Table 5 
COMPLETENESS AS A FUNCTION OF ASSIGNMENT BASED ON TESTED ABILITY?.- 
COMPONENT-MODIFIER SCORES 
(FOR 16 EXPERIENCED PI's) 
  
  
  
  
  
Highest Average Lowest 
Target Target Score Target Score Target Score 
x 61 34 0 
2 74. Sl 35 
3 ll 3h 15 
L 88 36 0 
5 62 43 
6 63 28 0 
7 61 Ll 19 
8 61 39 L 
9 TL 3o 1h 
Av. 65 29 10 
®The score = Stereo Zig X- 100 
  
Expectancy Score 
The group modal response for component scoring was 33% complete, 
as compared with 49% for the average individual; that for the two best 
was 51%, and for three random, 53%. For component-modifier scoring, 
the respective completeness indexes were 72%, 39%, 43%, and 39%. 
In terms of reliability in the psychometric sense, a pooling of 
interpreter reports and acceptance of a consensus report as "the inter- 
preter report" can be expected to improve substantially the accuracy of 
the information. If the number of interpreters is sufficiently large, 
the completeness of information extraction will also be improved. With 
respect to completeness, however, the consensus report by two individuals 
must be expected to be less complete than that by individual interpreters, 
since complete overlap on all items correctly identified is not expected. 
As the number of interpreters contributing to the consensus report in- 
creases, the completeness score can be expected to increase. 
- 36 =