top of page

GAIA
Meta High Range I.Q .Test

About 3rd NORM

I decided to create a new NORM with new method.Up to the present time, I have created NORM using simple liner regression analysis method and cutoffed normal distribution.

 

However, I was blessed with the opportunity this time.

 

I talked with the most famous statistician who is professor in Japan.We talked about the problems that high range IQ test and NORM had and we thought about how to solve it. We reached this method. I got the optimal NORM creation method.That method is standardize scores using Quantile method and nonlinear regression analysis.This makes the mathematical basis dramatically stronger.

In addition, this time I examined the pre IQ scores.The base data is very important.
First, I excluded the timed test. The reason is to avoid the influence of time pressure.

Next, I restricted the test to well-known ones,and I excluded some IQ tests that was reported too high IQ.

Some high range IQ tests NORM is too loose. This means that an IQ that is higher than the ability is reported.This time, I was based only on the, SLSE and LS series and NORM created by Dr.Jason Betts,Dr.Ivan Ivec,Mr.Cooijmans,Mr.Theodosis,Mr.Nikolaos(except:LexiQ) and me.

 

I am deeply sorry that the NORM of GAIA has been displayed too high up to now.
The reason why that I guess is the single regression analysis is too dependent on the correlation.

 

To report too high IQ is attractive to the examinees.It may be necessary to do so in order to make the test commercially successful.But I firmly refuse it.I declare here to burn my passion to know the exact IQ.I am satisfied with NORM this time.

 

I would like you to take this test with peace of mind.

 

4th norm information.

testee 76

N = 218 score pair
 

Norm20200205-2.PNG

GAIA
1st ☆ 2nd ★
 
  0
  1
  2
  3
  4 ☆
  5 ☆★
  6
  7 ☆
  8 ☆☆
  9 ☆
10 ☆
11 ☆★
12
13
14 ☆★
15 ☆☆
16 ☆☆
17 ☆☆☆☆
18 ☆
19 ☆☆☆
20 ★
21 ☆☆☆☆
22 ☆☆☆
23 ☆☆

24 ☆☆☆☆☆☆★
25 ☆☆★
26 ☆☆☆☆☆☆
27 ☆☆☆
28 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★
29 ☆☆☆☆☆☆
30 ☆☆☆☆☆
31 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★
32 ☆☆☆☆☆☆★
33 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★
34 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★
35 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★★
36 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★★
37 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★★
38 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★
39 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★★★
40 ☆★★
41 ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆★
42 ☆
43 ☆
44
45 ☆
46

Norm20200205.PNG
bottom of page