Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42443710›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

Estimating sample size in conceptual property norms by standardizing coverage.

Enrique Canessa, Sergio E Chaigneau, Rodrigo Lagos

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Enrique CanessaEscuela de Ingeniería Informática, Universidad de Valparaíso, General Cruz 222, Valparaíso, Chile. enrique.canessa@uv.cl.
Sergio E ChaigneauCenter for Social and Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago, Chile.
Rodrigo LagosCenter for Social and Cognitive Neuroscience, School of Psychology, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conceptual properties norming (CPN) studies are a fundamental tool in cognitive science, where participants list properties (e.g., features, attributes) they associate with several concepts, generating rich semantic profiles used to study mental representation. Traditionally, CPNs standardize the number of participants per concept-a method we argue is flawed, as it ignores differences in semantic richness (that is, how many distinct properties can be listed for each concept). Instead, we propose standardizing coverage, which refers to the proportion of all possible properties for a concept that are identified in a study (e.g., if 70 out of 100 possible properties are listed, coverage is 0.70). We develop a mathematical framework for estimating the sample size needed to achieve a target coverage level, based on the average number of properties participants list. Models were built and validated using empirical data from both concrete and abstract concepts. Applying our framework revealed that sample sizes required for robust coverage vary widely across concepts, underscoring the limitations of fixed-participant approaches. To facilitate adoption by the research community, we provide pre-calculated look-up tables and an interactive HTML coverage calculator, allowing researchers to easily determine sample sizes or estimate achieved coverage. By focusing on coverage rather than participant count, our method ensures more accurate and comparable semantic profiles across diverse concepts. We recommend a coverage target between 0.70 and 0.80 for robust analysis and propose a practical two-stage sampling strategy. This approach significantly enhances the reliability, comparability, and replicability of CPN data.

Indexed as

Cognitive ScienceConcept FormationHumansSample SizeConceptual properties norming studiesCoverageProperty listing taskRecommended target coverageSample size estimation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.