Claims

Response frequencies to stimulus words vary widely, with easy words answered correctly by most subjects and hard words such as suave missed by 96%

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1918 · 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? In the 990-response tabulation, difficulty varies widely across the eighty words; suave was missed by 96% of subjects and received the maximum point value of 2.0. → Harry A. Greene 1918 q2 i? Full- and half-value responses were tallied per word; for to win, 700 persons gave to lose (full value) and 72 gave to fail (half value), totaling 736 responses. → Harry A. Greene 1918 (2)

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

q2 · i? · design · r2

A descriptive tabulation of freshmen responses to the opposites list, keyed with the King and Gold standardization. The example reports that "the word suave was missed by 96% of the subjects", illustrating conversion of failure percentage to percentile value 79. No effect size is printed for this descriptive finding.

"For example, the word suave was missed by 96% of the subjects. From the table* a word missed by 96% of the cases is valued at 79."

Harry A. Greene 1918 (2)

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

q2 · i? · design · r2

The article's illustrative tabulation rule for scoring responses: full-value answers count as one and half-value answers as one-half, shown with the to win example totaling "736" responses.

"For example, if it was found that in responding to the stimulus word to win, 700 persons gave to lose (full value), and 72 gave to fail (half value), the total number of responses was counted as 736."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id opposites-word-difficulty-range-suave-96-percent
title Response frequencies to stimulus words vary widely, with easy words answered correctly by most subjects and hard words such as suave missed by 96%
description Response frequencies to stimulus words vary widely, with easy words answered correctly by most subjects and hard words such as suave missed by 96%
status review
evidence_strength moderate
newest_evidence 1918
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-25
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 2 — harry-a-greene-1918, harry-a-greene-1918-2

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