Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37103251›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2023

Different Perspectives on Retest Effects in the Context of Spatial Thinking: Interplay of Behavioral Performance, Cognitive Processing, and Cognitive Workload.

Benedict C O F Fehringer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Benedict C O F FehringerDepartment of Psychology of Education, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3988-964X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retest effects refer to performance improvements in a final test by completing previous tests with the same or similar testing materials. Improvements in test-related skills and/or increasing familiarity with the stimulus materials are considered sources of the retest effect. The present study analyzes retest effects in the context of spatial thinking, considering complementing perspectives (behavioral performance, cognitive processing, and cognitive workload). N = 141 participants completed a recently developed ability test for the visualization factor of spatial thinking (R-Cube-Vis Test). This test provides the opportunity to monitor the progression of changes in solving behavior from item to item within each of the six distinct difficulty levels. Items of one difficulty level all require the same spatial solving strategy but vary in visual appearance. Multi-level models were estimated, with items on level 1 and participants on level 2. Results demonstrated retest effects as changes from the beginning to the end of a set of items within each difficulty level by increasing accuracy. Gaze patterns showed the development of solving strategies by participants through, e.g., shifting the focus on relevant item parts. Increasing familiarity with the stimulus materials was indicated in reduced reaction times and increased confidence ratings, but also by the results of a pupillary-based cognitive workload measure. Furthermore, differences between participants with overall high vs. low spatial ability were considered. In addition to a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the retest effect, the complementing perspectives provide more detailed information about individual ability profiles for diagnostic purposes.

Indexed as

cognitive workloadR-Cube-Vis Testretest effectsspatial thinkingviewing pattern

Identifiers

PMID37103251
PMCPMC10145210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.