ArticleBehavior research methods2015
Reading ability and print exposure: item response theory analysis of the author recognition test.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Referential Adaptation in the Face of Changing Input Frequencies: The System Wants to Return to Baseline.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Reading experience reveals shared and idiosyncratic neural patterns during text comprehension.NPJ science of learning · 2025Article
- Scrutinizing reference adaptation: Do people only adapt to infrequent discourse structures?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Some students are more equal: Performance in Author Recognition Test and Title Recognition Test modulated by print exposure and academic background.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Unipolar IRT and the Author Recognition Test (ART).Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Ethics-testing an eating disorder recovery memoir: a pre-publication experiment.Journal of eating disorders · 2024Article
- Predicting subjective ratings of affect and comprehensibility with text features: a reader response study of narrative poetry.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Effects of individual differences in text exposure on sentence comprehension.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Even lawyers do not like legalese.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Validated tests for language research with university students whose native language is English: Tests of vocabulary, general knowledge, author recognition, and reading comprehension.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- A measure of individual differences in readers' approaches to text and its relation to reading experience and reading comprehension.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Testing the validity of a self-report scale, author recognition test, and book counting as measures of lifetime exposure to print fiction.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Sentence comprehension test for Russian: A tool to assess syntactic competence.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Individual Differences in Indirect Speech Act Processing Found Outside the Language Network.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2022Article
- Is the author recognition test a useful metric for native and non-native English speakers? An item response theory analysis.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
- Rapid automatized naming (RAN): effects of aging on a predictor of reading skill.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2021Article
- Grammatical processing in two languages: How individual differences in language experience and cognitive abilities shape comprehension in heritage bilinguals.Journal of neurolinguistics · 2021Article
- CompLex: an eye-movement database of compound word reading in English.Behavior research methods · 2021Article
- Effects of Print Exposure on an Online Lexical Decision Task: A Direct Replication Using a Web-Based Experimental Procedure.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Individual Differences in Print Exposure Predict Use of Implicit Causality in Pronoun Comprehension and Referential Prediction.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the author recognition test (ART), participants are presented with a series of names and foils and are asked to indicate which ones they recognize as authors. The test is a strong predictor of reading skill, and this predictive ability is generally explained as occurring because author knowledge is likely acquired through reading or other forms of print exposure. In this large-scale study (1,012 college student participants), we used item response theory (IRT) to analyze item (author) characteristics in order to facilitate identification of the determinants of item difficulty, provide a basis for further test development, and optimize scoring of the ART. Factor analysis suggested a potential two-factor structure of the ART, differentiating between literary and popular authors. Effective and ineffective author names were identified so as to facilitate future revisions of the ART. Analyses showed that the ART is a highly significant predictor of the time spent encoding words, as measured using eyetracking during reading. The relationship between the ART and time spent reading provided a basis for implementing a higher penalty for selecting foils, rather than the standard method of ART scoring (names selected minus foils selected). The findings provide novel support for the view that the ART is a valid indicator of reading volume. Furthermore, they show that frequency data can be used to select items of appropriate difficulty, and that frequency data from corpora based on particular time periods and types of texts may allow adaptations of the test for different populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.