248 



The Dancing Mouse 



of modifiability (that number 0} tests after which no errors occur 

 for at least thirty rests). By taking the average number of tests 

 for the several individuals in each of the Tables 42, 43, 44, 

 and 45 we obtain the following expressions of efficiency: 



METHOD 



Two-five-test 

 Ten-test . 

 Twenty-test 

 Continuous-test 



INDEX OF MODIFIABILITY (EFFICIENCY) 



81.7 2. 7 

 . 88.0 4.1 



Q^oiS-S 

 170.0 4. 8 



Since the difference between the indices for the ten-test and 

 the twenty-test methods lies within the limits of their probable 

 errors (4.1 and 5.3) it is evident that it is not significant. 

 Except for this, I think these indices may be accepted 

 as indications of real differences in the value of the several 

 methods of training. 



A somewhat different interpretation of our results is sug- 

 gested by the grouping of individuals according to sex. In 

 Table 47 appear the general averages for the males and the 

 females which were tested by the several methods. The most 

 striking fact exhibited by this table is that of the high efficiency 

 of the twenty-test method for the females. Apparently 



TABLE 47 

 EFFICIENCY OF TRAINING 



