Reading order in matrix diagrams followed the header content (types) rather than arrow orientation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Time in body sequence was longer in the direction of the types than in the direction of the categories, but not longer in the direction of the arrows; reading direction interacted with type of header content. → Jan van der Meij 2017

Evidence¶

Jan van der Meij 2017¶

Jan van der Meij, Marije van Amelsvoort, Anjo Anjewierden. (2017). How design guides learning from matrix diagrams. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9425-1

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Repeated measures ANOVA on eye-tracking time-in-sequence for 81 participants in a 2×2 between-subjects design (header orientation × arrow orientation). The interaction of reading direction with header content was significant, partial η² = 0.207; the arrow interaction was not.

"The repeated measures ANOVAs showed an interaction effect between reading direction and the type of header content, F(1,77) = 20.106, p = 0.000, partial g2 = 0.207, but no interaction effect between reading direction and the orientation of the arrows, F(1,77) = 1.195, p = 0.278, partial g2 = 0.015."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Arrows did not guide initial reading behavior in matrix diagrams with two nominal headers — related
• Post-test recall was better on type-focused than category-focused questions regardless of diagram condition — related
• Most participants self-reported studying the matrix diagram primarily by personality disorder types — related