Contents type: Verbal. Period: 2001-2026
| 1 | * |
| 5 | * |
| 17 | * |
| 22 | * |
| 27 | * |
| 51 | * |
| 54 | * |
| 56 | * |
| 57 | * |
| 60 | * |
| 63 | ** |
| 66 | * |
| 67 | *** |
| 68 | * |
| 70 | ** |
| 72 | * |
| 73 | * |
| 74 | ** |
| 75 | * |
| 76 | ** |
| 77 | ** |
| 78 | * |
| 79 | * |
| 80 | **** |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Marathon Test - Revision 2024 | 4 | 1.00 | 0.08 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.98 | 0.09 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.96 | 0.03 |
| Three Sonnets (Heinrich Siemens) | 5 | 0.95 | 0.06 |
| Test for Genius - Revision 2025 | 4 | 0.94 | 0.10 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 4 | 0.92 | 0.11 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 6 | 0.92 | 0.04 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 9 | 0.92 | 0.01 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 5 | 0.90 | 0.07 |
| Reason | 4 | 0.90 | 0.12 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.88 | 0.003 |
| The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.87 | 0.004 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 5 | 0.87 | 0.08 |
| Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 5 | 0.86 | 0.09 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 6 | 0.85 | 0.06 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.85 | 0.002 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 16 | 0.84 | 0.001 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 14 | 0.83 | 0.003 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the fourth degree | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 8 | 0.82 | 0.03 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 13 | 0.81 | 0.005 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 4 | 0.80 | 0.16 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 10 | 0.79 | 0.02 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.78 | 0.003 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 15 | 0.78 | 0.004 |
| The Smell Test | 11 | 0.76 | 0.02 |
| Associative LIMIT | 14 | 0.76 | 0.006 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 13 | 0.75 | 0.01 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 21 | 0.75 | 0.0008 |
| Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 11 | 0.73 | 0.02 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 16 | 0.73 | 0.005 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 19 | 0.73 | 0.002 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 21 | 0.73 | 0.001 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 11 | 0.73 | 0.02 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 17 | 0.73 | 0.003 |
| The Gate | 9 | 0.73 | 0.04 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 20 | 0.72 | 0.002 |
| Dicing with death | 14 | 0.72 | 0.01 |
| Genius Association Test | 15 | 0.70 | 0.009 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 11 | 0.70 | 0.03 |
| The Piper's Test | 15 | 0.70 | 0.01 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 17 | 0.70 | 0.005 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 6 | 0.69 | 0.12 |
| The Final Test | 8 | 0.69 | 0.07 |
| Only idiots | 11 | 0.66 | 0.04 |
| Numbers | 5 | 0.66 | 0.18 |
| The Sargasso Test | 20 | 0.65 | 0.005 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 16 | 0.64 | 0.01 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 15 | 0.63 | 0.02 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 5 | 0.62 | 0.22 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 13 | 0.62 | 0.03 |
| De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 5 | 0.62 | 0.22 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 16 | 0.61 | 0.02 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 13 | 0.60 | 0.04 |
| De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 5 | 0.59 | 0.24 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 10 | 0.59 | 0.08 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 6 | 0.59 | 0.18 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 6 | 0.57 | 0.20 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.54 | 0.07 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 11 | 0.54 | 0.09 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 13 | 0.54 | 0.06 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.52 | 0.30 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.51 | 0.09 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 19 | 0.51 | 0.03 |
| The Nemesis Test | 18 | 0.50 | 0.04 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 15 | 0.49 | 0.07 |
| A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 18 | 0.48 | 0.05 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 4 | 0.43 | 0.46 |
| Daedalus Test | 21 | 0.39 | 0.08 |
| Analogies #1 | 4 | 0.38 | 0.50 |
| Numerologica (Andrei Udriște) | 4 | 0.38 | 0.50 |
| Isis Test | 14 | 0.36 | 0.19 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 14 | 0.35 | 0.20 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 15 | 0.27 | 0.32 |
| Words | 5 | 0.17 | 0.74 |
| Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | 0.09 | 0.84 |
| Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 4 | 0.02 | 0.97 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 6 | -0.15 | 0.74 |
| Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieproefwerk | 5 | -0.33 | 0.50 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | -0.44 | 0.44 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 5 | -0.54 | 0.28 |
| Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 4 | -0.65 | 0.26 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 5 | -0.88 | 0.08 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.625 (N = 862)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.79
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 Psychometric Qrosswords on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 113 | 0.82 |
| Numerical | 49 | 0.84 |
| Spatial | 62 | 0.78 |
| Logical | 44 | 0.70 |
| Heterogeneous | 387 | 0.81 |
N = 655
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.79
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| United_States | 11 | 72.0 |
Total number of countries: 22
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.79 | 0.04 |
| Observed associative horizon | 5 | 0.73 | 0.14 |
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.66 | 0.08 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 13 | 0.51 | 0.08 |
| Sex | 34 | 0.46 | 0.009 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.38 | 0.32 |
| Educational level | 30 | 0.37 | 0.05 |
| Observed behaviour | 7 | 0.32 | 0.42 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 7 | 0.25 | 0.54 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.22 | 0.54 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.10 | 0.78 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 29 | 0.07 | 0.71 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 8 | 0.01 | 0.97 |
| Mother's educational level | 29 | 0.01 | 0.97 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.00 | 1.00 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.00 | 1.00 |
| Father's educational level | 29 | -0.01 | 0.94 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.03 | 0.94 |
| Year of birth | 34 | -0.05 | 0.76 |
| Disorders (own) | 31 | -0.09 | 0.62 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.13 | 0.74 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.14 | 0.71 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.15 | 0.68 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.15 | 0.68 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.18 | 0.64 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 8 | -0.26 | 0.50 |
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 (57.0) | 0.68 (N = 191) |
|---|---|
| Below median (69.0) | 0.75 (N = 435) |
| Above median (69.0) | -0.32 (N = 402) |
| Above 3rd quartile (76.0) | 0.56 (N = 227) |
Remark: The negative loading above the median might be caused by score inflation in the later years.
Remark: This is a good example of the too little known phenomenon that high reliability does not make a good test; reliability is near perfect, but still the test is not good because it is too easy and probably non-robust.
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 60 to 64 | 2 | 75.5 |
| 50 to 54 | 2 | 36.0 |
| 45 to 49 | 2 | 75.5 |
| 40 to 44 | 5 | 74.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 3 | 54.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 5 | 67.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 5 | 68.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 6 | 58.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 3 | 77.0 |
| 17 | 1 | 80.0 |
N = 34
| Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 1 | 57.0 | 380 |
| 2002 | 4 | 66.5 | 402 |
| 2003 | 2 | 69.5 | 445 |
| 2004 | 2 | 74.0 | 479 |
| 2009 | 1 | 63.0 | 388 |
| 2010 | 1 | 60.0 | 383 |
| 2012 | 3 | 70.0 | 450 |
| 2013 | 1 | 5.0 | 302 |
| 2018 | 2 | 39.5 | 349 |
| 2019 | 3 | 74.0 | 479 |
| 2020 | 2 | 52.5 | 366 |
| 2022 | 3 | 70.0 | 450 |
| 2023 | 3 | 73.0 | 469 |
| 2024 | 2 | 78.5 | 555 |
| 2026 | 4 | 79.5 | 592 |
N = 34
Remark: The robustness indicator here does not detect the increase of scores of the past several years because it is calculated by month across the individual test scores over the full period starting with 2001.
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.