| Title |
Validation of Italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-015-0597-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carola Salvi, Giulio Costantini, Emanuela Bricolo, Marco Perugini, Mark Beeman |
| Abstract |
Rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems have been successfully used to study problem solving. These problems are physically compact, often can be solved within short time limits, and have unambiguous solutions, and English versions have been normed for solving rates and levels of difficulty. Many studies on problem solving with sudden insight have taken advantage of these features in paradigms that require many quick solutions (e.g., solution priming, visual hemifield presentations, electroencephalography, fMRI, and eyetracking). In order to promote this vein of research in Italy, as well, we created and tested Italian versions of both of these tests. The data collected across three studies yielded a pool of 88 rebus puzzles and 122 compound remote associate problems within a moderate range of difficulty. This article provides both sets of problems with their normative data, for use in future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 25% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 43% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 06 November 2020.
All research outputs
#2,252,389
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#234
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,810
of 276,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#3
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 276,195 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.