I've written two tests for PRNGs, which are attached.
One draws dots in a 2D space, using every adjacent pair of random numbers from the PRNG as x and y coordinates. Very simple code.
The second one fills 10 bins with the random numbers, as they are created by the PRNG, to see whether the distribution is even over time. It also calculates the max so far, min so far, and the running average.
A random number generator has to generate any given value with the same probability as any other value. So over time, you should notice the screen filling up evenly with dots, even if clusters do form here and there. In other words, an empty area in the screen should eventually fill in, even though, in theory, "eventually" could be a very long time. Similarly, one crowded cluster will eventually be no more crowded than the rest of the screen. And using TIMER as the seed, every iteration should look different, in terms of how the screen fills up with dots.
The test with the bins is more precise, but it's also one that would appear to do well with a non-random sequence. For example, a simple repeating sequence of 0 to 1, step 1, will be nice and evenly distributed. Still, if you run that second program, you can see how each try is giving different results, and how over time, things tend to even out.
The two tests show that QB64's PRNG is pretty good. No obvious biases. And, it's nice to have QB64's RANDOMIZE USING feature, to allow you to re-start the pseudo-random sequence, for a given seed value, from the beginning. Couldn't do that with QBasic. Essential if you're writing some sort of monte carlo simulation, where you need to be sure you're using the same random sequence every time, in testing the results.