ArticleBehavior research methods2022
A comparative evaluation of the four measurement methods for comfort and reachability distance perceptions.
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.
- How different face mask types affect interpersonal distance perception and threat feeling in social interaction.Cognitive processing · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the precision, accuracy, and reliability of the common measurement methods for collecting comfort and reachability distances. Four measurement methods were applied in the study: real-life measurement, virtual reality (VR) simulation, the media method, and the paper-and-pencil test. Forty participants were recruited, who were required to determine their comfort and reachability distances when approached by, or actively approaching, confederates under the four methods. The relative error magnitude and mean absolute difference were used to evaluate the precision and accuracy of the methods, respectively. Then, intraclass correlation coefficients were applied to evaluate the reliability of the methods. The ANOVA results showed that the confederate's gender, method, and pattern all had significant effects on the comfort and reachability distances. The distance obtained by the paper-and-pencil test was the smallest, while the distance measured by the media method was larger. The real-life measurement had high reliability, but its precision performance was worse than that of both the VR simulation and the active media method. The VR simulation had the best precision and reliability, while the measurement value tended to be overestimated. The media method in the passive pattern showed the worst precision, accuracy, and reliability performance among the four methods. The active media method performed well except for accuracy when collecting distance data. The paper-and-pencil test showed erroneous results regarding the precision and reliability performance. These findings provide scientific reference suggestions for the selection of measuring methods for collecting comfort and reachability distances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34664228What 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.