ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Repeated Viewing of a Film Clip Changes Event Timescales in the Brain.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026Article
- Event segmentation applications in large language model enabled automated recall assessments.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Repeated Viewing of a Narrative Movie Changes Event Timescales in The Brain.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Language-agnostic, Automated Assessment of Listeners' Speech Recall Using Large Language Models.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Story recall is an episodic memory paradigm that is popular among researchers interested in the effects of aging, disease, and/or injury on memory functioning; it is less popular among individual-differences researchers studying neurotypical young adults. One reason differential psychologists may favor other episodic memory paradigms is that the prospect of scoring story recall is daunting, as it typically requires manually scoring hundreds or thousands of freely recalled narratives. In this study, I investigated two questions related to scoring story recall for individual differences research. First, whether there is anything to gain by scoring story recall for memory of central and peripheral details or if a single score is sufficient. Second, I investigated whether scoring can be automated using computational methods - namely, BERTScore and GPT-4. A total of 235 individuals participated in this study. At the latent variable level, central and peripheral factors were highly correlated (r = .99), and the two factors correlated with external factors (viz., fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and working memory capacity) similarly. Regarding automated scoring, both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were strongly correlated with manually derived scores (r ≥ .97); additionally, factors estimated from the various scoring methods all showed a similar pattern of correlations with the external factors. Thus, differential psychologists may be able to streamline scoring by disregarding detail type and by using automated approaches. Further research is needed, particularly of the automated approaches, as both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were occasionally leptokurtic while manual scores were not.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39112741What 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.