Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 statistics

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 as of 7 March 2020

Contents type: Spatial.   Period: 2016-present

0 *
3 *
4 *
5 *
6 ***
11 *
12 *
13 **
14 ****
14.5 *
15 **
15.5 *
16 ***
16.5 *
17 *****
18 **
19 **
20 **
21 *
21.5 *

Correlation of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 with other tests by I.Q. Tests for the High Range

(Test index) Test name n r
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism41.00
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016340.96
(36) Reflections In Peroxide100.95
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016110.93
(48) Narcissus' last stand80.90
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords40.90
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201080.87
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree70.86
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment130.86
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test170.84
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test80.83
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016260.81
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree100.81
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201370.80
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man80.79
(1) Cartoons of Shock60.78
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT50.78
(28) The Test To End All Tests90.77
(18) The Nemesis Test80.76
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5100.76
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3190.75
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test80.74
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test90.73
(107) The Alchemist Test50.73
(42) The Marathon Test70.72
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test90.71
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 200440.68
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4120.67
(44) Associative LIMIT140.63
(24) Reason - Revision 2008140.62
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200480.62
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude90.62
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008150.60
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201370.57
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201060.56
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version90.56
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010360.50
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016260.46
(5) Daedalus Test80.44
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200490.42
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5140.32
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011100.31
(25) The Sargasso Test100.26
(7) The Final Test60.18
(10) Genius Association Test150.17

Weighted average of correlations: 0.668 (N = 502, weighted sum = 335.46)

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.82

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.

Correlation of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 4840.76
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests110.49
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I5-0.48

Weighted average of correlations: 0.302 (N = 20, weighted sum = 6.03)

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.

Estimated loadings of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 on particular item types

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.

Typeng loading of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 on that type
Verbal980.67
Numerical450.73
Spatial340.87
Logical220.74
Heterogeneous1440.84

N = 343

Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.

Balanced g loading = 0.77

National medians for Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016

Country n median score
Greece216.5
United_States1116.0
Italy215.5
Sweden314.0
United_Kingdom212.0

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 with national I.Q.'s of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

Correlation of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 with personal details

Personalia n r
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms70.51
Year of birth360.35
P.S.I.A. Neurotic - Revision 200770.35
P.S.I.A. Rational - Revision 200770.34
Observed behaviour80.30
Sex360.25
P.S.I.A. Cold - Revision 200770.18
P.S.I.A. System factor - Revision 200770.18
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid - Revision 200770.17
P.S.I.A. Cruel - Revision 200770.17
P.S.I.A. Just - Revision 200770.16
P.S.I.A. Orderly - Revision 200770.16
Mother's educational level280.16
P.S.I.A. True - Revision 200770.14
P.S.I.A. Introverted - Revision 200770.13
Educational level290.12
Father's educational level280.12
P.S.I.A. Rare - Revision 200770.10
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor - Revision 200770.00
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor - Revision 20077-0.05
P.S.I.A. Antisocial - Revision 20077-0.10
P.S.I.A. Extreme - Revision 20077-0.15
Disorders (parents and siblings)28-0.17
Disorders (own)29-0.23

Estimated g factor loadings upward and downward of particular scores

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 scoreUpward g (n)Downward g (n)
00.82 (502)NaN (0)
10.70.60 (391)0.81 (25)
130.58 (375)0.78 (104)
15.30.41 (149)0.85 (286)
17.60.61 (62)0.85 (369)
24NaN (0)0.82 (502)

Reliability

Error

This reliability is high for such a short test (which is only a subtest), and that is a result of the revisions undergone by the test, which have left it with only good items. The price for that is paid in the form of a lower hardness. It is observed more often that a high reliability does not necessarily make for a good test but comes at a price. It is a mistake to strive for high reliability as the only or primary indicator of test quality.

Scores by age

Age class n median score
65 to 6927.0
55 to 59215.8
50 to 54210.0
45 to 4936.0
40 to 44319.0
35 to 39915.0
30 to 34317.0
25 to 29616.0
22 to 24115.0
20 or 21217.0
18 or 19216.5
17114.0

N = 36

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2016916.5
2017612.0
2018615.5
20191315.0
2020211.5

ryear taken × median score = -0.50 (N = 36)

Robustness and overall test quality

The relatively low overall quality (Quality) results from (1) the low resolution, which in turn results from the brevity of the test, and (2) the fairly low hardness, which has to do with the revisions undergone by the test, which have resolved ambiguities and thus made it easier. It is a subtest, not a test in its own right, and it still functions well in that capacity.

The robustness of a test that has undergone multiple revisions is protected by restricting the group of candidates to those who have taken a maximum of one (1) of the prior versions. This prevents an inflation of scores, which would cause the norms to become too low for newer candidates.

Item analysis

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.