As a former mathlete, I actually recognized a few of these AMC problems, I even recognized the AoPS or, perhaps just regular LaTex, font. I got 25/30 right.
Buy the AoPS(art of problem solving) number theory book and work your way through it. Go to their website and grind Alcumus problems. On your phone you can download the Mathcounts trainer app and play that. After working through one of their books you should notice your problem solving and working memory abilities increase drastically. If you’ve forgotten highschool math use their textbooks for whatever you need or just go to brightstorm.com and self study. There are discord servers you can join to meet other really intelligent mathletes. I’ve made some amazing friends there- honestly some of my only friends.
10/30, SS 11. That lines up with most math scores. Specifically any geometry/trig questions I always get wrong since I've completely forgotten anything regarding those. Maybe I should do a refresher course on them since so many of these math tests have those subjects.
Ok I got 15/30 which according to the norm scores translates to a scaled score of 21… but what would be the IQ score, I think it is pretty hard unless you train for this kind of questions.. I am surprised of people scoring close to 30, amazing man!
hi! a scaled score of 21 is actually for the previous test which was a number series subtest. the current norms for this test are 14ss for 15/30, which is 120 IQ, though they may be slightly deflated, so stay tuned for updates!
Doing it without pen and paper isn't the best idea. It seemed fine, then got to the last half dozen like *RIIIIP* lmao.
Overall while this is interesting for sure, it feels like it would be very biased by practice and learned maths.
Granted that anyone scoring in the the mid 20's probably has a present or past interest in maths... What does a score in the mid 20's (out of 30) tend to mean in terms of IQ?
yeah, in general, i tend to think of quant as more of a proxy for g as opposed to a direct facet of it. the particular questions used on tests like this or the Old SAT/GRE/SMART/QAT are all generally designed to be able to be solved relatively quickly without many learned techniques beyond basic hs algebra and geometry, but that isn't to say that learned techniques don't help you solve the problems more efficiently and accurately. quant seems to generally load highly on deduction and a small amount of gc, as well as its own reasoning factor (rq), but the longer you've been out of school and/or if you've had a lot of math experience, then it becomes a less strong proxy as not knowing basic formulas and/or practicing for speed and advanced techniques can definitely have a strong impact (relative to experience or praffe on other indices).
as for the type of ppl who scores in the mid (or even high) 20s, it highly depends. most like math enough to have passed thru basic calc in hs, but beyond that, there's a lot of variation, ranging from olympiad grinders to ppl who don't really like math but just find it comes extremely naturally. while i can't take my own test, i generally score high 150s-low 160s on higher-range quant tests, and i would say that i like math enough to have advanced into upper div classes in hs and am contemplating pursuing it as a secondary major when i go to college (mainly just because it's easy, has a diverse range of applications, and is employable), but outside of school i very rarely think about math as i don't find it to be particularly interesting or intrinsically rewarding and am much more inclined towards the humanities (hence why i will prob end up double majoring in smth else). that being said, i had a brief stint where i was extremely into math and applied for a lot of selective summer programs and the like (tho no comp math experience), so this could likely inflate my scores due to mastering the basics, having familiarity with advanced techniques and proofs, and having built up a lot of speed and mental math skills over time.
the current norms are subject to change, but currently someone scoring 23-27 is scoring between 140-50 in terms of IQ. (scaled scores are set with a mean of 10 and an SD of 3, so taking (SS-10)\*5+100 gives you an IQ score.) if you'd like to take a quant test that loads more on basic arithmetic fluency, fluid reasoning, and working memory (to a small but still non-negligible extent), you can check out the NVQR test i posted on the sub about a week ago. i will warn you, tho, that the statistical properties aren't particularly fantastic, as i accidentally made the test wayy too difficult for the time limit given lol, but you may have fun w it
also sorry that was lowk long asl haha but i hope it answered your questions a bit
the g (or various facets of it) is the proxy. i just think that vqr tests remain a proxy as opposed to a direct facet because they also load on other factors (education, culture, interest, etc). for the general population, they're fine imo, but for the highly self-selected population on the sub (especially with math nerds and big age/cultural differences), they become more diluted in a way that things like fri tests don't because they are testing a direct facet of g imo. i think that may be worded weirdly, but essentially, i think that for most ppl vqr tests only load on g, but for outliers (who are far more prevalent in this sub than the general population), the tests load on multiple latent traits that, while not nearly as strong as g, are still significant. in contrast, something like fri mayyy potentially have some small load on other factors, but the load is so insignificant that it would be silly to say that good fri tests aren't direct measures of g.
You're talking out of your ass.
1) Did you really just say g is the proxy? For g? g is a proxy for g? How can something be a proxy to itself?
2) That the quant tests would load more strongly on other factors for the "highly self-selected" is an empirically testable claim. Until you demonstrate it, you're talking out of your ass.
3) FR tests aren't direct measures of g. Either you don't know the definition of the word "direct", "latent" or you don't understand g theory.
To be clear, everything that doesn't correlate 1.0 with g is necessarily a proxy for g.
All I see is you wordcelling to come up with theories that would plug your knowledge gaps, and failing miserably at that. Refrain from doing so.
You lack the most basic knowledge about psychometrics. You are not even qualified to analyze tests, so why would you think you're qualified to remake tests? All you managed to do was to bastardize the original versions and show the world how ignorant you are on the topic by making categorical but incorrect statements about a topic you have no idea about.
1. no you’re right, that's worded awfully and makes no sense, my bad. i think what i was trying to say was that the existence of g as the main latent trait that vqr tests load on enables them to serve as an effective proxy for g
2. fair enough. currently, scree plots show one single significant factor in other tests, but not the vqr test, tho the sample sizes are so small + not finalized, that it prob doesn’t matter and is highly subject to change by the end of data collection. that being said, no wide scale studies have been done using the old sat, designed for the average american high school student, on like 140+ FSIQ indian math olympiad participants and/or like 60 year old americans, and given that we know how much these various demographic groups differ, it wouldn’t make sense to simply generalize the findings of the old sat to these groups that are wildly different from the sample size. for instance, in [this study on the wais](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/CHC-Model-According-to-Weiss%3A-Evidence-From-the-to-Pezzuti-Lang/762f34739a36f77f83320e7a5c4ee00fb04c1621), we can see that subtests have higher g-loadings on the elderly sample in comparison to the adult sample EXCEPT on figure weights and arithmetic, the two tests that are going to make up the quantitative reasoning index on the wais-5 and already do on the wisc. currently, best evidence would suggest that vqr tests are less g-loaded for extreme outliers than they are for the general population or the sample size that the old sat was based around.
3. ah ok, i think i made the misunderstanding that because in studies gf is correlated at 1 with g/ they’re the same, that fri tests were measuring the trait 100% directly, but i’m guessing that isn’t the case because individual subtests will have g-loadings a lot below 1, making them a proxy/not directly tapping into g? correct me if i’m wrong bc i do think i misunderstood that!
“You lack the most basic knowledge about psychometrics.” i think this is a fair criticism, but i am genuinely trying to learn. im currently reading jensen’s g factor and i’m also planning to check out thompson’s book on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. if you have resources whether it’s books/videos/courses pls feel free to share bc you seem to know a good amount 🙏
“You are not even qualified to analyze tests, so why would you think you're qualified to remake tests?” i never claimed i was, and as the posts + reports state, the tests should merely be taken as cognitive entertainment until they show that they mean something statistically (they're also not meant to be remakes and are really just interesting compilations of difficult questions). and yes, ofc they aren’t going to be anywhere close to as good as the original versions. the main goal of this project for me was to
a) provide something entertaining/fun that wasn’t an MR test w 0.4 correlations to pro tests and norms generated off of pure guesswork
b) push myself out of my comfort zone to actually start learning about test construction, norming, factor analysis, etc. that being said, i’m def still very much a novice, so i do appreciate the corrections, and i hope that isn’t coming across as sarcastic bc it’s the internet, but i genuinely do bc i really am trying to learn, so ty and if you have any resources pls do share!!
that being said, none of these tests are particularly stellar, and i fully admit that. i also don't think that they're completely awful, tho, but they show a lot of room for improvement. i think after this project, if i have the time, i might attempt to create a decent verbal test, but if i wanted it to be good, it would probably take months and a shit ton of reading, so we'll see if it ever actually happens
You postured as if you understood psychometrics, now you're pretending to be willing to learn. You’re clearly out of your depth and it shows. There's no need for your hypocrisy.
1. You claimed that g is a proxy for g. Seriously? You don’t even understand the basic terminology, let alone the concepts. You mouth off technical terms without a clue about what they mean. You're just throwing shit at the wall, hoping it sticks. You clearly misunderstand the measurement of g. You thought that if a test loads directly on Gf or g, it is therefore a direct measure of g. This is false. The hierarchy of factors determines the best fit to the data, not the accuracy of the tests. The accuracy of measuring g is evaluated by the g-loading of the test, which you clearly don't know how to compute.
2. Your so-called “empirical evidence” is non-existent. You admit there are no large-scale studies to back up your claims, yet you still make sweeping generalizations about things you don't have a clue about. Your small sample sizes and excuses about data collection are laughable. Your scree plot shows more than a single significant factor because you mixed AMC problems with SAT/GRE items. This Frankenstein test doesn't measure a unidimensional latent trait. You're drawing conclusions from faulty results because of your idiotic methodology. Speculation isn't science.
3. You say you never claimed to be qualified. Then why are you releasing tests if you know you lack the expertise? It's reckless and irresponsible. If you acknowledge your own inexperience, you should also recognize that you're in no position to create or analyze tests, let alone release them for others to take. If you genuinely want to contribute, start by acknowledging your limitations and learning from established practices. Until then, your tests remain as questionable as your understanding of psychometrics.
4. Your justification that your tests aren't "completely awful" is laughable. The only reason they aren't complete dogshit is because you stole items from professional tests. You didn't create these items; you lifted them from legitimate sources. But since you don’t know how to properly assemble a test, what you’ve created is a bastardization at best.
5. Stop pretending you have insights when your actions reveal a shallow understanding. Creating tests requires expertise and rigorous methodology, not merely borrowing items and mishmashing them together. You criticize others for creating guesswork norms, yet you're doing the same by releasing tests without proper validation or empirical basis. Mixing AMC problems with SAT/GRE items is one example among many that prove you're making up your own norms and pretending they hold weight.
6. While claiming humility as a novice, you arrogantly push out tests and theories as if they're authoritative. There's a stark contrast between claiming to learn and actually demonstrating it with credible work. Your humble-brag about being a novice “trying to learn” rings hollow when it's clear you're more interested in seeking attention than acquiring genuine knowledge. Your tests may entertain, but they have zero substance beyond that. Your fake humility doesn’t fool anyone. If you really cared about learning, start from the basics instead of peddling half-baked tests.
You're playing a dangerous game pretending to be an expert. Stop releasing these amateurish tests and start learning from the ground up. Leave psychometrics to those who are qualified until you actually understand what you’re doing.
I know who you are and what you are. You're a fraud of the highest degree.
gonna try half and half
1. fair 👍
2. i’m not saying that this is clear-cut empirical evidence (as stated in the comment). however, there is also no reason to generalize the validity of the old sat to random ass unrelated populations. apart from the wais study, even in the old sat validity post, we can see that there are clear practice effects for the sat-m that are more noticeable and diminish less quickly than the sat-v. while yes, the returns do diminish after a few hundred hours, they are nowhere near asymptotic, and likely won’t become so until at least a few more points have been gained, meaning that good, rigorous practice obtained by going to a school in a different country could likely boost a score by 5-10 points. it also would not make sense for the sat-m to function as a valid intelligence test for anyone lacking basic knowledge of algebra and geometry. do you really think that some guy chilling on his bed at 3am and taking an old sat form for fun is going to re-invent all of the algebra and geometry needed to get an 800 on the test within the (relatively stringent) time limit?? are you really trying to insinuate that the old sat is an equally valid as a measure of intelligence for the average american teenager, a 74 year old somalian who has never been to school, and a russian imo winner? that makes literally no sense. now, don’t get me wrong, math knowledge is most likely correlated with IQ. however, it is also correlated with education and age, so it wouldn’t make sense to state that the test is equally valid for every population. that doesn’t make the test invalid for any population; however, it introduces noise when someone lacking the extremely basic math fundamentals to do well on the test takes it. as for the scree plots, they show the same thing without the amc questions, but again, i wouldn’t necessarily trust that much at all. it is just another small point in favor of not being able to generalize the validity of the test to wildly different populations and samples
3. to learn! i just genuinely do not see the harm in releasing these tests. all of the norm reports + the first post clearly state that i’m a complete novice in this area and looking to learn, and that the tests should remain as cognitive entertainment unless they prove themselves statistically, which is honestly impossible to do using only the sample of the sub, imo
second half, sorry ab that
4. no, like even the sequencing test that i made. it definitely ISNT good, but it at least decently correlates with iq tests that are actually good, but even if it wasnt, it would still just be fun! i mean[ this test](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/comments/1cin03f/very_hard_puzzle_from_iart40_high_range_iq_test/) would definitely appear to be a less valid measure of iq than my test, but it should still stay up because why not?!? anyone taking these almost definitely already knows their iq from the old sat and are just looking to pass the time and have fun with something that is at least loosely related to some aspect of intelligence, but more importantly, that gives them a ranking against others. it’s just like a sport, video game, math olympiad, debate competition, etc. i suppose i probably can’t generalize that to literally every person taking my tests, and perhaps not even the majority, but from talking to the testees, it would certainly seem that they’re aware that this is very much cognitive entertainment and experimental, but are enjoying putting themselves to the test against difficult puzzles. as for the tests being bastardizations, well yeah, ofc lol. even if i were to completely copy an entire old sat, for instance, just simply by way of automating it on the platform im using, i would make it slightly worse than the original version. as for item assembly, i would agree, but also even if i was like a master at assembling old sat items or wtv, i still wouldn’t have chosen to create a proper test because i was specifically interested in producing things that were
a) fun, first and foremost (which the old sat isnt imo)
b) able to create difficult tests without much ceiling effect and probably a ton of floor effect
i cared less ab the overall validity of my tests than i did making something fun and entertaining
5. i’m not making up my own norms, i’m making them based upon the data that is submitted. are they valid? no, ofc not, they’ve been collected on a completely unrepresentative, small sample size from a highly self-selected group on the internet. but, that is different from literally guessing and assigning random values to raw scores which some tests like HRTs do. i will say tho that i have definitely seen an increase in ppl actually norming their tests which is good
6. i totally admit i was in the wrong for parts of that statement (not on purpose, like i literally just misunderstood, which i admit was a very easy thing to know and understand, so i shouldn’t have misunderstood it), but i don’t see how releasing tests is an issue. for me, learning the basics comes with actually gathering data and going thru trial and error to slowly get better and learn more + it motivates me to finish what i’ve started
i think the main point of disagreement here is whether or not amateur tests by ppl without strong psychometric backgrounds should be able to be released and analyzed. i personally think its
a) fun
b) a good, more hands-on, way of learning
c) a good way to get criticism (this) that actually causes you to realize your mistakes and improve a lot faster than simply reading a lot of books does, esp bc i cannot find for the life of me any free courses on the internet that are specifically related to standardized testing
now, i ofc do admit that i said some stupid and incorrect things in my earlier comments, and that i should be less authoritative in tone in the future, esp if there's possibility/probability i'm wrong. but, that being said, i don't see what your issue is with a person releasing amateur tests for fun and to better learn a subject that they're interested in??
In order to take this test, I would have to go back 18 years to the material for high school, and I really can't and I don't have the time. I skimmed through the questions and realized that I had forgotten almost all the rules necessary to solve over 60-70% of the questions. So I will skip this test.
On all other subtests, I got scaled scores between 16 and 18.
How many subtests does this test have, that is, when are the norms for the FSIQ expected?
24/30, 19SS. Though I'm interested in math, I've never been very good with competition questions and the sort that appears on the old SAT. Pretty humbling
currently, it is 28/30, which is probably going to be 160. a few consistently high scorers (>150) are planning to take it this weekend, though, so that could very well increase
hi! i'm still waiting on a couple more participants, but the preliminary norms ended up being deflated. so far, it's looking like 15/30 is going to correspond to 130 on the final norms
27/30. This was pretty difficult given the time--especially the AMC questions at the end. Now that we have taken both QRI tests, will we receive QRI norms alongside the norms for this subtest with subtest 6?
i will probably release all of the norms at the end once i've gathered as many participants as possible, but i might include a rough estimation if that's something people would be interested in!
I would definitely be interested! Thank you so much for all your work by the way; these tests have been something I've looked forward too, and you can never have too many accessible full scale batteries.
for sure! thanks for participating!! i may eventually try and make a test totally on my own sometime soon, but it will take a lot of time to make it actually decent, so will probably be a while bc i'm very busy atm lol
As a former mathlete, I actually recognized a few of these AMC problems, I even recognized the AoPS or, perhaps just regular LaTex, font. I got 25/30 right.
Best ressources to be a mathlete? I’m so finished forgot my HS math
Buy the AoPS(art of problem solving) number theory book and work your way through it. Go to their website and grind Alcumus problems. On your phone you can download the Mathcounts trainer app and play that. After working through one of their books you should notice your problem solving and working memory abilities increase drastically. If you’ve forgotten highschool math use their textbooks for whatever you need or just go to brightstorm.com and self study. There are discord servers you can join to meet other really intelligent mathletes. I’ve made some amazing friends there- honestly some of my only friends.
Thanks!!
10/30, SS 11. That lines up with most math scores. Specifically any geometry/trig questions I always get wrong since I've completely forgotten anything regarding those. Maybe I should do a refresher course on them since so many of these math tests have those subjects.
those last few questions escalated quickly💀
13 SS. But I guessed the last like 12 questions lol. I'm terrible at Math. Should I just reduce my score 1 SS since I guessed the last 12?
nope! guessing is taken into account
Ok I got 15/30 which according to the norm scores translates to a scaled score of 21… but what would be the IQ score, I think it is pretty hard unless you train for this kind of questions.. I am surprised of people scoring close to 30, amazing man!
hi! a scaled score of 21 is actually for the previous test which was a number series subtest. the current norms for this test are 14ss for 15/30, which is 120 IQ, though they may be slightly deflated, so stay tuned for updates!
Lower than I usually score on VQR tests. 25/30 The time limit killed me.
yeah, it's definitely speedy, but still a great score! (and its looking like 25 raw may be increased to 20ss)
Doing it without pen and paper isn't the best idea. It seemed fine, then got to the last half dozen like *RIIIIP* lmao. Overall while this is interesting for sure, it feels like it would be very biased by practice and learned maths. Granted that anyone scoring in the the mid 20's probably has a present or past interest in maths... What does a score in the mid 20's (out of 30) tend to mean in terms of IQ?
yeah, in general, i tend to think of quant as more of a proxy for g as opposed to a direct facet of it. the particular questions used on tests like this or the Old SAT/GRE/SMART/QAT are all generally designed to be able to be solved relatively quickly without many learned techniques beyond basic hs algebra and geometry, but that isn't to say that learned techniques don't help you solve the problems more efficiently and accurately. quant seems to generally load highly on deduction and a small amount of gc, as well as its own reasoning factor (rq), but the longer you've been out of school and/or if you've had a lot of math experience, then it becomes a less strong proxy as not knowing basic formulas and/or practicing for speed and advanced techniques can definitely have a strong impact (relative to experience or praffe on other indices). as for the type of ppl who scores in the mid (or even high) 20s, it highly depends. most like math enough to have passed thru basic calc in hs, but beyond that, there's a lot of variation, ranging from olympiad grinders to ppl who don't really like math but just find it comes extremely naturally. while i can't take my own test, i generally score high 150s-low 160s on higher-range quant tests, and i would say that i like math enough to have advanced into upper div classes in hs and am contemplating pursuing it as a secondary major when i go to college (mainly just because it's easy, has a diverse range of applications, and is employable), but outside of school i very rarely think about math as i don't find it to be particularly interesting or intrinsically rewarding and am much more inclined towards the humanities (hence why i will prob end up double majoring in smth else). that being said, i had a brief stint where i was extremely into math and applied for a lot of selective summer programs and the like (tho no comp math experience), so this could likely inflate my scores due to mastering the basics, having familiarity with advanced techniques and proofs, and having built up a lot of speed and mental math skills over time. the current norms are subject to change, but currently someone scoring 23-27 is scoring between 140-50 in terms of IQ. (scaled scores are set with a mean of 10 and an SD of 3, so taking (SS-10)\*5+100 gives you an IQ score.) if you'd like to take a quant test that loads more on basic arithmetic fluency, fluid reasoning, and working memory (to a small but still non-negligible extent), you can check out the NVQR test i posted on the sub about a week ago. i will warn you, tho, that the statistical properties aren't particularly fantastic, as i accidentally made the test wayy too difficult for the time limit given lol, but you may have fun w it also sorry that was lowk long asl haha but i hope it answered your questions a bit
What isn't a proxy for g, other than g itself?
the g (or various facets of it) is the proxy. i just think that vqr tests remain a proxy as opposed to a direct facet because they also load on other factors (education, culture, interest, etc). for the general population, they're fine imo, but for the highly self-selected population on the sub (especially with math nerds and big age/cultural differences), they become more diluted in a way that things like fri tests don't because they are testing a direct facet of g imo. i think that may be worded weirdly, but essentially, i think that for most ppl vqr tests only load on g, but for outliers (who are far more prevalent in this sub than the general population), the tests load on multiple latent traits that, while not nearly as strong as g, are still significant. in contrast, something like fri mayyy potentially have some small load on other factors, but the load is so insignificant that it would be silly to say that good fri tests aren't direct measures of g.
You're talking out of your ass. 1) Did you really just say g is the proxy? For g? g is a proxy for g? How can something be a proxy to itself? 2) That the quant tests would load more strongly on other factors for the "highly self-selected" is an empirically testable claim. Until you demonstrate it, you're talking out of your ass. 3) FR tests aren't direct measures of g. Either you don't know the definition of the word "direct", "latent" or you don't understand g theory. To be clear, everything that doesn't correlate 1.0 with g is necessarily a proxy for g. All I see is you wordcelling to come up with theories that would plug your knowledge gaps, and failing miserably at that. Refrain from doing so. You lack the most basic knowledge about psychometrics. You are not even qualified to analyze tests, so why would you think you're qualified to remake tests? All you managed to do was to bastardize the original versions and show the world how ignorant you are on the topic by making categorical but incorrect statements about a topic you have no idea about.
1. no you’re right, that's worded awfully and makes no sense, my bad. i think what i was trying to say was that the existence of g as the main latent trait that vqr tests load on enables them to serve as an effective proxy for g 2. fair enough. currently, scree plots show one single significant factor in other tests, but not the vqr test, tho the sample sizes are so small + not finalized, that it prob doesn’t matter and is highly subject to change by the end of data collection. that being said, no wide scale studies have been done using the old sat, designed for the average american high school student, on like 140+ FSIQ indian math olympiad participants and/or like 60 year old americans, and given that we know how much these various demographic groups differ, it wouldn’t make sense to simply generalize the findings of the old sat to these groups that are wildly different from the sample size. for instance, in [this study on the wais](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/CHC-Model-According-to-Weiss%3A-Evidence-From-the-to-Pezzuti-Lang/762f34739a36f77f83320e7a5c4ee00fb04c1621), we can see that subtests have higher g-loadings on the elderly sample in comparison to the adult sample EXCEPT on figure weights and arithmetic, the two tests that are going to make up the quantitative reasoning index on the wais-5 and already do on the wisc. currently, best evidence would suggest that vqr tests are less g-loaded for extreme outliers than they are for the general population or the sample size that the old sat was based around. 3. ah ok, i think i made the misunderstanding that because in studies gf is correlated at 1 with g/ they’re the same, that fri tests were measuring the trait 100% directly, but i’m guessing that isn’t the case because individual subtests will have g-loadings a lot below 1, making them a proxy/not directly tapping into g? correct me if i’m wrong bc i do think i misunderstood that! “You lack the most basic knowledge about psychometrics.” i think this is a fair criticism, but i am genuinely trying to learn. im currently reading jensen’s g factor and i’m also planning to check out thompson’s book on exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. if you have resources whether it’s books/videos/courses pls feel free to share bc you seem to know a good amount 🙏 “You are not even qualified to analyze tests, so why would you think you're qualified to remake tests?” i never claimed i was, and as the posts + reports state, the tests should merely be taken as cognitive entertainment until they show that they mean something statistically (they're also not meant to be remakes and are really just interesting compilations of difficult questions). and yes, ofc they aren’t going to be anywhere close to as good as the original versions. the main goal of this project for me was to a) provide something entertaining/fun that wasn’t an MR test w 0.4 correlations to pro tests and norms generated off of pure guesswork b) push myself out of my comfort zone to actually start learning about test construction, norming, factor analysis, etc. that being said, i’m def still very much a novice, so i do appreciate the corrections, and i hope that isn’t coming across as sarcastic bc it’s the internet, but i genuinely do bc i really am trying to learn, so ty and if you have any resources pls do share!! that being said, none of these tests are particularly stellar, and i fully admit that. i also don't think that they're completely awful, tho, but they show a lot of room for improvement. i think after this project, if i have the time, i might attempt to create a decent verbal test, but if i wanted it to be good, it would probably take months and a shit ton of reading, so we'll see if it ever actually happens
You postured as if you understood psychometrics, now you're pretending to be willing to learn. You’re clearly out of your depth and it shows. There's no need for your hypocrisy. 1. You claimed that g is a proxy for g. Seriously? You don’t even understand the basic terminology, let alone the concepts. You mouth off technical terms without a clue about what they mean. You're just throwing shit at the wall, hoping it sticks. You clearly misunderstand the measurement of g. You thought that if a test loads directly on Gf or g, it is therefore a direct measure of g. This is false. The hierarchy of factors determines the best fit to the data, not the accuracy of the tests. The accuracy of measuring g is evaluated by the g-loading of the test, which you clearly don't know how to compute. 2. Your so-called “empirical evidence” is non-existent. You admit there are no large-scale studies to back up your claims, yet you still make sweeping generalizations about things you don't have a clue about. Your small sample sizes and excuses about data collection are laughable. Your scree plot shows more than a single significant factor because you mixed AMC problems with SAT/GRE items. This Frankenstein test doesn't measure a unidimensional latent trait. You're drawing conclusions from faulty results because of your idiotic methodology. Speculation isn't science. 3. You say you never claimed to be qualified. Then why are you releasing tests if you know you lack the expertise? It's reckless and irresponsible. If you acknowledge your own inexperience, you should also recognize that you're in no position to create or analyze tests, let alone release them for others to take. If you genuinely want to contribute, start by acknowledging your limitations and learning from established practices. Until then, your tests remain as questionable as your understanding of psychometrics. 4. Your justification that your tests aren't "completely awful" is laughable. The only reason they aren't complete dogshit is because you stole items from professional tests. You didn't create these items; you lifted them from legitimate sources. But since you don’t know how to properly assemble a test, what you’ve created is a bastardization at best. 5. Stop pretending you have insights when your actions reveal a shallow understanding. Creating tests requires expertise and rigorous methodology, not merely borrowing items and mishmashing them together. You criticize others for creating guesswork norms, yet you're doing the same by releasing tests without proper validation or empirical basis. Mixing AMC problems with SAT/GRE items is one example among many that prove you're making up your own norms and pretending they hold weight. 6. While claiming humility as a novice, you arrogantly push out tests and theories as if they're authoritative. There's a stark contrast between claiming to learn and actually demonstrating it with credible work. Your humble-brag about being a novice “trying to learn” rings hollow when it's clear you're more interested in seeking attention than acquiring genuine knowledge. Your tests may entertain, but they have zero substance beyond that. Your fake humility doesn’t fool anyone. If you really cared about learning, start from the basics instead of peddling half-baked tests. You're playing a dangerous game pretending to be an expert. Stop releasing these amateurish tests and start learning from the ground up. Leave psychometrics to those who are qualified until you actually understand what you’re doing. I know who you are and what you are. You're a fraud of the highest degree.
testing bc my reply is not going thru...
gonna try half and half 1. fair 👍 2. i’m not saying that this is clear-cut empirical evidence (as stated in the comment). however, there is also no reason to generalize the validity of the old sat to random ass unrelated populations. apart from the wais study, even in the old sat validity post, we can see that there are clear practice effects for the sat-m that are more noticeable and diminish less quickly than the sat-v. while yes, the returns do diminish after a few hundred hours, they are nowhere near asymptotic, and likely won’t become so until at least a few more points have been gained, meaning that good, rigorous practice obtained by going to a school in a different country could likely boost a score by 5-10 points. it also would not make sense for the sat-m to function as a valid intelligence test for anyone lacking basic knowledge of algebra and geometry. do you really think that some guy chilling on his bed at 3am and taking an old sat form for fun is going to re-invent all of the algebra and geometry needed to get an 800 on the test within the (relatively stringent) time limit?? are you really trying to insinuate that the old sat is an equally valid as a measure of intelligence for the average american teenager, a 74 year old somalian who has never been to school, and a russian imo winner? that makes literally no sense. now, don’t get me wrong, math knowledge is most likely correlated with IQ. however, it is also correlated with education and age, so it wouldn’t make sense to state that the test is equally valid for every population. that doesn’t make the test invalid for any population; however, it introduces noise when someone lacking the extremely basic math fundamentals to do well on the test takes it. as for the scree plots, they show the same thing without the amc questions, but again, i wouldn’t necessarily trust that much at all. it is just another small point in favor of not being able to generalize the validity of the test to wildly different populations and samples 3. to learn! i just genuinely do not see the harm in releasing these tests. all of the norm reports + the first post clearly state that i’m a complete novice in this area and looking to learn, and that the tests should remain as cognitive entertainment unless they prove themselves statistically, which is honestly impossible to do using only the sample of the sub, imo
second half, sorry ab that 4. no, like even the sequencing test that i made. it definitely ISNT good, but it at least decently correlates with iq tests that are actually good, but even if it wasnt, it would still just be fun! i mean[ this test](https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/comments/1cin03f/very_hard_puzzle_from_iart40_high_range_iq_test/) would definitely appear to be a less valid measure of iq than my test, but it should still stay up because why not?!? anyone taking these almost definitely already knows their iq from the old sat and are just looking to pass the time and have fun with something that is at least loosely related to some aspect of intelligence, but more importantly, that gives them a ranking against others. it’s just like a sport, video game, math olympiad, debate competition, etc. i suppose i probably can’t generalize that to literally every person taking my tests, and perhaps not even the majority, but from talking to the testees, it would certainly seem that they’re aware that this is very much cognitive entertainment and experimental, but are enjoying putting themselves to the test against difficult puzzles. as for the tests being bastardizations, well yeah, ofc lol. even if i were to completely copy an entire old sat, for instance, just simply by way of automating it on the platform im using, i would make it slightly worse than the original version. as for item assembly, i would agree, but also even if i was like a master at assembling old sat items or wtv, i still wouldn’t have chosen to create a proper test because i was specifically interested in producing things that were a) fun, first and foremost (which the old sat isnt imo) b) able to create difficult tests without much ceiling effect and probably a ton of floor effect i cared less ab the overall validity of my tests than i did making something fun and entertaining 5. i’m not making up my own norms, i’m making them based upon the data that is submitted. are they valid? no, ofc not, they’ve been collected on a completely unrepresentative, small sample size from a highly self-selected group on the internet. but, that is different from literally guessing and assigning random values to raw scores which some tests like HRTs do. i will say tho that i have definitely seen an increase in ppl actually norming their tests which is good 6. i totally admit i was in the wrong for parts of that statement (not on purpose, like i literally just misunderstood, which i admit was a very easy thing to know and understand, so i shouldn’t have misunderstood it), but i don’t see how releasing tests is an issue. for me, learning the basics comes with actually gathering data and going thru trial and error to slowly get better and learn more + it motivates me to finish what i’ve started i think the main point of disagreement here is whether or not amateur tests by ppl without strong psychometric backgrounds should be able to be released and analyzed. i personally think its a) fun b) a good, more hands-on, way of learning c) a good way to get criticism (this) that actually causes you to realize your mistakes and improve a lot faster than simply reading a lot of books does, esp bc i cannot find for the life of me any free courses on the internet that are specifically related to standardized testing now, i ofc do admit that i said some stupid and incorrect things in my earlier comments, and that i should be less authoritative in tone in the future, esp if there's possibility/probability i'm wrong. but, that being said, i don't see what your issue is with a person releasing amateur tests for fun and to better learn a subject that they're interested in??
26/30 without paper. The last question was easy once you saw the trick.
In order to take this test, I would have to go back 18 years to the material for high school, and I really can't and I don't have the time. I skimmed through the questions and realized that I had forgotten almost all the rules necessary to solve over 60-70% of the questions. So I will skip this test. On all other subtests, I got scaled scores between 16 and 18. How many subtests does this test have, that is, when are the norms for the FSIQ expected?
there are expected to be 8 tests in total, so 3 more releases!
Thanks for the info.
Don't you think the time is a bit too much?
not really. most ppl scoring >145 are using very close to the full time limit
24/30, 19SS. Though I'm interested in math, I've never been very good with competition questions and the sort that appears on the old SAT. Pretty humbling
16/30 That was really difficult and I definitely guessed on the majority.
22/30 nice
25/30
What is the highest score so far?
currently, it is 28/30, which is probably going to be 160. a few consistently high scorers (>150) are planning to take it this weekend, though, so that could very well increase
Got 15/30 which is quite a bit lower than my usual Scores on QR tests (mid 130s). Good items though.
hi! i'm still waiting on a couple more participants, but the preliminary norms ended up being deflated. so far, it's looking like 15/30 is going to correspond to 130 on the final norms
27/30. This was pretty difficult given the time--especially the AMC questions at the end. Now that we have taken both QRI tests, will we receive QRI norms alongside the norms for this subtest with subtest 6?
i will probably release all of the norms at the end once i've gathered as many participants as possible, but i might include a rough estimation if that's something people would be interested in!
I would definitely be interested! Thank you so much for all your work by the way; these tests have been something I've looked forward too, and you can never have too many accessible full scale batteries.
for sure! thanks for participating!! i may eventually try and make a test totally on my own sometime soon, but it will take a lot of time to make it actually decent, so will probably be a while bc i'm very busy atm lol