Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 statistics

© Paul Cooijmans

Scores on Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 as of 30 November 2024

Contents type: Spatial.   Period: 2016-present

0 **
3 *
4 **
5 *
6 ****
7 **
8 ***
9 *
10.5 *
11 ****
12 ****
13 ****
14 ******
14.5 *
15 *****
15.5 **
16 **********
16.5 *
17 ************
18 *********
18.5 *
19 ********
19.5 **
20 ******
21 ***
21.5 ***
22 **

Correlation of Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 with other mental ability tests

Test name n r
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016970.97
Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test60.89
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010110.89
The Gate80.89
Reflections In Peroxide380.88
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström)40.87
Narcissus' last stand230.84
Test For Genius - Revision 2016670.84
Cartoons of Shock90.84
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick)100.82
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 201370.80
Labyrinthine LIMIT200.79
Test of the Beheaded Man250.79
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004130.77
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 250.75
Test For Genius - Revision 200460.75
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016430.75
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test260.74
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4430.72
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism100.72
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test410.72
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree320.71
Spatial section of The Marathon Test270.70
The Test To End All Tests260.69
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree100.69
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai)50.68
A Relaxing Test (David Miller)150.66
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3490.66
The Marathon Test180.65
Associative LIMIT350.64
Reason - Revision 2008390.63
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree410.63
Numerical section of The Marathon Test280.62
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016660.61
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008400.61
Dicing with death170.61
Only idiots140.60
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani)120.60
The Smell Test110.59
Test For Genius - Revision 201070.57
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini)210.57
Genius Association Test350.56
The Final Test - Revision 201380.56
Verbal section of The Marathon Test200.55
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010990.55
The Nemesis Test250.52
The Final Test80.51
Psychometric Qrosswords120.51
The Sargasso Test340.50
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve)40.50
The Piper's Test180.48
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version130.47
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5420.46
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004120.46
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5390.43
Letters60.43
Miscellaneous tests240.39
Daedalus Test200.38
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate)90.36
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato)50.35
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011320.35
The LAW - Letters And Words60.34
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate)130.32
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude290.32
Words60.26
Isis Test300.22
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales100.16
De Laatste Test - Herziening 201970.11
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai)120.07
Tests by Iakovos Koukas (aggregate)4-0.04
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai)6-0.05
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate)11-0.08
Tests by Alexi Edin (aggregate)4-0.15
Laaglandse Aanlegtest - Herziening 20165-0.15
Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate)6-0.17
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 20196-0.21
Logima Strictica 24 (Robert Lato)4-0.23
Tests by James Dorsey (aggregate)7-0.25
Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate)6-0.36
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw)6-0.48

Weighted average of correlations: 0.592 (N = 1668)

Estimated g factor loading: 0.77

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.

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
Verbal2440.74
Numerical1390.72
Spatial950.81
Logical630.74
Heterogeneous6540.77

N = 1195

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

Balanced g loading = 0.75

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

Country n median score
Romania320.0
Turkey319.0
United_Kingdom418.3
Canada317.0
China417.0
Japan317.0
Germany516.0
United_States2716.0
Sweden415.0
Italy413.0
Korea_South410.0

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.

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, later Lynn and Becker:

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

Personalia n r
Observed associative horizon40.54
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007230.45
PSIA True - Revision 2007230.43
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007230.39
PSIA Just - Revision 2007230.35
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007230.33
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007230.30
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007230.27
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007230.26
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007230.25
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms190.19
Year of birth990.18
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007230.17
Observed behaviour170.15
Educational level880.13
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007230.12
Sex1000.11
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007230.09
Father's educational level820.08
Mother's educational level83-0.04
Disorders (parents and siblings)87-0.04
PSIA Cruel - Revision 200723-0.05
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 200723-0.05
Disorders (own)90-0.20
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 200723-0.35
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes10-0.56

Estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges

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 (raw 12.5)0.66 (410)
Below median (raw 16.0)0.69 (906)
Above median (raw 16.0)0.49 (815)
Above 3rd quartile (raw 18.3)0.22 (408)

Reliability

Error

Scores by age

Age class n Median score
70 to 74119.0
65 to 69410.8
60 to 64113.0
55 to 59415.8
50 to 54314.0
45 to 49717.0
40 to 44719.0
35 to 391716.0
30 to 341116.5
25 to 291617.0
22 to 241318.0
20 or 21517.0
18 or 19716.0
17210.0
16117.0

N = 99

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median scoreprotonorm
2016916.5416
2017612.0357
2018615.5402
20191315.0393
20201915.0393
20211318.0446
20221216.0410
2023717.0422
20241519.0476

N = 100

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

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.