{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023688663282571912, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005922165820642978, 'mean_word_length': 5.129533678756476, '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}}
PREDICTION OF PREDICTABILITY IN THE MULTIVARIATE CASE

110 Ss who completed Dunnette's Adjective Check List were randomly divided into a developmental sample (N = 58) and a cross-validation sample (N = 52). Ss in the developmental sample were divided into two subgroups by means of Ghiselli's d score technique (difference between standard predictor and criterion scores). Three separate item analyses of the responses of Ss in three separate sets of high d score and low d score subgroups yielded three scales: (a) a univariate predictability scale for assessing predictive accuracy from one variable; (b) a moderator scale for determining which of two predictors would be more accurate for an S; (c) a multivariate predictability scale for assessing predictive accuracy from two predictor variables. The results seem to support the general hypothesis that it is possible to use a performance on a moderator or predictability scale to select a subgroup of Ss for whom correspondence between the predictor(s) and criterion is much greater than that of a subgroup whose scores on the moderator indicate a lesser degree of correspondence. All three scales held up in cross-validation.