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 | ** |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 97 | 0.97 |
Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 6 | 0.89 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.89 |
The Gate | 8 | 0.89 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 38 | 0.88 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 4 | 0.87 |
Narcissus' last stand | 23 | 0.84 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 67 | 0.84 |
Cartoons of Shock | 9 | 0.84 |
Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 10 | 0.82 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.80 |
Labyrinthine LIMIT | 20 | 0.79 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 25 | 0.79 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 13 | 0.77 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 5 | 0.75 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 6 | 0.75 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 43 | 0.75 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 26 | 0.74 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 43 | 0.72 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 10 | 0.72 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 41 | 0.72 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 32 | 0.71 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 27 | 0.70 |
The Test To End All Tests | 26 | 0.69 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 10 | 0.69 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.68 |
A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 15 | 0.66 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 49 | 0.66 |
The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.65 |
Associative LIMIT | 35 | 0.64 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 39 | 0.63 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 41 | 0.63 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 28 | 0.62 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 66 | 0.61 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 40 | 0.61 |
Dicing with death | 17 | 0.61 |
Only idiots | 14 | 0.60 |
Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 12 | 0.60 |
The Smell Test | 11 | 0.59 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.57 |
The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 21 | 0.57 |
Genius Association Test | 35 | 0.56 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 8 | 0.56 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 20 | 0.55 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 99 | 0.55 |
The Nemesis Test | 25 | 0.52 |
The Final Test | 8 | 0.51 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 12 | 0.51 |
The Sargasso Test | 34 | 0.50 |
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.50 |
The Piper's Test | 18 | 0.48 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 13 | 0.47 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 42 | 0.46 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 12 | 0.46 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 39 | 0.43 |
Letters | 6 | 0.43 |
Miscellaneous tests | 24 | 0.39 |
Daedalus Test | 20 | 0.38 |
Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 9 | 0.36 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 5 | 0.35 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 32 | 0.35 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.34 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 13 | 0.32 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 29 | 0.32 |
Words | 6 | 0.26 |
Isis Test | 30 | 0.22 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 10 | 0.16 |
De Laatste Test - Herziening 2019 | 7 | 0.11 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 12 | 0.07 |
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 2016 | 5 | -0.15 |
Tests by Theodosis Prousalis (aggregate) | 6 | -0.17 |
De Golfstroomtest - Herziening 2019 | 6 | -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
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 Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 244 | 0.74 |
Numerical | 139 | 0.72 |
Spatial | 95 | 0.81 |
Logical | 63 | 0.74 |
Heterogeneous | 654 | 0.77 |
N = 1195
Balanced g loading = 0.75
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Romania | 3 | 20.0 |
Turkey | 3 | 19.0 |
United_Kingdom | 4 | 18.3 |
Canada | 3 | 17.0 |
China | 4 | 17.0 |
Japan | 3 | 17.0 |
Germany | 5 | 16.0 |
United_States | 27 | 16.0 |
Sweden | 4 | 15.0 |
Italy | 4 | 13.0 |
Korea_South | 4 | 10.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen, later Lynn and Becker:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Observed associative horizon | 4 | 0.54 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.45 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.43 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.39 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.35 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.33 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.30 |
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.27 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.26 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.25 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 19 | 0.19 |
Year of birth | 99 | 0.18 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.17 |
Observed behaviour | 17 | 0.15 |
Educational level | 88 | 0.13 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.12 |
Sex | 100 | 0.11 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 23 | 0.09 |
Father's educational level | 82 | 0.08 |
Mother's educational level | 83 | -0.04 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 87 | -0.04 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.05 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.05 |
Disorders (own) | 90 | -0.20 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 23 | -0.35 |
Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 10 | -0.56 |
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) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 19.0 |
65 to 69 | 4 | 10.8 |
60 to 64 | 1 | 13.0 |
55 to 59 | 4 | 15.8 |
50 to 54 | 3 | 14.0 |
45 to 49 | 7 | 17.0 |
40 to 44 | 7 | 19.0 |
35 to 39 | 17 | 16.0 |
30 to 34 | 11 | 16.5 |
25 to 29 | 16 | 17.0 |
22 to 24 | 13 | 18.0 |
20 or 21 | 5 | 17.0 |
18 or 19 | 7 | 16.0 |
17 | 2 | 10.0 |
16 | 1 | 17.0 |
N = 99
Year taken | n | median score | protonorm |
---|---|---|---|
2016 | 9 | 16.5 | 416 |
2017 | 6 | 12.0 | 357 |
2018 | 6 | 15.5 | 402 |
2019 | 13 | 15.0 | 393 |
2020 | 19 | 15.0 | 393 |
2021 | 13 | 18.0 | 446 |
2022 | 12 | 16.0 | 410 |
2023 | 7 | 17.0 | 422 |
2024 | 15 | 19.0 | 476 |
N = 100
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.