These statistics are from the version of the PSIA that was in use from 2003 to 2007, and was highly similar to the later Revision 2007. The scores are t-scores (mean = 50, σ = 10) normed on an earlier group (partly overlapping this one) so this group may not have an exact mean and σ of 50 and 10. An explanation of the scale can be found through the test's order page.
Explanatory and analytical remarks regarding the interpretation of the statistics are purposely largely avoided, so it is up to the reader to study the report carefully and thus obtain a clear impression of the test's validity — that is, "what it measures". Although the statistics sometimes reveal an almost chilling discriminative power, experience shows that explicitly observing that in a remark tends to evoke negative responses in persons who recognize themselves ("Your remark betrays that your are biased! The test only measures your personal biases!", et cetera).
30 | * |
31 | ***** |
33 | ** |
34 | ***** |
35 | *** |
36 | ****** |
37 | **** |
38 | *********** |
39 | ** |
40 | ***** |
41 | ******* |
42 | **************** |
43 | ********** |
44 | ************ |
45 | ************ |
46 | ******************* |
47 | ******* |
48 | *********** |
49 | ********** |
50 | ************ |
51 | ***************** |
52 | ******** |
53 | *********** |
54 | ******* |
55 | ******** |
56 | ****** |
57 | ********** |
58 | ***** |
59 | ************ |
60 | ****** |
61 | ****** |
62 | **** |
63 | ****** |
64 | *** |
65 | ******* |
66 | ***** |
67 | ** |
68 | ** |
69 | * |
71 | ** |
73 | * |
74 | * |
76 | * |
78 | * |
79 | * |
82 | * |
90 | * |
n = 238
30 | * |
31 | * |
33 | * |
34 | *** |
35 | * |
36 | ***** |
37 | **** |
38 | ****** |
39 | * |
40 | ***** |
41 | **** |
42 | *********** |
43 | ********* |
44 | ********* |
45 | ********** |
46 | **************** |
47 | **** |
48 | ******** |
49 | ******** |
50 | ************ |
51 | **************** |
52 | ****** |
53 | *********** |
54 | ***** |
55 | ******** |
56 | ***** |
57 | ******** |
58 | **** |
59 | ********* |
60 | ****** |
61 | ***** |
62 | *** |
63 | ***** |
64 | ** |
65 | ******* |
66 | ***** |
67 | ** |
68 | ** |
69 | * |
71 | ** |
73 | * |
74 | * |
76 | * |
78 | * |
79 | * |
82 | * |
90 | * |
n = 57
31 | **** |
33 | * |
34 | ** |
35 | ** |
36 | * |
38 | ***** |
39 | * |
41 | *** |
42 | ***** |
43 | * |
44 | *** |
45 | ** |
46 | *** |
47 | *** |
48 | *** |
49 | ** |
51 | * |
52 | ** |
54 | ** |
56 | * |
57 | ** |
58 | * |
59 | *** |
61 | * |
62 | * |
63 | * |
64 | * |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Graduate Record Examination | 5 | 0.79 |
European I.Q. Test | 6 | 0.68 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 9 | 0.59 |
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 8 | 0.51 |
Evens | 4 | 0.50 |
Chimera High Ability Riddle Test (Bill Bultas) | 4 | 0.48 |
Isis Test | 13 | 0.47 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test | 6 | 0.43 |
The Nemesis Test | 8 | 0.40 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 6 | 0.38 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 16 | 0.37 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 9 | 0.33 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 11 | 0.33 |
Short Test For Genius | 4 | 0.31 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 20 | 0.28 |
Numerical Insight Test | 8 | 0.27 |
The Final Test | 22 | 0.24 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (new) | 4 | 0.24 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 23 | 0.23 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 12 | 0.23 |
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 10 | 0.22 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.22 |
Long Test For Genius | 9 | 0.21 |
The Sargasso Test | 11 | 0.20 |
The Test To End All Tests | 16 | 0.20 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 13 | 0.18 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 91 | 0.18 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 22 | 0.18 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 6 | 0.17 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 4 | 0.16 |
Cito-toets | 5 | 0.16 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 14 | 0.15 |
Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 57 | 0.14 |
Associative LIMIT | 7 | 0.13 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 12 | 0.12 |
Reason | 13 | 0.11 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 14 | 0.09 |
916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 5 | 0.08 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | 0.07 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 4 | 0.06 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 17 | 0.06 |
Cartoons of Shock | 8 | 0.05 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 12 | 0.05 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 6 | 0.04 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | 0.04 |
Bonsai Test | 6 | 0.03 |
KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 9 | 0.02 |
Daedalus Test | 4 | 0.00 |
Spatial Insight Test | 14 | -0.02 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | -0.03 |
American College Testing program | 7 | -0.05 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | -0.07 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 7 | -0.07 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #3 | 5 | -0.09 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 8 | -0.10 |
Odds | 7 | -0.10 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.11 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 20 | -0.14 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 8 | -0.14 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 25 | -0.20 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.20 |
Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 6 | -0.22 |
Genius Association Test | 29 | -0.26 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 20 | -0.27 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 9 | -0.28 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.30 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 5 | -0.30 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 4 | -0.30 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 4 | -0.32 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 8 | -0.33 |
Narcissus' last stand | 4 | -0.34 |
Numbers | 16 | -0.34 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 5 | -0.34 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 4 | -0.35 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 7 | -0.43 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 6 | -0.47 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 4 | -0.50 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 5 | -0.54 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 7 | -0.67 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 6 | -0.68 |
The Marathon Test | 4 | -0.69 |
Letters | 4 | -0.78 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 4 | -0.87 |
W-87 (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) | 7 | -0.91 |
Words | 4 | -0.98 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.041 (N = 950)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.20
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 4 | 0.45 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 11 | 0.26 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.311 (N = 15)
Estimated g factor loading among females: 0.56
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 PSIA Cold on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 276 | 0.02 |
Numerical | 61 | -0.39 |
Spatial | 90 | 0.28 |
Logical | 37 | 0.48 |
Heterogeneous | 198 | 0.24 |
N = 662
Balanced g loading = 0.12
Country | n | mean score |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 3 | 61.67 |
Poland | 3 | 55.33 |
Canada | 9 | 55.22 |
Spain | 6 | 54.67 |
Italy | 3 | 54.00 |
Korea_South | 3 | 53.67 |
Sweden | 17 | 52.53 |
China | 3 | 50.67 |
Germany | 12 | 50.17 |
Netherlands | 34 | 49.85 |
United_Kingdom | 13 | 49.85 |
Yugoslavia | 5 | 49.80 |
India | 12 | 49.50 |
United_States | 98 | 49.06 |
Australia | 6 | 48.50 |
Israel | 4 | 48.25 |
Norway | 5 | 47.20 |
Finland | 5 | 47.00 |
South_Africa | 4 | 46.50 |
Belgium | 8 | 46.00 |
Brazil | 7 | 45.43 |
Turkey | 4 | 45.25 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA System factor | 47 | 0.81 |
Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.56 |
PSIA Introverted | 295 | 0.46 |
PSIA Aspergoid | 295 | 0.38 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 18 | 0.35 |
PSIA Cruel | 295 | 0.26 |
PSIA Rational | 295 | 0.25 |
PSIA Deviance factor | 295 | 0.24 |
PSIA Just | 295 | 0.23 |
Sex | 295 | 0.23 |
Year of birth | 292 | 0.09 |
PSIA Rare | 295 | 0.07 |
Mother's educational level | 279 | 0.06 |
PSIA Neurotic | 295 | 0.06 |
PSIA Orderly | 295 | 0.01 |
Educational level | 292 | -0.05 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 291 | -0.06 |
Observed behaviour | 19 | -0.06 |
Father's educational level | 277 | -0.07 |
PSIA True | 295 | -0.07 |
Disorders (own) | 292 | -0.07 |
PSIA Antisocial | 295 | -0.09 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 295 | -0.16 |
PSIA Extreme | 295 | -0.31 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 9 | -0.52 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA System factor | 10 | 0.52 |
PSIA Introverted | 57 | 0.34 |
PSIA Cruel | 57 | 0.32 |
PSIA Aspergoid | 57 | 0.26 |
PSIA Just | 57 | 0.14 |
PSIA Deviance factor | 57 | 0.12 |
PSIA Orderly | 57 | 0.03 |
PSIA Rare | 57 | 0.02 |
PSIA Rational | 57 | 0.01 |
Educational level | 55 | 0.01 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 54 | -0.04 |
Disorders (own) | 55 | -0.04 |
PSIA Antisocial | 57 | -0.04 |
Father's educational level | 47 | -0.08 |
Mother's educational level | 47 | -0.09 |
PSIA Neurotic | 57 | -0.11 |
Year of birth | 55 | -0.19 |
PSIA True | 57 | -0.20 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 57 | -0.28 |
PSIA Extreme | 57 | -0.57 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA System factor | 37 | 0.84 |
Observed associative horizon | 9 | 0.59 |
PSIA Introverted | 238 | 0.48 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 15 | 0.45 |
PSIA Aspergoid | 238 | 0.39 |
PSIA Deviance factor | 238 | 0.26 |
PSIA Rational | 238 | 0.25 |
PSIA Just | 238 | 0.24 |
PSIA Cruel | 238 | 0.22 |
Year of birth | 237 | 0.16 |
PSIA Neurotic | 238 | 0.14 |
Mother's educational level | 232 | 0.10 |
PSIA Rare | 238 | 0.06 |
Observed behaviour | 18 | 0.02 |
PSIA Orderly | 238 | 0.01 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 237 | -0.04 |
PSIA True | 238 | -0.05 |
Disorders (own) | 237 | -0.08 |
Father's educational level | 230 | -0.08 |
Educational level | 237 | -0.10 |
PSIA Antisocial | 238 | -0.11 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 238 | -0.14 |
PSIA Extreme | 238 | -0.25 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 8 | -0.56 |
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 | 0.59 (111) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.25 (405) |
Above median | 0.29 (554) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.27 (189) |
Positive g factor loading on the whole, as well as a large sex difference. This scale is interesting in that it apparently contains the aspect of the Aspergoid nature that is not disordered and does not cripple intelligence; in other words, the aspect that contributes to creativity by making for a wide associative horizon. It does so in conjunction with introversion. Associative horizon seems to be a combination of Cold and Introverted, or otherwise said the Aspergoid nature minus the crippling disorders.