Claims

Failure of probation students is often attributed to factors other than intellectual ability

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q2
Currency · newest study 1924 · 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? Whipple applied intelligence tests to students on probation and concluded that other factors than intellectual ability were frequently the chief causes of failure. → Frank N. Freeman 1924

Evidence

Frank N. Freeman 1924

Frank N. Freeman. (1924). The Toronto Meeting of the Sections on Psychology and Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The Journal of Educational Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/search?q=Freeman%20Toronto%20Meeting%20Journal%20of%20Educational%20Psychology

q2 · i? · associational · r?

Meeting report of Whipple's study applying intelligence tests to probation students at the University of Michigan; he concluded non-intellectual factors were frequently the chief causes of failure.

"Whipple applied the tests to students on probation and concluded that other factors than intellectual ability were frequently the chief causes of failure."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id probation-failure-factors-beyond-intellectual-ability
title Failure of probation students is often attributed to factors other than intellectual ability
description Failure of probation students is often attributed to factors other than intellectual ability
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1924
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — frank-n-freeman-1924

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