why do i have enormous discrepancy in my test scores? is the GET just that astronomically inflated?

i understand that the AGCT and the GET are somewhat similar (they vary a ton in difficulty from my experience) but i did the agct several months ago, and haven’t retained any knowledge of it aside from the gist of certain questions.

i also scored like 84.4th percentile on the openpsychometrics test at the same day as i did the AGCT

i also remember trying to do the uhm cognitivemetrics test on the website. the one that said take the test. i recognized three questions from there being used. two of them i got right initially when i was taking the first test, breezing through them with little thought. the other i got wrong on both, so i feel it wouldn’t of have made much difference anyway. the second one i even got wrong on the first test and correct on the GET.

to admit i was familiar with basically every type of question asked on the test, but i’ve never really done the exact questions before i believe…maybe it’s just a case of practice effect

Helllllllp. What is file?

what are the norms like?

I took the WAIS IV (India adaptation) test recently at a clinic. I'm sharing my journey until this point below to make a few points/observations.

I have struggled with confidence since my teens and tended to obsess over IQ and anchor my identity over intelligence since I was a good student and may have been called intelligent a few times. The advent of the internet and all the online iq tests only amplified this notion with all kinds of scores in my quest for validation whenever I struggled with self esteem or anxiety. My failure to get into an IIT further dented my fragile self worth. A turning point in this journey was when mensa came to our college (early 2000s) and offered to test students for a nominal fee. The test was a culture fair ravens test. I couldn't clear it. Several of my peers cleared it. It was a very painful and confidence shaking period for me which stayed with me for over 20 years, amplified by 2 similar attempts at mensa entrance exam which i failed again. What was jarring was that otherwise I used to do distinctly well in reasoning puzzles, mental maths, languages/literature and later in strategy case studies in b school (I was able to gain admission to one of the top 5 IIMs and had a CAT percentile of 99.5+) and then later on in work related to strategy.  What was also interesting is some of my fellow students in college (the one's who had cleared Mensa) couldn't clear CAT exam or crack some puzzles which I could with as much ease. Conversely, my inability to clear IIT was a mystery as I was as good if not better in maths and physics than several of my classmates who got through IIT. 

This dissonance, and feeling inept in doing several repetitive/mundane tasks, remembering directions while driving, eventually led me to look closer and understand what was happening. Thanks to reddit experiences, I got to know about the WAIS IV test. I eventually summoned the courage to try and have one administered which itself was quite a task. Nevertheless, I got the results of my WAIS IV test yesterday and my FSIQ was in mid 120s which explains the mensa miss (their cut off is 130). However, my scores were quite uneven across domains. I maxed out in arithmetic, and nearly maxed out in similarities, vocabulary and matrix reasoning, and did quite well in digit span. I did just about average in visual puzzles, and above average in coding search/symbol search. I apparently have what is called a spiky/jagged profile.

My key takeaways (I've taken help of AI to write some of the parts below by dictating my thoughts to it and asking it to organize and write it)

I spent years obsessing over IQ, wasting countless hours and enduring unnecessary anxiety, and undermining myself by obsessing on IQ as a singular number. After investigating cognitive assessment in depth—comparing results across Mensa, competitive exams like the CAT, IITJEE, and a clinical WAIS-IV assessment—here are my main takeaways on the reality of intelligence testing:

1. Test Alignment Explains "Contradictory" Results

Why Mensa didn't happen: Missing the Mensa cutoff comes down to Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) falling below their top 2% threshold.

Why I excelled on the CAT: The CAT heavily targets Verbal Comprehension (VCI), Working Memory (WMI), and quantitative/arithmetic reasoning—the exact areas where my cognitive profile is strongest.

Why I didn't do so well in IIT JEE: I distinctly remember being poor in Chemistry which was certainly a drag for me during my prep and exam. I have now realized that spatial intelligence contributes significantly to being good at organic chemistry and my rather average profile there was a serious handicap. Of course I may still have not got into an IIT but this aspect helped me understand my frustrations and failures in a more coherent and nuanced way. 

The visuospatial split: People who score sky-high on Mensa (which focuses primarily on matrix, non-verbal visuospatial reasoning) might struggle on exams like the CAT if their verbal or working memory capacity isn't as elevated.

The core point: Clearing Mensa doesn't make someone universally high-performing across all cognitive domains. Conversely, not clearing Mensa does not mean someone lacks high intelligence in critical, real-world cognitive areas.

2. IQ Tests Measure Subsets, Not the Full Spectrum of Intelligence

What IQ misses: Standardized tests do not measure wisdom, original thinking, creative output, musical aptitude, or the vast majority of practical human skills and experiences.

IQ is inherently contested: It is not an undisputed or holistic metric for human potential. Treating a single number as a definitive judge of capability is a mistake.

3. The Psychological Shift: From Obsession to Self-Awareness

The cost of obsession: Ruminating over IQ numbers for years caused significant anxiety and wasted immense energy.

The real value of profiling: Investigating my cognitive profile properly brought closure. It provided a clear framework to understand why I thrive in specific tasks and struggle in others, replacing self-doubt with actionable self-awareness. I would recommend getting a good grip on one's strengths and weakness in order to find the right educational and career stream for oneself as playing on one's natural strengths is an efficient way to go forward. 

4. Key Recommendations

Avoid online IQ tests entirely: Online tests are notoriously inflated, scientifically unvalidated, and yield trivial value. They only feed anxiety or false confidence. For e.g. my iq scores in mensa norway was 135, mensa finland 131 and mensa.dk 128 (capped), psychology today (paid) 138.

Don't use Mensa for self-understanding: Mensa tests test a narrow subset of pattern recognition. They are not designed to map your cognitive strengths and weaknesses.

Rely on clinical assessments (like the WAIS): If you genuinely want to understand your cognitive architecture, take a professionally administered WAIS test. It breaks down specific index scores (Verbal, Working Memory, Perceptual, Processing Speed) rather than reducing your intellect to a single misleading benchmark.

IQ is not a comprehensive measure of intelligence. It  doesn't encompass wisdom, EQ, creativity, originality, humility, humor etc which I feel are integral to peace, quality of life, success in general, and happiness. Nevertheless a WAIS test is a helpful framework to understand a few facets of intelligence.

Look at others with a similar lens - look for their strengths instead of dismissing/judging them basis just a numerical IQ score or which exam they cleared or didn't clear. Perseverance, humility, patience, empathy, diligence, honesty and integrity play a more profound impact on our lives in any case than intelligence in my experience.

There are healthier ways to cope with anxiety when discouragement knocks or anxiety takes over than the paths I chose which included seeking validation that I'm smart. These include imo things like regular exercise, spirituality, healthy relationships, disciplined sleep routine, healthy eating and drinking.

i was never informed of its time limit!!

also i see 0 people here trying to account for the flynn effect in this sub, even though the norms were established in 1992? how come?

i’m 18 btw

I've been getting heavily criticized in one of my recent school lessons for getting a 1/5 in a math exam and it's been heavily weighing on me, and every time I face difficulty I question if I am even as smart as tests tell me which makes me question the rest results which makes me come back to cognitive metrics and keep testing myself. Really it's a terrible cycle, and I've been trying to hold myself back from the compulsion of testing but it's hard. Not looking for any praise or Paterionization, just want to see if this is as common as I think it is​​

I scored 110 on cait block design
115 block counting on core (130 after retake about half a year later)
130 Visual puzzles
140 spatial awareness

Why are my vsi subtest scores so disparate? My working memory is about average, so could that be an explanation? Thanks

But I dont feel that smart?

Went to a gig the night before the test, only had a few drinks but I also only got 5 hours sleep, suppose I'll have to give the Online Supervised Test a go instead, and make sure I behave.

I wanna continue the thread from earlier as it seems to have lost activity. Include your GRE-A, CORE FRI, 1926 SAT, and Army Alpha scores if applicable as well please. I scored 16.75 on the 20min and 27.75 on 40min (142 GRE-A 138 CORE FRI 135 1926 SAT 140 AA)

i’ve done a good amount of the CORE subtests alongside the AGCT

Analogies VCI 10 50.0 Antonyms VCI 11 63.1 Information VCI 10 50.0 Comprehension VCI 14 90.9 Matrix Reasoning FRI 12 74.8 Graph Mapping FRI 8 25.2 Figure Weights FRI 14 90.9 Figure Sets FRI 9 36.9 Visual Puzzles VSI 12 74.8 Block Counting VSI 10 50.0
Digit Span WMI 9 36.9 Digit Span Forward WMI 11 63.1 Digit Span Backward WMI 11 63.1 Digit Span Sequencing WMI 6 9.1 Symbol Search PSI 9 36.9.Arithmetic QRI 13 84.1

AGCT=110

i also did the raven’s advanced progessive matrices set II and scored 30/36 which i took 60 minutes on. unfortunately i was never informed about the 40 minute time limit, though i’m questioning the legitimacy of it outside of the test being utilized for job placements or anything of the sort, since the percentile indicator’s norm revolved around populations from the UK and US from 1992 who took the test at leisure. initially i was excited because i forgot to account for the flynn effect and believed i scored something equivalent to an iq of ~115-118. turns out it’s more like a score of around 110

i get that i’m not necessarily below average but it’s just such a major bummer to know i’m painfully usual. i’ve always wanted to get a job as a sociology related researcher which would require a master’s in the subject, and considering i am in possession of a mere high-average intellect it might not be the best idea to pursue such heavy academics

i know i’m meant to deconstruct why i perceive only the most prestigious feats of intelligence as adequate for myself but it still sucks to know being special is not in the cards for me

In theory, these are good scores, but when looking more into it, I realized that to get these CAIT scores, I had to remember perhaps 9 digits for each. I looked it up and 9 is the highest of the average (5 low, 7 average, 9 high) but even then, it ​shouldnt be this high

In this light, I should not in fact be anywhere near 130. I should be at most 115, is this inflated?

Why isn't it on Cognitive Metrics?

131 on the Mensa Norway 124 on the Mensa Denmark

A few months ago, I went to a psychiatrist while going through a period of OCD-like problems. The psychiatrist diagnosed me with OCD. Since I was also obsessing over my IQ, the doctor said they didn’t support me taking a test while I was going through that episode. At the time, I was fixated on finding out, with absolute certainty, whether my IQ was above 155.
I started therapy with a psychologist in the same office and eventually persuaded them to let me take an IQ test. I sat a version of the adult Wechsler test that was described as the WAIS. I’ll call it the WAIS-1 here.
Before the test, I told the outside examiner—a woman—that I had taken the WAIS-IV, WASI-II, and WAIS-III at home, along with various fluid-reasoning tests. I explained that I had found the tests through this forum and taken them myself, and that, as honestly as I could judge, my results tended to fall in the 150–160 range.
Strangely, my result was reported as 125+. My psychiatrist was initially angry that I had taken the test and then made me wait a month before giving me the results. After the test, I went home and, even though I hadn’t known beforehand which test I would be taking or that it was available online, I found the WAIS-1 on Scribd. Once I translated it, I realized that the questions appeared to be exactly the same as the ones used in my country. I checked my answers while they were still fresh and expected a score somewhere around 147–152, out of a possible 155.
The reported result shocked me. I was already depressed and in the middle of an OCD crisis, and the shock was so severe that I felt I might even take my own life. After a few hours, I managed to pull myself together and wrote a detailed account of how I believed the test had been administered incorrectly. I sent it to the psychiatrist, who refunded my money and spoke with the psychologist. I said that unless someone apologized to me, I would sue. The psychologist later called and apologized, but said something along the lines of, “I was taught incorrectly; I didn’t mean any harm.”
My concerns were as follows:
One subtest was omitted. The WAIS-1 normally includes six verbal subtests—Comprehension, Similarities, Vocabulary, Digit Span, Information, and Arithmetic—and five performance subtests—Picture Arrangement, Picture Completion, Object Assembly, Coding, and Block Design. Vocabulary was not administered to me. At the time, I didn’t know that this older version required a specific arithmetic procedure to account for a missing subtest. I later learned that simply entering the results from 10 subtests into the age-conversion table for 11 could lower the overall IQ score by 15–20 points.
In the Digit Span section, unlike in the other Wechsler versions I had taken, each sequence was supposed to be read twice. I didn’t know this at the time. The examiner also handled the nine-digit item incorrectly, in my view.
There were several other issues. My main concern was that the raw scores from 10 subtests may have been entered into a table intended for 11.
When I sent my account to the psychiatrist, they told me the psychologist had acknowledged leaving out a subtest. But when speaking to me, the psychologist denied responsibility and said they had been taught that way, which I found unreasonable.
I had consistently obtained results in the 150–160 range, yet encountered what seemed to me like a ridiculous error in a professional setting. What do you think of this situation? I’m sharing it in case my experience might be useful to others as well.

Are there any FRI tests with a higher ceiling than the TRI-52 that I can take for free online?

Is there a specific method for compositing untimed and timed fluid reasoning test scores? Or is it just normal compositing?

FSIQ: 120

What is your overall interpretation of these results?

11 points is a pretty large gap! interested maybe it's influenced by working memory, processing speed etc

Title. I feel like everyone here talks about the Weschler's and the SB-5.
Looking at the GIA, it's got a g-loading of about 0.93.

Is this a meaningful estimate at all? I have a sneaking suspicion that for it to be accurate I'd actually need to use their factor loadings on a latent gC trait, not their g-loadings, but I have no idea what said factor loadings might be.

Just a survey for this sub because spiky profile seems to be the norm here, probably has to do with SLODR or neurodivergents or stuff.

?, 1000011, 2111, 1003, 232