IQ Metrics
IIF Certified Assessment Start IQ Test
IIF Certified Assessment

Cat IQ

Understanding IQ

Cat IQ: How Smart Are Cats Compared With Dogs and Humans?

Cats have no IQ: no validated test gives one. Studies measure narrower skills. Cats tell their own names from other words and follow a pointing finger as well as dogs do, but struggle with hidden-object puzzles, and a cat’s cortex holds about 250 million neurons against 429 to 627 million in the dogs counted.

Bar chart of cerebral cortex neuron counts: about 250 million in a domestic cat, 429 million in a small mixed-breed dog and 627 million in a golden retriever, from a 2017 count by Jardim-Messeder and colleagues.

Cats do not have an IQ score. No validated intelligence test produces one for cats, so any number quoted as a cat IQ is not a test result. What researchers can measure is a list of separate abilities, and the list is shorter than it is for dogs: cats tell their own names from other words, follow a person’s pointing finger about as well as dogs do and form attachment bonds with their owners, but they struggle with some hidden-object puzzles, and the cortex of a domestic cat holds about 250 million neurons against 429 to 627 million in the dogs counted. This guide sets out what the studies found, how cats compare with dogs and humans, and why a cat’s result on any test is hard to read.

  • Cat IQ: none. There is no norm sample of cats and no standard test, so researchers test one skill at a time.
  • Names: household cats told their own names from general nouns in habituation experiments (Saito and colleagues, 2019).
  • Pointing: cats and dogs both used human pointing gestures to find hidden food, with no significant difference between them (Miklósi and colleagues, 2005).
  • Hidden objects: cats find an object that is moved visibly behind screens, but search in the wrong place when it is moved out of sight (Goulet and colleagues, 1994).
  • Neurons: about 250 million in a cat’s cerebral cortex, against 429 million in a small mixed-breed dog and 627 million in a golden retriever (Jardim-Messeder and colleagues, 2017).
Bar chart of cerebral cortex neuron counts: about 250 million in a domestic cat, 429 million in a small mixed-breed dog and 627 million in a golden retriever, from a 2017 count by Jardim-Messeder and colleagues.
Bar chart of cerebral cortex neuron counts: about 250 million in a domestic cat, 429 million in a small mixed-breed dog and 627 million in a golden retriever, from a 2017 count by Jardim-Messeder and colleagues.

The comparison most readers want is with dogs, and our dog IQ guide makes the same point for them: there is no dog IQ either, only separate tasks. Cats are also the less studied of the two. A 2019 paper in Current Biology opens by noting that domestic cats outnumber domestic dogs worldwide, yet dog social cognition has received far more scientific attention.

Is there a cat IQ test?

No. An IQ score is a position on a bell curve: a test is given to thousands of people, the results are ranked, and each person’s rank is printed on a scale whose average is 100 (at the top of that scale, an IQ of 145 is about 1 person in 741). Nothing like that exists for cats. There is no standard test, no norm sample and no agreed way to make a cat try. Researchers therefore run single experiments, each measuring one narrow skill, and report whether cats as a group do better than chance. Our explainer on how IQ tests work shows what a real score needs that a cat experiment lacks.

The online quizzes that return a “cat IQ” are owner questionnaires or entertainment. The figures that circulate as a cat’s IQ are often a different measure, such as brain size relative to body size, which is not a test of behaviour at all. A 2015 review in Animal Cognition surveyed cat research on perception, object permanence, memory, physical causality, quantity and time discrimination, response to human cues, vocal communication, attachment, personality and cognitive health, and concluded that the field is young: little scientific work had gone into the domestic cat, especially compared with the dog.

How smart are cats compared with dogs?

It depends on which ability you pick. On the few direct comparisons that exist, the two animals are closer than the stereotype suggests. The table sets out what the studies in this guide found.

What studies found, cats and dogs compared
Ability Cats Dogs
Cerebral cortex neurons About 250 million 429 million (small mixed-breed dog), 627 million (golden retriever)
Using a human pointing gesture to find hidden food Succeeded (Miklósi, 2005) Succeeded; no significant difference from cats
Getting a person’s attention when the food is out of reach Lacked some attention-getting behaviours Showed more of them in the same experiment
Attachment to a human caregiver Distinct attachment styles shown (Vitale, 2019) Secure attachments to humans documented in earlier studies

Neuron counts favour dogs, but they are a crude proxy. The same 2017 count found that a brown bear’s far larger cortex holds only about as many neurons as a cat’s, and that raccoons have dog-like numbers of neurons in a cat-sized brain. More neurons do not simply mean more intelligence, and only two dogs were counted. For scale, the human cerebral cortex holds about 16 billion neurons, roughly 64 times the cat figure; no test puts the two on one scale.

What have scientists found that cats can do?

  • Know their names. In a 2019 study of four experiments, household cats that had heard a series of general nouns, or the names of cats they lived with, showed a renewed response when they heard their own names, and the result held for general nouns spoken by unfamiliar people. Cats from a cat cafe told their names from general nouns but not from the names of the other cats living with them (Saito and colleagues, 2019).
  • Keep a mental map of where their owner is. Cats left alone in a familiar room showed most surprise when their owner’s voice, which they had just heard from one speaker, came from a different one. The reaction disappeared when the sound was another cat’s vocalization or a non-vocal sound, so cats appear to link the owner’s voice with the owner’s position (Takagi and colleagues, 2021).
  • Follow a pointing gesture. Cats and dogs both used four kinds of human pointing gesture to find hidden food, with no significant difference in performance. When the food was made inaccessible and the animal had to show a naive owner where it was, the cats lacked some of the attention-getting behaviours the dogs showed (Miklósi and colleagues, 2005).
  • Form attachment bonds. Using behavioural criteria from the infant attachment literature, a 2019 study found that cats show distinct attachment styles toward their human caregivers, which suggests that attachment across species needs explanations broader than “dogs are special” (Vitale and colleagues, 2019).

Do cats understand that hidden objects still exist?

Object permanence, the understanding that an object keeps existing when it is out of sight, is one of the few cat skills tested against the stages of child development. A 1994 study found that cats find an object when it is visibly moved behind a succession of screens, but when the object is moved out of sight inside a container and then transferred behind a screen, they search at or near the container rather than at the true hiding place. The authors concluded that cats keep track of position changes they have directly seen but cannot infer movements they did not see (Goulet, Doré and Rousseau, 1994).

A 2025 study of 18 pet cats tested in their own homes shows how messy this kind of testing is. In trials where a toy was hidden in one of two boxes in plain view, 56% of the cats did not find the toy, and 42% of those cats did not even try, despite earlier research showing that cats can retrieve hidden objects (Forman, Rowe and Leavens, 2025). A cat that does not search is not necessarily a cat that does not understand.

Why are cats harder to test than dogs?

  • Less research. The 2015 review of cat cognition found that little scientific work had been done on the domestic cat, especially compared with the dog (Vitale Shreve and Udell, 2015).
  • Motivation. A cat that does not engage looks exactly like a cat that cannot do the task. In the 2025 object-permanence study many cats did not search at all, so a failure cannot be read as a lack of understanding.
  • Setting. Cats are often tested at home, where the room, the owner and the cat’s mood vary. In the name study, cats from a cat cafe behaved differently from household cats on the harder discrimination.
  • No norms. Without a norm sample there is no average to compare against, so nothing can say that one cat is more or less intelligent than another in the way an IQ does for people. For why a person’s score still needs a margin around it, see an IQ score is a range, not a number.
Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Do cats lose their intelligence with age?

Cats can develop a form of dementia. Feline cognitive dysfunction syndrome shares features with human Alzheimer’s disease, including deposits of beta-amyloid and tau protein in the brain, and its signs include excessive vocalization, changed interaction with owners, disturbed sleep-wake cycles, house-soiling, disorientation, altered activity, anxiety and learning or memory deficits (Sordo and Gunn-Moore, 2021). A review in the Journal of Small Animal Practice cited a study finding that 28% of pet cats aged 11 to 14 develop at least one geriatric-onset behavioural problem, rising to over 50% of cats aged 15 and older (Gunn-Moore and colleagues, 2007).

Not every change is dementia. Osteoarthritis, high blood pressure, an overactive thyroid, deafness and brain tumours can cause the same behaviours, and owners often mistake them for normal ageing, so a vet check comes before a diagnosis (Gunn-Moore, 2011). People face the same question about their own memory; see can an IQ test detect dementia.

Can you test your cat’s intelligence at home?

You can play the games researchers use, but the result is a game, not an IQ. Three come straight from the studies above:

  • Name game. From another room, say your cat’s name and a few words of similar length in the same flat voice, and watch for an ear or head movement. A cat that reacts to its name and not to the others is showing the kind of discrimination the name study measured.
  • Cup game. Hide a treat under one of two cups while the cat watches. Going to the right cup is the easy, visible version of object permanence; do not expect the version where the treat is moved out of sight.
  • Pointing game. Put a treat under one of two bowls, point at it and see whether the cat follows your finger.

Repeat each a few times on a day the cat is interested, and treat a miss as “not interested today” rather than a score. One cat tested a handful of times has no norm to be compared with.

How do cats compare with other animals?

As far as we found, cats have not been given the large task batteries used on great apes or the tool-use puzzles used on crows, so there is no cat equivalent of those headline results. For what has been measured in other species, see dog IQ, crow IQ, chimpanzee IQ, gorilla IQ, dolphin IQ and octopus IQ.

Quick answers about cat IQ

  • What is the IQ of a cat? There is none. No validated test produces a cat IQ.
  • Are cats smarter than dogs? Not on the evidence available. Dogs have more cortical neurons in the animals counted, cats and dogs matched on a pointing task, and dogs have been studied far more. Neither animal has an IQ.
  • How smart is a cat compared with a human? No test compares them. A human cerebral cortex holds about 16 billion neurons against about 250 million in a cat’s.
  • Do cats know their names? Household cats in a 2019 study told their own names from general nouns.
  • Can cats get dementia? Yes. Feline cognitive dysfunction affects a large share of very old cats.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged animal intelligence, animal iq, cat cognition, cat intelligence, cat iq, cat iq compared to human, cat iq vs dog iq, cat neurons, cats and dogs, comparative cognition, feline cognitive dysfunction, how smart are cats, object permanence, pet intelligence

Music Lessons and IQ

Research & Evidence

Music Lessons and IQ: Does Learning an Instrument Raise IQ?

Do music lessons raise IQ? One 2004 trial of 144 children found a 2.7-point edge, but a meta-analysis of 54 studies finds no overall effect once study quality is controlled, and a study of more than 10,500 twins finds the link vanishes within pairs. Here is the evidence.

Bars showing the average full-scale IQ gain after a year in the 2004 trial: 4.3 points in the drama and no-lesson groups and 7.0 points in the keyboard and voice groups, a difference of 2.7 points, with three cards: 144 children, 54 studies in the pooled analysis and more than 10,500 twins.

Music lessons and IQ are linked, but the lessons are probably not the main reason. The best-known randomized trial (144 children, 2004) found that a year of keyboard or voice lessons went with an IQ gain of 7.0 points against 4.3 in the comparison groups, a difference of 2.7 points that only just reached statistical significance. A 2020 meta-analysis of 54 studies found the overall effect on children’s cognition is about zero once study quality is controlled, and a study of more than 10,500 twins found the link disappeared when a trained twin was compared with an untrained co-twin. So does learning the piano raise IQ? The evidence says a little in one trial, little or nothing in the pooled data, and that the families who choose lessons differ before they start. This guide explains each piece.

  • The 2004 trial: 144 six-year-olds, 36 weeks of keyboard, voice or drama lessons, or no lessons; music groups gained 7.0 IQ points on average, comparison groups 4.3 (Schellenberg, 2004).
  • Pooled evidence: 54 studies, 254 effect sizes and 6,984 children: no overall effect once design quality is controlled; small effects only without random assignment and with passive controls (Sala and Gobet, 2020).
  • Twins: the music-IQ association (r = .10 to .11) vanished within twin pairs, and was mostly shared genetic influence (Mosing and colleagues, 2016).
  • Who takes lessons: children’s personality, and parents’ openness, predicted years of training (Corrigall and Schellenberg, 2015).
  • What music may do: a 2018 study found better phoneme processing and vocabulary after music classes, but no gain in non-verbal reasoning.
Bars showing the average full-scale IQ gain after a year in the 2004 trial: 4.3 points in the drama and no-lesson groups and 7.0 points in the keyboard and voice groups, a difference of 2.7 points, with three cards: 144 children, 54 studies in the pooled analysis and more than 10,500 twins.
Bars showing the average full-scale IQ gain after a year in the 2004 trial: 4.3 points in the drama and no-lesson groups and 7.0 points in the keyboard and voice groups, a difference of 2.7 points, with three cards: 144 children, 54 studies in the pooled analysis and more than 10,500 twins.

This is a companion to our guide on music taste and IQ and to the news piece on the Mozart effect, which covers short-term listening. Here the question is long-term lessons. For the personality side of who practises, see introverts and IQ.

What did the famous 2004 trial find?

Glenn Schellenberg’s 2004 paper in Psychological Science, titled “Music lessons enhance IQ”, is the study behind most headlines. Parents answered a newspaper advertisement offering weekly arts lessons for 6-year-olds, and 144 children were randomly assigned to one of four groups: standard keyboard lessons, Kodály voice lessons, drama lessons or no lessons (the no-lessons group received keyboard lessons the following year). The lessons ran for 36 weeks at the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto. Children took the WISC-III, a standard children’s IQ test, before and after, and 132 completed both rounds.

All four groups gained IQ points, and every gain was statistically significant. The author attributes this to the usual rise that follows starting school. The question was whether music added anything. Averaged over the two music groups, the gain was 7.0 points (standard deviation 8.6); over the two comparison groups it was 4.3 (standard deviation 7.3). That 2.7-point difference corresponds to an effect size of d = 0.35, midway between what are usually called small and medium, and was statistically reliable at p < .05 (t = 1.99 with 130 degrees of freedom). It is a narrow pass, since the cut-off for that sample size is about 1.98 (our reading). The drama group, meanwhile, improved in adaptive social behavior, which the music groups did not.

The paper does not say music made children smarter in a lasting, general way, and it was one trial of about 130 children, run once. Our reading of the numbers: a gain of 2.7 points is less than the 95% band around any single child’s score (see what an IQ of 115 means for how wide that band is).

What happened when researchers pooled many studies?

The strongest test of a claim is whether it survives when many studies are combined. Sala and Gobet (2020, Memory & Cognition) ran a multilevel meta-analysis of music training and children’s cognitive and academic outcomes: 6,984 children, 254 effect sizes from 54 studies. They found that once the quality of study design is controlled, the overall effect is null and highly consistent across studies. Small statistically significant effects, about 0.20 standard deviations, appeared only in studies that did not assign children at random and used non-active controls, meaning comparison children who did nothing instead of a similar activity. Music training was ineffective whatever the outcome, age group or training duration they looked at, and they concluded that optimism about its cognitive benefits is empirically unjustified.

Individual randomized trials with preschoolers tell the same story. Mehr, Schachner, Katz and Spelke (2013, PLoS ONE) ran two trials of a six-week music class against visual arts and against no classes, testing spatial-navigational reasoning, visual form analysis, numerical discrimination and receptive vocabulary. A difference in Experiment 1 did not replicate in Experiment 2, and combined, children who took music classes did no better on any assessment.

Three kinds of evidence on music lessons and IQ
Evidence Who and how many Result
Randomized trial (Schellenberg, 2004) 144 six-year-olds, 36 weeks of lessons IQ gain 7.0 vs 4.3 points: +2.7, p < .05, d = 0.35
Pooled studies (Sala and Gobet, 2020) 54 studies, 254 effect sizes, 6,984 children About zero once design quality is controlled
Preschool trials (Mehr et al., 2013) Two randomized trials, six-week classes No consistent benefit on four cognitive measures
Twin design (Mosing et al., 2016) More than 10,500 twins Association r = .10 to .11 vanished within pairs

Do twins and personality explain the link?

If lessons do not raise IQ, why do people who play instruments tend to score higher? Mosing, Madison, Pedersen and Ullén (2016, Developmental Science) used a co-twin control design on more than 10,500 twins. The raw association between music practice and IQ was r = .11 in men and .10 in women. But when a highly practised twin was compared with their less-practised co-twin, who shares genes and upbringing, the practised twin did not have the higher IQ. The authors concluded that the link was mostly due to shared genetic influences and that associations between music practice and IQ in the general population are non-causal. Our guide to whether IQ is genetic explains twin designs more fully.

Another route is self-selection. Corrigall and Schellenberg (2015, Frontiers in Psychology) tested 170 children aged 7 to 9. Children’s personality traits predicted how long they stayed in music training, even with demographics and intelligence held constant, and parents’ openness to experience predicted the child’s duration of training too. The authors describe this as passive and active gene-environment correlation: genetic predispositions influence who gets which experiences. Children who take lessons for years are not a random draw, which is a problem for any study that does not randomize.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Does music help with anything else?

Not helping IQ is not the same as not helping. Linnavalli, Putkinen, Lipsanen and Huotilainen (2018, Scientific Reports) followed 66 children aged 5 to 6 in kindergartens, testing them four times over two school years. A weekly music playschool improved phoneme processing and vocabulary compared with similar dance lessons or no activity, but not non-verbal reasoning or inhibitory control. That pattern, a gain on closely related language skills and none on general reasoning, is what researchers expect from near transfer rather than a rise in general intelligence. In the 2004 trial the drama group, not the music groups, improved in social behavior. Learning an instrument also has its own rewards, skill, discipline and enjoyment, none of which depend on an IQ effect.

Should you still sign a child up for music lessons?

If the reason is to raise a score, the pooled evidence says do not count on it. If the reason is that the child enjoys music, wants to play, or you value the skill, nothing in this research argues against it. Practical points from the evidence: pick an activity the child will keep up (duration is what personality predicts); expect skills close to the activity, such as listening and language, before expecting anything general; and keep in mind that school itself is a strong influence on scores, which we cover in does school raise IQ and preschool and IQ. Other popular “brain boosters” show a similar pattern of small effects in pooled data: chess and IQ, video games and IQ and exercise and IQ, while talent versus practice covers how skill itself is built.

Quick answers about music lessons and IQ

  • Do music lessons raise IQ? One randomized trial found about 2.7 extra points after a year; pooled studies find no overall effect once design quality is controlled.
  • Does playing the piano make you smarter? Pianists and other instrumentalists score higher on average, but twin data suggest shared genes, not lessons, explain most of that.
  • Do musicians have higher IQs? In the general population the association is about r = .10 to .11 and it vanished within twin pairs.
  • Is the Mozart effect real? That is a different claim, about listening, not lessons; see our news piece.
  • Are music lessons worth it? Yes for music and related skills, but not as an IQ intervention.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged brain training, child development, does music make you smarter, does piano increase iq, far transfer, iq myths, kindergarten and preschool, learning an instrument, meta-analysis, music lessons and iq, music training, musicians iq, schellenberg music lessons, twin study

Introverts and IQ

Mind & Everyday Life

Introverts and IQ: Do Introverts Have a Higher IQ?

Do introverts have a higher IQ? Not in the data. Two large meta-analyses find openness is the Big Five trait most tied to IQ (rho = .20), while overall extraversion is negligible. Here are the numbers, what they mean in IQ points, and where the introvert charts come from.

Bars showing correlations between personality and intelligence from two meta-analyses: openness 0.20, the activity facet of extraversion 0.23 with general mental ability, sociability 0.17 with verbal abilities, neuroticism minus 0.09 and sociability minus 0.13 with quantitative reasoning, with overall extraversion negligible.

Introverts and IQ are barely linked. In the two largest meta-analyses of personality and cognitive ability, the Big Five trait most tied to intelligence is openness to experience (rho = .20 across 272 samples), not introversion. Overall extraversion is negligibly related to cognitive ability, and only narrow facets show small links, some positive and some negative. So “do introverts have a higher IQ?” has a short answer: no, not in any way that would let you guess a person’s score from how sociable they are. This guide walks through the numbers, shows why the two meta-analyses differ on some of them, translates the correlations into IQ points and explains where the “introverts are smarter” charts come from.

  • Openness is the main personality correlate of IQ: rho = .20; neuroticism is weaker and negative (rho = −.09) (Anglim and colleagues, 2022; N = 162,636).
  • Extraversion overall: negligibly related to cognitive abilities (Stanek and Ones, 2023).
  • Facets differ: activity correlated .23 with general mental ability, while sociability correlated −.13 with quantitative reasoning and +.17 with verbal abilities.
  • In IQ points: a correlation of .20 means about 3 points per standard deviation of the trait (our arithmetic).
  • Internet type charts: the INTJ and INTP rankings we checked cite no sample or test.
Bars showing correlations between personality and intelligence from two meta-analyses: openness 0.20, the activity facet of extraversion 0.23 with general mental ability, sociability 0.17 with verbal abilities, neuroticism minus 0.09 and sociability minus 0.13 with quantitative reasoning, with overall extraversion negligible.
Bars showing correlations between personality and intelligence from two meta-analyses: openness 0.20, the activity facet of extraversion 0.23 with general mental ability, sociability 0.17 with verbal abilities, neuroticism minus 0.09 and sociability minus 0.13 with quantitative reasoning, with overall extraversion negligible.

For the trait model behind these terms, start with our guide to the Big Five personality traits and the page on IQ versus personality. Handwriting analysis, which also claims to read personality, is tested in handwriting and IQ.

What does introversion mean in personality research?

In the Big Five model, introversion is the low end of extraversion, a trait that is a spectrum, not a type. Extraversion has two aspects, assertiveness and enthusiasm, and five commonly studied facets: activity, dominance, positive emotionality, sensation seeking and sociability. Most people score somewhere in the middle, and the word “introvert” is a convenient label for the lower part of that range. It is also different from shyness or social anxiety, which involve fear of judgement; our guide to anxiety and IQ covers that side.

This matters because a claim about introverts and IQ is really a claim about several facets that can point in different directions. A person can be low on sociability and high on activity, or high on assertiveness and low on sensation seeking. A single “introvert” bucket averages those differences away.

What do the big meta-analyses find about personality and IQ?

Anglim, Dunlop, Wee, Horwood, Wood and Marty (2022, Psychological Bulletin) pooled 272 samples with 162,636 people and examined the Big Five and the HEXACO model at the domain, facet and item level. Openness had the strongest link with intelligence (rho = .20), followed by neuroticism in the opposite direction (rho = −.09). At the facet level, traits related to intellectual engagement and unconventionality correlated more strongly with intelligence than other openness facets, and sociability and orderliness were negatively correlated with intelligence. Gregariousness and excitement seeking had stronger negative correlations with crystallized than fluid intelligence.

Stanek and Ones (2023, PNAS) went further. They combined 60,690 relations between 79 personality and 97 cognitive-ability constructs, drawn from 3,543 meta-analyses with data from millions of people. Their conclusion on extraversion is blunt: global extraversion is negligibly related to cognitive abilities. Beneath it, the activity facet correlated .23 with general mental ability (95% interval .22 to .24); sociability correlated −.13 with quantitative reasoning (interval −.15 to −.11) and, on average, .17 with verbal abilities; and sensation seeking was a small positive correlate of comprehension knowledge (.12). They note that earlier meta-analyses had reported mostly null effects for extraversion and abilities, and that their larger dataset revealed relations that were previously unacknowledged.

Selected correlations between personality and intelligence in the two meta-analyses
Trait or facet Correlation With what Source
Openness to experience .20 Intelligence Anglim et al., 2022
Extraversion: activity .23 General mental ability Stanek and Ones, 2023
Extraversion: sociability .17 Verbal abilities (mean) Stanek and Ones, 2023
Neuroticism −.09 Intelligence Anglim et al., 2022
Extraversion: sociability −.13 Quantitative reasoning Stanek and Ones, 2023
Extraversion overall negligible Cognitive abilities Stanek and Ones, 2023

Why do the two meta-analyses not agree on every number?

They do not, and the reason is technical but worth knowing. A 2026 review in Current Opinion in Psychology (Anglim) compared the two. It states that Stanek and Ones used a sample-size-weighted estimator, which gave excessive weight to a few large-sample studies and produced estimates that do not generalize. Reanalysing their dataset with an estimator that accounts for variation between studies (REML) gave results more consistent with the 2022 meta-analysis. In plain terms: when a handful of very large studies dominate, a pooled figure can reflect those studies more than the field. That is a dispute about method, and the safe reading is that facet-level correlations are small and uncertain, while the headline, openness first and extraversion weak, is common to both.

What do these correlations mean in IQ points?

A correlation is hard to picture, so here is a translation, and it is our arithmetic, not the authors’. IQ has a standard deviation of 15 points. A correlation of r means that a person who is one standard deviation higher on a trait is, on average, r times 15 points higher on IQ. For openness at .20 that is about 3 points. For the activity facet at .23 it is about 3.5 points. For a correlation of .10 it is 1.5 points. A correlation of .20 explains about 4% of the variation in IQ (.20 squared), which leaves the other 96% to everything else.

Three points is smaller than the margin of error on a single test, which is commonly 2 to 3 points of standard error and a 95% band of around 5 points either side (see our note on an IQ score as a range, or what a score such as an IQ of 115 can and cannot tell you). So even where a personality trait carries a real signal, it cannot tell you whether a particular quiet or talkative person scored 105 or 120.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Where does the introverts-are-smarter idea come from?

Searches for the highest-IQ personality type lead to charts that rank INTJ and INTP near the top at 125 to 130 or more. Our news desk looked for the data behind them and found sources that disagree with each other and that name no sample, test or date; it also notes that the publisher of the Myers-Briggs instrument says it does not measure ability. Peer-reviewed work points to a small link between IQ and the Intuition letter, which tracks openness, not the Introversion letter. The full write-up is which MBTI type has the highest IQ.

The same piece cites a 2012 meta-analysis of 41 studies (Freund and Kasten) in which people’s estimates of their own intelligence tracked tested IQ at only about r = .33, so self-reported IQ is a weak foundation for any ranking. Our reading is that three things feed the belief: the stereotype that quiet people are thinking deeply, the fact that people who post about being introverted or gifted online are not a random sample, and the real but modest openness link. None of them shows that introversion itself raises IQ.

Are smart people more likely to be alone?

The reverse question is different: does high intelligence push people toward solitude? The evidence we reviewed in are smart people lonely found no study showing that a high IQ makes people lonely, and the best-known findings point in different directions. Related reading: IQ and happiness and high IQ and mental health. The broader point is the same as above: personality and ability overlap a little, and neither predicts the other well for one person.

Intelligence as maximal and typical performance

An older, influential review by Ackerman and Heggestad (1997, Psychological Bulletin) helps explain why the two fields overlap only partly. They distinguished intelligence as maximal performance, what a person can do at their best on a test, from intelligence as typical performance, what a person habitually does, and argued that the second gives a basis for relating intelligence to personality. Reviewing intelligence, personality and interests together, they identified four trait complexes: social, clerical or conventional, science or math, and intellectual or cultural. Traits cluster across the two domains, which is why correlations are real, and modest. For the practical differences between kinds of measurement, see our guide on IQ versus EQ.

Personality can also steer who gets which experiences, and that matters for how associations are read. Our post on music lessons and IQ shows a clear case: personality in children, and openness in their parents, predicted who took lessons for longer. And grit versus IQ shows a popular trait that overlaps almost completely with conscientiousness and is nearly unrelated to cognitive ability.

Quick answers about introverts and IQ

  • Do introverts have a higher IQ? No. Overall extraversion is negligibly related to cognitive ability.
  • Which personality trait is most related to IQ? Openness to experience, at about rho = .20.
  • Is INTJ the smartest type? No dataset we found supports that; the charts cite no sample.
  • Are any extraversion traits linked to IQ? Narrow facets are: activity positively (.23) and sociability both positively (verbal) and negatively (quantitative), all small.
  • Does your personality change your IQ test result? Not by much; the associations are worth a few points at most.

Sources

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged are introverts smarter, big five personality, do introverts have higher iq, extraversion and iq, intj iq, introversion and intelligence, introverts and iq, IQ Science, mbti and iq, openness to experience, personality and intelligence, personality meta-analysis, personality traits, sociability

Handwriting and IQ

Mind & Everyday Life

Handwriting and IQ: Is Bad Handwriting a Sign of Intelligence?

Is bad handwriting a sign of a high IQ? We found no study that says so. Handwriting is a motor and attention skill that affects 10 to 30% of school-aged children, gifted children wrote with weaker quality in one small study, and graphology failed two direct tests. Here is the evidence.

A grid of 100 children with 10 dark dots, 20 lighter dots and 70 faint dots, showing that handwriting difficulties affect between 10 and 30 percent of school-aged children, with three cards: 30 gifted versus 35 typical children in a 2025 study, 101 and 102 students in two graphology tests, and no study linking messy writing to IQ.

Handwriting and IQ are not linked in any way that lets you read intelligence from penmanship. We found no study showing that neat or messy writing predicts IQ in the general population. What research does show is that handwriting is a motor and attention skill built from fine motor control, visual-motor integration, motor planning and sustained attention, that difficulties affect 10 to 30% of school-aged children, and that handwriting analysis (graphology) failed a direct test of whether it can measure personality. In a small 2025 study, intellectually gifted children had weaker handwriting quality than typical children, which cuts against the “neat equals smart” idea and still does not prove “messy equals smart”. This guide sets out the evidence, claim by claim.

  • What handwriting draws on: fine motor control, visual-motor integration, motor planning, in-hand manipulation, proprioception, visual perception and sustained attention (Feder and Majnemer, 2007).
  • How common problems are: between 10% and 30% of school-aged children, and the difficulties do not resolve without help.
  • Gifted children: 30 children with IQ 130 or higher had weaker handwriting quality than 35 typical children, but no clear motor difficulty overall (Bucaille and colleagues, 2025).
  • Graphology: two studies of 101 and 102 people found no evidence that handwriting analysis measures personality (Dazzi and Pedrabissi, 2009).
  • Why it matters in school: faster handwriting frees working memory, so children write better essays.
A grid of 100 children with 10 dark dots, 20 lighter dots and 70 faint dots, showing that handwriting difficulties affect between 10 and 30 percent of school-aged children, with three cards: 30 gifted versus 35 typical children in a 2025 study, 101 and 102 students in two graphology tests, and no study linking messy writing to IQ.
A grid of 100 children with 10 dark dots, 20 lighter dots and 70 faint dots, showing that handwriting difficulties affect between 10 and 30 percent of school-aged children, with three cards: 30 gifted versus 35 typical children in a 2025 study, 101 and 102 students in two graphology tests, and no study linking messy writing to IQ.

If your question is really about children, the general guides to signs of a gifted child and twice-exceptional (2e) learners cover the wider picture, and processing speed and IQ explains why a pencil task can pull a score down.

Does bad handwriting mean a high IQ?

The idea is popular, helped by stories of brilliant people with illegible notes. The evidence we could find does not support it as a rule. A search of the medical literature for studies that correlate handwriting legibility or speed with IQ in ordinary samples turned up nothing that tested the claim directly, which is itself informative: if penmanship were a good signal of intelligence, it would be an obvious thing to measure. Stories about famous figures are selected, because we remember the genius with scrawl and forget the many with neat hands.

The nearest direct evidence is a small study of 30 intellectually gifted children (IQ 130 or higher) and 35 children of average ability, aged 6 to 16 (Bucaille and colleagues, 2025, Developmental Neuropsychology). The gifted group did not differ from the comparison group on most motor and neuropsychological measures, with one exception: handwriting quality at school age was weaker. The authors also found superior performance on tests that needed planning, and concluded that while a few gifted children may develop handwriting problems, as a group they do not seem to be at risk for motor or praxis difficulties. It is one small study, so treat it as a pointer, not a rule.

Another research group compared verbally gifted students with and without a written-language learning disability. The 27 students with the disability copied handwriting less well and less quickly than the 14 without it (Lyman and colleagues, 2017, Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science). Those groups were chosen for the comparison, so the numbers say nothing about how common the problem is. The lesson is narrower and still useful: high ability does not protect a child from a handwriting disorder, which is why gifted children can be missed when their poor writing is blamed on laziness.

What does handwriting actually measure?

A 2007 review in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology (Feder and Majnemer) describes handwriting as a complex occupational task whose underlying skills include fine motor control, bilateral and visual-motor integration, motor planning, in-hand manipulation, proprioception, visual perception, sustained attention and sensory awareness of the fingers. Reasoning is not on the list. Poor handwriting may reflect the child’s own capabilities (intrinsic factors) or the pen, desk and posture (extrinsic factors).

The same review reports that handwriting difficulties affect between 10% and 30% of school-aged children, that they do not resolve without intervention, and that studies of remediation suggest intervention works. A 2025 randomized trial of 42 children aged 8 to 12 who were at risk of developmental coordination disorder (the condition many people know as dyspraxia) tested an AI-supported occupational therapy program, eight weeks at two sessions a week. The children in the program improved on every subdomain of the Minnesota Handwriting Assessment, including speed, spacing, shape and legibility, while the control group changed little (Demirci and colleagues, 2025). The sample is small and the program specific, but it fits the larger point that handwriting behaves like a learned skill, not a fixed trait.

Common claims about handwriting, checked against the evidence
Claim What the evidence shows Source
Messy handwriting means high IQ No study found testing it in the general population; one small study found weaker quality in gifted children without wider motor problems Bucaille et al., 2025
Neat handwriting means high IQ No supporting study found; writing quality depends on motor skill and practice Feder and Majnemer, 2007
Handwriting reveals personality Two studies, 101 and 102 people: no validity, very low agreement between graphologists Dazzi and Pedrabissi, 2009
Handwriting problems are rare 10% to 30% of school-aged children Feder and Majnemer, 2007
Children grow out of it Difficulties do not resolve without intervention Feder and Majnemer, 2007

Why handwriting speed matters even though it is not IQ

Handwriting does matter for schoolwork, and the reason is not intelligence but mental bandwidth. A review of adult and child writing research found that handwriting speed is important to the quantity and quality of essays (Peverly, 2006, Developmental Neuropsychology). Faster transcription makes word production more automatic, which lessens the burden on working memory and leaves capacity for the planning and editing that make prose readable. The review adds that even fluent handwriting consumes some working memory.

This is how a child with a high reasoning ability can still write badly: if the hand needs most of the attention, less is available for ideas. The link also runs through attention disorders. In a study of 16 fourth and fifth graders with symptoms of ADHD and 16 matched controls, the ADHD group wrote more slowly and with more variability only when a verbal working-memory task was added (Capodieci and colleagues, 2018). A scoping review of children on the autism spectrum points to fine motor control and visual-motor integration as likely contributors to their handwriting difficulties (Kushki and colleagues, 2011). See our guides to ADHD and IQ, autism and IQ and executive function versus IQ for the cognitive side.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Can handwriting analysis reveal personality or intelligence?

Graphology claims that features of writing, such as slant, pressure and size, reveal traits. The cleanest test we found is a two-part study by Dazzi and Pedrabissi (2009, Psychological Reports). In Study 1, 101 university students completed the Big Five Questionnaire and provided a handwriting sample, and two graphologists rated the same dimensions and facets from the writing. Their ratings did not match the questionnaire scores, and agreement between the two graphologists was very low. In Study 2, 102 people supplied autobiographical texts that two other graphologists and two laypeople rated, and the authors again found no evidence that graphology measures personality.

A method that cannot recover traits from a questionnaire the writer has just filled in is not going to estimate something harder to rate, such as IQ. For what personality traits do relate to intelligence, the large meta-analyses are in our guide to introverts and IQ, and the wider debate is in IQ versus personality.

What if your handwriting is much worse than you expect?

Handwriting that is slow, tiring or illegible despite effort is worth a look by an occupational therapist or school psychologist, not a reason to doubt a child’s ability. Professionals separate three questions: whether the problem is motor (coordination, grip), perceptual (visual-motor integration) or attentional; whether reading and spelling are also affected; and whether the child has strong verbal reasoning that the page is not showing. A broader evaluation often includes an IQ test, and a pencil-heavy subtest can lower the processing-speed part of the result. Our guide on how to read an IQ test report shows how to spot that pattern.

If you are an adult who dislikes your handwriting, the research gives no reason to treat it as a verdict on your mind. Typing, speech-to-text and plain practice change what you produce, and none of them changes your IQ.

Quick answers about handwriting and IQ

  • Is bad handwriting a sign of a high IQ? No evidence supports that as a general rule.
  • Do smart people have messy handwriting? In one small study of gifted children, writing quality was weaker on average, but overall motor skills were not.
  • Does handwriting reflect intelligence? It reflects motor control, visual-motor skill and attention more than reasoning.
  • Can graphology tell your personality? Two studies with 101 and 102 people found no validity.
  • Can poor handwriting be fixed? It does not resolve by itself, but remediation studies suggest intervention helps.

Sources

  • Feder, K.P. and Majnemer, A. (2007): Handwriting development, competency, and intervention, Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 49(4), 312-317.
  • Peverly, S.T. (2006): The importance of handwriting speed in adult writing, Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 197-216.
  • Bucaille, A. et al. (2025): Motor skills in intellectually gifted children: a neuropsychological investigation, Developmental Neuropsychology, 50(1), 36-54.
  • Dazzi, C. and Pedrabissi, L. (2009): Graphology and personality: an empirical study on validity of handwriting analysis, Psychological Reports, 105(3), 1255-1268.
  • Lyman, R.D. et al. (2017): Translating interdisciplinary research on language learning into identifying specific learning disabilities in verbally gifted and average children and youth, Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, 7(6), 227-246.
  • Capodieci, A., Lachina, S. and Cornoldi, C. (2018): Handwriting difficulties in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 41-49.
  • Kushki, A., Chau, T. and Anagnostou, E. (2011): Handwriting difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders: a scoping review, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(12), 1706-1716.
  • Demirci, O., Yilmaz, G.G. and Kose, B. (2025): Artificial intelligence-supported occupational therapy program on handwriting skills in children at risk for developmental coordination disorder: randomized controlled trial, Research in Developmental Disabilities, 161, 105009.

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged bad handwriting and intelligence, developmental coordination disorder, dysgraphia, dyspraxia, fine motor skills, gifted children, graphology, handwriting analysis, handwriting and iq, handwriting speed, iq myths, is bad handwriting a sign of intelligence, messy handwriting, Working Memory

What Does an IQ of 115 Mean?

Scores & Scales

What Does an IQ of 115 Mean? Is It a Good IQ?

An IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above average: the 84th percentile, roughly 1 person in 6. It is High Average on the Wechsler children’s scale and means the same at any age. See how accurate a single 115 is, why labels differ, and what a printed 115 means on other scales.

Bars showing the percentile a printed IQ of 115 stands for on three scales: 84.1st on the standard deviation 15 scale used by Wechsler tests, 82.6th on a standard deviation 16 scale and 73.4th on the standard deviation 24 Cattell scale.

An IQ of 115 is one standard deviation above average. On the standard scale (mean 100, standard deviation 15) it is the 84th percentile, so about 1 person in 6 scores 115 or higher. It is a good, above-average result, labelled High Average on the Wechsler children’s scale, and it sits well short of the 130 cut-off used for gifted programs and Mensa. The same number means the same thing at 10, 14 or 40, because the score compares you with people of your own age. This guide shows where 115 falls on the bell curve, why different charts call it different things, how accurate a single 115 is, and what happens when the printed number comes from a different scale.

  • Percentile: 84.1st on a standard deviation 15 scale (our arithmetic from the normal curve); 82.6th if the 115 was printed on a standard deviation 16 scale; 73.4th on the standard deviation 24 Cattell scale.
  • Rarity: 15.9% of people score 115 or higher, about 1 in 6.3. Only 13.6% score between 115 and 130.
  • Label: High Average on the WISC-V (110 to 119), and exactly the line between the average and above-average bands on the simpler three-band chart.
  • Age: the meaning does not change with age, but scores are less stable in children than in adults.
  • Precision: with a typical standard error of 2 to 3 points, a reported 115 fits a true standing of roughly 110 to 120.
Bars showing the percentile a printed IQ of 115 stands for on three scales: 84.1st on the standard deviation 15 scale used by Wechsler tests, 82.6th on a standard deviation 16 scale and 73.4th on the standard deviation 24 Cattell scale.
Bars showing the percentile a printed IQ of 115 stands for on three scales: 84.1st on the standard deviation 15 scale used by Wechsler tests, 82.6th on a standard deviation 16 scale and 73.4th on the standard deviation 24 Cattell scale.

To check any score yourself, enter it into our IQ percentile calculator, or turn it into another test’s scale with the IQ score converter. The sections below cover the neighbouring pages in our series: an IQ of 110, whether 120 is high and an IQ of 125.

Where does an IQ of 115 sit on the bell curve?

Modern IQ scores are deviation scores. A test is given to a large reference sample, the results are placed on a scale whose average is set to 100, and the spread is fixed so that one standard deviation equals 15 points. An IQ of 115 is therefore exactly one standard deviation above the mean. On a normal curve that is the 84.13th percentile: 84.1% of the reference sample scored lower and 15.9% scored 115 or higher. The same arithmetic puts 68.3% of people between 85 and 115, which is why 115 is the upper edge of what many charts call the average band. Our page on the IQ bell curve shows the shape.

Neighbouring scores on the standard scale (mean 100, standard deviation 15)
IQ score Percentile Scoring this high or higher: about 1 in
100 50.0th 2
105 63.1st 2.7
110 74.8th 4
115 84.1st 6.3
120 90.9th 11
125 95.2nd 21
130 97.7th 44

Read the table as a ladder. Between 115 and 130 there are 13.6% of people, the stretch that is clearly above average without reaching the gifted band. That is the whole territory of 115, 120 and 125. If you scored 115 you are in the upper sixth of the population, and each step up thins the crowd quickly: about 9% of people score 120 or more, about 5% score 125 or more and about 2% score 130 or more.

Is 115 a good IQ? What the labels say

“Good” is not a word any test manual uses. The nearest thing to an official answer is the descriptive label printed on professional score reports, and the labels differ by publisher. The WISC-V, the most widely used children’s Wechsler test, sorts scores into these bands: 130 and above Extremely High, 120 to 129 Very High, 110 to 119 High Average, 90 to 109 Average, 80 to 89 Low Average, 70 to 79 Very Low and 69 and below Extremely Low. On that chart 115 is squarely High Average.

A simpler three-band chart, the one our guide to IQ classifications uses, treats 85 to 115 as the average band holding about 68% of people and 115 to 130 as the next band up. On that chart 115 sits on the line itself. Same person, same score, two labels, which is why a label is a convention and not a finding.

The same score under two labelling schemes
Scheme Where 115 falls What it is called
WISC-V descriptive bands Inside 110 to 119 High Average
Three-band chart (85 to 115, 115 to 130) On the boundary Top of average, or first step above it

There is a second reason not to lean on labels. Popular pages claim that university students average 115 to 130. Our news desk traced that figure to mid-20th-century data from a time when few people went to university, and reports that a 2024 meta-analysis puts the average undergraduate near 102. If that estimate is right, a 115 is comfortably above the typical student. The details are in average IQ of college students: is it really 115 or higher.

Is a 115 IQ good for a 14-year-old, or any age?

Search suggestions show people asking this question for ages from 10 to 17 (checked 12 October 2026). The answer is the same for each: yes, 115 is a good, above-average score, and it means the same thing at every age. A deviation IQ compares your performance with other people of your own age. A 14-year-old with a 115 outperformed about 84% of 14-year-olds in the reference sample, not 84% of adults. That is also why scores do not simply rise as children grow older; see the IQ scale by age and IQ and age.

What does change with age is how firmly a score can be trusted to last. A 2024 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin (Breit and colleagues) pooled 205 longitudinal studies with 87,408 participants and 1,288 test-retest correlations. For a person aged 20 retested after 5 years, the average rank-order stability was rho = .76. Stability was low in preschool children, rose rapidly through childhood and stayed high from late adolescence onward. The authors estimate that a correlation of .80, the level needed for individual-level decisions, can only be expected over the age of 7 and for short intervals in children.

Here is what that means in practice, and it is our arithmetic, not the authors’. If two scores taken years apart correlate .76, then a person who scores 115 now is expected to score about 111 next time (100 plus .76 times 15), and roughly two thirds of such people would land between about 102 and 121. This is an illustration with one assumed correlation, not a forecast for any child, because real stability depends on age, test and gap. The sensible reading is that a 115 at 14 is a good snapshot of where a young person stands now, not a ceiling or a promise. Our news desk covers the same ground in can your IQ change over time.

How accurate is a reported 115?

Every IQ score comes with a margin of error. For a full-scale score on a well-built adult battery with a standard deviation of 15, the standard error of measurement is commonly 2 to 3 points, and a 95% interval is about 1.96 standard errors either side. With a standard error of 2.5 that is roughly 5 points either side: a reported 115 is compatible with a true standing of about 110 to 120. That band runs from the bottom of High Average to the first point of Very High on the WISC-V chart, so even the label is uncertain. Our news piece an IQ score is a range, not a number works through the arithmetic.

Regression to the mean pulls in the same direction. When a test has a reliability of .95, the best estimate of a person’s true standing after seeing a 115 is 100 plus .95 times 15, or about 114 (our arithmetic). The shift is small, but it is why a very high first score tends to drift down on retest, as explained on our regression to the mean page. For a longer treatment of what makes a result dependable, see IQ test accuracy.

A small difference is easy to over-read. A well-known randomized trial of music lessons reported a gain of about 2.7 IQ points over comparison children, which is smaller than the 95% band around a single score; we look at it in music lessons and IQ.

Your own number

Where would your own score land?

Take the IIF-certified assessment and get your score with the scale it was measured on, the percentile it corresponds to and the confidence range around it — the three figures most online tests leave out.

Find your IQ score now! →

Secure & encryptedInstant results10–20 minutes

Does the scale matter? One position, three printed numbers

Not every test prints on a standard deviation of 15. The Wechsler scales and most modern professional tests do. Stanford-Binet forms up to the fourth edition and several school ability tests use 16, and the Cattell scales use 24. A position one standard deviation above average is printed as 115 on the first, 116 on the second and 124 on the third. Turn that around and a printed 115 means different things: 84.1st percentile on SD 15, 82.6th on SD 16 and only the 73.4th on SD 24. Check the scale before you compare. Our explainer why one percentile has three numbers has the full list.

What a printed 115 stands for on three scales
Scale Standard deviation Percentile for a printed 115 Position
Wechsler and most modern tests 15 84.1st 1.00 SD above average
Older Stanford-Binet, some school tests 16 82.6th 0.94 SD above average
Cattell scales 24 73.4th 0.63 SD above average

What does an IQ of 115 predict?

On average, scores in this range go with somewhat better school results and somewhat more years of education, but the spread around every average is wide, so a number alone predicts little about one person. Occupational averages are looser still: the best-known tables come from a 1945 Army dataset, covered in average IQ by occupation: what 80-year-old Army data shows, and they describe groups, not what a 115 can do. No job requires an IQ of 115, and plenty of people with higher and lower scores do the same work. If you are weighing where a score falls among the usual cut-offs, Mensa score requirements and gifted cut-off scores show the thresholds above it.

How to find a dependable score

A single online quiz is not a diagnosis. A full-length, norm-referenced test gives a score and a percentile you can interpret, and a clinical report from a psychologist adds the margin of error. Our IQ test reports a score and percentile together, and how to read an IQ test report explains what each part means.

Quick answers about an IQ of 115

  • Is 115 a good IQ? Yes. It is above average and in the top 16% of the reference sample, labelled High Average on the WISC-V.
  • What percentile is 115? The 84th on the standard deviation 15 scale.
  • Is 115 a good IQ for a teenager? It means the same as for an adult, because the score compares you with people your own age. Teenage scores are fairly but not perfectly stable.
  • Is 115 enough for Mensa? No. Mensa membership needs roughly the top 2%, about 130 on a standard deviation 15 scale.
  • How accurate is it? A reported 115 is best read as roughly 110 to 120.

Sources

  • Breit, M., Scherrer, V., Tucker-Drob, E.M. and Preckel, F. (2024): The stability of cognitive abilities: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies, Psychological Bulletin, 150(4), 399-439.
  • Schellenberg, E.G. (2004): Music lessons enhance IQ, Psychological Science, 15(8), 511-514.
  • Percentile figures are computed from the normal distribution; the standard error of measurement, the WISC-V bands and the scale comparison are those described in our own explainers linked above.

Share this article

Know someone who keeps seeing these numbers quoted without the scale they were measured on? Send it to them.

Tagged 115 iq, 115 iq percentile, above average iq, high average iq, iq bell curve, iq margin of error, iq of 115, iq percentile, iq scale, IQ Scores, iq stability, is 115 iq good, standard deviation 15, what does 115 iq mean