The probable error of a score on the language error tests is 2.24¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 1922 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Figured by the Difference Method under Dr. Arthur S. Otis's direction, the probable error of a score was 2.24, which the author reads as showing a high degree of reliability. → Wilson 1922

Evidence¶

Wilson 1922¶

Wilson, G. M. (1922). Language error tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13(6), 341–349. doi:10.1037/h0064444

q2 · i? · design · r2

Reliability analysis of the tests using Otis's Difference Method, yielding "The resulting probable error was 2.24"; the author states this confirms the high correlation coefficient reported for the forms.

"Under the direction of Dr. Arthur S. Otis, the probable error of a score by the Difference Method1 was figured. The resulting probable error was 2.24. This shows a high degree of reliability for the test."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The three Wilson Language Error Tests (A, B, and C) approach equality across grades III to XII — related
• The Yerkes-Bridges Point Scale scoring method fails entirely to accomplish its stated purpose of bringing out the full value of the test material. — related
• Yerkes-Bridges coefficients of intelligence of 1.20 or more are attained by very different percentages of children at successive ages (34.5% at ages 4-5 down to 0% at ages 16-17 and 18-on), so they do not represent the same degree of brightness at all ages. — related
• In one community-college lab class, six scorers rating six teams with an engineering rubric differed by a mean of 1.2 of 9 points, which the authors read as a sign the rubric may not be reliable — related