Standardized easy opposites lists can be built from words answered correctly by ninety percent or more of subjects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 1911 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The authors offer standardized easy stimulus-word lists consisting only of words to which ninety percent or more of the 100 subjects gave the correct opposite. → Irving King and Hugo Gold 1911

Evidence¶

Irving King and Hugo Gold 1911¶

Irving King and Hugo Gold. (1911). A Tentative Standardization of Certain "Opposites Tests". University of Iowa. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=A+Tentative+Standardization+of+Certain+Opposites+Tests

q3 · i? · design · r2

Normative tabulation of oral responses from 100 University of Iowa subjects (faculty, graduate students, seniors, juniors) to eight 20-word lists. The authors state the lists "ought to give fairly uniform results" and identify easy-list words with 90% or more correct responses, e.g. good, up, wet, wrong.

"On the basis of our results, we offer, as standardized lists, certain words selected from our frequency tables which ought to give fairly uniform results in an opposites test, when given under standard conditions."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Wells' proposed equally-difficult easy list was not fully standardized, with sick, open, and glad producing non-uniform responses — related
• A graded hard-opposites list of twenty-five words was selected where accuracy of response was below 69% — related
• Opposites performance correlates positively with information and vocabulary, most strongly with range of information — related
• Speed and accuracy correlate slightly on easy opposites lists but not on hard lists — related
• Easy opposites scores correlate with scholastic rank, faculty and graduates outscoring seniors and juniors — related
• Question E was answered by all 27 high-school pupils, establishing a zero-difficulty reference 2.191 units below the median — a narrower finding that bears on this claim