The apparatus gives mirror-drawing errors a constant operational definition across students and days¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr1·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? By defining an error as lateral movement of the stylus off the inscribed star, the apparatus makes an error mean the same thing to all students and from day to day. → 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
A definitional statement about the apparatus (type d), not a tested result: the article presents this as "a point of importance" about how the apparatus standardizes the error definition.
"An error consists of enough lateral movement of the stylus to move it off of the inscribed star. Thus an error means exactly the same thing to all students, and its definition will not vary from day to day."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
operational-error-definition-mirror-drawing |
title |
The apparatus gives mirror-drawing errors a constant operational definition across students and days |
description |
The apparatus gives mirror-drawing errors a constant operational definition across students and days |
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.