↓ Skip to main content

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Students’ Intuitions When Interpreting CIs

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Students’ Intuitions When Interpreting CIs
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pav Kalinowski, Jerry Lai, Geoff Cumming

Abstract

We explored how students interpret the relative likelihood of capturing a population parameter at various points of a CI in two studies. First, an online survey of 101 students found that students' beliefs about the probability curve within a CI take a variety of shapes, and that in fixed choice tasks, 39% CI [30, 48] of students' responses deviated from true distributions. For open ended tasks, this proportion rose to 85%, 95% CI [76, 90]. We interpret this as evidence that, for many students, intuitions about CIs distributions are ill-formed, and their responses are highly susceptible to question format. Many students also falsely believed that there is substantial change in likelihood at the upper and lower limits of the CI, resembling a cliff effect (Rosenthal and Gaito, 1963; Nelson et al., 1986). In a follow-up study, a subset of 24 post-graduate students participated in a 45-min semi-structured interview discussing the students' responses to the survey. Analysis of interview transcripts identified several competing intuitions about CIs, and several new CI misconceptions. During the interview, we also introduced an interactive teaching program displaying a cat's eye CI, that is, a CI that uses normal distributions to depict the correct likelihood distribution. Cat's eye CIs were designed to help students understand likelihood distributions and the relationship between interval length, C% level and sample size. Observed changes in students' intuitions following this teaching program suggest that a brief intervention using cat's eyes can reduce CI misconceptions and increase accurate CI intuitions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Master 3 19%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 44%
Environmental Science 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 6 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,392,470
of 25,046,511 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,264
of 33,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,165
of 342,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#304
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,046,511 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 342,704 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.