IQ test apps compared: what the store listings charge, claim and leave out

0 The short answer

An IQ test app is a real IQ test only if its maker can show the norm sample behind the score, and none of the 13 App Store descriptions we scanned on October 6, 2026 named one. The listings were free to download, 11 of the 14 products sold something inside the app, and four named a weekly, monthly or yearly plan in an item name, with the highest annual price at 99.99 dollars. Research on phones shows that timed speed tasks run worse on some devices, while in job applicant testing the reasoning gap shrinks once the choice of device is accounted for, so a phone is adequate for curiosity and practice and a computer is better for a normed, timed battery.

1 Is an IQ Test App a Real IQ Test?

The word "real" depends on three things an app listing rarely shows: how the questions were built, what group the score is compared with, and under what conditions that group was tested. An IQ score is not a count of right answers. It is a position in a reference distribution, expressed on a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, as the page on why the standard deviation of 15 matters explains. A test earns the name only when a documented sample sits behind that position, and the page on how IQ scores are normed covers what such a sample has to look like.

Apps on the stores fall into at least three kinds, and mixing them up is the most common source of confusion. The first kind is a short quiz of a few minutes that returns a number, such as the 4 minute tests described by two listings below. The second kind is a longer set of items, from 25 to 40 questions, that imitates the look of a test. The third kind is a brain training product whose IQ test is one feature among games, personality quizzes and, in at least one case, a test labeled for attention deficit. In the listings read, the third kind carried the largest download band, 10M+ on Google Play for IQ Masters.

This distinction matters because the stores sort all of them under the same search term, in an order set by the store and not by whether a norm sample exists. The question this page answers is narrower than which app is best: what a listing lets you verify, what it costs, and whether the phone itself changes the result. The pages on what makes an IQ test accurate, on whether online IQ tests are accurate and on the best online IQ tests handle the wider questions.

Several developers say plainly what an app can be. The App Store description of one app, from the developer Paul Stelzer, states that different IQ tests cannot be compared and that a result only tells you how you did against others who took that same test. Trasco Studios calls its score "an approximate estimate intended for personal use, practice, and entertainment". Those are the statements to hold onto, because they describe what a score without a published norm sample can support.

2 What Does an App Store or Google Play Listing Show, and What Does It Hide?

A listing shows a price list, a star average and a promise, and it hides the three things that decide whether a score means anything: the norm sample, the reliability and the conditions of testing. The two stores also show different parts of the price. On the App Store, a listing shows an "In-App Purchases" panel with item names and prices, and it does not state how often an item renews unless the name says so. On Google Play, a listing shows only a range "per item", without item names or periods. The same app can therefore look like a one time purchase in one store and like a renewing plan in the other, and we found one case of that, covered below.

Seven questions work on any app listing, and each can be answered, or found unanswerable, from the page itself.

1. What does the download cost, and what is listed inside the app?
2. Does an item name state a period, such as weekly, monthly, yearly or lifetime?
3. Is there a free trial, and when does it become a charge?
4. How many questions and minutes does the test declare?
5. Does the listing name a norm sample, with a size, a country, the years and the ages?
6. What is free and what is sold: the score, a report, a certificate, the full test, or the answers?
7. When was the app last updated, and who is the developer?

Two further signals are easy to misread. The first is the star average. Ratings measure satisfaction with the app, and they say nothing about whether the score is valid. The data show why. On October 6, 2026 the App Store listing for IQ Masters showed 4.63 stars from 65,184 ratings, while the listing for Real IQ Test showed 4.12 stars from 152 ratings. Neither figure tells you anything about the norms behind either score. The second is the claim of borrowed authority. A description that says it is "influenced by WAIS-IV" or "based on R. Cattell" names a test family, and it does not state that the publisher of that family licensed anything or that the app was normed against anyone.

We read the listings through Apple's public lookup interface and the public listing pages of the US App Store, and through the public listing pages of Google Play set to US English. Android ratings are served rounded, such as "4.2" and "129K reviews". We did not read user reviews as evidence, because a review is an opinion of one person and we could not verify what any reviewer did or paid.

3 What Did 14 IQ Test App Listings Say on October 6, 2026?

Read side by side on October 6, 2026, the 14 products shared a pattern: free to install, a menu of purchases inside, a quick score, and an exact-sounding claim with no sample behind it. We chose the products by how prominently they appeared in the search for "iq test" in the US App Store and Google Play that day, and we included one Android only app and one app whose description does not mention IQ. The selection is a convenience sample of a single day, so the percentages and counts below describe these listings, not the whole market. Prices are in US dollars as the stores showed them, and they can change. Store titles that contain a spaced hyphen are written here with a colon.

A few notes keep the table honest. A row marked "Not read" means we did not open that store for that app, not that no listing exists. The line "Not scanned for claims" means we read the price and rating but did not scan that description. Where one app appears under different names in the two stores, we gave the iPhone name. The lists of purchases are as the App Store shows them, which can be capped at ten entries, so a long list may be incomplete.

Five patterns stand out. First, all 14 products can be installed without paying. Second, 11 of the 14 list something to buy inside the app, and only Real IQ Test, What is my IQ and BrainScore list nothing on the stores we read. Third, the quick tests are quick. Two listings say 4 minutes, and the longest stated time is 30 to 45 minutes, so no app in the table declares anything near the length of a clinical battery. Fourth, four descriptions refer to a distribution, a percentile or a global ranking, and none states what group produced it. Fifth, some listings pair the IQ test with something else: Brainova with an attention deficit test, LEVO with brain games and personality tests, and Testora, whose iPhone description never uses the term IQ, with brain training, which is a reminder that these products are bundles, not instruments. For the same reason, an app score belongs nowhere near a clinical question, and the pages on what IQ measures and on the CHC model show what a real battery covers.

4 What Does a Year of an IQ Test App Cost Compared With a One Time Test?

Where a listing names the period in an item name, a year of renewals can cost anywhere from 19.99 dollars to more than 400 dollars, and for most apps the listing does not let you compute it. The table below uses only items whose names or descriptions state a period, and every yearly total in the last column is our arithmetic, assuming no cancellation and ignoring any trial. It is a ceiling for a person who forgets to cancel, not a prediction of what anyone paid.

Three cautions apply. The first is that the stores show the plan names but not always which price belongs to which plan. Brainova lists two weekly prices and three yearly prices under identical names, and IQ Masters lists five distinct prices under one name, so a reader cannot tell from the listing which price applies to which plan. The second is that lifetime items exist. IQ Masters lists a Lifetime Premium at 49.99, Testora lists Lifetime Access at 49.99, and the Stelzer app lists Pro Forever items from 8.99 to 29.99, so a person who wants an app permanently can sometimes pay once. The third is that a weekly price is a different kind of number from a yearly one. A price of 7.99 dollars looks small until it repeats 52 times.

The terms of the developers fill in some of what the listings leave out. The terms of IQ Masters, which name Codeway Dijital Hizmetler Anonim Şirketi of Turkey as the operating company, say that such in-app purchase features are offered "on an annual, semi-annual, quarterly, monthly or a weekly basis". The terms of Testora say it offers subscription plans "on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis". These are statements about the range of plans, not about which plan a given user is shown. The general billing questions, such as how a subscription differs from a one time payment and what to check before paying, belong to the page on the paid IQ test billing model, and the page comparing free and paid online IQ tests covers what the money buys in a report.

For comparison, on October 6, 2026 ACIS sold three forms for one time payments with no subscription: Quick at 15 dollars for 6 subtests in 3 domains, Optimized at 30 dollars for 13 subtests in 5 domains, and Full Scale at 50 dollars for all 20 subtests in six domains. Prices can change, and the home page carries the current ones. The comparison is not neutral and it is not simple, since the ACIS forms take about 45, 110 and 175 minutes, which is a very different product from a 4 minute app.

5 How Do Free Trials and Renewals Work Under Store Rules, and How Do You Cancel?

Both stores require a developer to describe a subscription before selling it, and both let the buyer cancel from the store, but neither promises a refund for the period already charged. The store policies are the only part of the billing story that applies to every app sold through that store, so they are the best starting point.

Apple's App Store Review Guidelines, in guideline 3.1.2(a), say that "the subscription period must last at least seven days", which makes a weekly plan the shortest an app can sell. The same guideline says that before asking a customer to subscribe, a developer should clearly describe what the user will get for the price. Google's subscription policy for developers requires, before enrollment, a clear description of the duration, pricing and content of a free trial or introductory offer, how and when it converts to a paid subscription, how much the paid subscription will cost, and how a user can cancel. The same policy lists as a violation an item name such as "Free Trial" for a subscription that charges again automatically, and it states that after a cancellation through Google Play billing "the user will not receive a refund for the current billing period", while the subscriber keeps the content for the rest of that period. We read both pages on October 6, 2026, and the policies can change.

Cancellation then happens in the store, not in the app. Apple's support page on canceling a subscription, dated September 29, 2026, gives the steps on an iPhone: in Settings tap your name, tap Subscriptions, tap the subscription, and tap Cancel Subscription. The page adds that if there is no cancel button, or an expiration message appears in red, the subscription is already canceled. Apple's page on requesting a refund, dated September 17, 2026, says that some purchases "might be eligible for a refund", directs the buyer to reportaproblem.apple.com, and says to wait 24 to 48 hours for an update. It does not set a guaranteed refund window, so the outcome of a request depends on the request. For Google Play, the refund rule is the one quoted above, and we did not verify the cancellation screens of the Play Store app itself. The page on paid IQ test billing treats cancellation and chargebacks in general, and we do not repeat it here.

Two developer statements show how the rules reach an individual app. The Testora terms say that unless you cancel the trial at least 24 hours before it ends, the selected payment method is automatically charged, and that deleting the app or the account does not cancel the subscription. That last point matters for anyone who treats removing an app as stopping a charge. The IQ Masters terms say that subscriptions are re-billed by the Apple App Store or Google Play until cancelled, and that the store will send an email before renewal with a link to manage the subscription. These two documents describe the mechanics. Neither says anything about how a particular buyer experienced them, and this page does not either.

One inconsistency is worth stating as a fact and nothing more. The App Store description of IQ Test Brain Training Riddles says that its Pro subscription "is valid for 1 month and will be automatically extended" unless canceled 24 hours before the period ends. The Google Play description of the same app says that Pro is a one time in-app purchase, with the words "No subscription, no automatic renewal, no ads", while the same Android listing shows "Contains ads". The two stores can sell different items, and a description may simply lag the product, so the sensible reading is that a reader should check the billing text in the store where they are buying.

A last point concerns the brands this site has reviewed. Innerly's IQ test is sold at tryinnerly.com, and CogniProfile's at its own website, as the reviews of Innerly and CogniProfile document. A search of the US App Store on October 6, 2026 returned no IQ test app under either name, and the closest hit for "innerly" was an unrelated journaling app. Their cancellation and refund routes therefore do not run through Apple ID or Google Play settings, and the two reviews explain what they do run through. The RIOT IQ test review covers a third paid test sold on the web.

6 What Norms Can an IQ App Claim, and What Do the Listings Actually State?

A norm is a documented comparison group, and in the 13 App Store descriptions we scanned, the strongest norm statements were a "normal distribution" or a "percentile" with no group named. For a score to mean "better than 84 percent of adults aged 25 to 34", someone has to have tested a defined group under defined conditions and tabulated the results. The words "normal distribution" describe the shape of a bell curve, and any set of scores can be plotted on one. Without the group, the shape tells a reader nothing about where they stand.

We scanned each of the 13 App Store descriptions for the terms sample, norm, normed, normative, standardized, calibrated, participants, validated, validity, reliability and percentile, and read the surrounding sentences. None named a normative sample. Four descriptions refer to a distribution, percentile or global ranking: Test Apps Limited ("where you stand on the normal distribution"), Zipo Apps ("normal distribution placement"), LEVO ("your exact percentile") and Sharply Labs ("see how you rank globally"). One Android listing, BrainScore, states "IQ score range: 70-145 (standard psychometric scale)", which names a scale and a range, not a sample. A scale range in a listing also carries a risk of its own, since a score can look more precise than the test is. Ranking "globally" against everyone who downloaded the app compares you with the app's own users, who chose to be there, and that is a different thing from a norm.

Two descriptions borrow the name of an established instrument. The Stelzer app is described as "influenced by WAIS-IV" and its description lists task types such as number series and matrix tests. The Games for Friends app says its method is "based on R. Cattell" and "culture-free". Both are statements about inspiration. Neither says that the publisher of the Wechsler scales or any other publisher licensed or reviewed the app, and neither provides a norm sample. The standard to apply comes from the profession and not from the app: the page on reliability and validity explains why a test needs both before a number is quotable, and no listing we read reported either.

Certificates deserve a special mention. Test Apps Limited sells an IQ Test Certificate at 4.99 dollars, and the Trasco description offers an "Approximate IQ certificate to share for fun". A certificate is a document, and a document does not turn an estimate into a measurement. Whether a society, school or clinic accepts any score is for that body to say, and a clinical question calls for a supervised, individually administered instrument, as the page on what IQ measures explains.

Several developers do state limits. IQ Masters says tests and results are "for self-reflection and general informational purposes only", and the Testora terms say its service is "intended solely for general knowledge, self-development, and entertainment purposes". Promises of accuracy and notices of entertainment sit side by side in the same stores, and we draw no conclusion about anyone's intent. The page on IQ scores and percentiles gives the criteria for reading either kind of claim.

7 Does Taking a Timed Task on a Phone Change the Score?

For tasks scored in milliseconds, the device changes the score by amounts that are large in research terms, because touch screens and phones add delay and because people who pick different devices differ. The clearest evidence comes from a large study of visitors to TestMyBrain.org by Passell and colleagues (2021), published in Behavior Research Methods. In the first study, 59,587 adults who spoke English as a first language did a simple reaction time task, a 90 second digit symbol matching task adapted from the Coding subtest of the Wechsler scales, and an untimed vocabulary test, on Android devices, iPhones, iPads, Macs and Windows computers.

Compared with Windows computers and after controlling for age, gender and education, reaction times were slower on every touch device in the comparison. The effect sizes, in Cohen's d, were 1.12 for Android, 0.53 for iPad and 0.44 for iPhone, while Mac computers were faster by 0.11. On the digit symbol task, which is much closer to an IQ subtest, the gaps were smaller: 0.27 for Android and 0.17 for iPhone, with no difference for iPad. The authors attribute part of the reaction time gap to the input method and part of a trail making gap to screen size, since touching small targets that sit close together is harder on a small screen. A second sample of 3,818 people did all tasks in one session and gave a similar pattern.

The same study contains the caution this page depends on. The untimed vocabulary test also differed by device, with Mac users scoring higher and Android users lower, which the authors read as a sign that part of any device gap reflects who chooses each device, and not only what the device does to a response. The practical recommendations from the paper are that accuracy based measures suffer less than millisecond based measures, that tasks with longer response times dilute the share of delay, and that researchers should record the device and treat it as a covariate.

A second line of evidence is about hardware itself. Nicosia and colleagues (2023), also in Behavior Research Methods, used a robot to measure the total latency of 26 popular smartphones and found latencies between 35 and 140 milliseconds. Their point was that this spread can be mistaken for individual differences in response speed. A person on an older, slower phone would look slower, and the score would carry the phone and not the person. Germine, Reinecke and Chaytor (2019), in The Clinical Neuropsychologist, summarize the same difficulty at the level of whole test batteries: the perceptual, motor and cognitive demands of one test differ across device classes, hardware and software vary within a class, and rapid device change can leave tests and norms out of date.

An older result explains why. Mead and Drasgow (1993), in a meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin, pooled 159 correlations between computerized and paper versions of cognitive ability tests. The corrected correlation was 0.97 for timed power tests and 0.72 for speed tests, so the change of mode left power tests nearly intact and hurt speed tests. That study concerned paper and desktop computers, not phones, but it fixes the principle that a clock makes a test far more sensitive to how the response is made. The page on why IQ tests are timed explains what the clock measures, and the processing speed test page covers the Gs tasks where this sensitivity is greatest.

8 Does a Phone Change a Reasoning Score When Nothing Is Timed in Milliseconds?

For reasoning and general mental ability without millisecond timing, the research finds small or no device gaps once the person who chooses the phone is accounted for, but almost all of it comes from job applicant testing and not from IQ tests. The studies differ in design, so the table sets them side by side and the text below says what each one can support.

The Brown study is the best guide to how to read the raw gap. Mobile use was more common among applicants with less education and in less complex jobs, so the 0.58 raw difference mixes the device with the person. Once those differences are modeled, the gap fell to 0.25 under one method and 0.10 under another, and the authors recommend random assignment to settle the question. The Traylor study is the experiment that does randomize, and its students did equally well whether the conditions included distraction or not. The authors proposed self-selection and the stakes of the test, and not the surroundings, as the better explanations for gaps in applicant data, which fits the Brown result. Arthur and colleagues found a lower general mental ability score on mobile in a very large applicant sample, and without the effect size in the abstract we read, we do not state its size.

The fourth row is a warning against over-reading. The Illingworth study found no practical difference, but the assessment was not a cognitive test, so it cannot be used to say that an IQ test would behave the same way. No study we located evaluated the consumer IQ apps in the stores, and that absence of a study does not prove that none exists. We do not convert any of these gaps into IQ points, because none of the studies reports one, and none used a normed individual IQ test.

9 Which Parts of an IQ Test Are Most Sensitive to the Device?

The risk from a phone depends on what the task asks the hand and the eye to do, so a single verdict on "taking an IQ test on a phone" hides the differences that matter. The table below reasons from the evidence above, and where it goes beyond a cited study it says so. It does not apply to any named test, and no figures in it are ACIS statistics.

Two points follow. A different device can change what the same test measures, which is why the final section sets out the standard of evidence. And the most sensitive tasks in an IQ battery are the speed tasks behind a processing speed index; the pages on Coding, Symbol Search and Digit Span show the formats without reproducing items.

10 What Does ACIS Do on a Phone, and Where Is It Weaker Than an App?

ACIS is not an app, it runs in a browser, and its pages recommend a computer for the timed and visual parts, so a person who wants a short test on a phone will find an app quicker. We say this plainly because it is the reason a reader looking for an app may not want what ACIS sells. The ACIS forms take about 45 minutes for Quick, 110 minutes for Optimized and 175 minutes for Full Scale, with breaks allowed and 30 days to complete, and the page on how long an IQ test takes places those times next to other instruments.

On devices, the ACIS FAQ says ACIS is compatible with desktop computers, laptops, tablets and modern smartphones, and that a larger screen, a stable connection and a quiet environment are still recommended for visual and timed subtests, with a physical keyboard helpful for Coding. The page on the online IQ test says that ACIS works in a mobile browser but that a laptop or desktop with a larger screen is recommended for spatial and timed subtests, so the result reflects ability rather than the device. The page on the processing speed test adds that Coding and Symbol Search lock to landscape orientation on a phone so that the whole workspace stays visible, and calls that a design response to screen size and not a solution to it.

For research use, the page on ACIS for research says that timed subtests depend on the device and input method, and that the workspace records both for each administration so a researcher can control for them. We publish no ACIS figures by device, and none are implied here. ACIS is online, unsupervised, English only and not a clinical or diagnostic instrument, and those limits apply to every form, whatever device is used. The technical manual documents the instrument.

11 When Is a Phone Enough, and How Should You Prepare It?

A phone is enough when the score is for curiosity or practice and the task is untimed reasoning with clearly visible items, and it is a poor choice when the result will be compared with a norm that was built on other conditions. The reasoning follows from the evidence above and not from any app listing.

A phone is reasonable for a short quiz that calls itself an estimate, for practice with the format of a question, and for a first look at a topic. A computer is the better choice for any battery that includes speed tasks, any task that asks for precise taps, and any session longer than about half an hour. A tablet sits in between: in the Passell study, iPad reaction times were slower than Windows by 0.53 but its digit symbol scores did not differ, so a tablet can handle some tasks and not others.

If you use a phone anyway, six steps reduce avoidable error. Use the same device for any retest, so a change in the score is not a change of hardware. Turn the phone to the orientation the task asks for. Switch on Do Not Disturb so calls and messages do not interrupt. Charge the device or plug it in. Use headphones if any task plays sound. Sit somewhere quiet with the phone on a stable surface. The Traylor experiment found no score effect from a busy setting, so these steps are about avoiding interruptions and misreads rather than about a proven gain in points.

A researcher with mixed devices should follow the Passell recommendation to record the device and use it as a covariate, and the page on cognitive assessment platforms covers what a study team should look for. A curious adult can start with the pages on the IQ test for adults and the quick IQ test, which set out what a short battery gives up.

12 Where ACIS Sits, and What a Buyer Should Do

ACIS sits at the opposite end of the market from a free app: one time prices and a long, normed battery, with the limits of an online, unsupervised test, and a buyer should decide by what the score will be used for. The profession's own documents give the criteria, and they apply to ACIS as much as to any app. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA and NCME, 2014) say, in Standard 1.10, that validity evidence should describe its conditions, including "the mode of test administration (e.g., unproctored online testing versus proctored on-site testing)". Standard 9.9 asks anyone who changes the format or mode of a test to justify the change and, where possible, show empirically that reliability and validity are not hurt, and to collect new validity evidence and norms if the change becomes general. The International Test Commission and the Association of Test Publishers (2022) state in guideline 7.4 that claims of score comparability should support interpretation "across different technologies, devices, and administrative conditions", and in guideline 7.6 that the evidence should include the shape of the score distribution, reliability and the standard error of measurement. The American Psychological Association's revised guidelines for telepsychology (2024), written for psychologists assessing patients at a distance, ask for knowledge of the evidence base, the administration instructions and the established norms of any test given remotely. They govern professional practice and do not govern consumer apps, but they show the questions a careful reader asks.

A buyer can apply those criteria in four steps. Decide first what the score is for. A curiosity score tolerates a short quiz, while a decision about school, work or a clinical question needs a supervised instrument that ACIS and every app on this page are not. Second, ask the seven questions about the listing, including whether a norm sample is named. Third, price the full year from the item names, not the entry price, and set the cancellation steps before paying. Fourth, take the test on the device the evidence favors for its tasks, and keep the same device for a retest.

ACIS reports indices and a Full Scale IQ on the standard scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, scaled subtest scores from 1 to 19, percentiles and a 95 percent confidence interval, with adult norms for ages 16 to 90. A free trial requires no card, there is a 5 day quality guarantee, and prices are as read on October 6, 2026. ACIS is not for hiring, school accommodations or admission to high IQ societies, and a person who needs a five minute quiz on a phone will be better served by an app. The ACIS home page lists the current forms.

13 Sources Behind This Page

Every figure on this page comes from the entries below or from the store listings and developer terms read on October 6, 2026.

1. Passell, E., Strong, R. W., Rutter, L. A., Kim, H., Scheuer, L., Martini, P., Grinspoon, L., and Germine, L. (2021). Cognitive test scores vary with choice of personal digital device. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2544 to 2557. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01597-3
2. Nicosia, J., Wang, B., Aschenbrenner, A. J., Sliwinski, M. J., Yabiku, S. T., Roque, N. A., Germine, L. T., Bateman, R. J., Morris, J. C., and Hassenstab, J. (2023). To BYOD or not: Are device latencies important for bring-your-own-device (BYOD) smartphone cognitive testing? Behavior Research Methods, 55(6), 2800 to 2812. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01925-1
3. Germine, L., Reinecke, K., and Chaytor, N. S. (2019). Digital neuropsychology: Challenges and opportunities at the intersection of science and software. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(2), 271 to 286. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2018.1535662
4. Mead, A. D., and Drasgow, F. (1993). Equivalence of computerized and paper-and-pencil cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 449 to 458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.449
5. Brown, M. I., Grossenbacher, M. A., and Warman, Z. (2023). Self-selection as an explanation for general mental ability test score differences between mobile and nonmobile devices in observational studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(7), 1190 to 1206. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001067
6. Traylor, Z., Hagen, E., Williams, A., and Arthur, W., Jr. (2021). The testing environment as an explanation for unproctored internet-based testing device-type effects. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(1), 65 to 80. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12315
7. Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., Muñoz, G. J., Taylor, J. E., and Carr, A. E. (2014). The use of mobile devices in high-stakes remotely delivered assessments and testing. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(2), 113 to 123. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12062
8. Illingworth, A. J., Morelli, N. A., Scott, J. C., and Boyd, S. L. (2015). Internet-based, unproctored assessments on mobile and non-mobile devices: Usage, measurement equivalence, and outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 325 to 343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9363-8
9. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Open access edition: https://www.testingstandards.net/open-access-files.html
10. International Test Commission and Association of Test Publishers (2022). Guidelines for technology-based assessment. https://www.intestcom.org/upload/media-library/guidelines-for-technology-based-assessment-v20221108-16684036687NAG8.pdf
11. American Psychological Association (2024). Guidelines for the practice of telepsychology (revision, approved August 2024). https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/telepsychology-revision.pdf
12. Apple Inc. App Store Review Guidelines, guideline 3.1.2(a), read October 6, 2026. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
13. Apple Inc. Cancel a subscription from Apple (page dated September 29, 2026) and Request a refund for apps or content that you bought from Apple (page dated September 17, 2026). https://support.apple.com/en-us/118428 and https://support.apple.com/en-us/118223
14. Google. Google Play Developer Policy Center, subscriptions policy, read October 6, 2026. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9900533?hl=en
15. US App Store listings (read through Apple's public lookup interface and listing pages), Google Play listings (US English), and the developer terms of IQ Masters and Testora, all read October 6, 2026. https://static.iqmasters.app/terms-conditions-en.html and https://info.testora.space/terms-of-use-testora

14 Frequently Asked Questions