4.6 Article

Cognitive reflection test: The effects of the items sequence on scores and response time

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279982

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to expand the research on the determinants of Cognitive Reflection Test scores and explores the effects of items sequence on (1) Cognitive Reflection Test scores, (2) response time, (3) the relationship between scores and response time, and (4) the effects on men and women. The study also examines the sex differences in test scores and response time based on items sequence. Results showed that manipulating the items sequence significantly improved Cognitive Reflection Test scores, but did not significantly affect response time. A positive relationship between scores and response time was found, except when scores were maximized. Differences between men and women in the results were also observed.
This paper aims to expand the literature on the determinants of the Cognitive Reflection Test scores, exploring the effects that the items sequence has on (1) Cognitive Reflection Test scores, (2) response time, (3) the relationship between Cognitive Reflection Test scores and response time, and (4) Cognitive Reflection scores, response time, and the relationship between both variables on men and women. The current study also explored the sex differences on Cognitive Reflection Test and response time according to items sequence. The results showed that manipulating the items sequence, the performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test improved significantly, but the response time were not significantly affected, although the results suggest that first items of the sequence could be working as training items. A positive relationship between Cognitive Reflection Test scores and response time was also found, except when the scores were maximized. Finally, some differences between men and women on the results were also found. The implications of these findings are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据