Is the performance at the implicit association test sensitive to feedback presentation? A Rasch-based analysis.

Ottavia M Epifania, Egidio Robusto, Pasquale Anselmi

Open access · hybridFull text read

In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing papers in PubMed

2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models.Frontiers in psychology · 2025
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ottavia M EpifaniaDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education, and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 14, Padua, Italy. ottavia.epifania@unipd.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8552-568X

Egidio RobustoDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education, and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 14, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2982-7178

Pasquale AnselmiDepartment of Philosophy, Sociology, Education, and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Via Venezia 14, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7583-2587

University of Padua · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is commonly used for the indirect assessment of psychological constructs. While the features of the IAT that might influence the performance of the respondents have been extensively investigated, the effect of informing the respondents about the correctness of their responses (i.e., feedback presentation) has been poorly addressed so far. The study addresses this issue by presenting an across-domain (implicit prejudice and food preference) Rasch-based analysis of IAT data obtained with and without feedback presentation. Results showed that speed was influenced by the interaction between feedback presentation and associative condition, whereas accuracy was influenced by the associative condition. This result varied across-domain. Results suggested that IATs administered with feedback presentation provide more accurate information on the construct of interest.

Indexed as

AssociationPrejudiceFeedbackHumansBuilt-in correctionFeedbackImplicit Association TestLog-normal ModelRasch model

Identifiers

PMID35804071

DOI10.1007/s00426-022-01703-w

PMCPMC10017590

OpenAlexW4284958735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public

LicenceCC BY

measurements read9

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.