1.5 | * |
2 | ** |
3 | * |
4 | * |
5 | * |
6 | * |
7 | * |
8 | * |
9 | * |
9.5 | * |
10 | * |
11 | * |
13 | ** |
14 | ** |
15 | * |
16 | ** |
18 | ** |
22 | * |
23 | * |
25 | * |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 4 | 1.00 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 4 | 0.89 |
The Smell Test | 10 | 0.89 |
Dicing with death | 12 | 0.88 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.86 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.85 |
The Nemesis Test | 18 | 0.85 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.85 |
The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.83 |
Narcissus' last stand | 14 | 0.83 |
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 9 | 0.82 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 10 | 0.82 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 10 | 0.82 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 6 | 0.82 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 4 | 0.82 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 19 | 0.81 |
Only idiots | 12 | 0.80 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.80 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 5 | 0.79 |
Genius Association Test | 14 | 0.79 |
Isis Test | 15 | 0.78 |
The Sargasso Test | 18 | 0.78 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 19 | 0.78 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 15 | 0.77 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 15 | 0.77 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.77 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 6 | 0.76 |
Associative LIMIT | 14 | 0.75 |
The Test To End All Tests | 14 | 0.75 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 10 | 0.74 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 15 | 0.74 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 20 | 0.73 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 11 | 0.72 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.72 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.72 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 19 | 0.70 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 18 | 0.70 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 18 | 0.68 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.68 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 18 | 0.67 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 6 | 0.67 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 19 | 0.65 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 17 | 0.64 |
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 9 | 0.60 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 15 | 0.57 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 17 | 0.57 |
Daedalus Test | 12 | 0.57 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.52 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 17 | 0.48 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 14 | 0.47 |
Miscellaneous tests | 10 | 0.47 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 15 | 0.46 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 15 | 0.45 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | 0.39 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 5 | -0.06 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.711 (N = 697)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.84
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 The Piper's Test on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 93 | 0.89 |
Numerical | 36 | 0.82 |
Spatial | 56 | 0.78 |
Logical | 27 | 0.71 |
Heterogeneous | 337 | 0.85 |
N = 549
Balanced g loading = 0.81
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
United_States | 7 | 13.0 |
Germany | 3 | 11.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed behaviour | 6 | 0.96 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.63 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.57 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.55 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.54 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.32 |
Father's educational level | 21 | 0.31 |
Educational level | 25 | 0.28 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.28 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.21 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.17 |
Sex | 25 | 0.14 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.12 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.12 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.12 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.08 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.08 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 12 | 0.03 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 9 | -0.05 |
Year of birth | 25 | -0.05 |
Mother's educational level | 20 | -0.08 |
Disorders (own) | 25 | -0.15 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 24 | -0.25 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 12 | -0.31 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 7 | -0.35 |
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 | 0.89 (148) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.79 (361) |
Above median | 0.60 (369) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.69 (162) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 4.0 |
65 to 69 | 1 | 23.0 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 2.0 |
55 to 59 | 1 | 18.0 |
50 to 54 | 1 | 11.0 |
45 to 49 | 1 | 14.0 |
40 to 44 | 1 | 25.0 |
35 to 39 | 3 | 2.0 |
30 to 34 | 4 | 11.3 |
25 to 29 | 5 | 13.0 |
22 to 24 | 3 | 15.0 |
20 or 21 | 1 | 3.0 |
18 or 19 | 1 | 7.0 |
17 | 1 | 5.0 |
N = 25
Year taken | n | median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2019 | 2 | 9.0 | 376 |
2020 | 6 | 9.0 | 376 |
2021 | 6 | 9.3 | 385 |
2022 | 3 | 13.0 | 419 |
2023 | 6 | 12.5 | 416 |
2024 | 2 | 11.0 | 405 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.71 (N = 25)
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.