↓ Skip to main content

Does the mean adequately represent reading performance? Evidence from a cross-linguistic study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does the mean adequately represent reading performance? Evidence from a cross-linguistic study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara V. Marinelli, Joanna K. Horne, Sarah P. McGeown, Pierluigi Zoccolotti, Marialuisa Martelli

Abstract

Reading models are largely based on the interpretation of average data from normal or impaired readers, mainly drawn from English-speaking individuals. In the present study we evaluated the possible contribution of orthographic consistency in generating individual differences in reading behavior. We compared the reading performance of young adults speaking English (one of the most irregular orthographies) and Italian (a very regular orthography). In the 1st experiment we presented 22 English and 30 Italian readers with 5-letter words using the Rapid Serial Visual Presentation (RSVP) paradigm. In a 2nd experiment, we evaluated a new group of 26 English and 32 Italian proficient readers through the RSVP procedure and lists matched in the two languages for both number of phonemes and letters. The results of the two experiments indicate that English participants read at a similar rate but with much greater individual differences than the Italian participants. In a 3rd experiment, we extended these results to a vocal reaction time (vRT) task, examining the effect of word frequency. An ex-Gaussian distribution analysis revealed differences between languages in the size of the exponential parameter (tau) and in the variance (sigma), but not the mean, of the Gaussian component. Notably, English readers were more variable for both tau and sigma than Italian readers. The pattern of performance in English individuals runs counter to models of performance in timed tasks (Faust et al., 1999; Myerson et al., 2003) which envisage a general relationship between mean performance and variability; indeed, this relationship does not hold in the case of the English participants. The present data highlight the importance of developing reading models that not only capture mean level performance, but also variability across individuals, especially in order to account for cross-linguistic differences in reading behavior.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 5 22%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 48%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Linguistics 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2014.
All research outputs
#12,708,188
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#11,397
of 29,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,791
of 235,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#203
of 379 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 235,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 379 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.