These scores are a sum of one's scores on the Spatial Insight Test (weighted by 6) and Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 (in a few cases Q.M.C. #3 was used, in one case Q.M.C. #5). This provides some candidates with a heterogeneous test score who would otherwise not have one, and thus increases the number of scores that can be used in meta-reports that use only heterogeneous scores, such as the norming of the protonorm table.
Contents type: Verbal, spatial. Period: 2003-2008
| 19 | * |
| 55 | * |
| 90 | * |
| 101 | * |
| 103 | * |
| 104 | * |
| 110 | * |
| 116 | * |
| 117 | * |
| 118 | * |
| 126 | * |
| 127 | * |
| 131 | * |
| 132 | ** |
| 144 | * |
| 148 | * |
| 152 | * |
| 162 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 5 | 0.99 | 0.05 |
| Long Test For Genius | 4 | 0.98 | 0.09 |
| Spatial Insight Test | 19 | 0.97 | 0.00004 |
| The Nemesis Test | 3 | 0.94 | 0.18 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 5 | 0.94 | 0.06 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.93 | 0.06 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 14 | 0.93 | 0.0009 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.90 | 0.07 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test | 3 | 0.88 | 0.22 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 6 | 0.87 | 0.05 |
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 3 | 0.84 | 0.25 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 6 | 0.83 | 0.06 |
| Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 6 | 0.80 | 0.08 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 3 | 0.80 | 0.26 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 5 | 0.79 | 0.12 |
| The Final Test | 9 | 0.79 | 0.03 |
| Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 3 | 0.78 | 0.27 |
| Numerical Insight Test | 6 | 0.75 | 0.10 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 6 | 0.74 | 0.10 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 10 | 0.69 | 0.04 |
| The Sargasso Test | 4 | 0.69 | 0.24 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 10 | 0.69 | 0.04 |
| Daedalus Test | 3 | 0.67 | 0.34 |
| Odds | 3 | 0.67 | 0.36 |
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 5 | 0.65 | 0.19 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 7 | 0.63 | 0.12 |
| Associative LIMIT | 8 | 0.52 | 0.17 |
| Numbers | 5 | 0.48 | 0.34 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 9 | 0.48 | 0.17 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 8 | 0.47 | 0.22 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 5 | 0.44 | 0.38 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 6 | 0.44 | 0.34 |
| Genius Association Test | 8 | 0.43 | 0.26 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 3 | 0.40 | 0.57 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 6 | 0.33 | 0.46 |
| Reason | 10 | 0.30 | 0.37 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.28 | 0.48 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.26 | 0.52 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.22 | 0.60 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 6 | -0.04 | 0.94 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 4 | -0.41 | 0.48 |
| Bonsai Test | 4 | -0.75 | 0.19 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.615 (N = 265)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.78
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 3 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 Retro-actively constructed heterogeneous test 6SIT+QMC4 on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 67 | 0.84 |
| Numerical | 25 | 0.75 |
| Spatial | 54 | 0.88 |
| Logical | 22 | 0.58 |
| Heterogeneous | 49 | 0.80 |
N = 217
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.77
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| United_States | 3 | 132.0 |
| Finland | 3 | 110.0 |
| Sweden | 3 | 103.0 |
Total number of countries: 12
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.
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Educational level | 18 | 0.34 | 0.16 |
| Father's educational level | 17 | 0.14 | 0.57 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 5 | 0.09 | 0.84 |
| Sex | 19 | -0.12 | 0.62 |
| Mother's educational level | 17 | -0.18 | 0.48 |
| Disorders (own) | 18 | -0.24 | 0.32 |
| Year of birth | 19 | -0.41 | 0.08 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 18 | -0.47 | 0.05 |
| Observed behaviour | 4 | -0.71 | 0.22 |
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 (103.0) | 0.37 (N = 58) |
|---|---|
| Below median (118.0) | 0.72 (N = 144) |
| Above median (118.0) | 0.50 (N = 125) |
| Above 3rd quartile (132.0) | 0.62 (N = 81) |
These are computed from statistics like subtest reliabilities, subtest variances, and total test variance.
Standard error = 10.0 raw score points
Ideal values for correlations between subtests are around .5, thus being a compromise between the test's ability to yield a "profile" and its ability to provide an indication of general intelligence. With a too high correlation (like .8 or higher) the subtests measure basically the same so there is almost no profile information in them, with a too low correlation (like .2 or lower) the subtests are so different that there is little point in combining them into a measure of general intelligence.
For the correlations of the subtests with total score, see the correlations table above in this report. For statistics per subtest, see the statistical reports of the pertinent subtests.