ArticleCognition2016
Adults with poor reading skills: How lexical knowledge interacts with scores on standardized reading comprehension tests.
Article in Cognition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lexical decision times for nouns from the Croatian Psycholinguistic Database.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- A Modeling Framework to Examine Psychological Processes Underlying Ordinal Responses and Response Times of Psychometric Data.Psychometrika · 2023Article
- Modeling Conditional Dependence of Response Accuracy and Response Time with the Diffusion Item Response Theory Model.Psychometrika · 2022Article
- Error monitoring and daily life executive functioning.Experimental brain research · 2019Article
- Adults with Poor Reading Skills, Older Adults, and College Students: the Meanings They Understand During Reading Using a Diffusion Model Analysis.Journal of memory and language · 2018Article
- Individual differences in the components of children's and adults' information processing for simple symbolic and non-symbolic numeric decisions.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2016Article
- Diffusion Decision Model: Current Issues and History.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2016Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Millions of adults in the United States lack the necessary literacy skills for most living wage jobs. For students from adult learning classes, we used a lexical decision task to measure their knowledge of words and we used a decision-making model (Ratcliff's, 1978, diffusion model) to abstract the mechanisms underlying their performance from their RTs and accuracy. We also collected scores for each participant on standardized IQ tests and standardized reading tests used commonly in the education literature. We found significant correlations between the model's estimates of the strengths with which words are represented in memory and scores for some of the standardized tests but not others. The findings point to the feasibility and utility of combining a test of word knowledge, lexical decision, that is well-established in psycholinguistic research, a decision-making model that supplies information about underlying mechanisms, and standardized tests. The goal for future research is to use this combination of approaches to understand better how basic processes relate to standardized tests with the eventual aim of understanding what these tests are measuring and what the specific difficulties are for individual, low-literacy adults.
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.