Topic counts in the review's coding could exceed the listed overarching topics because misconceptions separated into individual texts were counted as multiple topics¶

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? An experiment was counted as having multiple topics when several misconceptions were separated into individual texts even if only one overarching topic was listed. → 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 explain an apparent inconsistency in their coding table: the Topic column may list one overarching topic while the # of Topics column lists more, citing Lassonde et al. (2017) as the example.

"When only a single overarching topic was listed, we counted an experiment as having multiple topics if several misconceptions were separated into individual texts (e.g., Lassonde et al., 2017)."

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
• 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