Cited by 106Personal Information Management and User BehaviorGenerational Differences and TrendsImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by ‘Net Generation’ students

Judd, Terry, Kennedy, Gregor·2011·Computers & Education

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.004

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Judd, Terry
Venue
Computers & Education
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
625-631
ISSN
0360-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2079620095
Cited by
106
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 4
FWCI
17.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers & Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Life-span and Life-course Studies › Generational Differences and Trends
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
task switching, multitasking, digital natives, medical students, internet use, gender differences, international students, graduate students, undergraduate students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review