ArticlePloS one2026
Debunking misleading graphs effectively: How vocationally educated young adults perceive graphs.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Misleading graphs can give readers a distorted view of the underlying data. We want to know how to most effectively correct misleading graphs and if it matters whether a correction uses the full-design of the original or a clean design with all embellishment and colors removed. We focus on vocationally educated young adults, a group that is vulnerable to misinformation and has so far been underrepresented in research. We use a mixed-method approach with a qualitative think-aloud task (n = 10, data collected in April 2023) and a quantitative survey (n = 130, data collected between July and October 2023). The think-aloud task showed that vocational students use a combination of calculating and estimating to process graphs, which contradicts existing literature, and that their perception is heavily influenced by context. The survey showed that graph corrections work in reducing misleading effects and also have a learning effect such that students are less misled by new misleading graphs of the same type. There was no difference between full-design and clean design corrections. These results imply that vocationally educated young adults can benefit from seeing corrections of misleading graphs.
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.