Personality Scales for Intelligent Adults - Statistics of Extreme scale

Introduction

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).

Scores on PSIA Extreme as of 18 February 2023

Contents type: Personality test other than for mental ability.   Period: 2003-2007

• n: 295
• Mean: 49.44
• Standard deviation: 10.91
• Range: 83.0
• Male mean: 49.04 (n = 238)
• Female mean: 51.12 (n = 57)
• Proportion of males among candidates: 0.807
• Resolution: 0.56

Scores by males

n = 238

Scores by females

n = 57

Correlation of PSIA Extreme with other mental ability tests

Weighted average of correlations: -0.124 (N = 950)

Estimated g factor loading: -0.35

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.

Correlation of PSIA Extreme with other tests - for females

Weighted average of correlations: -0.455 (N = 15)

Estimated g factor loading among females: -0.67

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.

Estimated loadings of PSIA Extreme on particular item types

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.

N = 662

Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.

Balanced g loading = -0.27

National means for PSIA Extreme

For reasons of privacy, only countries with 3 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the unrounded means, and then alphabetic.

Correlation with national I.Q.'s of PSIA Extreme

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

• r = -0.06 (n = 293)

Correlation of PSIA Extreme with personal details

Correlation with personal details of PSIA Extreme - within females

Correlation with personal details of PSIA Extreme - within males

Estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges

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.

Concluding remarks

This scale is so interesting that it requires a comment: The following facts are implied with significance in this report:

• Persons with higher mental ability tend to give less extreme responses (that is, "2" rather than "0" or "4");
• Well-behaved persons, ethical persons, and deviant persons tend to give more extreme responses (that is, "0" or "4" rather than "2");
• Cruel persons and unempathic persons tend to give less extreme responses.

This complex triangle of relations is possible because the correlations involved, though significant and sizeable, are lower than 1, and therefore allow such relations. This, in turn, results from non-unitary, multi-dimensional nature of personality. Personality consists of a number of aspects which are to some extent independent, that is, have imperfect intercorrelations. This is in contrast with the state of affairs among the various tests for mental ability, which tend to intercorrelate highly, implying a unitary trait ("g"). It is important to understand that these facts are natural phenomena, and have not been built into the tests by the test constructors, nor are they inherent to the statistical methods of correlation or factor analysis.

[More statistical reports]