Given this situation, a number of investigations have employed measures of frequency of occurrence in print (e.g., Francis & Kucera, 1982, Kucera & Francis, 1967). However, as demonstrated by Kreuz (1987), this approach can be misleading. Kreuz compared homophone frequencies in print, derived from the Kucera and Francis counts, with rated familiarity as predictors of performance in the lexical decision task. As in earlier work with homographs (Gernsbacher, 1984), rated familiarity was a significantly better predictor of lexical decision times for homophones. Beyond rated familiarity, normative data exist for a small number of additional subjective measures of homophones. Recently, White and Abrams (2004) used two measures for 96 homophones sets. The results indicated no significant correlations between responses for the two measures. However, for both measures, there was some consistency between the responses from young adults (17-25 years old) and old adults (62-91 years old). Additionally, Galbraith and Taschman (1969) used both measures and found them to be highly correlated (r = .87). Gorfein and O’Brien (1985) retested the Galbraith and Taschman words, but they replaced the association task with a ‘cued’ spelling condition. Gorfein and O’Brien reasoned that the written word response in the spelling task might be ambiguous with respect to meaning if the participant either spelled both meanings of a homophone in the same manner.