578) | ****** |
7 | 0.602 (0.625) | *** |
8 | 0.641 (0.656) | ** |
9 | 0.680 (0.703) | *** |
9.5 | 0.711 (0.719) | * |
10 | 0.734 (0.750) | ** |
11 | 0.773 (0.797) | *** |
12 | 0.813 (0.828) | ** |
13 | 0.859 (0.891) | **** |
14 | 0.906 (0.922) | ** |
15 | 0.938 (0.953) | ** |
16 | 0.961 (0.969) | * |
17.5 | 0.977 (0.984) | * |
20 | 0.992 (1.000) | * |