Contents type: Verbal. Period: 2004-2019
| 0 | *** |
| 2 | * |
| 3 | ** |
| 4 | * |
| 5 | **** |
| 6 | ***** |
| 7 | **** |
| 8 | ****** |
| 9 | ******* |
| 10 | **** |
| 11 | ******* |
| 12 | ******* |
| 13 | ***** |
| 13.5 | * |
| 14 | ******* |
| 15 | ****** |
| 16 | ********** |
| 17 | *** |
| 18 | ** |
| 19 | ****** |
| 19.5 | * |
| 20 | **** |
| 21 | ** |
| 22 | * |
| 23 | **** |
| 24 | **** |
| 25 | ** |
| 26 | ** |
| 27 | *** |
| 31 | * |
| 35 | * |
| 36 | * |
n = 113
| 0 | ** |
| 2 | * |
| 3 | ** |
| 4 | * |
| 5 | *** |
| 6 | ***** |
| 7 | **** |
| 8 | ****** |
| 9 | ******* |
| 10 | **** |
| 11 | ******* |
| 12 | ******* |
| 13 | ***** |
| 13.5 | * |
| 14 | ******* |
| 15 | ***** |
| 16 | ********* |
| 17 | *** |
| 18 | ** |
| 19 | ****** |
| 19.5 | * |
| 20 | **** |
| 21 | ** |
| 22 | * |
| 23 | **** |
| 24 | **** |
| 25 | ** |
| 26 | ** |
| 27 | *** |
| 31 | * |
| 35 | * |
| 36 | * |
n = 4
| 0 | * |
| 5 | * |
| 15 | * |
| 16 | * |
| Test name | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Association and Analogies (German) | 4 | 0.94 | 0.10 |
| A Relaxing Test (David Miller) | 6 | 0.91 | 0.04 |
| Divine Psychometry (Matthew Scillitani) | 4 | 0.88 | 0.12 |
| Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 6 | 0.87 | 0.05 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 39 | 0.86 | 0.0000001 |
| Narcissus' last stand | 13 | 0.86 | 0.003 |
| Random Feickery (Brandon Feick) | 4 | 0.86 | 0.14 |
| The Marathon Test | 16 | 0.83 | 0.001 |
| The Gate | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 4 | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| The Test To End All Tests | 27 | 0.83 | 0.00002 |
| Reflections In Peroxide | 13 | 0.83 | 0.004 |
| The Final Test | 26 | 0.81 | 0.00005 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 81 | 0.81 | 0.0000000000005 |
| The Alchemist Test (Anas El Husseini) | 11 | 0.80 | 0.01 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 22 | 0.80 | 0.0002 |
| Psychometric Qrosswords | 10 | 0.79 | 0.02 |
| Associative LIMIT | 32 | 0.78 | 0.00001 |
| Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.78 | 0.004 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 18 | 0.78 | 0.001 |
| Test of the Beheaded Man | 19 | 0.77 | 0.001 |
| Dicing with death | 8 | 0.76 | 0.05 |
| Gliaweb Recycled Intelligence Test | 4 | 0.75 | 0.19 |
| Genius Association Test | 42 | 0.75 | 0.000002 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 38 | 0.75 | 0.000006 |
| Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.74 | 0.003 |
| Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 15 | 0.74 | 0.006 |
| The LAW - Letters And Words | 8 | 0.73 | 0.05 |
| Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.73 | 0.02 |
| The Nemesis Test | 19 | 0.73 | 0.002 |
| The Smell Test | 6 | 0.73 | 0.10 |
| Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 14 | 0.72 | 0.01 |
| Letters | 9 | 0.72 | 0.04 |
| European I.Q. Test | 5 | 0.71 | 0.15 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 (batch scored by Paul Cooijmans) | 4 | 0.71 | 0.22 |
| Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.69 | 0.02 |
| Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 12 | 0.68 | 0.03 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 12 | 0.67 | 0.03 |
| Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 18 | 0.67 | 0.006 |
| Cartoons of Shock | 27 | 0.67 | 0.0006 |
| Tests by Nikolaos Soulios (aggregate) | 8 | 0.66 | 0.08 |
| Tests by Mislav Predavec (aggregate) | 7 | 0.65 | 0.11 |
| Long Test For Genius | 14 | 0.65 | 0.02 |
| Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 16 | 0.64 | 0.01 |
| 916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 10 | 0.63 | 0.06 |
| Words | 10 | 0.62 | 0.06 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 30 | 0.62 | 0.0009 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 32 | 0.60 | 0.0008 |
| Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 24 | 0.60 | 0.004 |
| Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 6 | 0.59 | 0.18 |
| Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 10 | 0.59 | 0.08 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test | 5 | 0.58 | 0.25 |
| The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 10 | 0.57 | 0.09 |
| International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 11 | 0.56 | 0.08 |
| Only idiots | 7 | 0.56 | 0.17 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination I (Jonathan Wai) | 25 | 0.56 | 0.006 |
| Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 17 | 0.55 | 0.03 |
| The Sargasso Test | 24 | 0.54 | 0.01 |
| Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 8 | 0.54 | 0.15 |
| Miscellaneous tests | 39 | 0.51 | 0.002 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.51 | 0.09 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 11 | 0.51 | 0.11 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 18 | 0.51 | 0.04 |
| Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 14 | 0.51 | 0.07 |
| Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 32 | 0.51 | 0.005 |
| Qoymans Automatic Test #3 | 4 | 0.50 | 0.38 |
| Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 114 | 0.49 | 0.0000002 |
| Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 48 | 0.49 | 0.0008 |
| The Piper's Test | 8 | 0.48 | 0.20 |
| The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 9 | 0.48 | 0.17 |
| Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 40 | 0.48 | 0.003 |
| Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 45 | 0.47 | 0.002 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 13 | 0.46 | 0.11 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 12 | 0.46 | 0.12 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 17 | 0.46 | 0.07 |
| The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 15 | 0.45 | 0.09 |
| Logicaus Strictimanus 24 (Robert Lato) | 7 | 0.45 | 0.27 |
| Labyrinthine LIMIT | 11 | 0.41 | 0.19 |
| Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 17 | 0.41 | 0.10 |
| Test of Shock and Awe | 9 | 0.41 | 0.25 |
| Cattell Culture Fair | 9 | 0.40 | 0.26 |
| Reason - Revision 2008 | 32 | 0.36 | 0.05 |
| Concep-T (Laurent Dubois) | 5 | 0.35 | 0.48 |
| Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 16 | 0.35 | 0.17 |
| A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 19 | 0.35 | 0.14 |
| Isis Test | 25 | 0.33 | 0.10 |
| Tests by Paul Laurent Miranda (aggregate) | 5 | 0.33 | 0.50 |
| Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 18 | 0.30 | 0.20 |
| Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 21 | 0.30 | 0.18 |
| Strict Logic Sequences Examination II (Jonathan Wai) | 8 | 0.26 | 0.48 |
| Retro-actively constructed heterogeneous test 6SIT+QMC4 | 7 | 0.26 | 0.52 |
| Reason | 20 | 0.23 | 0.32 |
| The Blue Test (Andres Gomez Emilsson) | 4 | 0.20 | 0.71 |
| Spatial Insight Test | 8 | 0.18 | 0.64 |
| Bonsai Test | 10 | 0.15 | 0.64 |
| Strict Logic Spatial Examination 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 11 | 0.15 | 0.64 |
| Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 12 | 0.14 | 0.64 |
| Short Test For Genius | 4 | 0.12 | 0.84 |
| Odds | 9 | 0.11 | 0.76 |
| Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 6 | 0.11 | 0.81 |
| Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 17 | 0.09 | 0.71 |
| Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 7 | 0.09 | 0.81 |
| Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 10 | -0.01 | 0.97 |
| Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 15 | -0.09 | 0.74 |
| Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 4 | -0.09 | 0.87 |
| Numbers | 15 | -0.10 | 0.71 |
| Daedalus Test | 13 | -0.11 | 0.68 |
| Tests by Xavier Jouve, other than those listed separately (aggregate) | 7 | -0.13 | 0.74 |
| G-test (Nikos Lygeros) | 5 | -0.34 | 0.50 |
| Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 4 | -0.92 | 0.11 |
Weighted mean of correlations: 0.548 (N = 1771)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.74
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.
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 Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 on that type |
|---|---|---|
| Verbal | 276 | 0.83 |
| Numerical | 125 | 0.63 |
| Spatial | 284 | 0.65 |
| Logical | 78 | 0.53 |
| Heterogeneous | 513 | 0.75 |
N = 1276
Compound tests have been left out of this table to avoid overlap.
Balanced g loading = 0.68
| Country | n | median score |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 7 | 19.0 |
| Norway | 4 | 18.0 |
| United_Kingdom | 7 | 18.0 |
| Australia | 5 | 16.0 |
| India | 3 | 16.0 |
| Netherlands | 5 | 15.0 |
| United_States | 31 | 15.0 |
| Canada | 4 | 14.5 |
| Spain | 3 | 13.0 |
| Finland | 6 | 10.5 |
| Italy | 4 | 10.5 |
| Sweden | 5 | 9.0 |
| Greece | 4 | 6.5 |
Total number of countries: 38
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.
Notice: A correlation is generally considered significant if its p value is 0.05 or less.
| Personalia | n | r | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observed associative horizon | 10 | 0.48 | 0.14 |
| PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.48 | 0.10 |
| Cooijmans Inventory of Neo-Marxist Attitudes | 8 | 0.35 | 0.37 |
| PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.27 | 0.36 |
| Educational level | 110 | 0.26 | 0.006 |
| PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.25 | 0.38 |
| PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.25 | 0.38 |
| PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.19 | 0.50 |
| PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.16 | 0.57 |
| Mother's educational level | 108 | 0.15 | 0.12 |
| Sex | 117 | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Father's educational level | 107 | 0.13 | 0.18 |
| PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.10 | 0.74 |
| PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.06 | 0.84 |
| Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 24 | 0.05 | 0.78 |
| PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 13 | 0.03 | 0.90 |
| Disorders (own) | 111 | -0.04 | 0.71 |
| Disorders (parents and siblings) | 109 | -0.04 | 0.68 |
| PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.11 | 0.68 |
| PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.12 | 0.66 |
| PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.13 | 0.64 |
| Year of birth | 117 | -0.15 | 0.11 |
| Observed behaviour | 27 | -0.17 | 0.38 |
| PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.24 | 0.40 |
| PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.32 | 0.27 |
| PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 13 | -0.41 | 0.16 |
The goal of estimated g factor loadings for restricted ranges 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 (9.0) | 0.66 (N = 549) |
|---|---|
| Below median (14.0) | 0.68 (N = 990) |
| Above median (14.0) | 0.58 (N = 855) |
| Above 3rd quartile (19.0) | 0.53 (N = 372) |
| Age class | n | Median score |
|---|---|---|
| 60 to 64 | 1 | 5.0 |
| 55 to 59 | 6 | 12.5 |
| 50 to 54 | 7 | 14.0 |
| 45 to 49 | 9 | 19.0 |
| 40 to 44 | 13 | 16.0 |
| 35 to 39 | 15 | 21.0 |
| 30 to 34 | 15 | 14.0 |
| 25 to 29 | 24 | 13.0 |
| 22 to 24 | 14 | 12.8 |
| 20 or 21 | 2 | 13.5 |
| 18 or 19 | 5 | 9.0 |
| 17 | 4 | 14.5 |
| 16 | 2 | 10.5 |
| Age unknown | 1 | 15.0 |
N = 118
| Year taken | n | Median score | protonorm |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 14 | 11.5 | 387 |
| 2005 | 18 | 13.5 | 404 |
| 2006 | 10 | 12.0 | 393 |
| 2007 | 13 | 16.0 | 435 |
| 2008 | 7 | 15.0 | 419 |
| 2009 | 6 | 23.0 | 514 |
| 2010 | 9 | 11.0 | 380 |
| 2011 | 10 | 14.0 | 408 |
| 2012 | 3 | 10.0 | 375 |
| 2013 | 3 | 5.0 | 307 |
| 2014 | 5 | 14.0 | 408 |
| 2015 | 12 | 10.5 | 378 |
| 2016 | 4 | 21.5 | 502 |
| 2019 | 1 | 23.0 | 514 |
| 2020 | 1 | 24.0 | 530 |
| 2022 | 1 | 19.0 | 464 |
| 2023 | 1 | 14.0 | 408 |
N = 118
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.