ArticleBehavior research methods2026
The Tool for Automatic Analysis of Decoding Ambiguity (TAADA).
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study documents and assesses the Tool for Automatic Analysis of Decoding Ambiguity (TAADA). TAADA calculates measures related to decoding, including metrics for grapheme and phoneme counts, neighborhood effects, rhymes, and conditional probabilities for sound-spelling relationships. These measures are assessed in two reading studies. The first study examined links between decoding variables and judgments of reading ease in a corpus of ~5000 reading excerpts, finding that variables related to word frequency, phonographic neighbors for words, word syllable length, and the reverse prior probability for consonants explained 34% of the variance in the reading scores. The second examined links between decoding variables and student reading miscues, finding that word frequency, phoneme counts, rhyme counts, and probability counts explained 3% of students' reading miscues.
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.