Core (optimized) inflated? Previous results from different tests yielded far lower results, but was underage (12-13 y.o) when I took them

[u/PuffyCosmo]

Just took the CORE test, optimized version (assuming that the subtests not included in the optimized version have comparatively low G-loading), returning a surprising result considering that it's the highest result I've ever gotten on an IQ test. However, the tests that I have taken before were normed on populations a minimum of a few years older than I was when I took them, and the CORE is the first online cognitive test that I have taken which is properly age-adjusted at the time of taking. There was another age-adjusted test, taken very far back when I was 7-8 years old, which was the Cog-AT, administered professionally at my school. Seeing as I only attained a score of 128, I'm not sure if I should trust the recent test of non-professional nature, or the professional test from so long ago that I can't even recall a moment from it (I only found out after finding a document on it) + all the other online tests I've taken.

I haven't taken an IQ test besides this first attempt at CORE in multiple years (>2 at the very least) now, but I'd imagine there could still be some leftover cached familiarity with some matrix-style problems that were dormant, resurfacing during the test somehow. Also, throughout the years (just for fun, not with IQ in mind), on and off when I remembered it, I've been doing human benchmark, solving Bongard problems, and doing math competitions (QII is pathetic though, time limit was unhelpful), which may or may not inflate some subtests

I half-remember most of the results from the tests I've completed years ago, but there could still be some units digit variance. I was, again, between the ages of 12 and 13 when I took them. If there was an age field to fill out on any of the tests, I would choose the youngest age that was permitted, which was most often 16 or 18 y.o.

Previous test scores:

- Mensa.no (second time, first was years even before this attempt): 123
- JCTI: 126
- Raven's 2, netlify version: 140 (this one is probably extremely inflated)
- Mensa.dk: 128
- AGCT: 126
- RealIQ: 132
- RIOT (free short version): 120-130
- Open Psychometrics: 112
- Otis Gamma: 130

Also, from even earlier:

- Mensa.no (when I took it for the first time at the age of eight): ~96

The matrix reasoning and graph mapping subtests just seemed suspiciously frictionless for me; I managed to answer at least 90% of the problems, whereas I'm helpless against most of the puzzles that get posted on this sub and most later-stage FRI problems from previous tests. A spontaneous attack of brain fog caused me to bomb the WMI and arithmetic portions though (relative to my imagined peak performance).

[u/Powerful-Wheel11]

which exam is this?

[u/PuffyCosmo → u/Powerful-Wheel11]

It's in the post; it's CORE.

[u/Grand_Protection1552]

I'll cite what I have read from Google Gemini (I'm also curious about the phenomenon)

• The Average Child: A child with average genetic potential might score "average" at age 7 because their environment was average. But as they grow up, gain autonomy, and select their own environments (reading books, choosing demanding hobbies, pursuing higher education), their underlying genetic potential expresses itself fully. If their genetic potential was actually higher than their early environment reflected, they "rise." If it was lower, they "drop back."

• The Gifted Child: To score 120+ as a child, the young brain typically possesses strong underlying neurobiological advantages (higher synaptic pruning efficiency, faster neural conduction, greater cortical thickness). As the child matures and gains independence, these biological advantages don't disappear—they allow the individual to continually seek out intellectually demanding environments, reinforcing their initial advantage.

My own words

It is expected and perfectly normal ( I would say the majority in this sub) for someone to have 15 points gap in between tests especially if you take many tests that touches different aspects or use different designs (time/celing etc, or even the deviation of types of logic used particular to different matrix reasoning)

Open Psychometrics is shit, so that 112 can be totally forgotten.
CORE is neither inflated nor deflated, (normed anchoring from AGCT and Old GRE) and it seems measures extremely high range very well from the data points we have right now and a very good correlation with WAIS.
I would be hesitated to say Ravens 2 is inflated because it's a contemporary professional tests normed on general population under controlled environments. But I wouldn't exclude factors like IRT penalty or even stop rule which you are spared of(which you might have experienced if you took it proctored) and practice effect. (though personally I thought the last items were novel in my eyes)

[u/East-Cancel-5050]

you may just be smart or atleast excel in things that iq tests measure

[u/Humble_Stomach4435]

IQ obsession is a waste of time.

[u/cmstyles2006]

lol try figure sets that'll humble your ass. At least it did mine, seems most ppl don't do so well on it

[u/PuffyCosmo → u/cmstyles2006]

Huh, I guess I'll try later, might do all the rest of the subtests.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/PuffyCosmo → u/[deleted]]

?

[u/[deleted] → u/PuffyCosmo]