CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 431Data Visualization and AnalyticsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesStatistics Education and Methodologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Review of Graph Comprehension Research: Implications for Instruction

Shah, Priti, Hoeffner, James·2002·Educational Psychology Review
DOI 10.1023/a:1013180410169
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1013180410169

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • Characteristics such as education, graph reading ability, and statistical training have been shown to impact uncertainty understanding.

    “Considering how characteristics such as education, graph reading ability (i.e., graph literacy), and statistical training have been shown to impact uncertainty understanding (Hopster-den Otter et al., 2019; Shah & Hoeffner, 2002; van der Bles et al., 2019; Zapata-Rivera et al., 2016), it is important to examine how to best communicate measurement accuracy in a population of clinical practitioners.”

    From Visualizing Uncertainty to Promote Clinicians’ Understanding of Measurement Error (2023) · cites this paper as Shah & Hoeffner, 2002

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Armento, B. J., Nash, G. B., Salter, C. L., and Wixson, K. K. (1991). A More Perfect Union, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
  2. Becker, R. A., Cleveland, W. S., and Wilks, A. R. (1988). Dynamic graphics for data analysis. In Cleveland, W. S., and McGill, M. E. (eds.), Dynamic Graphics for Statistics, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp. 1-.
  3. Bell, A., and Janvier, C. (1981). The interpretation of graphs representing situations. Learn. Math. 2: 34–42.
  4. Bertin, J. (1983). In Berg, W. (trans.), Semiology of Graphics: Diagrams Networks Maps, The University ofWisconsin Press, Madison, WI.
  5. Brockmann, R. J. (1991). The unbearable distraction of color. IEEE Trans. Profession. Commun. 34: 153–159. · DOI
  6. Bryant, P. E., and Somerville, S. C. (1986). The spatial demands of graphs. Br. J. Psychol. 77: 187–197. · DOI
  7. Carmichael, L. C., Hogan, H. P., and Walters, A. A. (1932). An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. J. Exp. Psychol. 15: 73–86. · DOI
  8. Carpenter, P. A., and Shah, P. (1998). A model of the perceptual and conceptual processes in graph comprehension. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 4: 75–100. · DOI
  9. Carswell, C. M., Emery, C., and Lonon, A. M. (1993). Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 7: 341–357. · DOI
  10. Carwell, C. M., Frankenberger, S., and Bernhard, D. (1991). Graphing in depth: Perspectives on the use of three-dimensional graphs to represent lower-dimensional data. Behav. Inform. Technol. 10: 459–474. · DOI
  11. Chernoff, H. (1973). Using faces to represent points in k-dimensional space graphically. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 68: 361–368. · DOI
  12. Clement, J. (1985). Misconceptions in graphing. In Streetfland, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, IGPME, Utrecht, The Netherlands, Vol. 1, pp. 369–375.
  13. Cleveland, W. (1993). Visualizing Data, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ.
  14. Cleveland, W. S., Diaconis, P., and McGill, R. (1982). Variables on scatterplots look more highly correlated when the scales are increased. Science 216: 1138–1141. · DOI
  15. Cleveland, W. S., and McGill, R. (1985). Graphical perception and graphical methods for analyzing scientific data. Science 229: 828–833. · DOI
  16. Fisher, H. T. (1982). Mapping Information, Abt Books, Cambridge, MA.
  17. Fischer, M. H. (2000). Do irrelevant depth cues affect the comprehension of bar graphs? Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 14: 151–162. · DOI
  18. Freedman, E.G., and Smith, L.D. (1996). The role of data and theory in covariation assesesment: Implications for the theory-ladenness of observation.J. Mind Behav. 17: 321–343.
  19. Gattis, M., and Holyoak, K. (1995). Mapping conceptual to spatial relations in visual reasoning. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 22: 1–9.
  20. Guthrie, J. T., Weber, S., and Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: Cognitive process and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 18: 186–221. · DOI
  21. Halford, G. S., Wilson, W. H., and Phillips, S. (1998). Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: Implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. Behav. Brain Sci. 21: 803–864. · DOI
  22. Hegarty, M., Quillici, J., Narayanan, N. H., Holmquist, S., and Moreno, R. (1999). Multimedia instruction: Lessons from evaluation of a theory-based design. J. Educ. Multimed. Hypermed. 8: 119–150.
  23. Howell, W. C. (1993). Engineering psychology in a changing world. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 231-263. · DOI
  24. Huber, P. J. (1987). Experiences with three-dimensional scatterplots. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82: 448–453. · DOI
  25. Hunter, B., Crismore, A., and Pearson, P. D. (1987). Visual displays in basal readers and social science textbooks. In Willows, D., and Houghton, H. A. (eds.), The Psychology of Illustration, Vol. 2: Instructional Issues, Springer, New York, pp. 116–135. · DOI
  26. Janvier, C. (1981). Use of situations in mathematics education. Educ. Stud. Math. 12: 113–122. · DOI
  27. Jennings, D. L., Amabile, T., and Ross, L. (1982). Informal covariation assessment: Data-based versus theory-based judgements. In Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A. (eds.), Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp. 211–230. · DOI
  28. Kaput, J. J. (1987). Representation and mathematics. In Janvier, C. (ed.), Problems of Representation in Mathematics Learning and Problem Solving, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 19–26.
  29. Kosslyn, S. (1985). Graphics and human information processing: A review of five books. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 80: 499–512. · DOI
  30. Kosslyn, S. (1989). Understanding charts and graphs. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 3: 185–225. · DOI
  31. Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Elements of Graph Design, Freeman, New York.
  32. Kubovy, M. (1981). Concurrent pitch segregation and the theory of indispensable attributes. In Kubovy, M., and Pomerantz, J. (eds.), Perceptual Organization, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  33. Larkin, J. H., and Simon, H. A. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cogn. Sci. 11: 65–99. · DOI
  34. Lauer, T. W., and Post, G. V. (1989). Density in scatterplots and the estimation of correlation. Behav. Inform. Technol. 8: 235–244. · DOI
  35. Legge, G. E., Gu, Y., and Luebker, A. (1989). Efficiency of graphical perception. Percept. Psychophys. 46: 365–374. · DOI
  36. Lehrer, R., and Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children's data modeling. Cogn. Instr. 14: 69–108. · DOI
  37. Levy, E., Zacks, J., Tversky, B., and Schiano, D. (1996). Gratuitous graphics: Putting preferences in perspective. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Conference Proceedings, ACM, New York, pp. 42–49.
  38. Lewandowsky, S., and Behrens, J. T. (1999). Statistical graphs and maps. In Durso, F., Dumais, S., Nickerson, R., Schvaneveldt, R., Chi, M., and Lindsay, S. (eds.), The Handbook of Applied Cognitive Psychology,Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 513–549.
  39. Lewandowsky, S., and Spence, I. (1989). Discriminating strata in scatterplots. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 84: 682–688. · DOI
  40. Lohse, G. L. (1993). A cognitive model of understanding graphical perception. Hum. Comp. Interact. 8: 353–388. · DOI
  41. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequent evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 37: 2098–2110. · DOI · Paper page
  42. MacDonald-Ross, M. (1977). Graphics in texts. Rev. Res. Educ. 5: 49–85.
  43. Maichle, U. (1994). Cognitive processes in understanding line graphs. In Schnotz, W., and Kulhavy, R.W. (eds.), Comprehension of Graphics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
  44. Marchak, F. M., and Marchak, L. C. (1991). Interactive versus passive dynamics and the exploratory analysis of multivariate data. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 23: 296–300. · DOI
  45. McDermott, L., Rosenquist, M., and vanZee, E. (1987). Students difficulties in connecting graphs and physics: Example from kinematics. Am. J. Phys. 55: 503–513. · DOI
  46. McKenzie, D. L., and Padilla, M. J. (1986). The construction and validation of the Test of Graphing in Science (TOGS). J. Res. Sci. Teach. 23: 571–579. · DOI
  47. Merwin, D. H., Vincow, M., and Wickens, C. D. (1994). Visual analysis of scientific data; Comparison of 3d-topographic, color and gray scale displays in a feature detection task. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.
  48. Morrison, J. B., Tversky, B., and Betrancourt, M. (2000). Animation: Does it facilitate learning? Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Smart Graphics, March, 2000, AAAI Press.
  49. Nachmias, R., and Linn, M. C. (1987). Evaluations of science laboratory data: The role of computer-presented information. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 24: 491–505. · DOI
  50. Phillips, R. J. (1982). An experimental investigation of layer tints for relief maps in school atlases. Ergonomics 25: 1143–1154. · DOI
  51. Pinker, S. (1990). A theory of graph comprehension. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 73–126.
  52. Preece, J. (1990). Some HCI issues concerned with displaying quantitative information graphically. In Gorny, P., and Tauber, M. J. (eds.), Visualization in Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, New York.
  53. Quintana, C., Eng, J., Carra, A., Wu, H., and Soloway, E. (1999). Symphony: A Case Study in Extending Learner-Centered Design Through Process Space Analysis, Paper presented at CHI 99: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 19-21, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. · DOI
  54. Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B., Steinmuller, F., and Leone, T. J. (in press). BGuILE: Stategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In Carver, S. M., and Klahr, D. (eds.), Cognition and Instruction: Twenty Five Years of Progress, Erlbaum, Mahvah, NJ.
  55. Scardamalia, N., Bereiter, C., and Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into the world. In McGilly, K. (ed.), Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  56. Schiano, J. D., and Tversky, B. (1992). Structure and strategy in encoding simplified graphs. Mem. Cogn. 20: 12–20. · DOI
  57. Schmid, C. (1983). Statistical Graphics: Design Principles and Practices, Wiley, New York.
  58. Schunn, C. D., and Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cogn. Sci. 23: 337–370. · DOI
  59. Shah, P., and Carpenter, P. A. (1995). Conceptual limitations in comprehending line graphs. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 124: 43–61. · DOI
  60. Shah, P., Mayer, R. E., and Hegarty, M. (1999). Graphs as aids to knowledge construction: Signaling techniques for guiding the process of graph comprehension. J. Educ. Psychol. 91: 690–702. · DOI
  61. Shah, P. (in press). Graph comprehension: The role of format, content, and individual differences. In Anderson, M., Meyer, B., and Olivier, P. (eds.), Diagrammatic Representation and Reasoning, Springer, New York.
  62. Shah, P. (1995). Cognitive Processes in Graph Comprehension, Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  63. Simkin, D. K., and Hastie, R. (1986). An information processing analysis of graph perception. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82: 454–465. · DOI
  64. Somerville, S. C., and Bryant, P. E. (1985). Young children's use of spatial coordinates. Child Dev. 56: 604–613. · DOI
  65. Spence, I. (1990). Visual psychophysics of simple graphical elements, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 16: 683–692. · DOI
  66. Stenning, K., and Oberlander, J. (1995). Acognitive theory of graphical and linguistic reasoning: Logic and implementation. Cogn. Sci. 19: 97–140. · DOI
  67. Stuetzle, W. (1987). Plot windows. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82: 466–475. · DOI
  68. Tufte, E. R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, Graphics, Cheshire, CT.
  69. Tversky, B. (in press). Spatial schemas in depictions. In Gattis, M. (ed.), Spatial Schemas and Abstract Thought, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  70. Tversky, B., Kugelmass, S., and Winter, A. (1991). Cross-cultural and developmental trends in graphic productions. Cogn. Psychol. 23: 515–557. · DOI
  71. Tversky, B., and Schiano, D. J. (1989). Perceptual and conceptual factors in distortions inmemory for graphs and maps. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 118: 387–398. · DOI
  72. Vernon, M. D. (1950). The visual presentation of factual information. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 20: 174–185. · DOI
  73. Wickens, C.D., Merwin, D. H., and Lin, E. L. (1994). Implications of graphics enhancements for the visualization of scientific data: Dimensional integrality, stereopsis, motion, and mesh. Hum. Fact. 36: 44–61. · DOI
  74. Wilkinson, L. (1999). Graphs for research in counseling psychology. Counsel. Psychol. 27: 384–407. · DOI
  75. Winn, B. (1987). Charts, graphs, and diagrams in educational materials. In Willows, D., and Houghton, H. A. (eds.), The Psychology of Illustration, Springer, New York.
  76. Zacks, J., Levy, E., Tversky, B., and Schiano, D. J. (1998). Reading bar graphs: Effects of depth cues and graphical context. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 4: 119–138. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shah, P., & Hoeffner, J.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Shah, Priti
ORCID
Shah, Priti
Venue
Educational Psychology Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2002-03
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
47-69
ISSN
  • 1040-726X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-336X
DOI
10.1023/a:1013180410169
OpenAlex
W1496523069
Cited by
431
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Educational Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
Keywords
graph interpretation, graphical literacy, graph animation, graph size, data presentation, science education, social studies education, didactic implications

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