Statistics of Words

© November 2015 Paul Cooijmans


Scores on Words

Contents type: Verbal.   Period: 2003-present

3 *
25 *
29 *
30 **
33 **
34 **
35 *
36 ***
38 *****
39 ***
40 **

Correlation of Words with other tests by Paul Cooijmans

(Test index) Test name n r
(41) The LAW - Letters And Words190.99
(15) Letters190.95
(40) Reason Behind Multiple-Choice - Revision 200870.89
(30) Verbal section of The Marathon Test60.71
(24) Reason - Revision 200870.68
(42) The Marathon Test50.63
(26) Verbal section of Test For Genius - Revision 2004100.62
(3) Qoymans Multiple-Choice #570.59
(43) Test For Genius - Revision 201060.52
(31) Numerical section of The Marathon Test50.44
(32) Spatial section of The Marathon Test50.43
(16) Lieshout International Mesospheric Intelligence Test60.42
(25) The Sargasso Test50.39
(2) Cooijmans Intelligence Test - Form 360.38
(19) Numerical section of Test For Genius - Revision 201060.35
(35) Intelligence Quantifier by assessment90.32
(1) Cartoons of Shock60.32
(11) Isis Test60.29
(7) The Final Test70.28
(23) Gliaweb Riddled Intelligence Test - Revision 201160.26
(39) Combined Numerical and Spatial sections of Test For Genius - Revision 201060.24
(44) Associative LIMIT50.24
(27) Spatial section of Test For Genius - Revision 200490.21
(10) Genius Association Test80.08
(79) Association subtest of Long Test For Genius6-0.15
(18) The Nemesis Test6-0.27
(28) The Test To End All Tests7-0.34
(66) Test For Genius - Revision 20045-0.77

Weighted average of correlations: 0.431

Conservatively estimated minimum g loading: 0.66

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 5 score pairs. All known pairs are used, including possible floor/ceiling scores or outliers.

Correlation of Words with tests by others

(Test index) Test name n r
(242) Unknown and miscellaneous tests90.52
(234) Strict Logic Sequences Exam I60.42
(236) International High IQ Society Miscellaneous tests50.34
(231) Mysterium Entrance Exam50.20
(235) Nonverbal Cognitive Performance Examination5-0.32

Weighted average of correlations: 0.277

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 5 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.

Estimated loadings of Words 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.

Typeg loading of Words on that type

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

Balanced g loading = 0.65

National medians for Words

Country n median score

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 with national I.Q.'s of Words

Correlation of this test with national average I.Q.'s published by Lynn and Vanhanen:

Correlation of Words with personal details

Personalia n r
P.S.I.A. Extreme70.77
Gifted Adult's Inventory of Aspergerisms80.73
P.S.I.A. Aspergoid70.70
P.S.I.A. Rare70.48
P.S.I.A. System factor70.47
P.S.I.A. Deviance factor110.41
P.S.I.A. Introverted70.37
P.S.I.A. Cold70.36
P.S.I.A. Rational70.30
P.S.I.A. Just70.30
Educational level220.16
P.S.I.A. True70.15
P.S.I.A. Ethics factor110.15
P.S.I.A. Antisocial70.13
P.S.I.A. Neurotic70.02
Disorders (parents and siblings)22-0.04
Year of birth23-0.10
P.S.I.A. Orderly7-0.13
P.S.I.A. Cruel7-0.21
Father's educational level20-0.25
Mother's educational level21-0.32
Disorders (own)22-0.43
Candidate's self-estimated I.Q.5-0.58
Observed associative horizon4-0.70
Observed behaviour4-0.73

Estimated g factor loadings upward and downward of particular scores

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 scoreUpward g (n)Downward g (n)
00.66 (205)NaN (0)
33.50.59 (67)0.84 (15)
360.77 (51)0.75 (43)
370.51 (30)0.75 (43)
380.51 (30)0.69 (129)
39-0.36 (10)0.66 (191)
40NaN (0)0.66 (205)



Scores by age

Age class n median score
50 to 54234.0
45 to 49237.0
40 to 44336.0
35 to 39236.5
30 to 34232.0
25 to 29338.0
22 to 24235.5
20 or 21536.0

Scores by year taken

Year taken n median score

ryear taken × median score = 0.16 (n = 23)

Robustness and overall test quality

Item analysis

Item statistics are not published as that would help future candidates. To detect bad items, answers and comments from candidates are studied, as well as, for each problem, the correlation with total score and the proportion of candidates getting it wrong (hardness of the item). Possible bad items are removed or revised, resulting in a revised version of the test.

The items of this test perform very well in terms of correlations with total score, which is also reflected in the very high reliability coefficients.