ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Some students are more equal: Performance in Author Recognition Test and Title Recognition Test modulated by print exposure and academic background.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Reading is a key skill for university students. The Author Recognition Test (ART) and the Title Recognition Test (TRT) have both been used for decades to measure print exposure which correlates with reading and other linguistic skills. Given the available evidence for interindividual differences in reading skills, this study addresses three open issues. First, to what extent do ART and TRT scores correlate with individual differences regarding students' study programs? Second, how do these results correlate with the self-reported time spent reading different types of text genres (e.g., fiction, nonfiction) per week? And third, this study compares ART and TRT to one another. We tested students from six study programs in the humanities and (medical) sciences which vary in the amount and kind of reading material required for study success. We found that students perform significantly differently in the ART and the TRT depending on their field of study. Students in a study program focusing on fiction and literature perform best overall. We also replicated the well-known effect of age on ART and TRT scores: older students have better scores. We did not find reliable effects of reading time on test performance, whereas individual creative writing habits did positively predict ART/TRT test results. These results raise a number of important questions regarding the ART/TRT in general and regarding interindividual differences in personal reading and writing habits and the change in reading habits in times of media convergence.
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.