Applying the difficulty weights yields highly unequal per-elision values within a sentence, e.g. elision 8 of unit 1 worth 15.19% of the unit versus 3.99% for several others.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1912 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? When frequency-based difficulty weights are substituted into unit 1's elision frequencies, the resulting per-elision percentages of unit value range from 3.99 to 15.19. → Walter R. Miles and Julian E. Butterworth 1912

Evidence¶

Walter R. Miles and Julian E. Butterworth 1912¶

Walter R. Miles and Julian E. Butterworth. (1912). A Tentative Standardization of a Completion Test. The Journal of Educational Psychology, pp. 329-336. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22A+Tentative+Standardization+of+a+Completion+Test%22

q2 · i? · design · r2

Numerical computation combining the 25 observers' difficulty frequencies with the derived weights produced the per-elision values for the first sentence, then scaled by the unit's 12.8% share of the whole test to give real values from .5 to 1.9 per elision.

"Therefore, the percentage of value (computed on the basis of 100% for the unit) due each elision of this first sentence is: 7.14; 7.14; 3.99; 9.35; 3.99; 3.99; 7.14; 15.19; 8.38; 10.56; 11.09; 12.05."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most elisions of the test were judged of average difficulty (83.2%), with 9.3% more-than-average and 7.5% very difficult, yielding frequency-based weights of .048, .427, and .533. — related
• The reported difficulty values are based on scholastically advanced adults, and whether the proportions would hold for less mature subjects remains an open question. — related