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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? First-pass reading time and lookback probability at the target word had no main effect on consistency judgement accuracy (b = 0.22, p =.153; b = -0.10, p =.222). → Catharina Tibken 2025 q3 i? Initiating a lookback from the target word in consistent texts was significantly associated with lower consistency judgement accuracy (b = -0.73, t = -2.95, p =.003), with no significant effect for inconsistent texts (b = 0.34, p =.076). → Catharina Tibken 2025 (2)

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

GLMM analysis of first-pass eye-movement measures at the target word in the 96-participant eye-tracking experiment. The article reports that "first-pass reading of the target word (first-pass reading time and lookback probability) had no main effect on consistency judgement accuracy".

"First-pass reading of the target word (first-pass reading time and lookback probability) had no main effect on consistency judgement accuracy (first-pass reading time: b = 0.22, SE = 0.15, z = 1.43, p =.153; lookback probability: b = -0.10, SE = 0.08, z = -1.22, p =.222)."

Catharina Tibken 2025 (2)¶

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 · r?

Simple-slopes analysis of the significant lookback × condition interaction at the target word. The article reports that "initiating a lookback from the target word in consistent texts was significantly associated with lower consistency judgement accuracy" with no significant effect for inconsistent texts.

"Initiating a lookback from the target word in consistent texts was significantly associated with lower consistency judge- ment accuracy (b = -0.73, SE = 0.25, t = -2.95, p =.003), while there was no significant effect for inconsistent texts (b = 0.34, SE = 0.19, t = 1.77, p =.076)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent 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
• 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
• Students who did not report the discrepancy in peer feedback showed longer first-pass reading times — related