Claims

The twelve tests differed in value as measures of originality, yet each appeared to test some phase of the trait.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1916 · 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? The varied tests could not possess equal value as tests for originality, but all appeared to tap some phase of originality. → Chassell 1916

Evidence

Chassell 1916

Chassell, L. M. (1916). Tests for originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 7(6), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070310

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Authors' overall interpretation of the 100-student ranking trial across the twelve tests. They state the varied tests "could not possess equal value as tests for originality, yet all would appear to test some phase of this trait."

"It is evident that the tests, because of their varied nature, could not possess equal value as tests for originality, yet all would appear to test some phase of this trait."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id twelve-tests-unequal-value-same-trait
title The twelve tests differed in value as measures of originality, yet each appeared to test some phase of the trait.
description The twelve tests differed in value as measures of originality, yet each appeared to test some phase of the trait.
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 1916
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-25
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — chassell-1916

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