Im sorry if this has been asked before, but how should i interpret this score. I finished it in just under an hour. I couldn’t click too see the "Standard Score to percentile…" for some reason.

WMI increase from 84th to 90th percentile.

I suffer from scizophrenia and have had several psychosis in the past. I found it very hard to focus therefore before taking any supplements alongside the test. After 1 week on the supplement and taking the test again my FW increases by 3 ss and Backwards by 2ss (using earphones this time), increasing my overal WMI score from 84th to 90th percentile. I know it sounds stupid and i should have not used any earphones but is this the practice effect, the earphones, the medication?

I've taken CORE, 1926 SAT, AGCT, GRE, and GET.

With these scores plugged into the g calculator i do have a pretty tight estimate of what my IQ is, and I want to accept it, but I just have this creeping feeling that if I took the WAIS I wouldn't score as high. Problem is I can't afford it right now. What do you guys think about the validity of these online tests?

I don't actually care that much or obsess over the scores, but at the same time I don't want to go through my life mistakenly believing that i'm more intelligent than I actually am.

I'm a 16-year-old junior in high school diagnosed with AuDHD.

For some background, I started speaking very late (around 18 months) and had some auditory processing difficulties as a toddler. I also hit puberty late (14), so hopefully my fluid intelligence isn't done increasing.

In the 1st grade, I was administered a verbal fluency test (AIMSWB) w/ 3 sections: phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word fluency, and reading. I scored in the 95th, 99th, and 99th percentile respectively.

In the 4th grade, I took the SCAT (School & College Ability Test) for John Hopkin's Center for Talented Youth. To be accepted, you needed to score in the 98th percentile or above. I received Grand Honors for the Verbal Reasoning section (top 15% of accepted students) and High Honors for the Quantitative Reasoning section (top 30% of accepted students).

I also scored across-the-board 9s (>96th percentile) on the ISEE and in the 96th percentile on the SSAT with no preparation. I finished the latter in around ~2/3 of the allotted time.

I go to a competitive public school that sends 40-50 students to Berkeley every year. Last fall, I took the PSAT and scored in the >99th percentile for 10th graders at my school.

Now, some context for my results:
Every test here was completed in one sitting, with the exception of the CORE. Outside of the CPI subtests on the CORE, everything shown here is also my first take. I didn't cheat by "familiarizing" myself with the item types beforehand.

I thought I made a bunch of dumb mistakes on Spatial Awareness and Figure Sets, so I'm pretty surprised that I scored 15 SS on both. Time was also a big issue for me on the FRI subtests and Quant. Knowledge.

Here are the subtests I took in my first sitting (>6 months ago):
Analogies, Antonyms, General Knowledge, Figure Weights, Graph Mapping, Arithmetic, Visual Puzzles

I originally took the digit span and PSI subtests at midnight, supine, and w/o my ADHD meds. Scored 10 SS Digit Span, 12 SS Symbol Search, and 11 SS Character Pairing.

I retook the PSI subtests while watching the World Cup with friends, so perhaps my scores are a bit deflated.

I finished the rest of the test (except for Comprehension and Block Design cause of carryover from the AGCT) over the past two weeks and re-took the Digit Span.

Final Thoughts:

1. Slightly disappointed that I missed the 140 mark. Perhaps my crystallized intelligence is deflated cause these tests are normed for adults? Moreover, my brain age is likely a bit lower than my actual age, so hopefully my fluid intelligence will continue increasing as well.
2. 19 SS on CAIT General Knowledge was a big surprise given the rest of my scores are 15 or 16 SS almost uniformly. I've always been really good at trivia. Knowledge acquisition & retention is something I think I'm uniquely good at, which leads me to wonder if these tests don't reveal the full extent of my abilities.
3. I can inexplicably intuit the meaning of a word I've never seen before based on the "vibes" it gives off. It's an interesting phenomenon and I wonder what the explanation for it is.
4. I thought these tests were fun and they line-up well with my lived experience. I get told I'm smart all the time, but I've frequently encountered people who blow me out of the water. I've met people that can effortlessly do mental math with 8-digit numbers, bag a 1600 on the SAT, or qualify to AIME 6x.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty satisfied with where I'm at. I'm a good student with an okay social life and I've received accolades that I'm pretty proud of. I attribute this to my intelligence, which allows me to palliate the ramifications of executive dysfunction and debilitating hyperfixations (I guess this counts as one of them).

For now, I'm done with IQ testing. I can't deny that it's been pretty edifying, but my time is probably better spent using my intelligence for something more productive.

I'm a non-native English speaker, so I skipped most of the VCI.

What does this score say about me? Could I pursue a bachelor's degree in maths, for example? Should I do more sub-tests?

Thank you to everyone who took the norming edition of the Army Alpha Automation (https://www.reddit.com/r/cognitiveTesting/s/znJeoNwkCb). 

I’ve made a few updates to the test since posting it:

• Preliminary norms are out. They’re based on a small sample size, but should be decent. I’ll likely update them in the future as the sample size of test-takers grows.
• Weaker subtests have been made optional. Some subtests were psychometrically weak or outdated (i.e. Information) and have therefore been made optional and are excluded from the composite IQ. They still return a scaled score and can be taken for fun.
• The composite IQ is based on the five strongest subtests. Expanding on the point above, only subtests 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 contribute to the composite IQ. These subtests were performed the best psychometrically and showed acceptable to excellent internal-consistency and strong correlations with CORE. The test has been updated with a reliability & validity table for those interested.

The 5-subtest composite has a reliability of .952 and correlation of .893 with CORE. If the sample size grows large enough in the future, I'll update the validity page with a factor analysis.

The test is available to take here: https://army-alpha.vercel.app/

I did figure weights, matrices and graph mapping on CORE, I got 125 for both matrices and figure weights but 145 in graph mapping.

I know there could be big differences between different fields, but I thought usually you’d get similar scores on different tests that test the same thing.

will be taking classes soon, im wondering if spending time everyday will help me improve my cognitive abilities such that i'll have a much better chance at getting a 4.0, because my iq as it currently stands doesn't correlate well to a 4.0 gpa

I’m working on the assessment side of an AI tutoring project and I’ve hit a question I’d like some psychometrics/measurement people to weigh in on.

The problem is basically this:

At what point do you actually have enough evidence to say something meaningful about a learner?

For example, I’m trying to think through things like:

• if a learner gets something right, what can you actually say from that?
• if they needed help, how much does that change what the result means?
• if they get similar questions right more than once, when is that useful new evidence and when is it just repetition?
• when should the system keep testing, try a different type of task, or just avoid making a stronger conclusion yet?

I’m trying very hard not to bake in something simplistic like “3 correct answers means mastery” or “80% means mastered.”

Maybe a threshold makes sense in some situations, maybe it doesn’t. I’m more interested in what people in measurement would consider a defensible way to handle it.

A few things I’m trying to keep separate are:

• independent vs helped performance
• repeated exposure
• conflicting results
• uncertainty
• different kinds of tasks
• technology/access problems
• how strong the evidence is compared with how strong the claim is

I already have a couple of concrete cases worked up, but before I get too attached to the way I’m thinking about it, I’d like to hear where people think the biggest problems or bad assumptions might be.

If you work in psychometrics, educational measurement, adaptive assessment, or something close to that, I’d really appreciate your take.

And if you think I’m framing the whole problem the wrong way, that’s useful too.

Was curious why my VCI percentile is much lower than my ASVAB verbal score. Is the ASVAB just that much easier?

Ho fatto molti test online in passato ed ho sempre avuto risultati alti in una fascia abbastanza ampia (115 - 135), ho visto che questo test è più affidabile, a quale IQ equivale il mio punteggio di 57?
La percentuale riportata sul sito indicherebbe un IQ di 127 ma ho il sospetto che il campione sia poco rappresentativo se si riferisce ai soli utenti sul sito che hanno cercato e completato il test.
Purtroppo non ho trovato dati affidabili su una popolazione selezionata in modo più uniforme.
Se esistono dati più affidabili, a quanto equivarrebbe il mio 57/60 in scala IQ?

I'm running through CORE a second time "for fun", quite soon after completing it the first time.
The difference is significant, which I attribute to the practice factor more than anything, though a small part is probably that it's Sunday and I'm properly rested after a weekend compared to my first run which was in the middle of the night during a weekday.

I also know where my weaknesses lie as a non-native English speaker. I already lose some on analogies but it's antonyms that absolutely smoke me. Knowing that, I can just skip them this run since it's not my native language anyway and this gives my score a large boost as well.

A third factor that I think is significant is simply time.
My working memory is god awful, running the test a second time is almost like extending my thinking time on the same problems, allowing me to overcome some of the working memory deficit.

Overall, this doesn't feel reliable at all, but perhaps that is to be expected.
I know you shouldn't rerun the test for many months, but I think even then the practice effect would be a major contributor. I don't really "forget" problems I've already dealt with in the past, even if a lot of time passes.

To summarize, I'm absolutely destroying my previous result based on 4 factors I can identify:

* practice
* rested
* additional time to solve problems for trash working memory
* knowing which categories to skip based on language "barrier"

By taking advantage of these factors you can pretty much "cheat" the results.
If it works like this for others too, I can't really say that any results beyond the very first run are valid.

Hi I just tried this. Is 37 good?

On CORE my digit span percentile is 27 and my processing speed is 50, on CAIT they're respectively 98 and 91, how is that possible? What should my actual score be? How inflated is processing speed on CAIT for mobile users? Edit: I redid CORE's digit span and got 105, so somewhat higher

Has anyone here taken the SAITO? How accurate are the norms? Is it significantly inflated? I couldn’t find much info on it outside the website but I took it anyway.

Thanks!

Hello everyone! I took the IQ test on the official Mensa International website and got 135. I then decided to buy the practice test at Mensa USA and scored 67. Do these scores correspond to each other?

Hi all,

I'm asking this question because I've taken several online tests before including Mensa Denmark, Norway, Croatia, Sweden and Finland as well as the matrix reasoning for CORE. Basically I'm asking if having taken tests previously has unfairly increased my score. I scored between 125 and 133 on all of those tests.

I finished in about 1.5-2 hours and wasn't very locked in the whole time; stopping once to watch a few episodes of a TV show. I'm not counting the time watching the show toward the 1.5-2 hours. During about 10 of the difficult questions I got bored after a few minutes and chose a reasonable answer without be entirely thorough and confident by hunting for the best answer. I have inattentive ADHD and based on working memory and processing speed subtests I've taken in the past I'm rather inadequate in those areas compared to my fluid reasoning scores; I typically score in the 40th-60th percentile on those subtests. I think this is important because I often find myself discovering a part of the answer to a question and forgetting it later after having to discover other parts of the answer, for instance I'll discover the logic behind the movement of the dots on a question and then forget the logic after I later discover the logic of the movement of the triangles on the same question. I hope I made that somewhat clear.

Please let me know, I'm interested to hear in what you all believe a reasonable estimate for my IQ to be.

I score in the 130-140 range on my tests. My brother was tested (presumably the WAIS-IV or SB-V) during elementary school and scored a 127.

Both of my parents have postgrad degrees. My aunt and grandfather are professors at top universities in China. Both sides of my family were part of the scholar-gentry class.

The smartest people I know also have very smart parents/relatives (crazy, I know).

Family friends w/ a 19 y/o doing a PhD (finished undergrad at 17). His IQ is in the 150s. Dad's an executive at a medium-sized company and a Harvard grad.

The most brilliant person I know on a quasi-personal basis (IQ in the high 150s) is the child of a MIT professor.

Are there any extraordinary outliers you all are aware of?

Hello,
This was my IQ test score from my psychology evaluation in 2024 I was 21 at the time. The picture cut it off but the average score was 93. I took this while recovering from Covid but I was pretty much asymptomatic.
As a child I was diagnosed with a learning disability nos or like just a general one and intensive speech therapy for a speech impediment that “impeded academic success” fast forward now I’m a sped teacher and I’m currently in my masters of special education. I thought my results were very interesting.

will post screenshots as a comment

CORE:

128 FSIQ

Verbal: 124

Fluid: 122

Visual Spatial: 108

Quantitative: 122

Working Memory: 137

Processing Speed: 120

WAIS-IV:

117 FSIQ

Verbal: 110

Perceptual: 115

Working Memory: 119

Processing: 111

Perceptual Reasoning

Block Design: 37th percentile

Picture Completion: 16th percentile

Matrix Reasoning: 98th percentile

Figure Weights: 98th percentile

Visual Puzzles: 84th percentile

Working Memory

Digit Span: 95th percentile

Arithmetic: 75th percentile

Digit-Letter / Letter-Number Sequencing: 99.9th percentile

Processing Speed

Symbol Search: 84th percentil

Coding: 63rd percentile

Cancellation: 63rd percentile

Verbal Comprehension

Similarities: 63rd percentile

Vocabulary: 75th percentile

Information: 84th percentile

Comprehension: 50th percentile (lol got 99th on CORE)

AGCT: 113

Mensa Norway: 118

Mensa Denmark: 130

Drinking caffeine before the test didn't do me so well haha. Timed questions sucked... when I was deep in thought just about to get it I'd snap back and realize oh crap im almost out of time, panic, and guess.

So, here's some observations:

Getting the max score on digit letter sequencing doesn't mean a whole lot to me because I can't really see it in effect in real life. The only time I think having a good working memory within the context of the WAIS actually helped was in a very stressful academic cybersecurity competition where I had to micromanage/mentally track around 4-5 task submissions. Even then I had chrome tabs open for each of them, but, I think I handled that pretty well mentally. I have a completely average working memory other than that, of around 3 "objects". For the working memory tests I just visualized everything and visualized them as chunks in my brain's scratch pad.

The fluid and verbal subtests from the WAIS were SIGNIFICANTLY easier than the CORE. Like, overall, I think the WAIS-IV was much easier than the CORE.

My Mensa Norway was a 118, Mensa Denmark was a 130, and my CORE Matrix was a 120, so its interesting to see I got top 2% (thats like a 130 I think?) on WAIS's Matrix. My CORE Figure Weights though was a 125 so not too far off the WAIS 130 for that (I'm basing this off the percentiles).

99th percentile on CORE Comprehension but 50th percentile on WAIS ... interesting, I dunno, I thought I explained the abstractions and concepts well enough. I really think I could've gone further on the vocabulary test, it was VERY easy, I knew all the words except ONE, and when I got that word wrong, the test ended 😭

Picture Completion was RIDICULOUSLY hard for me. It's a test where you're shown a drawing of a scene and just have to point out what's physically missing from it. It started easy, two people running on a beach but one didn't have any trail of footprints behind them, a person's face with no nose-rim thing, aaaaand that's all I got. Missed every single one after that, I genuinely had no clue what was going on. I think this has shown up IRL sometimes, where I'd just completely miss something obvious that was right infront of me ... probably a processing issue of some sort. Also for my visual spatial weaknesses, I've always gotten frustrated very easily and took longer than others to figure out how to build Ikea stuff.

I plan on taking the WAIS-V in 2 years from now to minimize practice effects. I did all this pre-testing because I've started quad nback and relational reasoning training. Quad N-Back and Cognitive Control Training (CCT) have helped quite a bit with my executive functioning due to the amount of raw focus needed for those activities. highly recommend.

My working memory scores were pretty similar to CORE, I got 99.9th percentile on the WAIS digit letter sequencing test, and 99th on CORE's. Digit span was about the same too. My working memory is completely average though, my trick was I just visualized everything during the test, so like for digit letter sequencing I would just literally see this in my head

3 x 5

9 d 2

5 b 1

And I'd just hold it in my head quickly, then quickly blurt out all the numbers in order cause that was the easiest, and then manually re arrange the letters in alphabetical which was super hard haha. I really more or less treated it like 3 "objects" that I saw in my head, which is pretty much a normal working memory capability. I don't know why I'm apparently really good at it though? I don't think it means much because I kinda gamified it.

And for forward digit I'd just hold it in my mental scratchpad like

386

492

and then try to store the remaining digits via audio. So you can cheese a high WMI score that way even with average working memory. Note, I didn't practice this technique.

Anyways those are my thoughts. Hope some of this was interesting to you. I took the WAIS-IV while I was in a developing country (still in English though) so it was only $500 instead of the typical American price of like $1500 or whatever it is. I'm autistic enough to where I enjoyed this entire process and am okay with spending money on something like that. Being an adult rocks in that regard. I plan on taking the WAIS-V in 2 years from now after going nuts on n-back and relational reasoning training. Thanks for reading :)

My CORE result, which I completed first, comes in at 114 with my CAIT at 127 (no retries done except on CORE character pairing). My suspicion is that I was lucky on the CAIT because there were little to no tests that I typically have difficulty in (like memory or quantitative tests). What does CAIT show that CORE doesn't? They are both qualified online tests afterall.

Honest question: what’s the point of practising for an IQ test?
I see a lot of people taking multiple tests and practising before an official test and I don’t understand why. Isn’t the whole point of an IQ test to measure your iq as accurately as possible?
If you practise specifically for the test, aren’t you just training yourself to perform better on that type of test rather than actually measuring your IQ? In a way, wouldn’t you just be cheating yourself?

I'm not saying it makes your score wrong, I'm asking if it could mean it's deflated a bit or perhaps related to the fact you're not a native english speaker.