Claims

Computing mirror-drawing errors by hand takes students more time than making the drawings

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1915 · 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.

q1 i? The author reports that students computing errors from mirror-drawing figures spend more time on computation than on the drawings themselves. → Wells 1915

Evidence

Wells 1915

Wells, G. R. (1915). An apparatus for the mirror-drawing test; Percentile norms for scaling data. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22An+Apparatus+for+the+Mirror-Drawing+Test%22

q1 · i? · design · r1

The author's first-hand laboratory observation, offered without data or test, motivating the apparatus. The article states it "takes really more time for students" to compute errors than to make the drawings.

"I have found that it takes really more time for students who are working upon mirror-draw- ing problems to compute their errors than it does to make the mirror-draw- ings in the first place."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id error-computation-exceeds-drawing-time
title Computing mirror-drawing errors by hand takes students more time than making the drawings
description Computing mirror-drawing errors by hand takes students more time than making the drawings
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1915
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — wells-1915

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