Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with 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? Longer first-pass reading time at the sentence-final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy (b = -0.32, z = -2.11, p =.035). → 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
GLMM analysis of sentence-final word measures in the eye-tracking experiment with 96 adults. The article reports "longer first-pass reading time was negatively associated with judgement accuracy" at the final word of the target sentence, while lookback probability showed no significant effect (b = 0.12, p =.105).
"First-pass reading time of the final word of the target sentence had a significant effect on consistency judgement accuracy, in that longer first-pass reading time was negatively associated with judgement accuracy ( b = -0.32, SE = 0.15, z = -2.11, p =.035)"
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 pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy
- Students who did not report the discrepancy in peer feedback showed longer first-pass reading times — related
- Reading for study produced a main memory advantage over reading for comprehension for target sentences — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
sentence-final-first-pass-time-negative-accuracy |
title |
Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy |
description |
Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
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.