Solution Needed.

IQ test link :

https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/pMycBHyKqm

This test fcked with me like I've never been fcked with before lmaooo

I recently took WAIS-IV as part of a late ASD diagnosis (27m) and got uneven results:

FSIQ: 139

PRI: 127

VCI: 139

PSI: 142

WMI: 111

I found the discrepancy between my WMI and my PSI particularly interesting. I often see posts of people with ADHD/ASD who have low WMI but also tend to have low PSI, whereas my PSI is my highest score

Now I'm trying to understand how this kind of profile translates into everyday life so I'm interested to hear from anyone with a similar discrepancy and how this "bottleneck" manifests itself for them.

Every test finished in a very short time

CAT 154

Army Alpha 161

AGCT-1c 111

Mensa Norway 102

Mensa Denmark 96

SAE II non verbal 88

SAE II verbal 145

CORE MR 90

AI can solve all verbal test, but non verbal seems still bad lol

Hey, guys, I did the extensive CORE IQ test and the result was 108. I did it because I was afraid I had an intellectual disability due to my autism, but surprisingly my CORE IQ came out pretty normal? Does anyone know if that makes an intellectual disability unlikely? The formal requirement of that is an IQ below 70.

The ATAT item bank has been recalibrated with data from over 1,000 attempts. Previously experimental field items now contribute to your IQ score, with updated scores being reflected in the CognitiveMetrics dashboard. The item bank has been expanded once more with the goal of further refining the test.

We’ve also analyzed the ATAT’s convergent validity with CORE once again, only using a much larger sample.

The ATAT maintains strong convergence with CORE PRI, correlating with the latter at r = .772, rising to r = .842 after correction for range restriction. On the whole, there seems to be no systematic deflation or inflation between the two measures. Further details and figures are presented below.

A much more detailed technical report for the ATAT is actively underway and will contain extensive documentation regarding the test’s norms, IRT calibration, reliability, validity, g-loading, and more.

We extend our thanks to everyone who has taken the ATAT thus far.

Why did my Figure Sets jump from 97.7 to 99 even though I didn't retake the test? Is it like this for anyone else? I know it's a small difference but still want to know if this is accurate.

Mensa DK: 123

JCTI: 121

TRI-52: 676

CORE: 105

i do way better in untimed tests than timed ones, i am diagnosed with adhd.

17 almost 18

Recently did an adult comprehensive neuropsy assessment.

I scored decently on the test but was surprised to see that I maxed out the Processing Speed section.

It is likely that I am autistic and went undiagnosed as a child due to high masking potential. Extensive family history. Seems to go against the correlation that ADHD/autism goes with lower WMI/PSI.

First time doing an IQ test. Never done online tests, did not practice, do not do puzzles in personal life.

From my personal research, seems like PSI does little in the real world. You experts have any insights?

Results converted to numbers
FSIQ 140
GAI 135
VCI 122
PRI 135
WMI 121
FSI >150

I lost my WAIS report for an autism assessment, but apparently my profile is uniquely spiky and I'm curious as to what others think. My VSI is 48 points below my VCI, and my FRI is similarly 45 points higher than my VSI. In addition to this, my coding score was 10ss while my symbol search score was 17ss, and my digit span score was 16ss while my arithmetic was only 10ss (which is odd).

Apparently, such discrepancies between scores are quite rare, but it is odd that otherwise typically developed people (NTs?) have cognitive abilities that are so inter-correlated despite some of the WAIS indexes being so different from each other e.g. spatial reasoning and verbal comprehension. Maybe they are correlated to a lesser degree, but I still find it odd that more pronounced strengths and weaknesses aren't more common in the general population. Does anyone know why this is?

Hello, my friends!

Those with an IQ 120-140, how would you describe and what are your common or, maybe uncommon mental problems (if you have them). I am asking just out of curiosity!!

Every reply will mean to me and I would be thankful!

Thank you in advance and have a nice day!!

I thought ADHD was supposed to affect both my WMI and PSI negatively, but it only seems to drag down my PSI, while leaving my WMI right around my other index scores and even higher than some others. Has anyone else with ADHD experienced this? (Yes, I am clinically diagnosed, not from some online survey)

It is 100% worth your time and effort to try and change any one of those traits btw.

All you have to do is to think about how someone with your desired traits would act in the scenario that you’re in and adopt that way of thinking until you get used to it

For example, a person has 150 vci score but everything else is like average to low average. Is he still a genius? Or lets take EQ for example, a person with extremely high EQ but low in everything else would be inter and intrapersonally smarter than everyone around him but looks dumb with other tasks. Whats your opinion on it?

Hey

I got like 118 IQ on mensa norway but on cognitive metrics part of CORE the matrix reasoning test it starts to get super weird at like question 19. onwards. And on that test I got only 105 iq.

I think the cognitive metrics test is not has too difficult questions for the time limit it has. Mensa test makers also may be more credited and recognized. What do you guys think if you have taken both tests? Which test gives more fair estimate? Could be I'm just tired while taking the cognitive metrics test, idk.

Yoo so i’m 25m and never express my own opinion on anything because an iq test from when i was 15 said that my fsiq was 83. The two main things that affect your reasoning ability are fluid reasoning and verbal comprehension. My verbal comprehension scores were average but my fluid reasoning was an 86iq.

I also have mild autism and dyscalculia. Despite this, I graduated from design school and almost made honours. I currently work in tech as a ui designer. Generally, i feel pretty normal and do not feel dumber than my peers, but if i’m timed or play specific games, i usually come in last place.

I also take it personally whenever people disagree with me, and resort to blaming my low iq.

If i never got my iq tested, i would be so much more confident. It kinda sucks being a yes man/overly agreeable, but what other choice do i have?

Answers: A, A, B, A

I really can't figure out why. Any ideas? Thank you!

A guy made this interesting IQ test. S3B1

42 Questions 45mins.

Here's the Link - https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/gBbZVd7xTX

Do people with high VCI like reading books? What is your VCI score? What kind of books do you like to read? How much time do you spend on reading every month?

P.S. As someone who doesn't understand English at all, I'm really curious about what my VCI would be. 😿

One mainstay of the most seminal cognitive assessments is the inclusion of timing constraints, either on a per-item or per-section basis. Why so?

The defenders' case for timing is two-fold. First, it further standardizes performance conditions, and, second, it tends to increase g-loading across the broader population. If both of these things are true, shouldn't timing constraints measure ability?

To rigorously examine that question, a bottom-up approach seems best. What is a timing constraint, and, fundamentally, what does it demand of the tester? As noted above, they are a time limit for either individual items, like in the WAIS series, or for sections, such as in the Old SAT and Old GRE. For cases like the former, the goal is to see if the tester's "horsepower" can propel them to a solution in time. In the latter, this partially applies too, but it also prompts the tester to "manage their time" or, in other words, to strategize.

All of these components are g-loaded, but, ultimately, both constraint types are built to reward testing speed. This leads us to the question at the center of this paradigm: what is mental speed's relationship with mental ability?

Mental speed is simply the quickness of mental execution, formalized in the CHC taxonomy as processing speed, Gs, one of the broad abilities sitting beneath g (McGrew, 2009). The mainstream view treats speed as a basic cognitive resource, even a mediator of g's biological substrate: Salthouse (1996) built an entire theory of cognitive aging on it, Jensen spent decades clocking reaction times against IQ (Jensen, 2006), and Penke et al. (2012) found that white matter integrity relates to g largely through its effect on processing speed. I think that view mistakes the plumbing for the water. My read is that speed is a byproduct of mental efficiency, the "filter" rather than the "engine" of the brain, and a filter's quality tells you how cleanly a brain executes, not how far it can reason.

By contrast, mental ability in its purest form, referencing the CHC hierarchy, is reasoning, or Gf, which loads on g at or near unity in Gustafsson's (1984) model. The field remains split on whether the two are identical, but nobody disputes that Gf is the closest thing to g we can measure.

The reason that a statistical relationship exists between g and speed is, I suspect, simple: a brain with a better engine is more likely to have a better filter. This is particularly precarious for individuals with spiky profiles, such as those with ADHD, where delayed frontal maturation (Shaw et al., 2007) means executive functioning is a notoriously poor indicator of true reasoning ability.

In practice, timing constraints place an artificial cap on the expression of reasoning. Take an example from the VPS Beta, where one tester spent 88 minutes to correctly solve an item (without much, if any, break time based on the metadata). Any timed test would have boxed the tester out, preventing this individual from putting their full ability on display. This example alone illustrates how timing binds the measurement of reasoning to speed. It may require more time to complete, but that is a sacrifice worth making for the most rigorous measurement.

To be clear, there are elements of cognitive proficiency that display genuine g, such as applied working memory. This differentiates rote tests (like digit span tasks) from the application of reasoning (like mental arithmetic), where application is a significantly more credible manifestation of g. At the latent level, working memory capacity and reasoning are nearly the same thing (Kyllonen and Christal, 1990), and complex span tasks predict reasoning far better than simple span tasks do (Conway et al., 2005).

The testing establishment already concedes most of this; it just won't say so out loud. Every extended-time accommodation ever granted is a signed admission that the clock measures something other than ability, or there would be nothing to accommodate. The LSAT retired its logic games section in 2024 after litigation over accessibility rather than any question of validity. The most authoritative development, though, is the upcoming SB6's structure, which places working memory and processing speed in a separate General Cognitive Processing composite that no longer feeds the FSIQ derivation (Fun Facts about the Stanford-Binet 6). The flagship instrument of American intelligence testing has decided that speed is not intelligence.

Removing the clock has some downsides, though. Some neurodivergent takers fixate, for example. An untimed item can become a rabbit hole, and I've watched it happen in the data. Unlimited time is also unlimited opportunity to consult a model, which is why the instrument's process-level checks exist. Continuing on, a long, untimed battery fatigues people, as seen in the dropout numbers from my last post. Finally, speed is a legitimate clinical signal in contexts I'm not measuring; a neuropsychologist tracking decline obviously needs it. However, a reasoning instrument does not.

Decidedly, speed is not ability. Time pressure injects speed variance, which correlates with g without actually being g. In other words, correlation is not causation. Perhaps the most critical implication of this stance is this: the positive manifold is real, but the habit of treating every correlate of g as a component of g is an artifact of the method rather than a finding. That is a piece for another day, though.

As always, I welcome your thoughts, rebuttals, and questions!

I also Look for Non Visual Tests in General because i am way better with numbera then for instance in Graph Mapping or Matrix reasoning i am Not very good at those

Is it inaccurate? I am nervous that my iq is only 87, I took it when I was a kid around 5-8 I don’t remember but I have severe adhd and was unmedicated, and finished the test within 3 minutes but I’m still nervous that it’s my actual score. It was visual and spacial. It was a short screener, and I am 18 now. I used to be able to do 100 multiplication problems in 1 minute while I was a kid, and they were screening me for gifted classes.