{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022179363548698167, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.0701754385964914, '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}}
More on the reliability of the kinesthetic aftereffects measure and need for stimulation.

Recently, some have argued for a renewed interest in the kinesthetic aftereffects procedure (KAE) as a personality measure even though it may show low test-retest reliability. These arguments indicate that first-session KAE is valid but later-session KAE is not, due to the supposed appearance (in later sessions) of unwanted functional similarity between different aspects of the KAE procedure. Functional similarity leads to reduced reliability and validity of the retest. Data from two new studies do not support this functional similarity hypothesis, but these data do support the KAE by showing test-retest reliability. Also, the data show some new but tentative experimental evidence for the construct validity of second-session KAE as a measure of need for stimulation. These data do support the KAE as a personality measure but, when contrasted to arguments that only first-session KAE is valid, the data indicate that this is unresolved.