Claims

Botanical terms were defined more often and were new less often than terms in the preceding physiology and zoology tests

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1919 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? D's were more numerous and N's fewer in the botany test than in the preceding physiology and zoology tests, possibly because illustrative material is more abundant in botany. → Grier 1919

Evidence

Grier 1919

Grier, N. M. (1919). The range of information in biology: III. Botany. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(10), 509–516. doi:10.1037/h0073567

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Cross-subject comparison across the author's three range-of-information tests in the same pupil population. The article offers the abundance of illustrative material as a possible explanation; no effect size is printed.

"The D's were more numerous and the N's were fewer in the botany test than in either of the preceding tests, physiology (1) and zoology (2), possibly because illustrative material is more abundant in botany."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id botany-terms-more-definable-than-physiology-zoology
title Botanical terms were defined more often and were new less often than terms in the preceding physiology and zoology tests
description Botanical terms were defined more often and were new less often than terms in the preceding physiology and zoology tests
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1919
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-25
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — grier-1919

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.