Contents type: Verbal, numerical, spatial. Period: 2010-present
| 0 | * |
| 11 | * |
| 15 | * |
| 16 | * |
| 18 | * |
| 21 | *** |
| 23 | ** |
| 24 | *** |
| 26 | *** |
| 27 | * |
| 28.5 | * |
| 30 | * |
| 32 | ** |
| 34 | ** |
| 35 | ** |
| 36 | * |
| 37 | * |
| 39 | ** |
| 40 | * |
Remark: The statistics of this test suffer from a lack of high scores; this can be inferred objectively from the fact that the hardness (.70) is greater than the sample-independent hardness (.62). This means that the group of candidates who took the test so far have scored lower than a representative sample of high-range candidates would have.
| (Test index) Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| (48) Narcissus' last stand | 4 | 1.00 |
| (0) Test of the Beheaded Man | 4 | 0.96 |
| (36) Reflections In Peroxide | 4 | 0.95 |
| (42) The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.93 |
| (28) The Test To End All Tests | 5 | 0.91 |
| (30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.90 |
| (103) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 6 | 0.89 |
| (2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 13 | 0.87 |
| (35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment | 8 | 0.87 |
| (31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.85 |
| (32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 6 | 0.83 |
| (23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 10 | 0.83 |
| (45) Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 5 | 0.83 |
| (39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 29 | 0.80 |
| (26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 30 | 0.80 |
| (44) Associative LIMIT | 12 | 0.79 |
| (27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 29 | 0.75 |
| (18) The Nemesis Test | 6 | 0.73 |
| (10) Genius Association Test | 13 | 0.71 |
| (16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 14 | 0.67 |
| (1) Cartoons of Shock | 9 | 0.67 |
| (7) The Final Test | 4 | 0.62 |
| (19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 30 | 0.60 |
| (40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 8 | 0.57 |
| (25) The Sargasso Test | 6 | 0.56 |
| (33) Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.47 |
| (24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 8 | 0.41 |
| (3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 8 | 0.38 |
| (106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 9 | 0.29 |
| (11) Isis Test | 5 | 0.22 |
| (41) The LAW - Letters And Words | 4 | 0.20 |
| (12) Cooijmans On-Line Test (Two-barrelled) | 5 | -0.07 |
| (15) Letters | 4 | -0.31 |
| (29) Words | 5 | -0.73 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.667
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.
| (Test index) Test name | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| (242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 10 | 0.45 |
| (234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I | 5 | 0.32 |
| (246) Sequentia Numerica Form I | 4 | -0.14 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.292
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 | g loading of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 on that type |
|---|---|
| Verbal | 0.75 |
| Numerical | 0.80 |
| Spatial | 0.86 |
| Logical | 0.64 |
| Heterogeneous | 0.80 |
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.77
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 3 | 35.0 |
| United_States | 7 | 26.0 |
| Germany | 4 | 25.8 |
| Italy | 2 | 21.0 |
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 of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
| Personalia | n | r |
|---|---|---|
| Observed behaviour | 3 | 0.80 |
| P.S.I.A. Extreme | 5 | 0.62 |
| P.S.I.A. True | 5 | 0.57 |
| P.S.I.A. Ethics factor | 7 | 0.50 |
| P.S.I.A. Deviance factor | 7 | 0.44 |
| P.S.I.A. Introverted | 5 | 0.36 |
| Educational level | 27 | 0.36 |
| P.S.I.A. Neurotic | 5 | 0.30 |
| P.S.I.A. Orderly | 5 | 0.26 |
| Mother's educational level | 26 | 0.10 |
| Father's educational level | 25 | 0.01 |
| P.S.I.A. Aspergoid | 5 | -0.03 |
| Sex | 30 | -0.04 |
| Year of birth | 30 | -0.13 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 27 | -0.13 |
| P.S.I.A. Rare | 5 | -0.15 |
| P.S.I.A. Antisocial | 5 | -0.18 |
| P.S.I.A. Rational | 5 | -0.19 |
| P.S.I.A. Cold | 5 | -0.23 |
| Candidate's self-estimated I.Q. | 9 | -0.25 |
| Disorders (own) | 28 | -0.27 |
| P.S.I.A. System factor | 7 | -0.48 |
| P.S.I.A. Just | 5 | -0.52 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 4 | -0.66 |
| P.S.I.A. Cruel | 5 | -0.74 |
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 | 0.82 (325) | NaN (0) |
| 19.5 | 0.69 (264) | 0.95 (18) |
| 26 | 0.66 (119) | 0.81 (156) |
| 32.5 | 0.49 (44) | 0.77 (227) |
| 40 | NaN (0) | 0.82 (325) |
Statistics like reliability, error of measurement, robustness, scores by age, or scores by year taken are in the reports of the subtests of the Test For Genius — Revision 2010, which are (when available) Verbal section of Test For Genius — Revision 2004, Numerical section of Test For Genius — Revision 2010, and Spatial section of Test For Genius — Revision 2004.
From the subtest statistics available to date (partly unpublished yet) the following values for reliability and robustness can be inferred: