1933
DOI: 10.1037/h0071126
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The reliability and validity of photographic eye-movement records.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
17
2
1

Year Published

1934
1934
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
17
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Employing perception time—a proxy for reading speed, calculated by summing fixation time—as a criterion against which to judge other EM measures, researchers labeled fixation frequency as a satisfactory measure of reading, regression frequency as a fair measure, and fixation duration as a poor measure (Futch, ; Tinker & Frandsen, ). Of note, these conclusions were consistent with earlier results suggesting greater criterion‐related validity for fixation frequency than for fixation duration (Eurich, ). Thus, although aforementioned validity coefficients indicated nonoptimal criterion‐related validity of EM measures in general, researchers noted differences in the technical adequacy and utility associated with each measure (Tinker & Frandsen, ).…”
Section: Direct Examinations Of Reliability and Validitysupporting
confidence: 91%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…Employing perception time—a proxy for reading speed, calculated by summing fixation time—as a criterion against which to judge other EM measures, researchers labeled fixation frequency as a satisfactory measure of reading, regression frequency as a fair measure, and fixation duration as a poor measure (Futch, ; Tinker & Frandsen, ). Of note, these conclusions were consistent with earlier results suggesting greater criterion‐related validity for fixation frequency than for fixation duration (Eurich, ). Thus, although aforementioned validity coefficients indicated nonoptimal criterion‐related validity of EM measures in general, researchers noted differences in the technical adequacy and utility associated with each measure (Tinker & Frandsen, ).…”
Section: Direct Examinations Of Reliability and Validitysupporting
confidence: 91%
“…Reported reliability coefficients (corrected for the full length of reading material, when applicable) were generally high, ranging from .78 to .92 (Litterer, ), from .73 to .91 (Eurich, ), from .86 to .91 (Eurich, ), from .55 to .93 (Tinker & Frandsen, ), and from .80 to .94 (Futch, ). Taken together, these results suggested that EM measures captured reading behavior in a consistent manner throughout and across different types of reading material.…”
Section: Direct Examinations Of Reliability and Validitymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations