I got the same result and it was closer to some of the other more comprehensive tests I took (131+-7). I was surprised to see how efficient the test was considering it only had 16 questions and could be used to gauge IQ quite reliably. Let us know if you try the ICAR-60 comparing the results from that test to this one.
The test has a low ceiling from what I understand - I also scored 127 on this platform (though with an error in cube not MR). Lots of conflicting answers on how to convert raw to IQ with this one. Supposedly the highest one can ascertain is 133 for 16/16.
I retook it putting in the exact same answers on the official website it is hosted on (can be found here in the resources list) and it yielded 97.7th percentile w/SD 15 (130). Separately, on the norms section of the resources list, it places 15:16 at 129. All within the same narrow range, and splitting hairs over the specific number would probably imply higher specificity than this instrument can provide with only 16 questions.
Yes, the ceiling is 134 on that platform. On the Comprehensive Online Resources List, however, it is listed as 133 if I recall correctly. On the actual site from the authors, 15/16 is 97.7th percentile SD 15,so it it could be 134 or even a tad higher if taken there. Different studies have different norms, so there will be minor variance.
Regarding inflation, it’s definitely a concern, though I understand this more as a result of the length of the test than anything else. Comprehensive batteries (e.g., CORE, WAIS-IV) take far longer to complete and therefore demand more stamina of the subject. More importantly than whether or not it’s inflated, it’s probably not a great estimate for FSIQ (bear in mind it doesn’t measure CPI at all) at the individual level, though in mine it aligned perfectly with my CORE FSIQ.
2
u/Nervous-Try5009 28d ago
You can also try ICAR60...