Earlier opposites-test scoring methods ignored differences in stimulus-word difficulty, penalizing all errors equally¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 1918 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Time-limit and time-plus-penalty scoring methods treated each error or omission as of equal value regardless of which stimulus word was missed. → Harry A. Greene 1918

Evidence¶

Harry A. Greene 1918¶

Harry A. Greene. (1918). A Standardization of Certain Opposites Tests. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070589

q1 · i? · design · r2

The author's interpretive critique of prior scoring practices, arguing that "the relative values of the different words must be taken into consideration in grading the responses" if best results are to be realized. No empirical test of this argument is reported in the passage.

"In both of these methods no account was taken of the wide differences in the difficulty of the various stimulus words. Each error or omission was regarded as of the same value and the person tested was penalized the same amount regardless of the word missed."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Percentile-based and percentage-of-failure evaluations of stimulus-word difficulty agree almost perfectly (rank r = .996) — related
• A graded hard-opposites list of twenty-five words was selected where accuracy of response was below 69% — related