OpenPsychometrics is free, fast and unusually candid that its Full Scale IQ Test is an educational demonstration rather than a real professional replacement. That honesty earns credit, but the short unsupervised form and missing public technical evidence keep it at 24 out of 50.
OpenPsychometrics earns 24 out of 50: free, fast and honest, but not professionally sufficient.
0 Quick Verdict: 24 Out of 50
The OpenPsychometrics Full Scale IQ Test is an unusually honest free demonstration, but a poor professional assessment choice. Its own page warns that every online IQ test is bad, says the test is not a replacement for a real IQ test and limits intended use to education. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The test has six sections and reports overall plus short term memory, reasoning and verbal scores. This observed point affects the overall verdict rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Most users finish in 10 to 15 minutes, with a design cap of about 20 minutes. This observed point affects the overall verdict rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The page cites a three domain research model but does not provide a current form specific technical manual. This observed point affects the overall verdict rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The explicit warning reduces buyer deception but also confirms that serious decision use is inappropriate. This observed point affects the overall verdict rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
A consumer review should distinguish a visible product fact from a marketing claim and an independent validation result. Applied here, the product is recommended only as a free demonstration of online cognitive testing.
The score follows the same public ten criterion rubric used for every reviewed online IQ test, with five points available per criterion and fifty in total. The relevant buyer question is does the user need an educational experience or a defensible individual result?
Missing public evidence is scored as a buyer transparency limitation, not asserted as proof that no private evidence exists. The scoring boundary is ethical disclosure receives credit without turning the demonstration into a professional test.
For comparison, 24 falls just below the rubric's fair band and reflects limited professional utility despite zero purchase cost. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
The test presents six sections intended to support three component abilities and one overall score. The named components are short term memory, reasoning and verbal ability, based on a model cited from Hampshire and colleagues. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Each section supplies its own instructions. This observed point affects the product scope rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The test is intended to be completed alone without references or materials. This observed point affects the product scope rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The page states that only the first attempt should be considered valid because retesting changes familiarity. This observed point affects the product scope rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed. This observed point affects the product scope rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Test length alone does not establish breadth because many items can repeat one reasoning demand. Applied here, the visible structure is broader than a single matrix quiz but narrower than a comprehensive adult battery.
A serious score interpretation needs identifiable norms, reliability, construct evidence and an uncertainty estimate. The relevant buyer question is how many reliable indicators support each component score?
Convenience receives credit, but convenience cannot compensate for unsupported precision or unsuitable use. The scoring boundary is six sections do not automatically equal six independently validated cognitive domains.
For comparison, a professional battery normally publishes tasks, factor evidence, norms and score precision in a manual. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
2 The Complete Ten Criterion Scorecard
OpenPsychometrics receives 2 for professional standards, 2 for validity and reliability, 5 for fair price, 2 for report utility and 2 for range. It receives 1 for security, 3 for overall quality, 4 for time, 2 for comprehensiveness and 1 for precision, totaling 24 of 50. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Free access earns full price credit because no payment or renewal is required for the result. This observed point affects the transparent rubric rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The transparent limitations support overall quality and ethics but cannot raise technical criteria without data. This observed point affects the transparent rubric rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The 10 to 20 minute burden earns strong time credit. This observed point affects the transparent rubric rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Security and precision remain at one because administration is unsupervised and no confidence interval method is published. This observed point affects the transparent rubric rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Pricing fairness includes disclosure before effort, total expected cost, renewal terms, cancellation and refund conditions. Applied here, the score separates consumer friendliness from psychometric strength.
A low initial amount can become poor value when the important report or cancellation path is unclear. The relevant buyer question is which strengths improve access and which evidence gaps still limit interpretation?
The review uses dated snapshots because products, prices and terms can change. The scoring boundary is the 24 is an editorial rubric result, not a user rating or psychometric score.
For comparison, the same ten criteria and fifty point denominator apply across ACIS competitor reviews. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
3 Professional Standards: 2 Out of 5
The project discloses purpose and limitations better than many commercial funnels. However, the reviewed page does not identify a licensed examiner, professional publisher governance or an accepted individual assessment standard. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The page labels the test educational and disclaims psychological advice. This observed point affects the professional standards rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
It provides a contact address, update date and open license information. This observed point affects the professional standards rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The cited academic model gives a conceptual source but not professional accountability for individual use. This observed point affects the professional standards rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
No reviewed material establishes acceptance for diagnosis, accommodations, education or employment. This observed point affects the professional standards rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Report utility depends on what the output helps a buyer understand, not on certificate graphics or a precise integer alone. Applied here, transparency raises the score above one while intended use prevents a professional rating.
Domain interpretation must correspond to genuinely distinct, reliable measures. The relevant buyer question is who is accountable for test development and interpretation under a recognized standard?
A report should state limitations and prevent users from treating a self assessment as a diagnosis or institutional credential. The scoring boundary is an educational research demonstration is not a clinical instrument.
For comparison, professional status requires more than an honest disclaimer and academic citation. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
4 Validity and Reliability: 2 Out of 5
The page cites a plausible three domain framework but does not publish enough form specific evidence. A buyer cannot inspect current reliability coefficients, norm construction, test retest evidence, factor fit or external validation for the six section instrument. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The cited Hampshire study investigated fractionation of human intelligence in an internet sample. This observed point affects the validity and reliability rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Using the same domain labels does not automatically validate a new item set and score transformation. This observed point affects the validity and reliability rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The test page says work was devoted to measurement properties but supplies no current technical tables. This observed point affects the validity and reliability rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
First attempt guidance acknowledges practice effects without quantifying them. This observed point affects the validity and reliability rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Security matters because unsupervised access, repeated attempts, copied items and assistance can change the meaning of a high score. Applied here, the conceptual basis receives partial credit while individual score evidence remains weak.
Anti-cheat controls do not make a test clinical, but their absence weakens identity and score integrity. The relevant buyer question is how consistently does this exact form measure each claimed component?
Extreme score claims require stronger item information and ceiling evidence than ordinary range claims. The scoring boundary is a literature citation is not a test specific validation study.
For comparison, a higher rating needs public norms, reliability, construct evidence and independent replication. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
5 Fair Price: 5 Out of 5
The test is free and does not require a paid report to display its educational result. That makes cost transparent and eliminates subscription or refund risk for the test itself. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Users can evaluate the experience without entering payment details. This observed point affects the fair price rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
No recurring billing term is part of the reviewed test flow. This observed point affects the fair price rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Free access supports education and research participation. This observed point affects the fair price rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
A free price does not make an inaccurate or unsuitable score safe for consequential use. This observed point affects the fair price rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Fair competitor analysis credits documented strengths and links directly to official sources. Applied here, the product earns full price credit and still receives a low overall score because price is only one criterion.
ACIS has a commercial interest and discloses it, so readers can inspect the rubric rather than rely on an unexplained verdict. The relevant buyer question is does zero cost compensate for the user's need for reliable professional evidence?
The rating is correctable if the provider publishes stronger evidence or changes the product. The scoring boundary is free value and psychometric validity are separate judgments.
For comparison, paid products should exceed this transparency by showing total cost and stronger evidence before checkout. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
6 Report Utility: 2 Out of 5
The overall and three component outputs provide more context than one unexplained number. The public page does not establish that each component has enough reliable indicators, confidence intervals or actionable interpretation for serious decisions. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Short term memory, reasoning and verbal labels can help users notice profile differences. This observed point affects the report utility rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
A displayed difference can reflect measurement error as well as a stable strength. This observed point affects the report utility rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
No sample report methodology explains score specific uncertainty. This observed point affects the report utility rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The warning not to make decisions based on the result appropriately constrains utility. This observed point affects the report utility rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The intended decision sets the evidence threshold. Curiosity, practice, self assessment, hiring, education and clinical diagnosis are not interchangeable uses. Applied here, partial credit recognizes component feedback while respecting the provider's own warning.
A platform's own terms can narrow the intended use more clearly than its promotional headline. The relevant buyer question is can a user distinguish a real domain difference from noise?
The safest recommendation names who may find the product useful and who should choose another assessment path. The scoring boundary is a component label is not sufficient evidence for a diagnostic conclusion.
For comparison, useful detailed reporting requires reliable domains, intervals, norms and limitations. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
The test may distinguish broad ordinary levels but publishes little evidence about floor and ceiling accuracy. A short 10 to 20 minute assessment has limited information for extreme score claims. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The page does not publish item information curves or score conditional error. This observed point affects the measurement range rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Internet samples can contain self selection, repeats and uncontrolled assistance. This observed point affects the measurement range rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Extreme performers require enough items targeted near their level. This observed point affects the measurement range rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
An overall score can reach a numerical extreme without demonstrating accurate tail classification. This observed point affects the measurement range rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
A consumer review should distinguish a visible product fact from a marketing claim and an independent validation result. Applied here, two points reflect a usable demonstration scale without verified broad tail precision.
The score follows the same public ten criterion rubric used for every reviewed online IQ test, with five points available per criterion and fifty in total. The relevant buyer question is does the form contain enough calibrated information near very high and very low ability?
Missing public evidence is scored as a buyer transparency limitation, not asserted as proof that no private evidence exists. The scoring boundary is the displayed maximum is not a validated ceiling.
For comparison, professional range evidence should report conditional precision across the scale. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
8 Security and Anti-Cheat: 1 Out of 5
The page instructs solo completion but does not verify identity or environment. Online users can repeat, consult materials, receive help or select a preferred result. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The first attempt warning is advisory rather than enforced identity linked retest control. This observed point affects the security rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Items accessible publicly can become familiar through discussion and screenshots. This observed point affects the security rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Timing data can flag unusual behavior but does not prove independent completion. This observed point affects the security rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Research use can tolerate lower security than credential use. This observed point affects the security rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Test length alone does not establish breadth because many items can repeat one reasoning demand. Applied here, one point matches an open educational instrument with minimal consequence controls.
A serious score interpretation needs identifiable norms, reliability, construct evidence and an uncertainty estimate. The relevant buyer question is can the score establish who answered the questions without help?
Convenience receives credit, but convenience cannot compensate for unsupported precision or unsuitable use. The scoring boundary is the result should not be used as verified external evidence.
For comparison, a professional high stakes administration needs identity, item exposure and supervision controls. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
9 Overall Quality 3 Out of 5 and Time 4 Out of 5
The test is accessible, explicit about limitations and reasonably structured for demonstration. Its short administration supports engagement but is also the reason the page itself rejects replacement of a longer professional assessment. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The average completion estimate of 10 to 15 minutes sets a clear expectation. This observed point affects the overall quality and time rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The page warns that rushing under 10 minutes can depress performance. This observed point affects the overall quality and time rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Section instructions and component feedback create an educational experience. This observed point affects the overall quality and time rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The last substantive update shown is December 30, 2019, so current evidence should be checked carefully. This observed point affects the overall quality and time rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Pricing fairness includes disclosure before effort, total expected cost, renewal terms, cancellation and refund conditions. Applied here, usability and honesty earn credit while shortness limits breadth.
A low initial amount can become poor value when the important report or cancellation path is unclear. The relevant buyer question is is the session length aligned with demonstration or professional interpretation?
The review uses dated snapshots because products, prices and terms can change. The scoring boundary is engagement optimization and measurement precision trade off in this form.
For comparison, a longer battery can justify more time when it provides additional reliable domains. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
10 Comprehensiveness: 2 Out of 5
Three component abilities offer some breadth beyond matrix reasoning alone. They do not match the coverage or independent evidence of a comprehensive CHC based battery. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Reasoning, verbal and short term memory are meaningful constructs. This observed point affects the comprehensiveness rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Visual processing, quantitative knowledge and processing speed are not separately documented as reliable scores. This observed point affects the comprehensiveness rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Six sections limit the number of indicators available per component. This observed point affects the comprehensiveness rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
A broad global score should reflect coverage and weighting justified by factor evidence. This observed point affects the comprehensiveness rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Report utility depends on what the output helps a buyer understand, not on certificate graphics or a precise integer alone. Applied here, two points recognize multiple modes while rejecting a complete profile claim.
Domain interpretation must correspond to genuinely distinct, reliable measures. The relevant buyer question is which important abilities are sampled and which remain unmeasured?
A report should state limitations and prevent users from treating a self assessment as a diagnosis or institutional credential. The scoring boundary is the page's Full Scale label is interpreted within its own three component model only.
For comparison, more comprehensive assessment requires more domains and stronger evidence per domain. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
11 Precision: 1 Out of 5
The page does not publish score bands or confidence intervals for the current result. An exact integer can therefore communicate more certainty than the short unsupervised form supports. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Reliability is needed to calculate standard error of measurement. This observed point affects the precision rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Score precision can differ across the distribution even when one average error is known. This observed point affects the precision rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Random daily factors and timing influence short form performance. This observed point affects the precision rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
First attempt effects add uncertainty that a point estimate does not display. This observed point affects the precision rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Security matters because unsupervised access, repeated attempts, copied items and assistance can change the meaning of a high score. Applied here, the review assigns one until transparent score uncertainty is available.
Anti-cheat controls do not make a test clinical, but their absence weakens identity and score integrity. The relevant buyer question is what range of scores is consistent with the observed performance?
Extreme score claims require stronger item information and ceiling evidence than ordinary range claims. The scoring boundary is decimal places and percentile labels cannot replace an error model.
For comparison, a strong report displays confidence intervals and explains their assumptions. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
12 How to Interpret Your OpenPsychometrics Result
Treat the result as a first attempt educational demonstration. Do not submit it for diagnosis, gifted placement, accommodations, hiring or membership unless a receiving organization explicitly accepts it. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
Name the exact OpenPsychometrics Full Scale IQ Test and date when discussing it. This observed point affects the responsible use rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Inspect component differences as hypotheses rather than confirmed strengths and weaknesses. This observed point affects the responsible use rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Do not average repeated attempts or select the maximum as a true score. This observed point affects the responsible use rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
If the result matters, use an accepted assessment with qualified interpretation. This observed point affects the responsible use rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
Fair competitor analysis credits documented strengths and links directly to official sources. Applied here, the provider's warning becomes the central interpretation rule.
ACIS has a commercial interest and discloses it, so readers can inspect the rubric rather than rely on an unexplained verdict. The relevant buyer question is what decision, if any, will use the output?
The rating is correctable if the provider publishes stronger evidence or changes the product. The scoring boundary is educational curiosity is the intended ceiling of use.
For comparison, ACIS remains an online self assessment too and does not replace clinical evaluation. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
The review uses the test's own page as the primary product source. It credits free access and honest warnings while scoring the missing public technical evidence under the same competitor rubric. Under the published rubric, OpenPsychometrics receives 24 out of 50 overall.
The official Full Scale IQ Test page documents six sections, three components, timing, first attempt guidance and educational limitations. This observed point affects the source transparency rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The cited Hampshire and colleagues study provides the referenced three component research context. This observed point affects the source transparency rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
ACIS competes for online assessment users and discloses that commercial interest. This observed point affects the source transparency rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The review should be updated if a new technical manual, current norms or confidence interval report becomes public. This observed point affects the source transparency rating because a buyer should be able to verify the evidence before relying on the result.
The intended decision sets the evidence threshold. Curiosity, practice, self assessment, hiring, education and clinical diagnosis are not interchangeable uses. Applied here, the provider's strongest ethical disclosures are quoted in substance rather than hidden.
A platform's own terms can narrow the intended use more clearly than its promotional headline. The relevant buyer question is can every decisive claim be checked on an official or primary source?
The safest recommendation names who may find the product useful and who should choose another assessment path. The scoring boundary is this page owns only the OpenPsychometrics IQ test review query.
For comparison, broad ranking methodology remains on Best Online IQ Tests. This comparison concerns evidence and product fit, not a guarantee that any online self assessment can replace supervised professional evaluation.
It may provide an educational rough estimate, but its own page warns that it is not a replacement for a real IQ test and should not guide decisions. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
What score did OpenPsychometrics receive?
It received 24 out of 50, below the fair band, because free access and convenience do not overcome weak public professional evidence. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
Is OpenPsychometrics free?
Yes. The Full Scale IQ Test is accessible without a paid report or subscription in the reviewed flow. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
How long is the OpenPsychometrics IQ test?
The page says the average person takes 10 to 15 minutes and the design is capped around 20 minutes. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
How many sections are there?
The official page states that the test has six sections, each with separate instructions. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
What domains does OpenPsychometrics report?
It reports short term memory, reasoning and verbal component abilities plus an overall score. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
Is it a Full Scale IQ test?
That is the product name, but it uses a three component online model and explicitly says it cannot replace a real professional IQ test. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
Does it publish a technical manual?
A current form specific manual with norms, reliability, validation and score error was not found on the reviewed test page. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
Can I retake OpenPsychometrics?
The page says the result is valid only the first time because familiarity can affect later attempts. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
Should I rush through the test?
No. The page warns that finishing in less than ten minutes can lower scores, while taking unusually long offers little benefit. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
Can I use references or help?
No. Official instructions say to complete the test alone without references or materials. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
Is OpenPsychometrics professionally supervised?
No. It is an open online educational assessment without verified identity or proctoring in the normal flow. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
Does the result include confidence intervals?
A public score specific confidence interval method was not found, which is why precision received one point. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
Can OpenPsychometrics diagnose giftedness?
No. The site disclaims psychological advice and says the test should not guide decisions. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
Can I submit it to Mensa?
Only the receiving organization can define accepted evidence. An open unsupervised educational test should not be assumed acceptable. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
Does OpenPsychometrics store responses?
The page says responses may be recorded and anonymously used for research or otherwise distributed. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
Why is a free test scored below 25?
Price is only one of ten criteria. Professional standards, security, breadth, precision and public validation remain limited. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
Is its warning a bad sign?
The warning is good transparency. It accurately limits use, but it also confirms that the product should not receive a professional interpretation score. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
What is a better option for official testing?
Use an assessment accepted by the relevant clinician, school, employer or organization, administered under required conditions. For OpenPsychometrics, the key boundary is a transparent free educational demonstration is still not a professional or consequential IQ assessment.
Does ACIS compete with OpenPsychometrics?
Yes. ACIS discloses its interest, publishes the rubric and links official competitor evidence. ACIS also remains an online self assessment. Interpret the claim at the group or instrument level stated, not as a universal rule for one person.
What is the final verdict?
OpenPsychometrics is a useful honest free demonstration, but a poor choice for serious individual IQ decisions, scoring 24 out of 50. A stronger conclusion would require direct measurement, transparent methods and evidence matched to the decision.
Take the assessment
You get a profile, not a number
ACIS measures six CHC domains across 20 subtests and reports each one with its own normed score and confidence interval, so you can see where you are strong and where you are not.
