{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02147239263803681, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005368098159509203, 'mean_word_length': 5.041666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sensitivity and accuracy of the visual analogue scale: a psycho-physical classroom experiment.

1 Twenty-seven intelligent volunteers took part in a classroom experiment on two occasions to assess subjectively, ordinally related volumes of sound (offered in random sequence), using the visual analogue scale. 2 It was simple to use and largely acceptable. Big differences were significant by parametric tests but small ones were sometimes significant only with ordinal ones. Within-subject comparisons were more accurate and more sensitive than those between-subjects. The t-test was very robust. 3 Five out of 49 results were erroneously significant; they remained so no matter how the data were handled. It was concluded that this was due to a shift in either perception, cognition or scoring between the two sessions. 4 Arcsine transformations made little difference. The mechanism of these is fully discussed. A conversion to proportional scores resulted in very much improved sensitivity. 5 It is recommended that authors using the visual analogue scale: have valid reason in their own setting for using a transformation; present the distribution, or at least the medians and ranges of their raw scores; also use a simple but different measure so as to demonstrate internal consistency between them.