Claims

Word-Building showed the lowest agreement with the amalgamated rank-order, attributed to prior anagram experience.

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? Word-Building had the lowest correlation with the amalgamated rank-order, probably because about half the subjects had played anagrams before. → 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

Correlational finding from the 100-student trial, supplemented by a questionnaire on prior anagram play. The article attributes Word-Building's lowest correlation to practice advantage, noting subjects who had played anagrams "had some advantage over other members of the group."

"This is probably due to the fact that about one-half of the subjects had played anagrams, as was ascertained by means of a questionnaire, and these subjects consequently had some advantage over other members of the group."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id word-building-lowest-correlation-practice-advantage
title Word-Building showed the lowest agreement with the amalgamated rank-order, attributed to prior anagram experience.
description Word-Building showed the lowest agreement with the amalgamated rank-order, attributed to prior anagram experience.
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.