I have seen scores from this test circulate on twitter and gcs: Looking closely, there seems to be a bit of a problem here. If you average out the scores in picture 1, you get a score of 127.7, and if you average out the scores in picture 2, you get 131. However, the Full Scale IQ score is below both of these averages. This is impossible, as the full scale score should always be above the average of the subtests.
It scored me about 1.5 points above my avg of the three group factors. Could just be that verbal is weighted more heavily than the two other subtests (although I scored pretty badly on the verbal one so the same should apply to me. I let cookies expire and closed the tab so I also can't see what happens when I refresh).
In general this is not always the case. Here I provide an abstract argument:
Let A and B both be uncorrelated tests with mean 0 and SD 1. Then we devise some test C which is merely the summed score of A and B. Then C has mean 0 and SD 1.414.
Now say that your score on each test A and B is +1. Your summed score on C is 2, which, normalized to C's SD, is itself a z-score of 1.414, significantly higher than your score on A and B - and this is *fine.* Each subtest adds more information about you as a candidate. After all, it's not likely for most people to achieve +1 for both subtests A and B; the chance for this is only 2.5%. So even though A and B may not be that strongly "C-loaded," you're still somewhat far out on the overall C-distribution.
But in terms of this specific test? Oh, who knows. Forget all these tests, you're as smart as I say you are. (*Everyone* is as smart as I say they are.)
It scored me about 1.5 points above my avg of the three group factors. Could just be that verbal is weighted more heavily than the two other subtests (although I scored pretty badly on the verbal one so the same should apply to me. I let cookies expire and closed the tab so I also can't see what happens when I refresh).
In general this is not always the case. Here I provide an abstract argument:
Let A and B both be uncorrelated tests with mean 0 and SD 1. Then we devise some test C which is merely the summed score of A and B. Then C has mean 0 and SD 1.414.
Now say that your score on each test A and B is +1. Your summed score on C is 2, which, normalized to C's SD, is itself a z-score of 1.414, significantly higher than your score on A and B - and this is *fine.* Each subtest adds more information about you as a candidate. After all, it's not likely for most people to achieve +1 for both subtests A and B; the chance for this is only 2.5%. So even though A and B may not be that strongly "C-loaded," you're still somewhat far out on the overall C-distribution.
But in terms of this specific test? Oh, who knows. Forget all these tests, you're as smart as I say you are. (*Everyone* is as smart as I say they are.)