Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?

Open access
Strijbos, Jan-Willem, Narciss, Susanne, Dünnebier, Katrin·2010·Learning and Instruction
DOI 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Andrews, 2001, Confirmation and extension of the sources of feedback scale in service-based organizations, The Journal of Business Communications, 38, 206, 10.1177/002194360103800204 · DOI
  2. Birnbaum, 1979, Source credibility in social judgments: bias, expertise, and the judges's point of view, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 48, 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.48 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.48 · Paper page
  3. Brown, 2009, Use of interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students' conceptions of assessment, Learning and Instruction, 19, 97, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Cho, 2010, Student revision with peer and expert reviewing, Learning and Instruction, 20, 328, 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cusella, 1982, The effects of source expertise and feedback valence on intrinsic motivation, Human Communication Research, 9, 17, 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00680.x · DOI
  6. Giffin, 1967, The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpersonal trust in the communication process, Psychological Bulletin, 68, 104, 10.1037/h0024833 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Greller, 1975, Sources of feedback: a preliminary investigation, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 13, 244, 10.1016/0030-5073(75)90048-3 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Halperin, 1976, Effect of source status and message favorability on acceptance of personality feedback, Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 85, 10.1037/0021-9010.61.1.85 · DOI
  9. Hanrahan, 2001, Asssessing self- and peer assessment: the students' views, Higher Education Research and Development, 20, 53, 10.1080/07294360123776 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ilgen, 1979, Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349, 10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.349 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Jacobs, 1998, Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307, 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90019-4 · DOI
  12. Kali, 2008, Assessing the assessors: added value in web-based multi-cycle peer assessment in higher education, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3, 3, 10.1142/S1793206808000434 · DOI
  13. Klein, 1971, Employee reactions to attitude survey feedback: a study of the impact of structure and process, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 497, 10.2307/2391769 · DOI
  14. Kwok, 2008, Students' perception of peer evaluation and teachers' role in seminar discussions, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5, 89
  15. Lee, 2008, Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144, 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Leki, 1991, The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level-writing classes, Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203, 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Leung, 2001, When is criticism not constructive? The roles of fairness perceptions and dispositional attributions in employee acceptance of critical supervisory feedback, Human Relations, 54, 1155, 10.1177/0018726701549002 · DOI
  18. Lin, 2001, Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17, 420, 10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. Lindblom-Ylänne, 2006, Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays, Active Learning in Higher Education, 7, 51, 10.1177/1469787406061148 · DOI
  20. Lockhart, 1993, How useful is peer response?, Perspectives, 5, 17
  21. Lockhart, 1995, Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content, Language Learning, 45, 605, 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x · DOI · Paper page
  22. Miedema, J. L. (2004). Fairness and the self. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands (Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series, 2003-9).
  23. Musil, 2002, A comparison of imputation techniques for handling missing data, Western Journal of Nursing Research, 24, 815, 10.1177/019394502762477004 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Poulos, 2008, Effectiveness of feedback: the students' perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 143, 10.1080/02602930601127869 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Prins, 2006, Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences, Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11, 289, 10.1007/s10459-005-3250-z · DOI
  26. Proske, A. (2006). Entwicklung und Evaluation computerbasierter Trainingsaufgaben für das wissenschaftlichen schreiben [Design and evaluation of computer-based training assignments for academic writing]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
  27. Robinson, 2001, Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: testing the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520, 10.1177/01461672012711012 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sluijsmans, 1999, Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment, Learning Environments Research, 1, 293, 10.1023/A:1009932704458 · doi:10.1023/a:1009932704458
  29. Sluijsmans, 2002, Peer assessment training in teacher education: effects on performance and perceptions, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 443, 10.1080/0260293022000009311 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Straub, 1997, Students' reactions to teacher comments: an exploratory study, Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91, 10.58680/rte19973873 · DOI
  31. Topping, 1998, Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 249, 10.3102/00346543068003249 · doi:10.3102/00346543068003249 · Paper page
  32. Van den Berg, I. (2003). Peer assessment in universitair onderwijs: Een onderzoek naar bruikbare ontwerpen [Peer assessment in higher education: A study on useful designs]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
  33. Walker, 2001, British psychology students' perceptions of group-work and peer assessment, Psychology Learning and Teaching, 1, 28, 10.2304/plat.2001.1.1.28 · DOI
  34. Yang, 2006, A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class, Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179, 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K.
Venue
Learning and Instruction
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-08
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
291-303
ISSN
0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
OpenAlex
W2089801766
Cited by
361
References
12
FWCI
43.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
The paper
Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.