Erratum to: Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 600 Turkish words from four age groups
- 191 Downloads
Erratum to: Behav Res Methods
In Table 1, the correlation between AoA and frequency (−.615) and the correlation between AoA and imageability (−.317) should be reversed.
Word-frequency and AoA correlations for four age groups also need to change in the body of the text: Under sub-heading “Word-frequency” (p. 5), the r values for the four age groups (−.566, −.615, −.601, −.518) should be replaced with the newly-calculated r values (−.336, −.317, −.305, and −.269, respectively). As can be seen, the correlations are still all negative and demonstrate a similar pattern.
Under subheading “Concreteness and imageability” (p.5, four lines from the bottom of the paragraph), the r value of −.32 should be replaced by −.62; these are the reflections of the changes in Table 1. With this change, the sentence following that correlation should be” and similar to those found in other languages” rather than “…but smaller than those found in other languages”. As we reported in this paragraph, correlations in other studies are around .60–.70.
Finally, during the recalculations, we also found out that the r value between frequency and concreteness should be .001 and not .867. This was simply due to sloppiness on our part in reading the output of the analyses. This non-existent correlation is also in line with few other studies which report such correlations (e.g., Gerhand & Berry, 2000 reported a correlation of .02 and Friendly et al. 1982 reported a correlation of −.14). This is a relationship we did not discuss further in the paper, therefore requires no further changes.