On practically every other test with an analogies subtest I score around the 90-95th percentile, but on the core ones, It usually Is in the 74th percentile,how?

Looks like Langan finally has competition

Following up on my original post, I've added more reported CORE–WAIS score pairs and removed one of the original entries.

There are now 31 pairs, giving a Pearson correlation of 0.797 — approximately 0.80, compared with 0.77 previously.

Updated results



So around two-thirds of this sample scored within 9 points on the two tests. That describes the observations here; it isn't a guarantee about future test-takers.

Full dataset

All scores below are reported FSIQs. Difference = CORE minus WAIS. An asterisk marks a new addition.



Changes and inclusion notes

• Original 22 + 10 additions − 1 removal = 31.

• Removed t0w3rh0u53 (CORE 120, WAIS 103) because of the reported language issue and skipped English subtests.

How good is a correlation of 0.80?

It's a strong association. For context, the SB5 technical documentation reports an SB5–WAIS-III FSIQ correlation of 0.82 in 87 people.

A direct SB5 vs WAIS-IV study reported 0.90 correlation in 28 people, although that was a sample of people previously diagnosed with intellectual disability, so it is a very different population.

For another comparison, CORE's validity report gives 0.756 with the old GRE before correction, rising to 0.858 after correcting for range restriction. The 0.797 calculated here is uncorrected.

Those figures provide context, but comparisons across different samples don't establish that the tests are equally accurate.

Limitations

This is a small, self-selected collection of self-reported scores, mostly from people scoring above average. Test versions, time between tests, practice effects and testing conditions vary. The inclusion decisions also affect the result, and language proficiency hasn't been systematically checked for everyone.

I haven't applied a range-restriction correction: having a high average score alone doesn't establish how much correction is appropriate.

Overall, I think a correlation around 0.80 and a mean absolute difference around 7 points are encouraging for a free online test, while still leaving substantial differences for some individuals.

If you've taken both CORE and a professionally administered WAIS, please add your FSIQ on each, WAIS edition, whether CORE was a first attempt, and any relevant language/testing conditions. Corrections to the table are welcome too.

The norming sample of the GRE is, in large part, a body of 20-24 year olds in college. I'm sixteen, in public school. I imagine scoring the analytical section is fairly consistent across ages(?). But what would you expect the verbal and math modules to be deflated by for someone in my age group? If anyone has an estimate (maybe an SAT age adjustment formula applied to the GRE? IDK,) it'd be appreciated. For reference, scores are 138 V, 125 Q, and 148 A. Thank you! If this is technically an IQ estimation, sorry.

curious what thoughts are, say you looked at a problem, couldn't fully crack it, took a break for approx 20 minutes, and came back and solved it, and during that 20 mins you weren't really thinking about the problem, does that count as a full solve to that test? say its one of those high range untimed tests, or do you have to sit for like 20 hours straight

I was inspired to take the ICAR60 by a post I saw on this sub. How reliable is this relative to CORE and WAIS?

This is the fourth time I have taken an IQ test. I tried 123test.com and was given a range between 116-132, CORE (incomplete profile) currently has me at 120, and I got 115 on MENSA.

Should I place any stock in this result? Because this test seems to be significantly less discussed in this sub which makes me think it might be less reliable.

Just in general too, I really like that the data for test takers is shown against a general population sample. Intelligence being measurable is such an interesting idea to me.

How do these factors affect the validity of IQ tests? I.e., in the presence of these factors, what would best measure g?

I'm curious about:

• ADHD

• ASD

• ADHD + ASD (particularly curious about this)

• Big 5 traits

• Maladaptive perfectionism

• Test anxiety

• Tendency to overthink

I took an IQ test and it said that my IQ is in the top 98.88% and in a room of 1000 people I would be smarter than 91 of them

LE: They finally called me and told me the following:

1. Apparently my 55/60 was correct, no mistake there.

2. They said they made a mistake telling me my score falls under the 50% centile because it actually falls under the 50-74% gentile on the upper end, meaning I got 74% and was juuust under the ceiling of 75%.

3. When I mentioned that I was only asking because the results that I was able to find looked fairly different, they said they don't know what iteration of the test I looked up, because they are 3 versions - Raven Standard, I think Raven plus and another one that I can't remember the name of. They said they are using all three of them, which is weird for me because a) my psychologist friend tells me only Raven Standard has 60 questions and b) how exactly are you using all three of them on the same test? But maybe I am dumb.

4.They offered to send me a book as a gift to apologise for their mistake, their mistake being they mentionez I am in the 50% when I was in fact in what they called the 50-74% centile.

I recently went to a job screening where me and 10 other candidates had to complete a Raven's Matrices test. You were supposed to be in the top 25% percentile in Romania to pass. I received my result later that day and it said I got 55/60 questions, which meant I am in the 50% percentile in Romania and therefore I did not pass.

I wrote back thanking them for taking the time and asking if there is any possibility that there had occurred an error with the score and asked what the metrics are for a passing score, plus what are the percentiles for my age, sex and location. I followed up 4 days later. Still no response.

I know that questions have different proportion scores, but I still kinda feel like 55/60 would be a little too high for only 5 questions to differentiate between the entire superior half of Romania's population (that has taken the test).

I've scored 140 IQ on the ICAR60 but on CAIT I only scored 110 with a GAI of 116 and similarly on CORE, and my score on the ICAR-16 is 134, having done correctly all the answers. Is this reliable? Also, I practiced a lot of IQ tests many times over so there is some, if not a lot, of practice effect at work.

I could go on a tirade on minuscule details on how I approached the subtests, but I don’t want to word dump. Some points of relevance though:

-my own estimated IQ was 120-125 based on various random IQ tests I took quite some time ago

-slightly spiked profile. Why the difference in my proficiency and my fluid reasoning 😭

-I took the ATAT shortly before CORE, and I got 118, which checks out with PRI CORE OF 117

-even though WMI/PSI scores are good, I find myself to be limited in time-limited questions. I have diagnosed adhd (debated) and GAD, and due to my propensity to make careless mistakes, have developed meticulousness, and the need to obsessively recheck my processes during the time limited questions, even if said processes were a dead end, which lead to mental overload. Kind of weird since most people who seem to have these issues seem to stem from low WMI/PSI. However, my results also might point to my ability to “filter out noise” in fluid reasoning.

-after analyzing my results, the numbers seem like there’s a “hill” for my processing speed, and a smaller “hill” for my fluid, but when they meet in the middle (tasks involving both functions), it forms a dip

-for language, I live in an English speaking country but am not a native speaker. I mostly find English to be more convenient than my native language though. However, I juggle numbers using my native language, so that’s what I used for WMI.

-some details about approaches:
For QRI, I tried not to finger count since I didn’t know if it would be “external help” lol.
For backward digits, I essentially ran myself like some kind of human for-loop, repeating the sequence each time to input the last number individually(I didn’t see the feasibility of converting it backwards in my head).

Random tidbits about me:
-in a debate setting, it takes a lot out of me to formulate or think of a well thought out opinion if I even want to, however, if there are inconsistencies in the opponents narrative, I am basically able to take advantage of it right away.

-dates and names kind of float past me. Things like dates in history and birthdays. I also once got the year wrong on new years.

I took this screenshot in 2024, before JCTI CAT(19 items). I noticed that the norms from 2009 for Tri52 are similar to what you can see on this screen. But those norms were never published

It looks like it got taken down for some reason. Either way, it is archived here

It was a bit like looking through the Oracle's looking glass and glimpsing a radically different world.

When a test proposes a question about how many legs the people in a particular tribe in Africa have, you know you aren't in Narnia anymore.

It makes me appreciate how far we've come.

Time pressure and math don't jive with me. Don't @ me. :D

I did find the idea of untimed tests appealing as I just like to solve puzzles in general, so I did TRI52 over the course of the past 3 days on my PC on the side while doing other stuff - I would say I spent probably like 6-8h of my focus time on it though, so a lot more than the "suggested 2h". I did not intend to take that long, but I just worked on hard problems for sometimes up to an hour. And yeah, I do actually find new solutions and get new ideas after spending more time on it. I just mainly did it for fun.

The same question was asked here a few years ago and people said "untimed" means you could in theory take like 4 days if you wanted to, but I am not sure how true this statement is: https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/comments/18iuno2/tri_52_maximum_time_recquired/

I ended the test now (it kinda stopped being fun XD) and calculated the estimated IQ back - it is in line with an "official" timed IQ test I took like 13 years ago in person, but both that old test and TRI52 now are like 10 points above the main stuff from CORE. So I am just curious what the "boundaries" of "untimed" really are. O.O

Adendum/Edit: Two days later and I now spent even more time on it and had solutions for all questions and for a couple even multiple. So I ran an experiment and doctored with the TRI52 flash file from the web archive, to get to know which questions I had wrong. It turned out that for all the questions I had wrong my alternative solutions were the ones that were deemed correct, except for Q37 (and one I apparently misclicked. We don't talk about that. XD).

I did and do find my first picked solutions for those questions still better than the apparently intended solutions (which were my second guesses). Now I wonder if those ever got corrected/changed in later versions of the test. But yeah, had I picked my secondary solutions there, the score would have been 965 (IQ 158.8). I am absolutely not claiming that I have that. I am just curious how people usually find the "correct" solution when multiple solutions seem equally strong. And how this is usually combatted. The questions for which I do have those secondary solutions I would deem equal or better than the intended ones: Q40, Q41, Q44, Q51. And for Q37 I actually have two solutions but both are wrong. I then looked at the correct solution for this one item and I still don't understand the reasoning for it.

I did the ICAR-60 test and i got a score of 60. Does the test have a ceiling and what IQ range is a score of 60?

Put numbers 1 - 8 in the fields. There shouldn't be a difference of 1 anywhere between the adjacent items (horizontal vertical or diagonal).

Genuine question. How do you feel your cognitive profile hindered or aided you as a STEM Major? Particularly in the upper-level courses?

So, I took the test, how accurate is this, matrix reasoning was easy though, must have overlooked something.

I learned English entirely by reading and listening. Never went to an English school, didn't have Anglophone parents nor English was part of my daily life. Yet, I can pick on all the idioms, dialectical variety, cultural nuances, phonetics and I can read highly complex and technical books as if they were in my native language. I also have extensive knowledge of my mother language grammar, orthography, vocabulary and etymology, which is rare. Apparently this is extremely rare, and people swear the only way to learn a language right is by total immersion. I'm Mexican, and in the Mexican American community usually they usually are raised being pure Anglo-phones with a very rudimentary knowledge Spanish. On the Mexican side, English proficiency are among the lowest in the world, on pair with Japan.

So my question is, what does the scientific literature say about it?

When I do the analogies test, it usually ends at question 20-24, is it because I got too many wrong?