0 | * |
2 | * |
3 | * |
4 | * |
5 | * |
7 | * |
10 | * |
11 | ** |
12 | *** |
13 | * |
14 | ** |
15 | **** |
16 | **** |
17 | *** |
18 | ** |
20 | ***** |
21 | ***** |
22 | ***** |
23 | ** |
24 | ** |
25 | ******* |
26 | ******** |
27 | **** |
28 | **** |
29 | **** |
30 | ** |
31 | ** |
32 | ****** |
33 | ****** |
34 | *** |
35 | **** |
36 | **** |
37 | ** |
38 | ***** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ** |
41 | **** |
41.5 | * |
42 | * |
44 | * |
45 | * |
46 | ** |
47 | * |
n = 117
0 | * |
3 | * |
5 | * |
7 | * |
10 | * |
11 | ** |
12 | ** |
14 | ** |
15 | **** |
16 | **** |
17 | *** |
18 | ** |
20 | ***** |
21 | ***** |
22 | *** |
23 | ** |
24 | ** |
25 | ****** |
26 | ******** |
27 | **** |
28 | **** |
29 | **** |
30 | ** |
31 | ** |
32 | ****** |
33 | ****** |
34 | *** |
35 | *** |
36 | **** |
37 | * |
38 | ***** |
39 | ***** |
40 | ** |
41 | **** |
41.5 | * |
42 | * |
44 | * |
45 | * |
46 | ** |
47 | * |
n = 9
2 | * |
4 | * |
12 | * |
13 | * |
22 | ** |
25 | * |
35 | * |
37 | * |
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
Chimera Test (Bill Bultas) | 5 | 0.99 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry | 4 | 0.97 |
Epiq Tests (aggregate) | 4 | 0.92 |
Verbal Insight Test | 4 | 0.91 |
Stanford-Binet | 5 | 0.90 |
Numerical section of The Marathon Test | 8 | 0.90 |
Numerical and spatial sections of The Marathon Test | 7 | 0.88 |
Strict Logic Spatial Exam 48 (Jonathan Wai) | 5 | 0.88 |
The Marathon Test | 8 | 0.88 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the first degree | 4 | 0.87 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #2 | 7 | 0.86 |
Spatial section of The Marathon Test | 8 | 0.85 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.82 |
Narcissus' last stand | 8 | 0.82 |
Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 26 | 0.81 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test (old version) | 5 | 0.81 |
Chimera High Ability Riddle Test (Bill Bultas) | 8 | 0.81 |
Associative LIMIT | 17 | 0.80 |
Spatial Insight Test | 10 | 0.80 |
The Hammer Of Test-Hungry - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.80 |
KIT Intelligence Test - first attempts | 7 | 0.80 |
Test of Shock and Awe | 17 | 0.79 |
The Final Test - Revision 2013 | 7 | 0.79 |
The Test To End All Tests | 36 | 0.79 |
Cartoons of Shock | 23 | 0.78 |
Test of the Beheaded Man | 12 | 0.78 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test - Two-barrelled version | 10 | 0.78 |
Long Test For Genius | 28 | 0.77 |
Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 33 | 0.77 |
Omega Contemplative Items Pool (Tommy Smith) | 7 | 0.76 |
Titan Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 18 | 0.76 |
Short Test For Genius | 22 | 0.75 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice | 11 | 0.75 |
Scholastic Aptitude Test (old) | 10 | 0.74 |
A Paranoiac's Torture: Intelligence Test Utilizing Diabolic Exactitude | 9 | 0.74 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.71 |
The Sargasso Test | 16 | 0.71 |
Reflections In Peroxide | 8 | 0.70 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 22 | 0.70 |
G-test (Nikos Lygeros) | 6 | 0.70 |
Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 32 | 0.70 |
Genius Association Test | 34 | 0.70 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 1 | 16 | 0.69 |
Psychometric Qrosswords | 8 | 0.69 |
Reason | 12 | 0.68 |
The Nemesis Test | 16 | 0.68 |
Ultra Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 7 | 0.68 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #4 | 23 | 0.67 |
Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test | 22 | 0.66 |
Verbal section of The Marathon Test | 9 | 0.66 |
Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 54 | 0.66 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 13 | 0.66 |
Concep-T (Laurent Dubois) | 4 | 0.64 |
Mega Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 23 | 0.64 |
Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.64 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #3 | 20 | 0.63 |
Non-Verbal Cognitive Performance Examination (Xavier Jouve) | 13 | 0.61 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 39 | 0.61 |
Psychometrically Activated Grids Acerbate Neuroticism | 4 | 0.60 |
Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 18 | 0.59 |
Analogies #1 | 14 | 0.59 |
Tests by Ivan Ivec (aggregate) | 5 | 0.58 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 2 | 14 | 0.57 |
Reason - Revision 2008 | 18 | 0.57 |
The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 9 | 0.57 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 10 | 0.56 |
Cooijmans On-Line Test | 7 | 0.55 |
Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004 | 25 | 0.55 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam I (Jonathan Wai) | 16 | 0.55 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the third degree | 7 | 0.53 |
Sigma Test (Melão Hindemburg) | 7 | 0.52 |
Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 2011 | 7 | 0.52 |
Test of Inductive Reasoning / J.C.T.I. (Xavier Jouve) | 6 | 0.50 |
Logima Strictica 36 (Robert Lato) | 14 | 0.49 |
Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 11 | 0.48 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (raw) | 5 | 0.47 |
Numbers | 25 | 0.47 |
Bonsai Test | 12 | 0.46 |
F.N.A. (Xavier Jouve) | 4 | 0.46 |
Problems In Gentle Slopes of the second degree | 7 | 0.45 |
916 Test (Laurent Dubois) | 10 | 0.42 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 18 | 0.41 |
Numerical Insight Test | 4 | 0.41 |
Letters | 7 | 0.38 |
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales | 13 | 0.37 |
The LAW - Letters And Words | 6 | 0.36 |
Culture Fair Numerical Spatial Examination - Final version (Etienne Forsström) | 13 | 0.34 |
Daedalus Test | 6 | 0.33 |
International High IQ Society tests (aggregate) | 19 | 0.33 |
Cattell Culture Fair | 10 | 0.32 |
Graduate Record Examination | 10 | 0.30 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2010 | 7 | 0.29 |
Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.25 |
Miller Analogies Test (raw; old version) | 10 | 0.25 |
New York High I.Q. Society tests | 4 | 0.25 |
Hoeflin Power Test (Ronald K. Hoeflin) | 6 | 0.22 |
Isis Test | 13 | 0.21 |
Qoymans Multiple-Choice #1 | 14 | 0.21 |
Words | 8 | 0.21 |
Cooijmans Intelligence Test 5 | 5 | 0.21 |
Odds | 9 | 0.20 |
Space, Time, and Hyperspace - Revision 2016 | 7 | 0.18 |
Strict Logic Sequences Exam II (Jonathan Wai) | 6 | 0.12 |
Encephalist - R (Xavier Jouve) | 5 | 0.11 |
W-87 (International Society for Philosophical Enquiry) | 15 | 0.07 |
Evens | 9 | 0.05 |
Tests by Greg Grove (aggregate) | 19 | 0.04 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #2 | 5 | 0.03 |
American College Testing program | 4 | -0.10 |
Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices (I.Q.) | 9 | -0.11 |
Qoymans Automatic Test #1 | 6 | -0.17 |
Tests by Jason Betts (aggregate) | 5 | -0.19 |
Tests by Nicolas Elenas (aggregate) | 4 | -0.25 |
Sequentia Numerica Form I (Alexander Herkner) | 5 | -0.32 |
European I.Q. Test | 4 | -0.84 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.576 (N = 1365)
Estimated g factor loading: 0.76
Test name | n | r |
---|---|---|
(1) Cartoons of Shock | 2 | 1.00 |
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 3 | 2 | 1.00 |
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #5 | 2 | 1.00 |
(10) Genius Association Test | 2 | 1.00 |
(24) Reason - Revision 2008 | 2 | 1.00 |
(28) The Test To End All Tests | 2 | 1.00 |
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 2008 | 2 | 1.00 |
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius | 2 | 1.00 |
(106) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 4 | 2 | 1.00 |
(109) The Bonsai Test - Revision 2016 | 2 | 1.00 |
(204) Chimera High Ability Riddle Test (Bill Bultas) | 2 | 1.00 |
(75) Analogies of Long Test For Genius | 3 | 0.96 |
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests | 3 | 0.93 |
(57) Space, Time, and Hyperspace | 3 | 0.37 |
(63) Long Test For Genius | 2 | -1.00 |
Weighted average of correlations: 0.812 (N = 33)
Estimated g factor loading among females: 0.90
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 The Final Test on that type |
---|---|---|
Verbal | 331 | 0.81 |
Numerical | 82 | 0.67 |
Spatial | 116 | 0.79 |
Logical | 49 | 0.75 |
Heterogeneous | 371 | 0.79 |
N = 949
Balanced g loading = 0.76
Country | n | median score |
---|---|---|
Germany | 5 | 39.0 |
United_Kingdom | 7 | 36.0 |
Canada | 6 | 32.5 |
Belgium | 6 | 29.0 |
Finland | 7 | 28.0 |
United_States | 49 | 25.0 |
Sweden | 3 | 24.0 |
Australia | 4 | 23.5 |
Brazil | 3 | 21.0 |
Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.90 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.89 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.85 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.80 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.79 |
Observed associative horizon | 18 | 0.60 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.59 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.43 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.43 |
Observed behaviour | 28 | 0.36 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 22 | 0.22 |
Sex | 126 | 0.21 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.20 |
Year of birth | 119 | 0.18 |
Educational level | 69 | 0.06 |
Father's educational level | 61 | 0.02 |
Mother's educational level | 61 | 0.01 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.00 |
Disorders (own) | 69 | -0.04 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 67 | -0.29 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.34 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.35 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.52 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.54 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.74 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
Father's educational level | 4 | 0.72 |
Educational level | 5 | 0.69 |
Year of birth | 9 | 0.54 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 5 | -0.69 |
Disorders (own) | 5 | -0.76 |
Personalia | n | r |
---|---|---|
PSIA Introverted - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.90 |
PSIA True - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.89 |
PSIA Aspergoid - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.85 |
PSIA Deviance factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.80 |
PSIA Ethics factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.79 |
Observed associative horizon | 16 | 0.74 |
PSIA Extreme - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.59 |
Observed behaviour | 25 | 0.46 |
PSIA Rare - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.43 |
PSIA Neurotic - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.43 |
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms | 21 | 0.22 |
PSIA Orderly - Revision 2007 | 4 | 0.20 |
Year of birth | 110 | 0.07 |
Educational level | 64 | 0.05 |
Mother's educational level | 57 | 0.01 |
PSIA Antisocial - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.00 |
Disorders (own) | 64 | -0.01 |
Father's educational level | 57 | -0.02 |
Disorders (parents and siblings) | 62 | -0.25 |
PSIA Rational - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.34 |
PSIA Cold - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.35 |
PSIA System factor - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.52 |
PSIA Cruel - Revision 2007 | 4 | -0.54 |
PSIA Just - Revision 2007 | 4 | -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 these values to be lower than the test's full-range g loading.
Below 1st quartile | 0.60 (334) |
---|---|
Below median | 0.63 (693) |
Above median | 0.66 (703) |
Above 3rd quartile | 0.66 (249) |
Age class | n | Median score |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 12.0 |
65 to 69 | 1 | 20.0 |
55 to 59 | 4 | 23.5 |
50 to 54 | 10 | 23.0 |
45 to 49 | 14 | 29.0 |
40 to 44 | 15 | 26.0 |
35 to 39 | 16 | 27.0 |
30 to 34 | 21 | 32.0 |
25 to 29 | 16 | 30.5 |
22 to 24 | 9 | 33.0 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 35.0 |
18 or 19 | 5 | 22.0 |
17 | 2 | 29.5 |
16 | 1 | 22.0 |
14 | 1 | 14.0 |
N = 120
Age class | n | Median raw |
---|---|---|
70 to 74 | 1 | 12.0 |
55 to 59 | 1 | 4.0 |
50 to 54 | 2 | 25.0 |
45 to 49 | 1 | 25.0 |
40 to 44 | 2 | 12.0 |
35 to 39 | 2 | 28.5 |
N = 9
Age class | n | Median raw |
---|---|---|
65 to 69 | 1 | 20.0 |
55 to 59 | 3 | 26.0 |
50 to 54 | 8 | 23.0 |
45 to 49 | 13 | 33.0 |
40 to 44 | 13 | 26.0 |
35 to 39 | 14 | 27.0 |
30 to 34 | 21 | 32.0 |
25 to 29 | 16 | 30.5 |
22 to 24 | 9 | 33.0 |
20 or 21 | 4 | 35.0 |
18 or 19 | 5 | 22.0 |
17 | 2 | 29.5 |
16 | 1 | 22.0 |
14 | 1 | 14.0 |
N = 111
Year taken | n | median score |
---|---|---|
1996 | 1 | 4.0 |
1997 | 10 | 21.5 |
1998 | 3 | 15.0 |
1999 | 7 | 22.0 |
2000 | 14 | 27.5 |
2001 | 15 | 27.0 |
2002 | 9 | 24.0 |
2003 | 10 | 27.0 |
2004 | 18 | 30.5 |
2005 | 14 | 26.0 |
2006 | 2 | 24.0 |
2007 | 3 | 38.0 |
2008 | 6 | 31.0 |
2009 | 3 | 34.0 |
2010 | 6 | 35.0 |
2012 | 1 | 41.5 |
2013 | 1 | 13.0 |
2014 | 1 | 39.0 |
2015 | 1 | 16.0 |
2016 | 1 | 3.0 |
2018 | 1 | 16.0 |
ryear taken × median score = 0.08 (N = 127)
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.