AB104. Validation of the international reading speed texts in a Canadian sample
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The International Reading Speed Texts (IReST) were developed in Europe as a standardized measure to assess continuous reading in normally sighted and visually impaired individuals. The IReST is used throughout the United States and Canada to assess reading speed; however, the normative values may not be valid in North America (NA). Additionally there are no normative values for individuals with visual impairments. The aim of this study was to validate the IReSTs in a normally sighted English-speaking NA sample with and without a simulated reduction in visual acuity. Methods: Fifty undergraduate students from Concordia University participated in this study. Participants were systematically assigned to a counterbalanced order of testing conditions and were asked to read all 10 IReSTs aloud. The normal and impaired vision conditions were counterbalanced such that the first set of five IReSTs were read with either the participants normal/corrected-to-normal vision or with a simulated 20/80 visual impairment. Results: Multiple two-sample dependent t-tests using a Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare the IReST values (means and standard deviations) to the current sample; the results showed statistically significant differences between the current samples mean reading speed and the values provided by the IReSTs. In all cases, P were equal to or less than 0.005. Mean difference scores ranged from 14.87 to 30.05 wpm, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 4.82 to 43.32. Measures of effect size using bias corrected Hedge’s g* ranged from 0.83 to 1.32, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 0.25 to 1.93. Multiple two-sample dependent t-tests using a Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons were used to compare the mean reading speed in wpm of the normal and impaired vision conditions; the results showed statistically significant differences between the mean reading speeds of the normal vision condition and the simulated impairment condition on the IReSTs. In all cases, the P were less than 0.001. Mean difference scores ranged from 25.44 to 41.8 wpm, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 21.66 to 46. Measures of effect size using bias corrected Hedge’s g* ranged from 2.74 to 3.81, with 95% confidence intervals ranging from 1.97 to 4.74. Further Bayesian analyses revealed BF10 factors ranging from 1.277×107 to 7.334×1011, indicating decisive evidence for the research. Conclusions: There are statistically significant differences in reading speed between the NA English sample and the normative values established by the IReST; such that reading speeds of the NA English sample are slower than the normative values of the IReST. Additionally, participants in the simulated impairment condition read the IReSTs significantly slower than the normal vision condition.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».