The review's corpus excluded studies that used refutation texts as stimuli but manipulated other variables so the primary purpose was not elucidating refutation-text effects, mechanisms, or moderators¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? Studies using refutation texts as stimuli but primarily manipulating other variables were excluded from the review corpus. → Allison Zengilowski 2020

Evidence¶

Allison Zengilowski 2020¶

Allison Zengilowski, Brendan Schuetze, Brady Nash, Diane Schallert. (2020). Coding Notes for “A Critical Review of the Refutation Text Literature: Methodological Confounds, Theoretical Problems, and Possible Solutions”. Version 2. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22A+Critical+Review+of+the+Refutation+Text+Literature%22

q1 · i? · review · r?

The authors state their corpus-selection rule for the review, citing Johnson & Sinatra (2013) and Jones et al. (2015) as examples of excluded studies where the "primary purpose was not an elucidation" of refutation texts themselves.

"If a study happened to use refutation texts as part of its stimuli, but manipulated other variables and the primary purpose was not an elucidation of the effect, mechanism or moderators of refutation texts, themselves, we did not include it in our corpus"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Coding in the review was non-exclusive, and data from multiple experiments within one paper were separated by semicolons and averaged before computing corpus-level means and medians — related
• In the review's coding, equal total and per-condition sample sizes signalled either a correlational study or a repeated-measures experiment, and repeated measures were coded when a pretest entered analysis or a within-subjects design was used
• Posttests were coded as delayed if they occurred at least one day after treatment, with two-delay studies and studies lacking day/week delay metrics excluded from mean and median delay calculations
• Topic counts in the review's coding could exceed the listed overarching topics because misconceptions separated into individual texts were counted as multiple topics