ArticlePloS one2024
Normative study of 500 general-knowledge of true-false questions for Russian young adults.
Article in PloS one, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to validate 500 true-false general-knowledge questions in Russian. These norms are valuable to researchers in many fields, as is shown by the impact and relevance of similar norms available in other languages. Although the Russian language is widely spoken, there are no norms available in this language for this type of questions. True-false questions are very useful for measuring semantic memory, among other topics, in neurocognitive studies where there is a trade-off between experimental time and the need for many trials. These types of experimental materials are heavily rooted in cultural background knowledge, making the mere translation from one language to another insufficient. The present research aims to fill this gap. One hundred fifty-five participants answered 500 true-false general knowledge questions split over several consecutive days and three topics: Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Culture & Sport. The participants' task was to indicate whether the statements were true or not, as well as the confidence they had in the correctness of their answer. Despite obtaining questions on each of the topics covering all difficulty levels, grouped analyses showed that Social Science's accuracy was higher than for Natural Science's or Culture & Sport questions. In relation to confidence, the grouped perceived difficulty was higher for questions about Culture & Sports when compared with the other two topics. Thus, this study reports and makes available a large pool of Russian true-false general knowledge questions covering different levels of difficulty.
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.