0 | *** |
1 | ***** |
2 | * |
3 | * |
4 | ****** |
5 | ******** |
6 | ****************** |
7 | ******* |
8 | ******** |
9 | *** |
10 | ** |
11 | ** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 4 | 0.94 |
Cartoons of Shock | 7 | 0.94 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 8 | 0.92 |
Narcissus' last stand | 35 | 0.92 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 5 | 0.90 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 7 | 0.90 |
The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.89 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 21 | 0.88 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 5 | 0.87 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 25 | 0.87 |
Associative LIMIT | 20 | 0.86 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 30 | 0.86 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 31 | 0.84 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 28 | 0.84 |
Letters | 4 | 0.84 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 19 | 0.84 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 11 | 0.84 |
The Alchemist Test | 23 | 0.83 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 13 | 0.83 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 29 | 0.83 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.82 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 4 | 0.82 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 5 | 0.82 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 27 | 0.82 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 11 | 0.81 |
Divine Psychometry | 12 | 0.81 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 17 | 0.81 |
Words | 4 | 0.80 |
The Smell Test | 9 | 0.79 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 28 | 0.79 |
The Final Test | 8 | 0.77 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 32 | 0.76 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 14 | 0.76 |
Random Feickery | 9 | 0.75 |
The Test To End All Tests | 35 | 0.74 |
The Piper's Test | 20 | 0.73 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 36 | 0.72 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 28 | 0.72 |
Genius Association Test | 22 | 0.71 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.71 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 11 | 0.71 |
A Relaxing Test | 10 | 0.69 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 15 | 0.69 |
Only idiots | 11 | 0.67 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 21 | 0.67 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 29 | 0.67 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 12 | 0.66 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 38 | 0.66 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 28 | 0.66 |
The Sargasso Test | 30 | 0.63 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 38 | 0.63 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.62 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 27 | 0.61 |
Numbers | 5 | 0.61 |
The Nemesis Test | 27 | 0.61 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 5 | 0.58 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 27 | 0.56 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 38 | 0.56 |
Dicing with death | 16 | 0.56 |
Miscellaneous tests | 22 | 0.56 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 30 | 0.51 |
Isis Test | 30 | 0.51 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 39 | 0.50 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 8 | 0.49 |
Daedalus Test | 19 | 0.47 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 6 | 0.36 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 6 | 0.35 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 10 | 0.34 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 4 | 0.22 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.19 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 10 | 0.16 |
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 2016 | 5 | 0.04 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 6 | -0.04 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 6 | -0.10 |
Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate) | 4 | -0.18 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.689 (N = 1279)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.83
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 Reflections In Peroxide on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 196 | 0.82 |
Numerical | 80 | 0.81 |
Spatial | 108 | 0.90 |
Logical | 57 | 0.77 |
Heterogeneous | 523 | 0.81 |
N = 964
Balanced g loading = 0.82
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Spain | 4 | 8.0 |
United_States | 17 | 7.0 |
China | 3 | 6.0 |
Germany | 5 | 6.0 |
Greece | 3 | 6.0 |
Japan | 3 | 6.0 |
Korea_South | 4 | 5.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.59 |
Observed associative horizon | 5 | 0.54 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.51 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.43 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.32 |
Observed behaviour | 15 | 0.30 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.29 |
Sex | 63 | 0.23 |
Educational level | 59 | 0.21 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.17 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.13 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.06 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.05 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.04 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 20 | 0.00 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.00 |
Father's educational level | 55 | -0.01 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 17 | -0.04 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.05 |
Year of birth | 63 | -0.06 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 58 | -0.10 |
Disorders (own) | 60 | -0.13 |
Mother's educational level | 56 | -0.14 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.18 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 20 | -0.23 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 13 | -0.27 |
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 | 0.75 (293) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.81 (855) |
Above median | 0.61 (812) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.48 (389) |
The brevity of this test (18 items) depresses its reliability, together with the fact that most of the raw scores are concentrated in a fairly narrow range, which makes the test behave like an even shorter test. Because of this, the test is now withdrawn as a standalone test and will only be available as a subtest of Narcissus' last stand. For a standalone test, a reliability of .9 or higher is striven for. Of course, if one has ordered this test in the past and not yet taken it, one may still send answers and it will be scored in its own right.
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 3 | 6.0 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 6.0 |
55 to 59 | 2 | 6.5 |
50 to 54 | 3 | 6.0 |
45 to 49 | 3 | 6.0 |
40 to 44 | 6 | 8.0 |
35 to 39 | 7 | 7.0 |
30 to 34 | 6 | 6.0 |
25 to 29 | 12 | 5.5 |
22 to 24 | 11 | 7.0 |
20 or 21 | 5 | 6.0 |
18 or 19 | 1 | 5.0 |
17 | 2 | 4.5 |
16 | 1 | 6.0 |
N = 63
Year taken | n | median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2010 | 2 | 7.0 | 449 |
2011 | 2 | 6.0 | 410 |
2012 | 2 | 8.0 | 482 |
2013 | 3 | 1.0 | 307 |
2014 | 2 | 4.0 | 350 |
2015 | 1 | 6.0 | 410 |
2016 | 2 | 5.5 | 390 |
2017 | 4 | 5.5 | 390 |
2019 | 2 | 6.5 | 430 |
2020 | 7 | 6.0 | 410 |
2021 | 11 | 6.0 | 410 |
2022 | 12 | 6.0 | 410 |
2023 | 13 | 6.0 | 410 |
2024 | 1 | 6.0 | 410 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.11 (N = 64)
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.