ArticleCognitive science2026
Replicate Me if You Can: Assessing Measurement Reliability of Individual Differences in Reading Across Measurement Occasions and Methods.
Article in Cognitive science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Eye-tracking-while-reading: A living survey of datasets with open library support.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Psycholinguistic theories traditionally assume similar cognitive mechanisms across different speakers. However, more recently, researchers have begun to recognize the need to consider individual differences when explaining human cognition. An increasing number of studies have investigated how individual differences influence human sentence processing. Implicitly, these studies assume that individual-level effects can be replicated across experimental sessions and different assessment methods such as eye-tracking and self-paced reading. However, this assumption is challenged by the Reliability Paradox. Thus, a crucial first step for a principled investigation of individual differences in sentence processing is to establish their measurement reliability, that is, the correlation of individual-level effects across multiple measurement occasions and methods. In this work, we present the first naturalistic eye movement corpus of reading data with four experimental sessions from each participant (two eye-tracking sessions and two self-paced reading sessions). We deploy a two-task Bayesian hierarchical model to assess the measurement reliability of individual differences in a range of psycholinguistic phenomena that are well-established at the population level, namely, effects of word length, lexical frequency, surprisal, dependency length, and number of to-be-integrated dependents. While our results indicate high reliability across measurement occasions for the word length effect, it is only moderate for higher-level psycholinguistic predictors such as lexical frequency, dependency distance, and the number of to-be-integrated dependencies, and even low for surprisal. Moreover, even after accounting for spillover effects, we observe only low to moderate reliability at the individual level across methods (eye-tracking and self-paced reading) for most predictors, and poor reliability for predictors of syntactic integration. These findings underscore the importance of establishing measurement reliability before drawing inferences about individual differences in sentence processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.