ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
Color associations in landscape design and subscription levels to these associations.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of color cues on eye-hand coordination training with a mirror drawing task in virtual environment.Frontiers in psychology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, a two-tiered research method was adopted. In the first stage, a literature review was conducted to determine the associations that landscape colors evoke in individuals and each association was converted into a statement for each color. The developed 5-point Likert-type scale was submitted for expert opinion (N = 200), and factor analysis was conducted on the findings to determine correlated sub-factors and categorized in the same factor. Thus, three factor groups were determined. Thus, the survey form that will be used in the second study stage was finalized. The factor analysis was also conducted to reduce the number of statements in the scale. Furthermore, 102 statements with a factor load of below 0.30 were excluded. Thus, the final scale included 34 associations in 3 dimensions. In the second stage, the final 5-point Likert-type survey form was applied to the expert group (N = 200) and the participants (N = 200) to determine the agreement of these two groups with the associations. Also, the differences between the agreement levels of the two groups with the associations and the differences between the associations were determined. The statistical analyses revealed that there was a difference between the mean association scores of the participant and the expert groups in 3 factor groups at 0.05 significance level (sig. 0.000, F = 34.432). The direction and size of the correlations between the factors were determined with the correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of the factors on others, and it was determined that there was a positive significant correlation between 1st factor and agreement and a negative significant correlation between the 2nd and 3rd factor groups and agreement. The order of the factors that explained the variation in agreement was the 1st factor (ß = .332; p = 0.000), the 2nd factor (ß = - .274; p = 0.000), and the 3rd factor (ß = - .157; p = 0.001), respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35589894What 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.