ArticlePloS one2024
The jingle fallacy in comprehension tests for reading.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying the visual and linguistic sources of reading efficiency: A comparison of individual differences among deaf and hearing readers.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Editorial Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
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
The Jingle fallacy is the false assumption that instruments which share the same name measure the same underlying construct. In this experiment, we focus on the comprehension subtests of the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-II). 91 university students read passages for comprehension whilst their eye movements were recorded. Participants took part in two experimental blocks of which the order was counterbalanced, one with higher comprehension demands and one with lower comprehension demands. We assumed that tests measuring comprehension would be able to predict differences observed in eye movement patterns as a function of varying comprehension demands. Overall, readers were able to adapt their reading strategy to read more slowly, making more and longer fixations, coupled with shorter saccades when comprehension demands were higher. Within an experimental block, high scorers on the NDRT were able to consistently increase their pace of reading over time for both higher and lower comprehension demands, whereas low scorers approached a threshold where they could not continue to increase their reading speed or further reduce the number of fixations to read a text, even when comprehension demands were low. Individual differences based on the WIAT-II did not explain similar patterns. The NDRT comprehension test was therefore more predictive of differences in the reading patterns of skilled adult readers in response to comprehension demands than the WIAT-II (which also suffered from low reliability). Our results revealed that these different comprehension measures should not be used interchangeably, and researchers should be cautious when choosing reading comprehension tests for research.
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.