ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations.
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.
- An introduction to the Item Response Warehouse (IRW): A resource for enhancing data usage in psychometrics.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
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
Measurement of object recognition (OR) ability could predict learning and success in real-world settings, and there is hope that it may reduce bias often observed in cognitive tests. Although the measurement of visual OR is not expected to be influenced by the language of participants or the language of instructions, these assumptions remain largely untested. Here, we address the challenges of measuring OR abilities across linguistically diverse populations. In Study 1, we find that English-Spanish bilinguals, when randomly assigned to the English or Spanish version of the novel object memory test (NOMT), exhibit a highly similar overall performance. Study 2 extends this by assessing psychometric equivalence using an approach grounded in item response theory (IRT). We examined whether groups fluent in English or Spanish differed in (a) latent OR ability as assessed by a three-parameter logistic IRT model, and (2) the mapping of observed item responses on the latent OR construct, as assessed by differential item functioning (DIF) analyses. Spanish speakers performed better than English speakers, a difference we suggest is due to motivational differences between groups of vastly different size on the Prolific platform. That we found no substantial DIF between the groups tested in English or Spanish on the NOMT indicates measurement invariance. The feasibility of increasing diversity by combining groups tested in different languages remains unexplored. Adopting this approach could enable visual scientists to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion in their research, and potentially in the broader application of their work in society.
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.