ArticleBehavior research methods2022
Full throttle: Demonstrating the speed, accuracy, and validity of a new method for continuous two-dimensional self-report and annotation.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring dynamic emotional experiences in response to media stimuli.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- DynAMoS: The Dynamic Affective Movie Clip Database for Subjectivity Analysis.International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and workshops : [proceedings]. ACII (Conference) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on fine-grained dynamic psychological processes has increasingly come to rely on continuous self-report measures. Recent studies have extended continuous self-report methods to simultaneously collecting ratings on two dimensions of an experience. For all the variety of approaches, several limitations are inherent to most of them. First, current methods are primarily suited for bipolar, as opposed to unipolar, constructs. Second, respondents report on two dimensions using one hand, which may produce method driven error, including spurious relationships between the two dimensions. Third, two-dimensional reports have primarily been validated for consistency between reporters, rather than the predictive validity of idiosyncratic responses. In a series of tasks, the study reported here addressed these limitations by comparing a previously used method to a newly developed two-handed method, and by explicitly testing the validity of continuous two-dimensional responses. Results show that our new method is easier to use, faster, more accurate, with reduced method-driven dependence between the two dimensions, and preferred by participants. The validity of two-dimensional responding was also demonstrated in comparison to one-dimensional reporting, and in relation to post hoc ratings. Together, these findings suggest that our two-handed method for two-dimensional continuous ratings is a powerful and reliable tool for future research.
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.