IQ doesn't define anything. It just gives you an outlook, it tells you your potential at being intelligent. It doesn't define your ability. ---------------------------------------------------------
My response to the question is not an answer at all, but a clarifying question. Ability at what? Maybe, this question confuses ability with achievement.
IQ tests are formal (usually written) personal assessments useful in quantifying the collective capacities of an individual person in comparison to others of his/her class and relative to those specific capacities of proven successful achievers in that class. Of course, what exactly constitutes intelligence has always been controversial. Tests administered to children are useful in predicting performance in academic endeavors. Those administered by the military or a prospective employer are designed for adults and appropriately predict ranking in settings profoundly different from k-12. But they are all generally effective within their respective contexts. The problem with this question is that the word "ability" is used ambiguously. IQ test scores imply various abilities but do not attempt to quantify any in particular. They are a survey of various capacities that are known to predict general achievement in that class. Since the question seems to be about determining comprehensive intellectual capacity independent of any context, it is absurd to the nature of accredited intelligence testing. Absurd questions are, by nature, unanswerable. If you substitute "potential" for ability, the answer is no, because we're talking about human beings. The score cannot actually impose, or even imply, an absolute limit to a person's achievement. That simply isn't the function of any legitimate IQ test. To be fair to the questioner, IQ scores do imply relative intellectual horsepower but the scores do have a shelf life and therefore cannot frame the limits of a person's lifetime achievement.
Different IQ scores are always different. If its lower the 70 you are mentally challenged. 100 is average.
Stalin had 140 IQ
The average IQ of a person in the US is around 98. IQ scores are standardized to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
99.6% for
About 98% of the population.
No the IQ test is racially blind. It scores you purely on intelligence and nothing more.
The average IQ for a student in the UK is around 100, which is considered to be in the normal range. IQ scores are standardized to have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
About 95% of the population has IQ scores between 70 and 130. This is the average range on a standard IQ test.
If a random variable X has a normal distribution with mean m and standard error s, then the z-score corresponding to the value X = x is (x - m)/s.
IQ scores are standardized by age, with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. So, the average IQ for a 27-year-old woman would also be around 100, with a range of scores considered within the normal distribution.
IQ does not have a specified average by age. IQ scores are standardized to have a mean of 100, with a standard deviation of 15. This means that the average IQ score for any age group will be around 100.
If you are able to determine the IQ of a cross section of people (through an IQ test) who have taken the MAT, you can develop a cross relation between MAT scores and IQ. Assuming that the relationship is almost linear (or an invert - if you consider people like me, who don't do well in tests!) you can predict the IQ of people on the basis of their MAT scores. Though the results may not be as accurate as a discrete IQ test, the indicators should be sufficient to determine probable IQ. Hope this helps