ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Computerized continuous scoring of the cognitive style figure test: Embedded figure test as an example.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. 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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive research has shown that cognitive style is a non-negligible potential influencer of domains of human functioning, such as learning, creativity, and cooperation among individuals. However, the dichotomy of cognitive style is contradictory to the fact that cognitive style is a continuous variable, and the dichotomy loses information about the strength of people's performance between the poles of cognitive style. To solve this problem, this study developed a computerized continuous scoring system (CCS) based on Python's OpenCV library, and achieved continuous scoring of the test of cognitive style, with the Embedded Figure Test as an example. An empirical study was implemented to compare the performance of dichotomous scoring and CCS. The results show that CCS can accurately extract the traces of participants' responses and achieve continuous scoring, supplementing the information on the strength of people's cognitive styles between the two poles, and the performance of CCS-based tests such as discrimination, reliability, and validity are significantly improved compared with the dichotomous scoring. Given the high reproducibility of CCS, it is expected to be applied to scoring other continuity characteristics in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39900850What 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.