In addition to the Dieharder suite that Sephan Kolassa mentioned, other well known test suites include TestU01 and the NIST Statistical Test Suite (STS).
The PractRand library you mentioned rates Dieharder and STS as "bad" and TestU01 as "good". But, unlike the other test suites, PractRand is not as well known, and there do not seem to be any academic papers or external review. So, one would have to use their own judgement in trusting these comparisons (there's a little bit of information here on the PractRand webpage).
I'd recommend having a look at crypto.stackexchange.com. For example, some relevant threads here and here.
An important thing to note is that scientific and cryptographic applications have different requirements for pseudorandom number generators. Statistical randomness is necessary for both. But, it's not sufficient for cryptographic applications, which also need resistance to attacks that try to exploit the internal workings of the random number generator. This cannot be verified by statistical tests, and requires cryptanalysis.
L'Ecuyer et al. (2007). TestU01: A C library for empirical testing of random number generators.
Bassham et al. (2010). A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applications.