IQ Test: Gigi Assesment

[Yasmin]

http://www.gigiassessment.com/

A friend of a friend got a 118 on a proffesionally administered IQ test, and a 116 on this one. So I suppose it's pretty accurate.

My score: 133. Which is about the average of every other IQ test I've taken. So, I'm satisfied with its reliability.

 

[snafupants]

a quality assessment would have mathematical, verbal, visuospatial, and logical components. this test only has visiospatial, maybe logical embedded in there. this is rather worthless. two cases prove diddly squat. administer the assessment to four thousand people and then well talk. for a comprehensive, cheap, and time effective iq test look up hans eysenck. buy the latest version of test your iq from ebay - no, i am not a seller hawking a product. because of the flynn effect and other reasons the earlier books (~5) are outmoded.

n.b., my strength is visuospatial and verbal, and still test still smacks of pop psychology.

 

[typus]

Why not use a ruler instead? Much simpler...

Btw, horrible test, it was pretty much four different questions restated in various forms, I even got the same question twice during the test on completely different difficulty levels, and on one question the correct answer was not one of the alternatives. True story.

 

[Yasmin]

a quality assessment would have mathematical, verbal, visuospatial, and logical components. this test only has visiospatial, maybe logical embedded in there. this is rather worthless. two cases prove diddly squat. administer the assessment to four thousand people and then well talk. for a comprehensive, cheap, and time effective iq test look up hans eysenck. buy the latest version of test your iq from ebay - no, i am not a seller hawking a product. because of the flynn effect and other reasons the earlier books (~5) are outmoded.

n.b., my strength is visuospatial and verbal, and still test still smacks of pop psychology.

I actually agree, it's not perfect. Regardless, knowing your Pizza Personality Type isn't perfect, either.

 

[snafupants]

I actually agree, it's not perfect. Regardless, knowing your Pizza Personality Type isn't perfect, either.

sure, if someone wants to get their rocks off with a novelty test thats fine by me. the test might be on par with a fortune cookie. its clear that its apocryphal to both of us, so .

 

[walfin]

and on one question the correct answer was not one of the alternatives

I got that on question 19, expanding lines question.

Maybe someone else can tell us if it's the same question number.

Maybe this is just a way to harvest email addresses for more spam Quite a basic test, addition, subtraction, rotation, expand/contract

Also, very laggy.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

a quality assessment would have mathematical, verbal, visuospatial, and logical components. this test only has visiospatial, maybe logical embedded in there. this is rather worthless. two cases prove diddly squat. administer the assessment to four thousand people and then well talk.

I concur. You should all know that this test hasn't fully been normed, yet (and the free version is much worse than the one you have to pay for). Wait a few months and it might be better. As for why they're making you pay for a test that hasn't been normed? I think the answer to that question is readily apparent.

 

[Derocrates]

My score: 133. Which is about the average of every other IQ test I've taken. So, I'm satisfied with its reliability.

What constitutes every other IQ test? I trust that you might be talking about a Hoeflin, Jouve or Jon Wai test perhaps? I say this because every other non-supervised, timed/non timed IQ test on the net is unreliable/more unreliable when compared to the tests I just mentioned. Even the WAIS to an extent is unreliable because the score is in the eye of the proctor. Verbal ability is indicative of measuring the general g factor and so is spatial. However, because a test should be culture fair, this test [Gigi] tries its hand at looking like Raven's Progressive Matrices, which is a good tool for measuring g.

Nathan H. [founder guy] issued free coupons to take the test I recall, but it was only for members I believe...which makes no sense because it would be people scoring higher and higher with the chance of remembrance of the answers. Besides, the test has to be normed and there were many complaints on the forums that people were getting 79's ! If I find my promo code, I'll fork it over to whomever is interested in taking the test when it is better normed.

Watch out if you intend to join because honestly, IHIQS tends to be trollish at times compared to like, Intertel or ISPE. People take those scores way too seriously...

 

[babrock]

I was intending on creating a new thread asking if anyone new a half decent free online test. I see that others have encountered problems quite similar to me.

It does seem as if plenty of these sights are mere scams to get one's e-mail address. Also i took one that, after claiming to be free then said that i had to send them $10 for t test redults. I geuss all they meant by that was that i could take their test for free. When i get a chance timei hope to post again w t names of a few sitrs that are particularly bad so as to preveny anyone else from wasting their time.

I have to say tho, that i completly donot understand why a decent one cannot be put and found online. I donot see why there should be any differnce between ones that are considered valid by experts in that field and ones online. Frak, why cannot a copy of an old written test w t exact same restrictions regarding time and such, be put online w some ads to help defray whatever nominal costs are incured. Sure it would be entirely posible for anyone to cheat but that would only invalidate only that test taker's results, would it not? In fact, i have to admit that i truely donot understand why it seams so difficult to find a valid one. In what ways would a desent one be at all signifigently more dificult to present than a crappy one? They both would require just about t same costs for data storage, data transfer, and data proccessing and such, wouldnt they? Or am i missing something?

 

[babrock]

I was intending on creating a new thread asking if anyone new a half decent free online test. I see that others have encountered problems quite similar to me.

It does seem as if plenty of these sights are mere scams to get one's e-mail address. Also i took one that, after claiming to be free then said that i had to send them $10 for t test redults. I geuss all they meant by that was that i could take their test for free. When i get a chance timei hope to post again w t names of a few sitrs that are particularly bad so as to preveny anyone else from wasting their time.

I have to say tho, that i completly donot understand why a decent one cannot be put and found online. I donot see why there should be any differnce between ones that are considered valid by experts in that field and ones online. Frak, why cannot a copy of an old written test w t exact same restrictions regarding time and such, be put online w some ads to help defray whatever nominal costs are incured. Sure it would be entirely posible for anyone to cheat but that would only invalidate only that test taker's results, would it not? In fact, i have to admit that i truely donot understand why it seams so difficult to find a valid one. In what ways would a desent one be at all signifigently more dificult to present than a crappy one? They both would require just about t same costs for data storage, data transfer, and data proccessing and such, wouldnt they? Or am i missing something?

 

[Yasmin]

Watch out if you intend to join because honestly, IHIQS tends to be trollish at times compared to like, Intertel or ISPE. People take those scores way too seriously...

Oh, no, no, no. That is not my intention. And I think any number of labels have the tendency to be taken more seriously than they should.

I simply enjoy taking online test. Lots and lots of them. In short, I have too much time.

I have to say tho, that i completly donot understand why a decent one cannot be put and found online. I donot see why there should be any differnce between ones that are considered valid by experts in that field and ones online. Frak, why cannot a copy of an old written test w t exact same restrictions regarding time and such, be put online w some ads to help defray whatever nominal costs are incured. Sure it would be entirely posible for anyone to cheat but that would only invalidate only that test taker's results, would it not? In fact, i have to admit that i truely donot understand why it seams so difficult to find a valid one. In what ways would a desent one be at all signifigently more dificult to present than a crappy one? They both would require just about t same costs for data storage, data transfer, and data proccessing and such, wouldnt they? Or am i missing something?

I share your concerns exactly. It's a little ridiculous, really.

 

[Derocrates]

i had to send them $10 for t test redults.

Hah! I think I know which one you are talking about. Did it have the digit span, forwards and backward? If so, that one was iffy. It feels just like WAIS but watered down; maybe the short form of WAIS hm? Needless to say I paid the ten dollars just out of pure curiosity and ended up scoring 2 sigma, which is 2.5 sigmas less than I scored on a real test proctored maybe I was "off" that day or maybe a technical issue with norms.

But I will tell you babrock and yasmin, try here http://www.iqtest.dk/main.swf

That one is a decent spatial test with a 3 sigma discrimination ceiling or 145 IQ s.d. 15

A buddy of mine named Bill Bultas runs this site: http://www.alliqtests.com

Try here from Dr. Jouve: http://www.cerebrals.com/tests/ccat/verbal1.html

Note that this measures Verbal, Analogies and I believe math and logic. At the end you will not receive the raw score immediately and must email Dr. Jouve (founder@cerebrals.org) for your results. (He responds fast according to someone on Facebook who relayed that to me)

Be sure to try the Cerebrals Society Contest too; it's free and it is a saturated set of g-loaded items. http://www.cerebrals.org/wp/?page_id=127

How about this one?: http://www.mmm.pri.ee/iq/test2.html

And last but not least [my favorite]: http://www.iqout.com

This is by far one of the most accurate difficult/timed spatial IQ tests online. I only scored 132 as it nearly perfects discrimination at the 3rd sigma of spatial reasoning.

Well these, aside from the ones you must pay for, are the most saturated with g-loaded questions and fair items. I trust you'll enjoy thinking about some the questions.

 

[pjoa09]

i liked it, found it wayy easier that those weird ones i did.. but it was too visual.. but then again if it were anything else.. it would give ppl with good background an edge..

 

[Sparrow]

What a stupid IQ test. I suck at this visual stuff. I have no patience for it. Oh, I scored a 79 by pressing any random one...took me 10 seconds to finish.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

Watch out if you intend to join because honestly, IHIQS tends to be trollish at times compared to like, Intertel or ISPE. People take those scores way too seriously...

Tell me about it.

As for "good" online IQ tests? Forget it. They all suck. Honestly, I'm not convinced that the ones psychologists administer are any better, especially not if they're still propagating nonsense about verbal reasoning or spatial reasoning being good indicators of general intelligence (something that can't be measured with the instruments currently available, if at all, so really how can you determine a correlation?). I notice that their opinion on "good indicators" changes. When I was a kid, it was all about verbal reasoning. Now, it's all about spatial reasoning. What happened in that time frame? Neuroscience research that suggested that women might be better at verbal reasoning than men and that men might be better at spatial reasoning. So, I find claims that spatial reasoning is a "good indicator" of general intelligence to be dubious and claims that verbal reasoning is a "good indicator" to be equally stupid. Also, the Gigi is a new test for IHIQS. They used to have all sorts of tests to get in, including a verbal-only test. And you should know that a lot of people who got in IHIQS got in on the verbal-only test, but couldn't pass the much harder standard test.

 

[Derocrates]

They used to have all sorts of tests to get in, including a verbal-only test. And you should know that a lot of people who got in IHIQS got in on the verbal-only test, but couldn't pass the much harder standard test.

I was unaware, I joined last year in May.

I don't agree that general g intelligence factor cannot be measured. [Do you mean at high functions? If so then yes, there is difficulty measuring at high levels because the higher one goes, there exists a limit of infinity and g decreases] You are correct to say that spatial may not have the best correlation to g or even verbal...with some tests purporting correlations of .6 and .7 which is decent but not the best if we want to discriminate abilities at high levels. Ultimately, it would come down the combinations of measurement of g or all subtests to comprise g. However when it comes to spatial and or verbal or anything, for it to be measured in its own domain and then applied to the g with other factors involved is certainly a more realistic measurement than a uniform test of g-loaded spatial items. I considered those online exams good for providing insight to performing consistently in individual domains not the full scale IQ. The tests online provide a glimpse of the subtests, not the entire tests that are being tweaked every now and then, much like how we get better telescopes by figuring out different ways to look at the cosmos but not the entire cosmos. Regardless if it even boils down to the fact that the test are for certain not measuring g, then it remains that it is measuring something...

We have to take into consideration a culture fair exam, maybe not with spatial but with reasoning but omission of verbal because not everyone speaks English.

We also have to back track to the notion that most of these scales were not used to measure high intelligence in the first place--at least not levels exceeding 3 sigma. For this reason, we can note as to why tools need to be adjusted. I'm not sure if I can place too much confidence in the Flynn effect but as portions of human intelligence crescendos, the tools need to be revised, hence the reason for WAIS-R (revised), or the different number of Stanford Binet Scales (1-5). Statistics change and the bell curve will only indicate how one scores relative to that change.

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

I don't agree that general g intelligence factor cannot be measured.

First, define "general intelligence." Then, tell me how it can be measured. Then, point me to statistical studies correlating results verbal or spatial reasoning with this so-called general intelligence. Oh, and by the way, show me convincing evidence that all these tests actually measure anything aside from one's ability to take tests. If you can do all of that, then maybe we'll talk. Until then, I maintain my position that intelligence testing is a load of crap.

 

[Madoness]

Your score 124
Uhm... quite constant compared with other tests.

 

[babrock]

If I am remembering what I googled corectly iqquiz was too short, and iq.net didnot give me any results. I forget t name of t one that ended up wanting $10.

Deractratus, thanx for those links to thos tests. They sean a bit better. Tho I am having w bit of trouble interfacing to these tests w my little devise here. That could explain somewhat why online tests are considered not as valid. I have read that one's dexterity at using a pencil filling in the circles is a similar concern with those oficial paper and pencil tests.

I took the 40 minute visual test and got a 122 and I took it again filling out all t questions at random and got a 76. If I am recalling things correctly someone else did t same thing and got a 79. That seams quite high to me for a test w questions w 8 posible answers. I vould easily be wrong on that. I was never particularly good at statistics.

Also I think the modern aproach is to use as much nonverbal as posible so as dimish unfair culteral advantages more inheirent and embedded in laguage.

 

[Agent Intellect]

I have taken several IQ tests in my lifetime. The first one I took, in high school, I got a 96 (bear in mind I was too awesome to care about, well, anything, when I was in high school). I took two on the internet a couple years ago and got 138 one one, and 130 on the other. I took two that someone posted on this forum - same site for both, with an 'easy' version and a 'hard' version. If I recall, I got like 128 on the hard version and 112 on the easy version. I took the Mensa test, posted somewhere on this forum, and got a 118 (if I recall). I just took the one from the OP two times in a row and got 128 on the first try and 130 on the second.

In my experience, IQ tests are pretty unreliable (or, at least, the ones found on the internet).

 

[kantor1003]

Lowest score coming through. 110. I am not sure how the drunk deviation work though :P didn't manage to finish either :/ stupid iq tests.
Will try it again in a more sober state.

 

[snafupants]

do the words testing effects mean anything to yall?

 

[Cavallier]

I love pattern recognition tests. 134 There was at least one question that I'm absolutely certain didn't have the correct answer as an option.

 

[Minuend]

I think way too slow. I used half a minute just getting used to the layout. And what's with the hypnotizing green bar?

Well, not that I trust the test completely or anything, but I know I'm not too bright. That's okay, I got so many (one or two) other good qualities.

Oh, and the score ---> 114

I think I got to Q12 or something, and I didn't have time to choose the correct answer on that one.

I like pattern recognition tests also. Haven't tried too many, but I like it. You also get better the more you try it, because you learn what patterns that can be.

 

[catatonic]

 

[snafupants]

I just did the eight matrix reasoning questions in the demo. All correct with ample time to spare. I'm not going to pay for anything, though, nice try guys. As an aside, I like that this test's ceiling is deviation IQ 172 but I worry about the creator's and psychometrician's emphasis on a perfect Gaussian curve; this emphasis, as well as the standard deviation, is betrayed when they disclose the putative rarity of a ceiling level score. This fixation isn't how things always play out in the flesh. Take height or weight, for example, in which growth hormone conditions related to the pituitary gland or diabetes spur on abnormality, which disrupts attempts to quantify large data sets. Wechsler was perhaps on point in focusing on two standard deviations from the mean, the theoretical ninety six percent of the population, as that alone seems ripe for accurate analysis and prediction.

 

[snafupants]

I recently messaged this company inquiring about criterion-related validity. They make a habit of using verbiage like highly advanced and g-loaded, without stipulating any values, which throws up some flags.

 

[snafupants]

I recently messaged this company inquiring about criterion-related validity. They make a habit of using verbiage like highly advanced and g-loaded, without stipulating any values, which throws up some flags.

The company did get back to me yesterday. Although they largely skirted my questions pertaining to validity and reliability, curious curtness and convincingly baseless conjecture proved to be in ample supply.

Spoiler

Since the test is setup exactly as the Ravens Progressive Matrices, it should correlate highest with that one. I have no current correlation stats though, should be at least .7 probably even higher.

 

[Coolydudey]

Ridiculously easy... Finished in 2:30 minutes, but did make a silly mistake on one question though

 

[Wolf18]

Very easy...144.

 

[Infinite]

Is everyone doing the demo test or the full $4.99 one?

 

[snafupants]

Is everyone doing the demo test or the full $4.99 one?

Five bucks? Is my last name Gates? Yeah, wire over $5 and I'll take the thing.

 

[Starswirl]

Oh how I loved the demo result.

It said my IQ is between 133 and 149. That's more than one standard deviation. With certainty that low, why bother?

 

[just george]

[LATEX][/LATEX]

What a stupid IQ test. I suck at this visual stuff. I have no patience for it. Oh, I scored a 79 by pressing any random one...took me 10 seconds to finish.

suuuuuuuure you pressed them randomly

 

[QuickTwist]

The test is bogus:
"Based on your performance on the IQ test we estimate your IQ score to be:
Your IQ score lies within a range of 127 up to 143."

No way I'm that smart.

 

[Zero989]

145. It's not in line at all with my other scores (too high).

 

[Chad]

Okay took the free test and it gave me a range between 116 and 136. That is probably right but it a very large range.

 

[Zero989]

151

 

[Chad]

145. It's not in line at all with my other scores (too high).

This test gives you a rang or scores How come you posted are posting exact scores did you even take the test.

 

[Zero989]

This test gives you a rang or scores How come you posted are posting exact scores did you even take the test.

Spoiler

 

[Chad]

Spoiler

How did you get just one score and not a range? Did you pay for the test?

If you paid for the test maybe they just boosted your score for paying them, or maybe you taken the test at least 3 times now making any results inclusive I don't know.

 

[Ink]

Your IQ score lies within a range of 133 up to 149, or it may be even higher!

Good enough for me...

 

[Zero989]

How did you get just one score and not a range? Did you pay for the test?

If you paid for the test maybe they just boosted your score for paying them, or maybe you taken the test at least 3 times now making any results inclusive I don't know.

145 then to 151

Yes, I paid, it's the only way to get a static score.

 

[Antediluvian]

If I remember right, got in the range of 111 or so. Spatial tests aren't my strong suit, but I can get above average scores on them a decent amount of the time. I spend time gaming to hopefully increase spatial aptitude, but I'll never be superb at that particular task.

My verbal ability is where it's at (officially tested, more than once), so I'm trying to increase that strength.

 

[joal0503]

 

[Zero989]

Mega Society is superseded by that of GIGA and Grail.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I didn't like the test. But I did like the result.

 

[snafupants]

Mega Society is superseded by that of GIGA and Grail.

All of them are relatively worthless. Mega seems more active and influential though.

 

[Zero989]

All of them are relatively worthless. Mega seems more active and influential though.

Sadly, this is true. LOL