Easily comprehensible summaries of scholarly articles that are provided alongside ‘ordinary’ scientific abstracts, so-called plain language summaries, can be a powerful tool for communicating research findings to a wider audience. Using an experimental within-person-design in a preregistered study (N = 166), we showed that the comprehensibility for laypeople was higher for plain language summaries compared to scientific abstracts in a psychological journal and also found that laypeople actually understood the corresponding information more correctly for plain language summaries. Moreover, in line with the easiness effect of science popularization, individuals perceived plain language summaries as more credible and were more confident about their ability to make a decision based on plain language summaries. If and under which circumstances this higher perceived credibility is justified, is discussed together with other practical implications and theoretical implications of our findings. In sum, our research further strengthens arguments for providing plain language summaries of psychological research findings by demonstrating that they actually work in practice.
Plain language summaries (PLSs) have been introduced to communicate research in an understandable way to a nonexpert audience. Guidelines for writing PLSs have been developed and empirical research on PLSs has been conducted, but terminology and research approaches in this comparatively young field vary considerably. This prompted us to review the current state of the art of the theoretical and empirical literature on PLSs. The two main objectives of this review were to develop a conceptual framework for PLS theory, and to synthesize empirical evidence on PLS criteria. We began by searching Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo and PSYNDEX (last search 07/2021). In our review, we included empirical investigations of PLSs, reports on PLS development, PLS guidelines, and theoretical articles referring to PLSs. A conceptual framework was developed through content analysis. Empirical studies investigating effects of PLS criteria on defined outcomes were narratively synthesized. We identified 7,714 records, of which 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were used to develop a conceptual framework for PLSs which comprises 12 categories: six of PLS aims and six of PLS characteristics. Thirty-three articles empirically investigated effects of PLSs on several outcomes, but study designs were too heterogeneous to identify definite criteria for high-quality PLSs. Few studies identified effects of various criteria on accessibility, understanding, knowledge, communication of research, and empowerment. We did not find empirical evidence to support most of the criteria we identified in the PLS writing guidelines. We conclude that although considerable work on establishing and investigating PLSs is available, empirical evidence on criteria for high-quality PLSs remains scarce. The conceptual framework developed in this review may provide a valuable starting point for future guideline developers and PLS researchers.
Background. Many interventions on epistemic beliefs (i.e., individual beliefs about knowledge and knowing) are based on Bendixen and Rule's Integrative Model for Personal Epistemology Development. Empirically, however, the model is still insufficiently validated. This is especially true for its epistemic volition componenta will or desire to actively change one's beliefs. Aims. To experimentally scrutinize the role of epistemic volition, we investigated (incremental) effects on epistemic change of an epistemic volition intervention. Sample. 412 psychology students enrolled at German universities completed the study. Methods. We employed a randomized pre-post design with three experimental groups that differed in the administered epistemic volition and resolvable controversies interventions. The purpose of the latter was to initiate an epistemic change process, thereby laying the foundation for the epistemic volition intervention. Both data collection and interventions were conducted online. In addition to self-report measures, we applied a complementary source evaluation task to analyse epistemic change. Results. Even though we found small-to medium-sized changes in epistemic beliefs, these changes did not differ between experimental conditions. Exploratory analyses suggested, however, that source evaluation task performance might have been promoted by the epistemic volition intervention and thatacross experimental groupsmanipulation check measures on both interventions interacted positively. Conclusion. Ultimately, we failed to separate the effects that our epistemic volition intervention had on epistemic change from these of the resolvable controversies intervention. Nonetheless, our study makes some strong contributions toand interconnectsthe growing bodies of research on epistemic change and multiple source use. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Objective: Individual goals of health information seeking have been widely neglected by previous research, let alone systematically assessed. The authors propose that these goals may be classified on two dimensions, namely coping focus (problem versus emotion oriented) and regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention oriented). Methods: Based on this classification, the authors developed the 16item Goals Associated with Health Information Seeking (GAINS) questionnaire measuring the four goals 'understanding', 'action planning', 'hope' and 'reassurance' on four scales, and a superordinate general need for health information. Three studies were conducted to assess the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. Results: In the first two studies (N ¼ 150 and N ¼ 283), internal consistency of the scales was acceptable to very good, and all items had a satisfying discriminatory power. Factorial validity was corroborated by an acceptable model fit in confirmatory factor analyses. In the third study, which included a patient sample (N ¼ 502), the questionnaire proved to be suitable for its target group and nomological relationships with personality as well as with situational variables providing evidence for construct validity. Conclusion: The GAINS is a reliable and valid assessment tool, which enables researchers and practitioners to identify an individual's goals related to health information seeking.
Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.