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).
11 | * |
17 | * |
26 | ** |
27 | *** |
28 | * |
29 | * |
30 | ** |
31 | ******* |
32 | ** |
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 | ***** |
69 | **** |
70 | *** |
73 | *** |
74 | ***** |
n = 238
11 | * |
17 | * |
26 | ** |
27 | ** |
28 | * |
29 | * |
30 | ** |
31 | ****** |
32 | * |
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 | *** |
69 | *** |
70 | ** |
73 | ** |
74 | ** |
n = 57
27 | * |
31 | * |
32 | * |
35 | * |
37 | * |
39 | ** |
40 | * |
41 | ** |
42 | ** |
43 | * |
44 | ** |
45 | ** |
46 | ** |
47 | * |
48 | *** |
49 | ** |
50 | *** |
51 | *** |
52 | *** |
53 | * |
54 | ** |
55 | * |
56 | * |
57 | * |
58 | *** |
60 | ** |
63 | **** |
67 | ** |
69 | * |
70 | * |
73 | * |
74 | *** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Cooijmans On-Line Test | 6 | 0.88 |
Letters | 4 | 0.84 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.69 |
Short Test For Genius | 4 | 0.66 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 4 | 0.64 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 16 | 0.36 |
European I.Q. Test | 6 | 0.36 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #3 | 5 | 0.33 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 12 | 0.30 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 20 | 0.29 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 20 | 0.28 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | 0.24 |
Cartoons of Shock | 8 | 0.23 |
Numbers | 16 | 0.22 |
Daedalus Test | 4 | 0.21 |
916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 5 | 0.20 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 11 | 0.19 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 6 | 0.17 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 14 | 0.15 |
The Nemesis Test | 8 | 0.14 |
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 10 | 0.11 |
Reason | 13 | 0.08 |
Words | 4 | 0.08 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 12 | 0.07 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 6 | 0.06 |
Odds | 7 | 0.05 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 6 | 0.05 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 4 | 0.04 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | 0.04 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 8 | 0.03 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 23 | 0.01 |
Cito-toets | 5 | 0.00 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 8 | -0.01 |
The Sargasso Test | 11 | -0.06 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 9 | -0.06 |
American College Testing program | 7 | -0.07 |
Long Test For Genius | 9 | -0.07 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 91 | -0.07 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | -0.08 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 4 | -0.08 |
The Final Test | 22 | -0.11 |
Narcissus' last stand | 4 | -0.11 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 17 | -0.12 |
Associative LIMIT | 7 | -0.12 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 9 | -0.12 |
Isis Test | 13 | -0.13 |
The Test To End All Tests | 16 | -0.15 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 6 | -0.16 |
KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 9 | -0.17 |
Genius Association Test | 29 | -0.17 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 5 | -0.18 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 7 | -0.20 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 14 | -0.20 |
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 8 | -0.20 |
Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 57 | -0.21 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 4 | -0.24 |
Spatial Insight Test | 14 | -0.26 |
Chimera High Ability Riddle Test (Bill Bultas) | 4 | -0.26 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 4 | -0.27 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 5 | -0.31 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.31 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 9 | -0.32 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 22 | -0.33 |
Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 6 | -0.33 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 13 | -0.33 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 12 | -0.33 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 6 | -0.33 |
Bonsai Test | 6 | -0.34 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 20 | -0.37 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 7 | -0.45 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.45 |
Numerical Insight Test | 8 | -0.49 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 8 | -0.49 |
W-87 (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) | 7 | -0.51 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 25 | -0.57 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 6 | -0.57 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 5 | -0.63 |
Graduate Record Examination | 5 | -0.64 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 4 | -0.68 |
The Marathon Test | 4 | -0.69 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 7 | -0.69 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 4 | -0.70 |
Evens | 4 | -0.77 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 4 | -0.86 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (new) | 4 | -0.98 |
Weighted average of correlations: -0.093 (N = 950)
Estimated g factor loading: -0.31
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 11 | -0.26 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 4 | -0.40 |
Weighted average of correlations: -0.297 (N = 15)
Estimated g factor loading among females: -0.54
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 Neurotic on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 276 | -0.36 |
Numerical | 61 | -0.48 |
Spatial | 90 | -0.32 |
Logical | 37 | 0.31 |
Heterogeneous | 198 | -0.07 |
N = 662
Balanced g loading = -0.18
Country | n | mean score |
---|---|---|
Poland | 3 | 63.33 |
Mexico | 3 | 62.67 |
South_Africa | 4 | 55.50 |
United_Kingdom | 13 | 52.15 |
India | 12 | 51.83 |
United_States | 98 | 50.23 |
Netherlands | 34 | 47.62 |
China | 3 | 47.33 |
Italy | 3 | 47.33 |
Israel | 4 | 47.25 |
Sweden | 17 | 46.53 |
Brazil | 7 | 46.29 |
Turkey | 4 | 45.75 |
Canada | 9 | 44.89 |
Korea_South | 3 | 44.67 |
Yugoslavia | 5 | 44.20 |
Germany | 12 | 44.08 |
Spain | 6 | 42.83 |
Belgium | 8 | 42.00 |
Australia | 6 | 40.67 |
Finland | 5 | 39.00 |
Norway | 5 | 38.00 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Aspergoid | 295 | 0.59 |
PSIA Deviance factor | 295 | 0.57 |
PSIA Introverted | 295 | 0.51 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 18 | 0.45 |
PSIA Rare | 295 | 0.43 |
Disorders (own) | 292 | 0.41 |
PSIA Antisocial | 295 | 0.35 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 291 | 0.24 |
PSIA Cruel | 295 | 0.23 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 9 | 0.21 |
Year of birth | 292 | 0.20 |
PSIA Just | 295 | 0.18 |
PSIA Extreme | 295 | 0.11 |
Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.10 |
Mother's educational level | 279 | 0.06 |
PSIA Cold | 295 | 0.06 |
Father's educational level | 277 | 0.01 |
PSIA True | 295 | -0.05 |
PSIA System factor | 47 | -0.08 |
PSIA Rational | 295 | -0.13 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 295 | -0.16 |
Sex | 295 | -0.16 |
Educational level | 292 | -0.18 |
PSIA Orderly | 295 | -0.27 |
Observed behaviour | 19 | -0.33 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Deviance factor | 57 | 0.72 |
PSIA Rare | 57 | 0.62 |
PSIA Aspergoid | 57 | 0.61 |
Disorders (own) | 55 | 0.58 |
PSIA Introverted | 57 | 0.51 |
PSIA Extreme | 57 | 0.42 |
PSIA Antisocial | 57 | 0.40 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 54 | 0.27 |
Mother's educational level | 47 | 0.11 |
Father's educational level | 47 | 0.10 |
PSIA True | 57 | 0.09 |
PSIA Cruel | 57 | 0.09 |
PSIA System factor | 10 | 0.08 |
Educational level | 55 | 0.06 |
PSIA Just | 57 | 0.02 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 57 | -0.03 |
PSIA Orderly | 57 | -0.10 |
Year of birth | 55 | -0.11 |
PSIA Cold | 57 | -0.11 |
PSIA Rational | 57 | -0.25 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Aspergoid | 238 | 0.62 |
PSIA Deviance factor | 238 | 0.56 |
PSIA Introverted | 238 | 0.53 |
PSIA Rare | 238 | 0.40 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 15 | 0.39 |
Disorders (own) | 237 | 0.37 |
PSIA Antisocial | 238 | 0.35 |
PSIA Cruel | 238 | 0.29 |
Year of birth | 237 | 0.24 |
PSIA Just | 238 | 0.24 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 237 | 0.23 |
PSIA Cold | 238 | 0.14 |
Mother's educational level | 232 | 0.04 |
PSIA Extreme | 238 | 0.03 |
Father's educational level | 230 | 0.01 |
PSIA Rational | 238 | -0.04 |
PSIA True | 238 | -0.08 |
PSIA System factor | 37 | -0.11 |
PSIA Ethics factor | 238 | -0.20 |
Educational level | 237 | -0.22 |
Observed associative horizon | 9 | -0.26 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 8 | -0.28 |
PSIA Orderly | 238 | -0.31 |
Observed behaviour | 18 | -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 these values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
Below 1st quartile | 0.54 (157) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.43 (373) |
Above median | -0.44 (518) |
Above 3rd quartile | -0.39 (297) |
The bottom part has positive g loading, the upper part negative. On the whole it is negative.