You finished a 5×5 table in 38 seconds. Is that good or bad? Without a reference point, every result is just a number. Below are the norms used in psychodiagnostic practice, the classic five-table protocol, and everything that can distort a measurement.
How long "should" a 5×5 table take
For adults on the classic 5×5 table (numbers 1-25), these bands are commonly used:
| Time | Level |
|---|---|
| over 60 s | attention needs training |
| 40-60 s | average adult result |
| 25-40 s | good result |
| 15-25 s | advanced level |
| under 15 s | expert level |
The adult average is about 40 seconds. Two caveats: first, the bands apply to first attempts on a random table - after a week of training your time is no longer comparable to norms for untrained people. Second, a single measurement diagnoses nothing; only the median of several rounds is reliable.
The five-table protocol
Classic diagnostics never uses one table but five different ones in a row, timing each (T1-T5). Three indices are computed from those times:
- Work efficiency (WE) - the mean of the five times:
WE = (T1+T2+T3+T4+T5) / 5. This is the headline score. - Warming-up index (WU) -
WU = T1 / WE. Below 1.0 means you get into the task quickly; clearly above 1.0 means you need a long warm-up. - Psychic stability (PS) -
PS = T4 / WE. Below 1.0 suggests good resistance to fatigue; rising times late in the series signal attentional fatigue.
The protocol is easy to reproduce at home: print a set of five different tables (our generator lays them out on one or several sheets), time them with a stopwatch and compute the three indices.
Children and seniors
Children's norms are entirely different and depend on age: six- and seven-year-olds usually need over a minute for a 5×5, which is why practice starts with 3×3 or 4×4 grids - smaller, with large print. Teenagers approach adult results. After 60, times naturally increase - but seniors are exactly the group where speed-of-processing training has the best-documented effects: in the ACTIVE trial (JAMA, 2002), improvements persisted in five-year follow-ups.
What distorts the measurement
- Time of day and sleep - sleep deprivation can add double-digit percentages to your time; compare results from similar times of day.
- The learning effect - the same table done twice is done "from memory"; always measure on a fresh, random layout.
- Physical conditions - print size, distance from the sheet and lighting all change the result; keep them constant.
- Caffeine, stress, a phone on the desk - anything that moves your arousal moves your time.
How to track progress sensibly
Do short series (3-5 tables), record the median, retest once a week under similar conditions. A falling week-to-week median is real progress; a single record is noise. The Focus Tables app has a built-in 5×5 test with norms and automatic history - on paper, a notebook and a stopwatch are enough.
Sources: Ball, K. et al. (2002). Effects of cognitive training interventions with older adults. JAMA, 288(18) · Willis, S.L. et al. (2006). Long-term effects of cognitive training… JAMA, 296(23) · WE/WU/PS indices: the classic Schulte-table protocol used in psychodiagnostic practice (described in attention-diagnostics textbooks).