Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 statistics

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 as of 17 September 2019

Contents type: Spatial.   Period: 2016-present

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

Correlation of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(21) Psychometric Qrosswords31.00
(47) Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism31.00
(33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree31.00
(113) The Piper's Test30.99
(107) The Alchemist Test40.99
(112) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016280.97
(37) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree50.96
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 201680.96
(36) Reflections In Peroxide80.95
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace30.93
(48) Narcissus' last stand70.92
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201060.91
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test130.88
(110) Cooijmans Intelligence Test 580.87
(1) Cartoons of Shock50.87
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment120.86
(45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test60.84
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3130.84
(111) Test For Genius - Revision 2016200.83
(104) The Final Test - Revision 201350.82
(103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree80.80
(28) The Test To End All Tests80.80
(117) The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201350.80
(42) The Marathon Test50.79
(0) Test of the Beheaded Man70.79
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test60.78
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test70.78
(46) Labyrinthine LIMIT50.78
(18) The Nemesis Test80.76
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 490.74
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 200440.68
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test70.68
(44) Associative LIMIT100.67
(4) A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude70.63
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200460.62
(24) Reason - Revision 2008120.61
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008130.61
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201040.61
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010300.58
(12) Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version70.56
(108) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016200.47
(25) The Sargasso Test70.47
(5) Daedalus Test70.45
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 200470.38
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5120.36
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 201160.30
(15) Letters30.30
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words30.23
(7) The Final Test60.18
(29) Words30.17
(10) Genius Association Test110.14

Weighted average of correlations: 0.700 (weighted sum: 291.20)

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.84

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.

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

(Test index) Test name n r
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I40.92
(240) Strict Logic Spatial Exam 4840.76
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests100.42

Weighted average of correlations: 0.606 (weighted sum: 10.91)

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.

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.

Typeg loading of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 on that type
Verbal0.67
Numerical0.79
Spatial0.88
Logical0.74
Heterogeneous0.88

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

Balanced g loading = 0.79

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

Country n median score
Greece216.5
Italy215.5
United_States614.5
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
P.S.I.A. Rational31.00
P.S.I.A. Rare30.99
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms50.81
P.S.I.A. Neurotic30.80
Year of birth300.38
P.S.I.A. Orderly30.34
Sex290.31
Observed behaviour80.30
P.S.I.A. Cold30.28
P.S.I.A. System factor40.27
P.S.I.A. Just30.21
P.S.I.A. True30.18
P.S.I.A. Cruel30.13
Mother's educational level220.12
Father's educational level220.10
Educational level230.07
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor40.07
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid30.04
P.S.I.A. Antisocial3-0.30
P.S.I.A. Introverted3-0.32
Disorders (parents and siblings)22-0.36
Disorders (own)23-0.41
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor4-0.53
P.S.I.A. Extreme3-0.68

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)
00.84 (416)NaN (0)
12.80.64 (293)0.91 (45)
15.30.37 (139)0.83 (219)
17.80.54 (56)0.85 (295)
24NaN (0)0.84 (416)

Reliability

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.

Error

Scores by age

Age class n median score
65 to 6927.0
55 to 59117.0
50 to 54210.0
45 to 4936.0
40 to 44219.5
35 to 39915.0
30 to 34317.0
25 to 29314.0
20 or 21117.0
18 or 19216.5
17114.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score
2016916.5
2017612.0
2018615.5
2019915.0

ryear taken × median score = -0.07 (n = 30)

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. This test has undergone several revisions since its inception and contains no bad items.