Contents type: Logical. Period: 2008-2024
| 1 | * |
| 4 | * |
| 6 | * |
| 15 | * |
| 24 | * |
| 27 | * |
| 28 | ** |
| 43 | * |
| 46 | * |
| 47 | * |
| 48 | * |
| 49 | * |
| 53 | * |
| 56 | **** |
| 57 | * |
| 59 | * |
| 60 | *** |
| 62 | *** |
| 63 | * |
| 64 | ** |
| 67 | *** |
| 68 | * |
| 69 | * |
| 70 | ** |
| 71 | ** |
| 72 | ***** |
| 73 | ** |
| 74 | * |
| 75 | ** |
| 76 | ** |
| 78 | ***** |
| 79 | ***** |
| 80 | ****** |
| 82 | **** |
| 83 | ** |
| 84 | ********* |
| 85 | **** |
| 86 | ********** |
| 87 | ***** |
| 88 | ************ |
| 89 | * |
| 90 | * |
| 91 | ** |
| 92 | **** |
| 93 | **** |
| 94 | ** |
| 95 | * |
n = 122
| 1 | * |
| 4 | * |
| 6 | * |
| 15 | * |
| 24 | * |
| 27 | * |
| 28 | * |
| 43 | * |
| 46 | * |
| 47 | * |
| 48 | * |
| 49 | * |
| 53 | * |
| 56 | **** |
| 57 | * |
| 59 | * |
| 60 | *** |
| 62 | *** |
| 63 | * |
| 64 | ** |
| 67 | *** |
| 69 | * |
| 70 | ** |
| 71 | ** |
| 72 | **** |
| 73 | ** |
| 74 | * |
| 75 | ** |
| 76 | ** |
| 78 | ***** |
| 79 | ***** |
| 80 | ****** |
| 82 | **** |
| 83 | ** |
| 84 | ******** |
| 85 | *** |
| 86 | ********** |
| 87 | ***** |
| 88 | ************ |
| 89 | * |
| 90 | * |
| 91 | ** |
| 92 | **** |
| 93 | **** |
| 94 | ** |
| 95 | * |
n = 5
| 28 | * |
| 68 | * |
| 72 | * |
| 84 | * |
| 85 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 5 | 0.94 | 0.06 |
| Reason | 11 | 0.89 | 0.005 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 5 | 0.84 | 0.10 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 125 | 0.82 | ≈ 0 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 30 | 0.75 | 0.00006 |
| Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 9 | 0.73 | 0.04 |
| Words | 8 | 0.71 | 0.06 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 4 | 0.69 | 0.24 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 45 | 0.67 | 0.000008 |
| The LAW - Letters And Words | 8 | 0.67 | 0.08 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 30 | 0.66 | 0.0004 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 41 | 0.65 | 0.00004 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 33 | 0.64 | 0.0003 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 30 | 0.64 | 0.0006 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 39 | 0.63 | 0.00010 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 22 | 0.63 | 0.004 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 9 | 0.63 | 0.08 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 6 | 0.62 | 0.16 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 38 | 0.61 | 0.0002 |
| Bonsai Test | 5 | 0.61 | 0.24 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 30 | 0.59 | 0.001 |
| Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 9 | 0.59 | 0.10 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 19 | 0.59 | 0.01 |
| The Final Test | 18 | 0.57 | 0.02 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 8 | 0.55 | 0.14 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 13 | 0.54 | 0.06 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 43 | 0.54 | 0.0005 |
| Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 13 | 0.54 | 0.06 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 16 | 0.53 | 0.04 |
| Associative LIMIT | 40 | 0.53 | 0.0010 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 37 | 0.52 | 0.002 |
| Numbers | 8 | 0.52 | 0.17 |
| The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.51 | 0.03 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 19 | 0.51 | 0.03 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 53 | 0.50 | 0.0003 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 51 | 0.49 | 0.0005 |
| G-test (Nikos Lygeros) | 4 | 0.48 | 0.40 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 30 | 0.47 | 0.01 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 7 | 0.46 | 0.26 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 42 | 0.45 | 0.004 |
| The Gate | 9 | 0.45 | 0.20 |
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.44 | 0.37 |
| The Piper's Test | 18 | 0.44 | 0.07 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 23 | 0.43 | 0.04 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 34 | 0.43 | 0.02 |
| The Sargasso Test | 50 | 0.42 | 0.003 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 9 | 0.42 | 0.24 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 25 | 0.41 | 0.04 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 126 | 0.40 | 0.000007 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 10 | 0.40 | 0.24 |
| Genius Association Test | 44 | 0.40 | 0.009 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 13 | 0.40 | 0.17 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 28 | 0.39 | 0.04 |
| Dicing with death | 20 | 0.39 | 0.09 |
| Only idiots | 14 | 0.39 | 0.16 |
| Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 6 | 0.38 | 0.40 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 5 | 0.37 | 0.46 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 12 | 0.36 | 0.24 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 32 | 0.36 | 0.05 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 6 | 0.35 | 0.44 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 33 | 0.34 | 0.06 |
| A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 34 | 0.33 | 0.06 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 13 | 0.33 | 0.25 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 44 | 0.33 | 0.03 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 20 | 0.32 | 0.16 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 16 | 0.32 | 0.20 |
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 9 | 0.32 | 0.37 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 30 | 0.30 | 0.10 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 34 | 0.28 | 0.10 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 57 | 0.27 | 0.04 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 9 | 0.25 | 0.46 |
| The Nemesis Test | 33 | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 12 | 0.25 | 0.40 |
| The Smell Test | 12 | 0.25 | 0.40 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 23 | 0.24 | 0.26 |
| Daedalus Test | 27 | 0.20 | 0.30 |
| Letters | 9 | 0.19 | 0.60 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 15 | 0.17 | 0.50 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 10 | 0.17 | 0.62 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 13 | 0.16 | 0.57 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 14 | 0.13 | 0.64 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 6 | 0.12 | 0.78 |
| Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.11 | 0.84 |
| Advanced Intelligence Test (Randy Myers) | 4 | 0.11 | 0.84 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 35 | 0.11 | 0.52 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 10 | 0.11 | 0.74 |
| Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.09 | 0.87 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 15 | 0.08 | 0.76 |
| Isis Test | 46 | 0.06 | 0.71 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 15 | 0.03 | 0.90 |
| Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 4 | 0.02 | 0.97 |
| De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 5 | -0.02 | 0.97 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 24 | -0.02 | 0.92 |
| Kvociento (Bram van Kaathoven) | 4 | -0.03 | 0.94 |
| Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 9 | -0.06 | 0.87 |
| Three Sonnets (Heinrich Siemens) | 4 | -0.12 | 0.84 |
| Numerologica (Andrei Udriște) | 5 | -0.13 | 0.78 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 11 | -0.15 | 0.64 |
| Tests by Iakovos Koukas (aggregate) | 5 | -0.15 | 0.76 |
| Spatial Insight Test | 6 | -0.20 | 0.64 |
| Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 5 | -0.21 | 0.68 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 16 | -0.23 | 0.37 |
| Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | -0.24 | 0.64 |
| Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 7 | -0.24 | 0.54 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 14 | -0.25 | 0.37 |
| Evens | 5 | -0.38 | 0.44 |
| Gliaweb Raadselachtig Analogieproefwerk | 5 | -0.42 | 0.40 |
| De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | -0.55 | 0.22 |
| Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 4 | -0.60 | 0.30 |
| Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato) | 4 | -0.63 | 0.27 |
| Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 8 | -0.70 | 0.06 |
| Odds | 5 | -0.75 | 0.13 |
| Tests by Arne Andre Gangvik (aggregate) | 4 | -0.76 | 0.19 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 6 | -0.96 | 0.03 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.397 (N = 2249)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.63
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 Reason - Revision 2008 on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 403 | 0.63 |
| Numerical | 147 | 0.49 |
| Spatial | 206 | 0.63 |
| Logical | 43 | 0.60 |
| Heterogeneous | 856 | 0.64 |
N = 1655
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.60
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | 3 | 86.0 |
| United_States | 31 | 86.0 |
| Germany | 6 | 84.5 |
| Spain | 6 | 82.5 |
| Italy | 3 | 82.0 |
| Sweden | 4 | 80.0 |
| Finland | 5 | 79.0 |
| Canada | 4 | 78.5 |
| China | 8 | 78.5 |
| Unknown | 3 | 73.0 |
| United_Kingdom | 6 | 73.0 |
| Greece | 9 | 72.0 |
| Korea_South | 7 | 67.0 |
Total number of countries: 37
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.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed associative horizon | 11 | 0.33 | 0.28 |
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 35 | 0.26 | 0.13 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 35 | 0.18 | 0.28 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 35 | 0.12 | 0.50 |
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 35 | 0.11 | 0.50 |
| Year of birth | 127 | 0.11 | 0.20 |
| Father's educational level | 113 | 0.11 | 0.26 |
| Mother's educational level | 117 | 0.09 | 0.32 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 18 | 0.08 | 0.74 |
| Sex | 127 | 0.07 | 0.42 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 35 | 0.06 | 0.71 |
| Educational level | 119 | 0.02 | 0.78 |
| Disorders (own) | 120 | 0.01 | 0.90 |
| Observed behaviour | 30 | 0.01 | 0.94 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 118 | -0.03 | 0.78 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.04 | 0.78 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.09 | 0.60 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.09 | 0.57 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.11 | 0.52 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.13 | 0.44 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.14 | 0.42 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.14 | 0.42 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.15 | 0.38 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.17 | 0.34 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 29 | -0.24 | 0.20 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 35 | -0.30 | 0.08 |
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
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 (67.0) | 0.63 (N = 413) |
|---|---|
| Below median (80.0) | 0.70 (N = 1048) |
| Above median (80.0) | 0.29 (N = 1281) |
| Above 3rd quartile (87.0) | 0.09 (N = 644) |
Cronbach's alpha can not be computed for this test because its items are not scored uniformly.
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 70 to 74 | 1 | 83.0 |
| 60 to 64 | 2 | 81.5 |
| 55 to 59 | 2 | 54.5 |
| 50 to 54 | 6 | 85.0 |
| 45 to 49 | 13 | 76.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 11 | 67.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 10 | 80.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 15 | 84.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 29 | 80.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 19 | 86.0 |
| 20 or 21 | 9 | 73.0 |
| 18 or 19 | 6 | 75.0 |
| 17 | 3 | 69.0 |
| 15 | 1 | 92.0 |
N = 127
| Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 7 | 87.0 | 463 |
| 2009 | 8 | 65.5 | 358 |
| 2010 | 10 | 84.0 | 428 |
| 2011 | 7 | 79.0 | 392 |
| 2012 | 5 | 72.0 | 375 |
| 2013 | 7 | 87.0 | 463 |
| 2014 | 5 | 73.0 | 377 |
| 2015 | 3 | 78.0 | 387 |
| 2016 | 11 | 78.0 | 387 |
| 2017 | 8 | 75.0 | 381 |
| 2018 | 6 | 77.0 | 385 |
| 2019 | 7 | 80.0 | 406 |
| 2020 | 9 | 82.0 | 416 |
| 2021 | 7 | 80.0 | 406 |
| 2022 | 11 | 86.0 | 449 |
| 2023 | 8 | 84.5 | 433 |
| 2024 | 7 | 75.0 | 381 |
| 2025 | 1 | 80.0 | 406 |
N = 127
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.