IQ

[Shadowcliff]

Yeah, I saw all kinds of strange patterns on that test. It took me a while, but I tried my best to examine each set of shapes to try and find the pattern. For a few I just took an (educated) guess.

(The problem style that I began to get frustrated with was the one with a set of two squares that progressively rotated, with a symbol in one or more of it's four quadrants. The two squares eventually led to one missing part of the pattern, with another square afterward.)

[Crashfan3]

Didn't feel like reading 14 pages.
Last test I took in Summer '08 gave me a 103.

And this time...


yey i r moderately smart

[Ice wolf]

Originally Posted by Reach

That equates to an IQ of 120.

However, I just noticed you're only 14. These tests give you deviation IQs, which compare you to the ADULT population as a whole (I.e. at age 14 you scored higher than 91% of the adult population, which is individuals over the age of 16).

As such, 120 is much lower than your actual age referenced IQ. By my best estimates, without having more data, that should equate to approximately 137 on the test you would have taken in elementary school (which is higher than 98.5% of your same aged peers.)

I thought it said at the beginning of the test that it adjusts to your age or something. So if he put in his age, would his score still be deflated?

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

I thought it said at the beginning of the test that it adjusts to your age or something. So if he put in his age, would his score still be deflated?

As far as I know the TRI 52, unlike the CCAT does not have age adjusted norms for under 16 year olds.

It states on the website:
Purpose: Provides a culturally reduced measure of inductive reasoning in ages 16-80 years

So he is too young to receive accurate results from the test. Also, even after trying to do the standard curve conversion to estimate his score, I needed to convert that score to a Ratio IQ (i.e. (Mental Age/ Chronological Age) x 100), since that is how they report scores in children, and the two scores are not the same (Ratio IQs increase faster than the normal curve predicts. For example, your score of 155 equates to a Ratio IQ of 168, which would mean approximately that at around the age of 10 your mental performance was around average for 16-17 year olds)

[Ice wolf]

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Would anyone know how I could go about learning my results from tests such as the OLSAT which I took in elementary school? Taking all these IQ tests has made me wonder what I achieved back then. I think I remember my mother telling me I scored 120 on the OLSAT in the second grade, but my memory is obscure.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Ice wolf

OK, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Would anyone know how I could go about learning my results from tests such as the OLSAT which I took in elementary school? Taking all these IQ tests has made me wonder what I achieved back then. I think I remember my mother telling me I scored 120 on the OLSAT in the second grade, but my memory is obscure.

You'd have to find the documents you got from the test results, I would think. You could ask you mom again too, but there's no guarantee she would remember :P

It seems unlikely you would have scored that low (in comparison to what you score now), since IQ is usually relatively stable over time. However, Grade 2 means you were probably 7 years old at the time. IQ test results are less reliable the younger you are and more likely to change...they don't tend to stabilize until 12 years old and above.

Also, just in general, I'm not a big fan of the Otis Lennon test in children. It has low reliability in the high range especially compared to tests like Binet or WISC (though it's cheap to administer, hence it's use). Discrimination at or above the level of 130 is very weak. Also, many children , especially boys, are very non compliant when it comes to this type of multiple choice test at such a young age, increasing the likelihood of invalid results. You sit down for this strange group test with bubbling in, something children at this age are not used to doing...the child is fully aware they're being assessed by force...it is not always a good experience and it often won't yield good results.

Not that the online tests I posted are more reliable. They are subject to similar issues (getting bored, giving up). The best assessment would be from a psychologist, but let's face it - I'm sure nobody here wants to pay lots of money to have one give you an IQ test.


As an aside, this test is more reliable with older individuals, and was adopted by the US army to do psychological testing on subjects upon the realization that IQ was correlated with many things pertinent to the military. It was subsequently adopted into versions of the SAT as well, which had good psychometric properties until recently when it was changed (Well, it still does in a sense, but it only weakly measures IQ).


Speaking of the SAT, if you've taken it, you can use it to estimate your IQ, though it might be more reliable to take a test.

NEW SAT

RAW IQ

2400 143+ Gifted – 99.9th percentile
2300 138
2200 133
2150 131 Mensa Smart – 98th percentile
2100 128
2000 124
1900 119
1850 116 Bright – 86th percentile
1800 114
1700 109
1600 104
1550 102 Average – The average SAT score is 1520
1500 99
1400 94
1300 89
1200 85 Dim – 16th percentile
1100 80
1000 75
900 70 Borderline – 2nd percentile
800 65
700 60
600 55 Mild Retardation – 0.1st percentile


OLDER SAT

RAW IQ

1600 143+
1560 140
1520 137
1480 134
1440 131
1400 128
1360 125
1320 123
1280 120
1240 117
1200 114
1160 111
1120 108
1080 105
1040 102
1000 99
960 96