1 | * |
4 | * |
6 | * |
15 | * |
24 | * |
27 | * |
28 | ** |
46 | * |
47 | * |
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 | * |
91 | ** |
92 | *** |
93 | ** |
94 | ** |
95 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(82) Reason | 11 | 0.89 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 26 | 0.84 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 96 | 0.84 |
(118) Divine Psychometry | 4 | 0.79 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 18 | 0.75 |
(36) Reflections In Peroxide | 24 | 0.74 |
(29) Words | 8 | 0.71 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 10 | 0.70 |
(49) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 4 | 0.69 |
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 25 | 0.68 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 22 | 0.67 |
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 8 | 0.67 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 24 | 0.66 |
(114) Dicing with death | 10 | 0.63 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.63 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 22 | 0.63 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 21 | 0.62 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 9 | 0.61 |
(84) Bonsai Test | 5 | 0.61 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 30 | 0.59 |
(7) The Final Test | 17 | 0.59 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.57 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 16 | 0.56 |
(68) Numbers | 7 | 0.55 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.55 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 32 | 0.54 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 12 | 0.53 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 13 | 0.53 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 33 | 0.53 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 10 | 0.52 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 38 | 0.51 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 24 | 0.51 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 37 | 0.49 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 21 | 0.48 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 34 | 0.48 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 97 | 0.47 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 7 | 0.46 |
(87) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 10 | 0.45 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.44 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 25 | 0.41 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 33 | 0.41 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 12 | 0.41 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 35 | 0.40 |
(62) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 10 | 0.40 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.40 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 20 | 0.39 |
(54) Test of Shock and Awe | 5 | 0.37 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 29 | 0.35 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 22 | 0.33 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 15 | 0.32 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 19 | 0.31 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 22 | 0.31 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 28 | 0.30 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 21 | 0.29 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 13 | 0.27 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 16 | 0.27 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 41 | 0.24 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 21 | 0.24 |
(15) Letters | 9 | 0.19 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 15 | 0.15 |
(53) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 7 | 0.12 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.11 |
(116) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 10 | 0.11 |
(11) Isis Test | 36 | 0.09 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 7 | 0.08 |
(55) Spatial Insight Test | 5 | 0.06 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 14 | 0.05 |
(83) KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 4 | -0.06 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | -0.08 |
(86) Evens | 4 | -0.45 |
(69) Odds | 4 | -0.74 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.476 (N = 1369, weighted sum = 652.01)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.69
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests | 5 | 0.94 |
(239) Titan Test | 7 | 0.91 |
(238) 916 Test | 8 | 0.50 |
(218) Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 4 | 0.50 |
(217) G-test | 4 | 0.48 |
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination | 6 | 0.35 |
(223) Strict Logic Sequences Exam II | 6 | 0.27 |
(211) Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version | 5 | 0.26 |
(225) Logima Strictica 36 | 10 | 0.24 |
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam | 9 | 0.16 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 44 | 0.12 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 18 | 0.04 |
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 | 9 | -0.05 |
(246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 4 | -0.60 |
(201) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 6 | -0.62 |
(220) Cattell Culture Fair | 5 | -0.94 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.149 (N = 150, weighted sum = 22.37)
Please be aware that correlations with these external tests are in most cases affected (depressed, typically) by one or more of the following: (1) Little overlap with the object test because of the much lower ceilings and inherent ceiling effects of the tests used in regular psychology; (2) Candidates reporting scores selectively, for instance only the higher ones while withholding lower ones; (3) Candidates reporting, or having been reported by psychometricians, incorrect scores.
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 | 316 | 0.66 |
Numerical | 73 | 0.52 |
Spatial | 124 | 0.71 |
Logical | 26 | 0.68 |
Heterogeneous | 477 | 0.67 |
N = 1016
Balanced g loading = 0.65
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Korea_South | 5 | 88.0 |
China | 5 | 86.0 |
Portugal | 2 | 85.5 |
Germany | 5 | 84.0 |
United_States | 25 | 84.0 |
Spain | 5 | 80.0 |
Sweden | 3 | 80.0 |
Romania | 2 | 79.5 |
South_Africa | 2 | 79.5 |
Finland | 5 | 79.0 |
Canada | 4 | 78.5 |
Bulgaria | 2 | 73.5 |
Greece | 9 | 72.0 |
United_Kingdom | 5 | 70.0 |
India | 2 | 55.5 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.46 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 13 | 0.34 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.17 |
Mother's educational level | 94 | 0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.16 |
Observed behaviour | 26 | 0.13 |
Father's educational level | 90 | 0.11 |
Year of birth | 99 | 0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.07 |
Sex | 100 | 0.06 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 28 | 0.04 |
Educational level | 96 | 0.02 |
Disorders (own) | 95 | 0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.01 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 95 | -0.04 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.08 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.10 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.11 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.16 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.23 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.24 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.26 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.29 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 21 | -0.31 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.32 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 28 | -0.32 |
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 both values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
Raw score | Upward g (N) | Downward g (N) |
---|---|---|
0 | 0.69 (1369) | NaN (0) |
20 | 0.65 (1309) | 0.73 (8) |
30 | 0.55 (1198) | 0.65 (77) |
40 | 0.55 (1198) | 0.65 (77) |
50 | 0.51 (1151) | 0.54 (120) |
60 | 0.49 (1097) | 0.64 (190) |
70 | 0.43 (977) | 0.62 (319) |
80 | 0.38 (604) | 0.72 (759) |
90 | 0.53 (86) | 0.68 (1179) |
92 | 0.62 (69) | 0.68 (1305) |
96 | NaN (0) | 0.69 (1369) |
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 | 5 | 82.0 |
45 to 49 | 10 | 74.0 |
40 to 44 | 9 | 80.0 |
35 to 39 | 8 | 80.0 |
30 to 34 | 14 | 84.0 |
25 to 29 | 23 | 75.0 |
22 to 24 | 14 | 85.0 |
20 or 21 | 5 | 78.0 |
18 or 19 | 4 | 75.0 |
17 | 3 | 69.0 |
N = 100
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2008 | 7 | 87.0 |
2009 | 8 | 65.5 |
2010 | 10 | 84.0 |
2011 | 7 | 79.0 |
2012 | 5 | 72.0 |
2013 | 7 | 87.0 |
2014 | 5 | 73.0 |
2015 | 3 | 78.0 |
2016 | 10 | 76.5 |
2017 | 8 | 75.0 |
2018 | 6 | 77.0 |
2019 | 7 | 80.0 |
2020 | 9 | 82.0 |
2021 | 7 | 80.0 |
2022 | 1 | 91.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.25 (N = 100)
Item statistics are not published as that would help future candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are removed or revised, resulting in a revised version of the test.