Contents type: Numerical, spatial. Period: 2010-present
0 | * |
1 | **** |
3 | * |
4 | *** |
5 | * |
6 | ******* |
7 | *** |
8 | *** |
10 | * |
11 | * |
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(105) Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 13 | 0.95 |
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.95 |
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 6 | 0.93 |
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 8 | 0.93 |
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT | 4 | 0.93 |
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.92 |
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 13 | 0.91 |
(48) Narcissus' last stand | 22 | 0.91 |
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 14 | 0.90 |
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 6 | 0.90 |
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.89 |
(42) The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.89 |
(113) The Piper's Test | 4 | 0.89 |
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 7 | 0.89 |
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 7 | 0.88 |
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 12 | 0.87 |
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.86 |
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.86 |
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.85 |
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.85 |
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 11 | 0.84 |
(44) Associative LIMIT | 9 | 0.83 |
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords | 7 | 0.82 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 11 | 0.82 |
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 11 | 0.81 |
(68) Numbers | 4 | 0.81 |
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 12 | 0.80 |
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 12 | 0.80 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 16 | 0.80 |
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 7 | 0.79 |
(107) The Alchemist Test | 7 | 0.79 |
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 11 | 0.75 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 11 | 0.73 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.72 |
(114) Dicing with death | 4 | 0.71 |
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 12 | 0.70 |
(104) The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.70 |
(18) The Nemesis Test | 11 | 0.70 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 16 | 0.70 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 22 | 0.68 |
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 17 | 0.66 |
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.65 |
(7) The Final Test | 7 | 0.65 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 12 | 0.65 |
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 12 | 0.59 |
(11) Isis Test | 16 | 0.53 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 17 | 0.52 |
(80) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 5 | 0.49 |
(5) Daedalus Test | 10 | 0.46 |
(25) The Sargasso Test | 13 | 0.45 |
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 9 | 0.44 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.762 (N = 548, weighted sum = 417.65)
Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.87
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.
(Test index) Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(239) Titan Test | 5 | 0.90 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 11 | 0.47 |
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 4 | 0.33 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.550 (N = 20, weighted sum = 11.01)
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.
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 Reflections In Peroxide on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 111 | 0.82 |
Numerical | 33 | 0.86 |
Spatial | 50 | 0.94 |
Logical | 26 | 0.78 |
Heterogeneous | 182 | 0.85 |
N = 402
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.85
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Greece | 2 | 6.5 |
Canada | 2 | 6.0 |
United_States | 9 | 6.0 |
Japan | 2 | 4.5 |
Germany | 2 | 3.5 |
For reasons of privacy, only countries with 2 or more candidates are included in this table. Ranking is based on the medians, and then alphabetic.
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Educational level | 24 | 0.36 |
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.34 |
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.33 |
Sex | 25 | 0.31 |
Mother's educational level | 22 | 0.30 |
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.27 |
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.27 |
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.16 |
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.14 |
Observed behaviour | 8 | 0.12 |
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.09 |
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 2007 | 9 | 0.04 |
Father's educational level | 22 | 0.02 |
Year of birth | 25 | -0.02 |
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.05 |
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.07 |
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.11 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 9 | -0.13 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 4 | -0.17 |
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.18 |
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.22 |
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.27 |
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 2007 | 9 | -0.29 |
Disorders (own) | 23 | -0.31 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 23 | -0.41 |
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 | 0.87 (548) | NaN (0) |
6 | 0.60 (310) | 0.86 (347) |
18 | NaN (0) | 0.87 (548) |
The brevity of this test (18 items) depresses its reliability.
Age class | n | median score |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 1 | 7.0 |
50 to 54 | 1 | 1.0 |
45 to 49 | 1 | 8.0 |
40 to 44 | 2 | 5.0 |
35 to 39 | 3 | 4.0 |
30 to 34 | 2 | 7.0 |
25 to 29 | 6 | 5.0 |
22 to 24 | 5 | 5.0 |
20 or 21 | 3 | 6.0 |
17 | 1 | 6.0 |
N = 25
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
2010 | 2 | 7.0 |
2011 | 2 | 6.5 |
2012 | 2 | 8.0 |
2013 | 3 | 1.0 |
2014 | 2 | 4.0 |
2015 | 1 | 6.0 |
2016 | 2 | 6.0 |
2017 | 4 | 5.5 |
2019 | 2 | 7.0 |
2020 | 5 | 6.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.02 (N = 25)
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. This test has not received enough submissions yet for meaningful item analysis.