Monographs, texts, and guides designed to inform readers about the meanings and interpretations of test scores frequently misinform instead, because the standard error of measurement is misapplied. The standard error of measurement, trjXl -r 17 )*, is an estimate of the variability (i.e., the standard deviation) expected for observed scores when the true score is held constant. To set confidence intervals for true scores given an observed score, the appropriate standard error is that for true scores when observed scores are held constant and estimated by o-i [r u ( 1 -r u ) ] *; and the interval is around the estimated true score rather than around the observed score. Except in the case of perfect reliability, the estimated true score is not the observed score, but is a value regressed toward the mean.

No abstract

AN intriguing, yet elusive, goal for psychology is the development of ratio scales for psychological dimensions or from subjective judgments. Numerous procedures have been suggested to achieve such scales (1,3,5,7,8,9). This study compares results from two different procedures for determining scale values of common adverbs of degree or intensity.Cliff (4) determined scale values for nine common adverbs of degree in combination with fifteen evaluative adjectives by utilizing a method of successive intervals. In his study, subj ects rated adverbadjective combinations with respect to their &dquo;favorableness&dquo; on an 11-category scale where category &dquo;6&dquo; was identified as neutral ; category &dquo;1&dquo; was labeled most unfavorable; and category &dquo;11&dquo; was most favorable. By utilizing the matrix of scale values for the adverbadjective combinations, it was possible to derive a set of scale values for adverbs and one for adjectives which reproduced the values of the combinations fairly closely.The adverbs (assigned code numbers according to ordinal positions determined by Cliff) were: 0=slightly; 1=somewhat; 2= rather; 3=pretty; 4=unmodified form of adjective; 5=quite; 6=decidedly; 7=unusually; 8=very; and, 9==extremely. The adjectives modified by these adverbs in Cliff's study were:

IN a previous investigation, performance on certain tests which were designed to measure flexibility seemed to be influenced by the ingestion of Benzedrine sulfate to a greater extent than was performance on &dquo;non-flexibility&dquo; tests (3). This evidence was not strong but was, none the less, provocative. The present study was designed to investigate more thoroughly the nature of flexibility by subjecting modifications of these tests to a more rigorous analysis. For the purpose of this study flexibility is defined simply as the ability (a) to shift from one task to another, or (b) to break through an established set in order to perform a task. We have preferred to use the term &dquo;flexibility&dquo; rather than the word &dquo;perseveration,&dquo; which has frequently been used to describe the abilities measured by tests of the general kind used here, because the latter term so often has associated with it specific theoretical connotations, e.g., Spearman's mental inertia, Muller and Pilzecker's usage as a memory phenomenon, etc. In an attempt to make the results as unambiguous as possible it was decided to investigate only one type of performance, viz., performance in which S would be required to shift tasks. Only simple tasks were used in the hope that factors would be more easily identified. Tests were designed to measure numerical, perceptual speed, and verbal factors. Within each area the attempt was to make some of the tests factorially pure. One test in each area, however, was designed to measure flexibility by requiring S to shift from one simple task to another. It was anticipated that factors associated with number, perceptual

No abstract