Speed and accuracy correlate slightly on easy opposites lists but not on hard lists¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 1911 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Comparing penalty-based accuracy groups with average completion times, a slight speed-accuracy correlation appeared for easy lists, while on hard lists the more accurate and less accurate took practically identical times. → Irving King and Hugo Gold 1911

Evidence¶

Irving King and Hugo Gold 1911¶

Irving King and Hugo Gold. (1911). A Tentative Standardization of Certain "Opposites Tests". University of Iowa. https://eric.ed.gov/?q=A+Tentative+Standardization+of+Certain+Opposites+Tests

q3 · i? · associational · r1

Grouping the 100 subjects by penalties for errors and computing average times (Tables I and II): best 50 on easy opposites averaged 123 seconds versus 135 for the poorest 50; on hard lists the most accurate averaged 59 (penalty units) versus 41 for the least accurate, with no time difference.

"It will be seen from these tables that there is a slight correlation between speed and accuracy in the case of the easy lists but that in the case of the hard lists the time taken by the more accurate is practically identical with the time taken by the less accurate."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Standardized easy opposites lists can be built from words answered correctly by ninety percent or more of subjects — related
• Opposites performance correlates positively with information and vocabulary, most strongly with range of information — related
• Easy opposites scores correlate with scholastic rank, faculty and graduates outscoring seniors and juniors — related