Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy¶
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? The Condition × Rereading Time interaction was significant at the target word (b = -0.51, z = -4.84), sentence-final word (b = -0.51, z = -4.64), and pre-target text (b = -0.49, z = -5.94), all p <.001. → 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
Row of the printed GLMM results table (Table 3) showing the Condition × Rereading Time interaction coefficient for the target word, target sentence-final word, and pre-target text areas, all reported at p < .001 in the 96-participant eye-tracking experiment.
"Condition × Rereading Time -0.51 0.10 -4.84 < .001 -0.51 0.11 -4.64 < .001 -0.49 0.08 -5.94 < .001"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Consistency condition was significant in all GLMM models, with higher consistency judgement accuracy for consistent than inconsistent texts
- 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
- 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 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
- Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy
- Students who did not report the discrepancy in peer feedback showed longer first-pass reading times — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
pre-target-reanalysis-condition-interaction |
title |
Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy |
description |
Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
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.