Everything on this site, from the test itself to the explainers around it, is created under a single standard: it has to be accurate, grounded in published research, and honest about its own limits. This page sets out how we write, check, and revise our content, who is responsible for it, and how we keep commercial pressure away from the science.
Our editorial principles
Four principles govern the work. The first is scientific accuracy: content rests on peer-reviewed research and established measurement theory, not on the folk psychology that fills most "IQ" content online. The second is independence: what the test measures and how it is scored is decided by evidence, never by what would keep someone on the page longer. The third is transparency: we publish our methodology and our scoring so the test can be judged rather than taken on trust. The fourth is care: a test result touches how people see themselves, and that responsibility shapes how we write every line, especially anything a worried reader might take to heart.
How content is created and reviewed
Content moves through the same steps whether it is a test item or an explainer.
- Grounding in research. Before we write, we settle the scientific basis: which findings, which measurement model, which published sources. We do not publish claims about intelligence that we could not point to a source for.
- Drafting against the evidence. A draft is written to match the research as closely as plain language allows, with the strength of each claim matched to the strength of the evidence behind it. Where experts genuinely disagree, we present the disagreement rather than picking a side and calling it settled.
- Review and fact-checking. Each piece is checked against primary sources, and the test's own statistics, its reliability and norms, are checked against our response data. Anything contested is marked as contested.
- Publication with attribution. Substantive content is published with a named author and a review date, so you can see who stands behind it and when it was last looked at. The test methodology and scoring are owned by Marcus Hale.
- Scheduled review. We revisit content when the research moves, when our data shifts the norms, or on a routine cycle of roughly every six to twelve months, whichever comes first.
Fact-checking, in practice
We check claims against primary sources rather than secondary blogs. Scientific statements are traced to peer-reviewed work and the underlying literature on cognitive measurement; psychometric standards follow the field's reference text, the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA, APA, NCME). The test's own numbers, its reliability and its norms, are our own calculations on response data, reported transparently rather than asserted. Where scientists disagree, we represent more than one position instead of presenting a single view as settled fact. And we actively avoid the popular myths that cling to this subject, the "you only use 10% of your brain" and "left-brained versus right-brained personality" kind, correcting them where they come up rather than repeating them for traffic.
Editorial independence
The content of the test and the way it is scored are determined by the science and the data alone. No advertiser, affiliate, or commercial partner can change a test item, alter the scoring, or influence how a result is interpreted, and we would refuse any request to do so. We keep the commercial and editorial sides of the operation separate, a separation we describe in our advertising disclosure. We do not publish pseudoscientific content to chase clicks, and we do not let the prospect of revenue soften an honest limitation into a flattering claim. Long-term trust is worth more to us than any single page's traffic.
Corrections
We get things wrong sometimes, and when we do we fix them in the open. If you spot an error, in a test item or in any explainer, tell us at contact or [email protected]. Our process is simple: we verify the report, usually within a couple of business days; if it holds up, we correct the content; and where the fix is substantive, we note it with an "Updated [date]" line rather than quietly editing the record. If the scientific consensus itself shifts, we update the affected content and, where relevant, the norms. If a test ever falls behind methodologically, we flag it or withdraw it rather than leave it standing.
Who writes for us
Substantive content is the work of someone with real grounding in the subject, not an anonymous content mill. Our test methodology and scoring are led by Marcus Hale, who has spent more than a decade in cognitive measurement and psychometrics. Every test is checked for reliability before it goes live; we do not publish an instrument we have not assessed. Authors disclose any conflict of interest, and substantive content is signed with a real name and a link to a profile so you always know who is accountable for what you are reading. The thinking behind the test itself sits on our methodology and how we score pages.