Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent texts¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Consistency condition was a significant predictor of consistency judgement accuracy in every GLMM, favoring consistent texts. → Catharina Tibken 2025
Evidence¶
Catharina Tibken 2025¶
Catharina Tibken, Simon P. Tiffin-Richards. (2025). Reading behavior as an indicator of comprehension monitoring when reading expository texts. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09440-2
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Omnibus statement of the GLMM analyses across all twelve text-area × eye-movement-measure models in the eye-tracking experiment. The article reports "consistency condition was significant in all models, with significantly higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent, compared to inconsistent texts"; Table 3 prints condition coefficients from b = 0.73 to b = 1.27, all p <.001.
"Consistency condition was significant in all models, with significantly higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent, com- pared to inconsistent texts."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- First-pass reading measures at the target word showed no main effect on inconsistency identification, and lookbacks from the target word were associated with lower accuracy in consistent texts
- Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy
- Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy
- Reanalysis of the inconsistent target word (longer rereading time and higher revisit probability) is associated with higher consistency judgement accuracy in inconsistent texts, but not in consistent texts
- Overall reading time did not differ between consistent and inconsistent texts, but participants judged consistent texts more accurately (d = 0.84), indicating inconsistencies were more often overlooked than falsely perceived — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
consistency-condition-significant-all-models |
title |
Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent texts |
description |
Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent texts |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — catharina-tibken-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.