ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Implicit measures are widely used to indirectly assess psychological constructs and predict behavior. Nonetheless, comparisons of their predictive validity often suffer from methodological limitations, including administration inconsistencies, scoring differences, and unaccounted sources of variability related to data structure and experimental design. Methods: To address these issues, the present study re-analyzes an existing dataset comparing the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and its single-category variant (SC-IAT) using a modeling framework that integrates a Rasch-like parameterization of accuracies and response times while accounting for the fully crossed data structure and the within-subject design. Results: Results partially align with the original findings and further corroborate the higher predictive validity of the IAT, while revealing the specific contribution of one SC-IAT that was likely obscured in traditional scoring approaches.
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.