Most participants self-reported studying the matrix diagram primarily by personality disorder types¶

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

Subclaims¶

q3 i? 63% of participants self-reported studying the diagram primarily based on the personality disorder types, 19.8% based on categories, 13.6% based on both, and 3.7% in random order. → 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 · i? · causal · r2

Two-question interview after the study session, coded into dominant reading direction. Self-reports converged with the eye-tracking finding that content, not arrows, drove reading order.

"overall 63% of the participants self-reported having studied the diagram primarily based on the personality disorder types, 19.8% based on categories, 13.6% based on both types and categories, and 3.7% in random order."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Arrows did not guide initial reading behavior in matrix diagrams with two nominal headers — related
• Reading order in matrix diagrams followed the header content (types) rather than arrow orientation — related
• Post-test recall was better on type-focused than category-focused questions regardless of diagram condition — related