1 | * |
5 | * |
17 | * |
51 | * |
54 | * |
56 | * |
57 | * |
60 | * |
63 | ** |
66 | * |
67 | *** |
68 | * |
70 | ** |
72 | * |
74 | ** |
75 | * |
76 | ** |
78 | * |
80 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.99 |
(119) A Relaxing Test | 4 | 0.98 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.96 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 8 | 0.95 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 4 | 0.95 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.94 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.94 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.93 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.92 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 4 | 0.92 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 8 | 0.91 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 9 | 0.90 |
(82) Reason | 4 | 0.90 |
(118) Divine Psychometry | 5 | 0.89 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 13 | 0.87 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.87 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.86 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 10 | 0.86 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 6 | 0.85 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 10 | 0.85 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 7 | 0.84 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.83 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 13 | 0.83 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.82 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 14 | 0.82 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.82 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 9 | 0.81 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 7 | 0.81 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.81 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 13 | 0.81 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 8 | 0.80 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 9 | 0.80 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 12 | 0.80 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 9 | 0.80 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 14 | 0.78 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 11 | 0.76 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 8 | 0.76 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 11 | 0.75 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 11 | 0.73 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 10 | 0.71 |
(68) Numbers | 4 | 0.71 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.71 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.69 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 6 | 0.69 |
(7) The Final Test | 8 | 0.69 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 10 | 0.68 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 10 | 0.65 |
(235) Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.64 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.64 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 11 | 0.63 |
(114) Dicing with death | 7 | 0.62 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 13 | 0.62 |
(35) Only idiots | 5 | 0.60 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 14 | 0.57 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 7 | 0.44 |
(11) Isis Test | 10 | 0.41 |
(77) Analogies #1 | 4 | 0.38 |
(29) Words | 5 | 0.17 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 11 | -0.04 |
(236) International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 5 | -0.54 |
(231) Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 5 | -0.88 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.723 (N = 502, weighted sum = 363.02)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.85
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 Psychometric Qrosswords on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 86 | 0.86 |
Numerical | 29 | 0.90 |
Spatial | 41 | 0.87 |
Logical | 31 | 0.79 |
Heterogeneous | 187 | 0.87 |
N = 374
Balanced g loading = 0.86
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Spain | 2 | 72.0 |
United_States | 9 | 67.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.97 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.86 |
Observed associative horizon | 5 | 0.73 |
Sex | 25 | 0.54 |
Educational level | 22 | 0.49 |
Observed behaviour | 6 | 0.45 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.41 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 11 | 0.41 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.32 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.28 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.24 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 6 | 0.12 |
Father's educational level | 21 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.05 |
Mother's educational level | 21 | 0.03 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 6 | 0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 6 | -0.02 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 21 | -0.10 |
Year of birth | 25 | -0.13 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 6 | -0.14 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 6 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 6 | -0.26 |
Disorders (own) | 22 | -0.33 |
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) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.85 (502) | NaN (0) |
50 | 0.66 (405) | NaN (0) |
59 | -0.05 (302) | 0.80 (47) |
67 | 0.07 (274) | 0.83 (221) |
70 | -0.54 (113) | 0.86 (351) |
80 | NaN (0) | 0.85 (502) |
Remark: The upward g loading from somewhere in the 50s on is low. This seems to be caused by a small number of candidates with (for them) atypical scores on this test and many scores on other tests. As more people take the test, this may either improve, or may turn out to be a real problem.
Notice that the very high reliability of this test may be partly due to its being arranged in crosswords, which causes groups of items to be interdependent to some extent.
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
60 to 64 | 1 | 72.0 |
50 to 54 | 2 | 36.0 |
45 to 49 | 1 | 74.0 |
40 to 44 | 5 | 74.0 |
35 to 39 | 3 | 54.0 |
30 to 34 | 3 | 67.0 |
25 to 29 | 4 | 67.0 |
22 to 24 | 5 | 60.0 |
20 or 21 | 1 | 57.0 |
N = 25
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2001 | 1 | 57.0 |
2002 | 4 | 66.5 |
2003 | 2 | 69.5 |
2004 | 2 | 74.0 |
2009 | 1 | 63.0 |
2010 | 1 | 60.0 |
2012 | 3 | 70.0 |
2013 | 1 | 5.0 |
2018 | 2 | 39.5 |
2019 | 3 | 74.0 |
2020 | 2 | 52.5 |
2022 | 3 | 70.0 |
ryear taken × median score = -0.18 (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. So far, no bad items have been identified in this test.