ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Individual differences in online research: Comparing lab-based and online administration of a psycholinguistic battery of linguistic and domain-general skills.
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 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.
- The individual-level precision of implicit measures.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Timing precision of the Individual Differences in Dutch Language Skills (IDLaS-NL) test battery.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Experimental psychologists and psycholinguists increasingly turn to online research for data collection due to the ease of sampling many diverse participants in parallel. Online research has shown promising validity and consistency, but is it suitable for all paradigms? Specifically, is it reliable enough for individual differences research? The current paper reports performance on 15 tasks from a psycholinguistic individual differences battery, including timed and untimed assessments of linguistic abilities, as well as domain-general skills. From a demographically homogenous sample of young Dutch people, 149 participants participated in the lab study, and 515 participated online. Our results indicate that there is no reason to assume that participants tested online will underperform compared to lab-based testing, though they highlight the importance of motivation and the potential for external help (e.g., through looking up answers) online. Overall, we conclude that there is reason for optimism in the future of online research into individual differences.
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.