Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 Statistics - Batch scored by Paul Cooijmans

© Paul Cooijmans

Remark: The above norms are based on both batches combined.

Scores on Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) as of 13 September 2024

Contents type: Verbal.   Period: 2002-2004

-30 *
-27 *
4 *
10 *
18 *
19 *
20 **
21 *****
22 ***
24 **
25 ***
26 **
27 *
28 **
29 ****
29.5 *
30 **
31 *
32 ****
34.5 *
35 *
36 ****
37 ***
38 ****
39 **
39.5 *
40 *
41 **
42 *****
43 *****
44 *
44.5 *
45 **
46 ***
48 ***
49 **
49.5 *
51 *
52 *
53 *****
55 *
56 **
57 *****
58 ***
60 *
61 *****
62 *******
63 *
64 *
65 ***
66 ***
67 ***
68 *
71 ****
72 **
73 *
75 ***
76 *
77 *
78 **
79 *
80 *
100 *

Scores by males

n = 112

-30 *
4 *
10 *
18 *
20 *
21 **
22 ***
25 *
26 *
27 *
28 **
29 **
29.5 *
30 *
31 *
32 **
34.5 *
35 *
36 ***
37 *
38 ***
39 **
40 *
41 **
42 ****
43 ****
44 *
45 **
46 ***
48 **
49 **
49.5 *
51 *
53 *****
55 *
56 **
57 *****
58 ***
60 *
61 *****
62 *******
63 *
64 *
65 ***
66 ***
67 ***
68 *
71 ***
72 **
73 *
75 **
76 *
77 *
78 **
79 *
80 *
100 *

Scores by females

n = 25

-27 *
19 *
20 *
21 ***
24 **
25 **
26 *
29 **
30 *
32 **
36 *
37 **
38 *
39.5 *
44.5 *
48 *
71 *
75 *

Correlation of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) with other mental ability tests

Test name n r
Spatial Insight Test50.99
Test For Genius - Revision 200440.98
Test of Shock and Awe50.97
Test of the Beheaded Man40.92
The Sargasso Test50.88
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4250.86
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve)170.84
Genius Association Test160.81
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 180.78
The Final Test150.75
Miller Analogies Test (raw; old version)40.74
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200440.71
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #270.68
Space, Time, and Hyperspace220.67
The Test To End All Tests90.67
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai)130.62
Cito-toets50.62
Long Test For Genius130.60
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test50.59
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg)110.55
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #560.50
Associative LIMIT40.48
Bonsai Test80.47
Numbers130.45
Analogies of Long Test For Genius200.45
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200460.44
Cartoons of Shock40.42
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 200860.41
Otis-Lennon40.39
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate)240.36
Reason - Revision 200860.35
Miscellaneous tests380.34
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate)110.32
Epiq Tests (aggregate)70.31
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström)50.25
Analogies #140.25
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius230.22
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai)50.19
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato)70.10
Qoymans Automatic Test #340.05
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #160.01
Reason5-0.02
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve)9-0.03
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw)5-0.07
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales4-0.35
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin)4-0.41
Short Test For Genius5-0.57
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.)6-0.67
American College Testing program5-0.68
Odds4-0.81
Words4-0.96

Weighted average of correlations: 0.429 (N = 459)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.66

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 Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) 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.

Typeng loading of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 on that type
Verbal1430.73
Numerical300.60
Spatial380.82
Logical200.29
Heterogeneous750.74

N = 306

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

Balanced g loading = 0.64

Estimated loadings of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) 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.

Typeng loading of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 on that type
Verbal1430.73
Numerical300.60
Spatial380.82
Logical200.29
Heterogeneous750.74

N = 306

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

Balanced g loading = 0.64

National medians for Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans)

Country n median score
Sweden571.0
Germany856.5
United_States2755.0
Finland349.5
Greece448.8
Canada447.0
Netherlands2035.5

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.

Correlation with national I.Q.'s of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans)

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

Correlation of Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) with personal details

Personalia n r
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes40.61
Observed behaviour120.38
Sex1370.35
Father's educational level700.26
Educational level750.25
Disorders (own)740.02
Observed associative horizon7-0.02
Mother's educational level71-0.05
Disorders (parents and siblings)74-0.12
Year of birth121-0.36
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms11-0.83

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.

Below 1st quartile0.19 (31)
Below median0.31 (111)
Above median0.50 (336)
Above 3rd quartile0.39 (188)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n Median score
60 to 64349.0
55 to 59252.5
50 to 54660.0
45 to 491158.0
40 to 44762.0
35 to 39961.0
30 to 341252.5
25 to 291949.5
22 to 241442.0
20 or 21932.0
18 or 191447.0
17636.5
16235.3
15321.0
14326.0
13221.5
122-3.0

N = 124

Scores by age - within females

Age class n Median raw
40 to 44175.0
35 to 39136.0
30 to 34230.5
25 to 29435.0
22 to 24125.0
20 or 21225.5
18 or 19129.0
17124.0
16139.5
15321.0
14227.5
13221.5
121-27.0

N = 22

Scores by age - within males

Age class n Median raw
60 to 64349.0
55 to 59252.5
50 to 54660.0
45 to 491158.0
40 to 44659.0
35 to 39861.0
30 to 341054.5
25 to 291551.0
22 to 241343.0
20 or 21749.5
18 or 191357.0
17538.0
16131.0
14126.0
12121.0

N = 102

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median scoreprotonorm
20035949.0368
20048042.5356
2011143.0360

ryear taken × median score = -0.54 (N = 140)

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

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.