17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The jingle fallacy in comprehension tests for reading

      research-article
      * , , ,
      PLOS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Jingle fallacy is the false assumption that instruments which share the same name measure the same underlying construct. In this experiment, we focus on the comprehension subtests of the Nelson Denny Reading Test (NDRT) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-II). 91 university students read passages for comprehension whilst their eye movements were recorded. Participants took part in two experimental blocks of which the order was counterbalanced, one with higher comprehension demands and one with lower comprehension demands. We assumed that tests measuring comprehension would be able to predict differences observed in eye movement patterns as a function of varying comprehension demands. Overall, readers were able to adapt their reading strategy to read more slowly, making more and longer fixations, coupled with shorter saccades when comprehension demands were higher. Within an experimental block, high scorers on the NDRT were able to consistently increase their pace of reading over time for both higher and lower comprehension demands, whereas low scorers approached a threshold where they could not continue to increase their reading speed or further reduce the number of fixations to read a text, even when comprehension demands were low. Individual differences based on the WIAT-II did not explain similar patterns. The NDRT comprehension test was therefore more predictive of differences in the reading patterns of skilled adult readers in response to comprehension demands than the WIAT-II (which also suffered from low reliability). Our results revealed that these different comprehension measures should not be used interchangeably, and researchers should be cautious when choosing reading comprehension tests for research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references59

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Usinglme4

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.

            Linear mixed-effects models (LMEMs) have become increasingly prominent in psycholinguistics and related areas. However, many researchers do not seem to appreciate how random effects structures affect the generalizability of an analysis. Here, we argue that researchers using LMEMs for confirmatory hypothesis testing should minimally adhere to the standards that have been in place for many decades. Through theoretical arguments and Monte Carlo simulation, we show that LMEMs generalize best when they include the maximal random effects structure justified by the design. The generalization performance of LMEMs including data-driven random effects structures strongly depends upon modeling criteria and sample size, yielding reasonable results on moderately-sized samples when conservative criteria are used, but with little or no power advantage over maximal models. Finally, random-intercepts-only LMEMs used on within-subjects and/or within-items data from populations where subjects and/or items vary in their sensitivity to experimental manipulations always generalize worse than separate F 1 and F 2 tests, and in many cases, even worse than F 1 alone. Maximal LMEMs should be the 'gold standard' for confirmatory hypothesis testing in psycholinguistics and beyond.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.

              Recent studies of eye movements in reading and other information processing tasks, such as music reading, typing, visual search, and scene perception, are reviewed. The major emphasis of the review is on reading as a specific example of cognitive processing. Basic topics discussed with respect to reading are (a) the characteristics of eye movements, (b) the perceptual span, (c) integration of information across saccades, (d) eye movement control, and (e) individual differences (including dyslexia). Similar topics are discussed with respect to the other tasks examined. The basic theme of the review is that eye movement data reflect moment-to-moment cognitive processes in the various tasks examined. Theoretical and practical considerations concerning the use of eye movement data are also discussed.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                5 July 2024
                2024
                : 19
                : 7
                : e0306466
                Affiliations
                [001] School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
                ETS, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0319-5635
                Article
                PONE-D-23-23595
                10.1371/journal.pone.0306466
                11226005
                38968309
                dee0f8a3-9a7e-48d3-9b9a-6afe4793c394
                © 2024 Lee et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 August 2023
                : 18 June 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 11, Pages: 22
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269, Economic and Social Research Council;
                Award ID: ES/P000673/1
                Award Recipient :
                CL was funded by the UKRI Economic and Social Research Council South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership (Grant Number ES/P000673/1). This work formed part of a PhD with the South Coast Doctoral Training Partnership ( https://southcoastdtp.ac.uk/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Physiology
                Sensory Physiology
                Visual System
                Eye Movements
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Systems
                Visual System
                Eye Movements
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Attention
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Attention
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Attention
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Perception
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Vision
                Engineering and Technology
                Measurement
                Time Measurement
                Social Sciences
                Linguistics
                Semantics
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Neuroscience
                Working Memory
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Neuroscience
                Working Memory
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Memory
                Working Memory
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Memory
                Working Memory
                Social Sciences
                Linguistics
                Grammar
                Syntax
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Custom metadata
                All data and materials are available online at: https://osf.io/dk82u/?view_only=88d54bdc1f9b4793ba4b2dfebf106085.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log