↓ Skip to main content

The range of confidence scales does not affect the relationship between confidence and accuracy in recognition memory

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The range of confidence scales does not affect the relationship between confidence and accuracy in recognition memory
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0086-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eylul Tekin, Henry L. Roediger

Abstract

Researchers use a wide range of confidence scales when measuring the relationship between confidence and accuracy in reports from memory, with the highest number usually representing the greatest confidence (e.g., 4-point, 20-point, and 100-point scales). The assumption seems to be that the range of the scale has little bearing on the confidence-accuracy relationship. In two old/new recognition experiments, we directly investigated this assumption using word lists (Experiment 1) and faces (Experiment 2) by employing 4-, 5-, 20-, and 100-point scales. Using confidence-accuracy characteristic (CAC) plots, we asked whether confidence ratings would yield similar CAC plots, indicating comparability in use of the scales. For the comparisons, we divided 100-point and 20-point scales into bins of either four or five and asked, for example, whether confidence ratings of 4, 16-20, and 76-100 would yield similar values. The results show that, for both types of material, the different scales yield similar CAC plots. Notably, when subjects express high confidence, regardless of which scale they use, they are likely to be very accurate (even though they studied 100 words and 50 faces in each list in 2 experiments). The scales seem convertible from one to the other, and choice of scale range probably does not affect research into the relationship between confidence and accuracy. High confidence indicates high accuracy in recognition in the present experiments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 33%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 57%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,043,886
of 24,527,525 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#171
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,832
of 450,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,525 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,022 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.