Prior initial-spurt experiments failed because test periods were too lengthy and subjects too few¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 1914 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The article argues that previous experiments on initial spurt were weakened by two defects: successive test periods that were too lengthy, and an insufficient number of subjects. → Chapman 1914

Evidence¶

Chapman 1914¶

Chapman, J. C. (1914). A Study of Initial Spurt in the Case of Addition. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070019

q1 · i? · causal · r1

Theoretical argument reviewing prior work, including Thorndike's discussion and experiments using as few as three subjects (Lindley) and one subject (Arai). The author concludes skepticism about initial spurt was warranted given this evidence, and identifies "a lack of a sufficient number of subjects" as a key defect.

"These two weaknesses are: 1. The successive time periods which test the spurt are too lengthy. 2. There is usually a lack of a sufficient number of subjects."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The data cannot be used to investigate end spurt because subjects were not told when each test would end — related
• Initial spurt takes place as a general rule in addition, which the author argues chance variation cannot explain — related
• Addition efficiency drops sharply from the first to the second two-minute period, indicating initial spurt — related
• Efficiency in the work curve is conditioned by factors beyond fatigue proper: practice, adaptation, preparedness, warming up, spurts, voluntary effort, ennui, and diurnal rhythms (Offner) — related