A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: Plain language summaries (PLSs) are easily comprehensible summaries of scientific articles. They translate research findings for nonexperts to foster laypersons’ understanding of scientific evidence. We examined whether PLSs of psychological meta-analyses improve laypersons’ understanding of scientific evidence in a general population sample. Moreover, to develop guidance on writing PLSs, we varied four PLS characteristics: The number of effects reported, information on conflicts of interest (COI), information on publication bias, practical relevance statements. In an online study, 2,451 participants read two PLSs. Preregistered hypotheses were partly supported: Laypersons preferred PLSs over scientific abstracts, and PLSs facilitated knowledge acquisition; detrimental effects existed for PLSs reporting a higher number of effects on user experience, but not on knowledge acquisition; COI statements affected epistemic trustworthiness. Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant effects of publication bias and practical relevance statements on subjective outcomes. However, PLSs educated laypersons on the concept “publication bias.”
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a preregistered online experiment with 2,451 German general-population participants, plain language summaries (PLSs) of psychological meta-analyses improved content knowledge and user experience compared with scientific abstracts. Varying PLS features showed that more effects reduced user experience, COI statements affected trustworthiness, a lay-friendly publication-bias statement educated readers without lowering credibility, and practical-relevance statements had no significant effects.
Key findings
- PLSs outperformed scientific abstracts: correct knowledge responses were 58.92% vs. 53.89% (OR = 1.33), and user experience was higher for PLSs (M = 5.56, SD = 1.59) than abstracts (M = 4.88, SD = 1.84), F(1, 808.514) = 42.659, p < .001, f = .204; H1 was fully confirmed. Exploratory knowledge on “meta-analysis” was also higher for PLSs (65.82%) than abstracts (51.47%, OR = 1.82, p < .001).
- Number of effects: H2a was rejected; correct responses on the first effect were 73.48% (1 effect), 71.65% (4 effects), and 70.49% (7 effects), while second-to-fourth effect responses were 50.40% (4 effects) vs. 51.68% (7 effects). H2b was confirmed: user experience decreased from one effect (M = 5.94, SD = 1.44) to four effects (M = 5.55, SD = 1.52) to seven effects (M = 5.29, SD = 1.58), F(2, 1,212.881) = 23.816, p < .001, f = .180.
- COI statements: H3c and H3f were confirmed; integrity and benevolence were lower when a COI existed (integrity M = 5.49, SD = 1.23; benevolence M = 5.46, SD = 1.48) than when COI were absent (integrity M = 5.70, SD = 1.18; benevolence M = 5.60, SD = 1.20). H3b was confirmed: benevolence was lower when a COI existed than when no COI information was provided (M = 5.56, SD = 1.19). H3a, H3d, and H3e were rejected; omnibus effects were significant only for integrity, F(2, 1,187.886) = 3.488, p = .031, f = .072, not benevolence, F(2, 1,189.573) = 1.722, p = .179, f = .050.
- Publication bias and practical relevance: H4a–H4c were rejected; credibility ratings were 5.87 (SD = 1.56) for likely publication bias, 5.93 (SD = 1.48) for no information, and 5.99 (SD = 1.51) for no statement, F(2, 801.598) = 0.377, p = .686, f = .027. H5 was confirmed: lay-friendly publication-bias information produced 45.60% correct responses vs. 27.64% for a scientific statement (OR = 2.19, p = .003; χ² = 7.85, df = 1, p = .005, w = .178). H6a and H6b were rejected: practical relevance was M = 6.28, SD = 1.75 vs. M = 6.14, SD = 1.69, F(1, 802.749) = 2.205, p = .138, f = .045; user experience was M = 5.69, SD = 1.53 vs. M = 5.55, SD = 1.48, F(1, 794.861) = 2.567, p = .110, f = .051.
Methods
- Preregistered online randomized between-subjects experiment; 2,451 participants responded to at least one outcome variable and 2,256 completed the survey. Participants were recruited via Respondi as a German general-population sample with quotas for age, gender, and secondary school education level; inclusion required native-level German, secondary school graduation, no psychology degree or study, and interest in psychological research.
- Participants read two research summaries on video games and psychotherapy for depression, assigned to one of 18 conditions. Factors varied were research summary type (PLS vs. scientific abstract), number of effects (1, 4, or 7), COI information (COI, no COI, no statement), publication bias information (likely, no information, no statement), and practical relevance statement (statement vs. no statement); the design was not fully crossed.
- Analyses used mixed models with experimental conditions as factors, p < .050, and one-sided tests for directional hypotheses. A power analysis targeted at least 2,268 participants; user experience was modeled with a CFA-supported index (McDonald’s ω = .878), and outcomes included forced-choice knowledge items, METI trustworthiness, perceived credibility, perceived personal relevance, and exploratory epistemic emotions.
Limitations
- The paper states that the target quota was not fully achieved for male participants younger than 45 with Hauptschulabschluss (132 participants instead of 189); the authors do not expect this to affect internal validity because participants were randomly allocated and quota distribution across conditions did not differ significantly.
- The paper states that it did not extensively control for other design features between conditions, such as word count, which differs substantially between PLSs and scientific abstracts and among PLSs with 1, 4, or 7 effects, as it would in naturalistic settings.
- The paper states that the scientific abstracts were not actually published abstracts but were written by the study authors; differences in user experience might be even larger in reality because the abstracts were in German and designed to contain the same information as the PLSs. Evident from the text: COI effects were consistently very small and the omnibus test was significant only for integrity, so those results should be interpreted cautiously; the publication-bias and practical-relevance null findings are described by the authors as inconclusive and not evidence for absence of effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
5 of 17 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Higher number of effects in PLSs did not have detrimental effects on knowledge acquisition.
“detrimental effects existed for PLSs reporting a higher number of effects on user experience, but not on knowledge acquisition”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
No significant effects of practical relevance statements on subjective outcomes were found.
“Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant effects of publication bias and practical relevance statements on subjective outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Effect sizes for H3 were consistently very small.
“Effect sizes were consistently very small, and the omnibus test on group differences was only significant for integrity, F(2, 1,187.886)= 3.488, p = .031,f = .072,but not for benevolence, F(2, 1,189.573)= 1.722, p = .179,f = .050,which is why these results should be interpreted cautiously.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
There was no statistically significant difference in credibility ratings of the presented evidence between PLSs that provided a lay-friendly statement on a likely existing publication bias (M = 5.87, SD = 1.56), PLSs that provided a lay-friendly statement indicating that the authors provided no information (M = 5.93, SD = 1.48), and PLSs that provided no statement on publication bias (M = 5.99, SD
“Contrary to our expectations, these differences were not statistically significant for the omnibus test, F(2, 801.598) = 0.377, p = .686,f = .027,and all comparisons between conditions (see Table E4 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Laypersons preferred PLSs over scientific abstracts.
“Laypersons preferred PLSs over scientific abstracts, and PLSs facilitated knowledge acquisition”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
Author integrity ratings decreased when PLSs indicated that a COI existed (M = 5.49, SD = 1.23) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (M = 5.70, SD = 1.18).
“Laypersons considered COI statements in their trustworthiness ratings: Author integrity and benevolence ratings decreased when PLSs indicated that a COI existed (integrity: M = 5.49, SD = 1.23, benevolence: M = 5.46, SD = 1.48) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (integrity: M = 5.70, SD = 1.18, benevolence: M = 5.60, SD = 1.20, see Table E3 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Knowledge on the concept meta-analysis was significantly higher for PLSs (65.82%) than for scientific abstracts (51.47%, OR = 1.82, p < .001).
“Exploratory analyses revealed that knowledge on the concept meta-analysis was significantly higher for PLSs (65.82%) compared to scientific abstracts (51.47%,OR = 1.82, p < .001).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Detrimental effects existed for PLSs reporting a higher number of effects on user experience.
“detrimental effects existed for PLSs reporting a higher number of effects on user experience, but not on knowledge acquisition”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Differences in epistemic emotions between PLSs with one effect and four effects were nonsignificant (all p > .065).
“Differences between PLSs with one effect and four effects were nonsignificant (all p > .065,see R-Output at PsychArchives (https:// doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14209)).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
No significant effects of publication bias statements on subjective outcomes were found.
“Contrary to our predictions, we did not find significant effects of publication bias and practical relevance statements on subjective outcomes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For correct responses to the second to fourth effect, the pattern was not as expected: 50.40% for PLSs with four effects versus 51.68% for PLSs with seven effects.
“While the observed pattern of effects was at least descriptively in line with our expectations for the first effect, this was not the case for correct responses to the second to fourth effect: 50.40% (PLSs with four effects) versus 51.68% (PLSs with seven effects).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Benevolence ratings were significantly lower when a statement on an existing COI was provided compared to when no information on COI was provided (M = 5.56, SD = 1.19).
“Furthermore, benevolence ratings were significantly lower when a statement on an existing COI was provided compared to when no information on COI was provided (M = 5.56, SD = 1.19, see Table E3 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Author benevolence ratings decreased when PLSs indicated that a COI existed (M = 5.46, SD = 1.48) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (M = 5.60, SD = 1.20).
“Laypersons considered COI statements in their trustworthiness ratings: Author integrity and benevolence ratings decreased when PLSs indicated that a COI existed (integrity: M = 5.49, SD = 1.23, benevolence: M = 5.46, SD = 1.48) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (integrity: M = 5.70, SD = 1.18, benevolence: M = 5.60, SD = 1.20, see Table E3 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
User experience differed significantly between PLSs with different numbers of effects, F(2, 1212.881) = 23.816, p < .001, f = .180.
“However, our data suggest that differences in user experience were significant between conditions, F(2, 1,212.881)= 23.816,p < .001,f = .180.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no significant difference between PLSs with one, four, or seven effects in the proportion of correct responses on the content-related knowledge test on the first effect (73.48% vs 71.65% vs 70.49%).
“Our results did not significantly differ for conditions on numbers of effects with regard to the proportion of correct responses on the content-related knowledge test on the first effect (see Table E3 in ESM 1): 73.48% (PLSs with one effect) versus 71.65% (PLSs with four effects) versus 70.49% (PLSs with seven effects).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Participants were significantly more confused, bored, and frustrated when reading PLSs with seven effects compared to PLSs with one effect or four effects (all p < .001).
“Exploratory analyses on epistemic emotions suggest that participants were significantly more confused, bored, and frustrated when reading PLSs with seven effects compared to PLSs with one effect or four effects (all p < .001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
PLSs facilitated knowledge acquisition.
“Laypersons preferred PLSs over scientific abstracts, and PLSs facilitated knowledge acquisition”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
COI statements affected epistemic trustworthiness.
“COI statements affected epistemic trustworthiness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
PLSs reporting four effects (M = 5.55, SD = 1.52) or seven effects (M = 5.29, SD = 1.58) had lower user experience than PLSs reporting one effect (M = 5.94, SD = 1.44).
“Detrimental effects existed for PLSs reporting four effects (M = 5.55, SD = 1.52) or seven effects (M = 5.29, SD = 1.58) compared to one effect (M = 5.94, SD = 1.44, see Table E3 in ESM 1 for inferential results).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There were no significant effects on perceived personal relevance and user experience of the practical relevance statement.
“Finally, we found no significant effects on perceived personal relevance and user experience of our practical relevance statement (Research Question 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Additional moderation analyses revealed no significant interaction effects for experimental factors.
“Since additional moderation analyses revealed no significant interaction effects for experimental factors (see R-Output at PsychArchives (https:// doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14209)), mixed models including main effects only are reported in the Results section.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Providing a lay-friendly statement on publication bias educated laypersons about the underlying concept (45.60% correct responses) compared to providing a scientific statement (27.64% correct responses, mixed model: OR = 2.19, p = .003, chi square test: χ2 = 7.85, df = 1, p = .005, w = .178).
“Providing a lay-friendly statement on publication bias educated laypersons about the underlying concept (45.60% correct responses) compared to providing a scientific statement (27.64% correct responses, mixed model: OR = 2.19, p = .003,chi square test: χ 2 = 7.85, df = 1, p = .005,w = .178).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no substantial difference in levels of trust put into PLSs reporting that authors declare no COI and PLSs providing no information on COI.
“Interestingly, we found that there was no substantial difference in the levels of trust put into PLSs reporting that authors declare no COI and PLSs providing no information on COI.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Including a lay-friendly publication bias statement did not significantly affect ratings of the credibility of the presented evidence.
“Results on Research Question 4 and Research Question 5 indicate that including a lay-friendly publication bias statement did not significantly affect ratings of the credibility of the presented evidence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
H1 was fully confirmed.
“Therefore, H1 was fully confirmed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
H2b was confirmed.
“Thus, H2b was confirmed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
H2a was rejected.
“As a consequence, H2a was rejected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Nonexperts are most likely not able to directly evaluate the knowledge claims that are put forward in scientific publications.
“This is because nonexperts are most likely not able to directly evaluate the knowledge claims that are put forward in scientific publications (see also Bromme et al., 2010 and the notion of firsthand and secondhand evaluations).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Bromme et al., 2010 source
- Interpretationown data
H3b was confirmed.
“Hence, H3b was also confirmed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
A power analysis suggested that at least 726 participants were needed for testing the corresponding hypotheses.
“Results of this analysis suggested that we needed to obtain at least 726 participants for testing the corresponding hypotheses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Studies that actually compare PLSs to scientific abstracts in lay populations were scarce.
“studies that actually compare PLSs to scientific abstracts in lay populations were scarce (Stoll et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Stoll et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
Established frameworks on instructional design such as cognitive load theory suggest that knowledge acquisition and user experience suffer with an increasing amount of information.
“Established frameworks on instructional design such as cognitive load theory (Sweller et al., 2011) suggest, however, that knowledge acquisition and user experience suffer with an increasing amount of information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sweller et al., 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Study design and conductreasoning
The study did not extensively control for differences in other design features between experimental conditions (e.g., word count differs substantially between PLSs and scientific abstracts and between PLSs with 1, 4, or 7 effects).
“Another general limitation of our study is that, to increase the practical applicability of our findings in designing guidelines for writing PLSs, we did not extensively control for differences in other design features between experimental conditions.For example, word count differs substantially between PLSs and scientific abstracts but also between PLSs with 1, 4, or seven effects, as it would in”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Word count differences between PLSs and scientific abstracts, and among PLSs with different numbers of effects, are similar to those in naturalistic settings.
- Study design and conductown data
All scenarios incorporated in the design occurred in practice.
“All scenarios incorporated in our design occurred in practice as can be seen in Table E5 (see ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Detrimental effects on epistemic emotions are especially pronounced when seven instead of four effects are reported.
“Our exploratory findings on epistemic emotions suggest, however, that detrimental effects are especially pronounced when seven instead of four effects are reported.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
H5 was confirmed.
“Thus, H5 was confirmed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Laypersons were able to include COI information in their judgements on epistemic trustworthiness.
“Results on Research Question 3 suggest that including COI statements in PLSs is indeed worthwhile, since laypersons were able to include this information in their judgements on epistemic trustworthiness.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
PLSs achieve their aim of facilitating access to scientific outputs compared to scientific abstracts.
“Overall, our findings on Research Question 1 seem to be encouraging in this regard as they illustrate that PLSs achieve their aim of facilitating access to scientific outputs compared to scientific abstracts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
This study provided further evidence on PLSs' ability to translate psychological research findings to laypersons.
“In sum, this study provided further evidence on PLSs' ability to translate psychological research findings to laypersons.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The study replicated prior findings of Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021) on a conceptual level in a general population sample and with German PLSs on psychological meta-analyses.
“We were thus able to replicate prior findings of Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021) on a conceptual level in a general population sample and with German PLSs on psychological meta-analyses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021) source
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
- May combine two claims. 24
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationHendriks et al. (2015) differentiated three dimensions of epistemic trustworthiness: expertise, integrity, and benevolence.
“Hendriks et al. (2015) differentiated three dimensions of epistemic trustworthiness, i.e. expertise, integrity, and benevolence.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Hendriks et al., 2015 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationIman (2016) found a negative relationship between publication bias awareness and evidence credibility ratings.
“Based on first empirical evidence of Iman (2016), who found a negative relationship between publication bias awareness and evidence credibility ratings (as well as further findings on trust and questionable research practices, e.g., Anvari & Lakens, 2018), we expected trust in research findings to decrease when providing information on publication bias.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Iman (2016)
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted).
PremisecitationIt has been proposed that putting the practical significance of research findings via PLSs into context may improve the public perception and impact of science.
“It has been proposed that putting the practical significance of research findings via PLSs into context may improve the public perception and impact of science (e.g., Kuehne & Olden, 2015).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Kuehne & Olden, 2015 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationPerceived trustworthiness decreases when scientists receive funding from industry collaborators.
“Furthermore, Besley et al. (2017) illustrated that perceived trustworthiness also decreases when scientists receive funding from industry collaborators.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Besley et al., 2017 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationBarbara et al. (2016) found that perceived personal relevance that caregivers and aging citizens attributed to research summaries was a key determinant of their decision to select research summaries for further inspection.
“For example, Barbara et al. (2016) found that the perceived personal relevance that caregivers and aging citizens attributed to research summaries was a key determinant of their decision to select research summaries for further inspection in a usability study on their Optimal Aging Portal.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Barbara et al. (2016) source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe omnibus test on group differences was significant for integrity, F(2, 1187.886) = 3.488, p = .031, f = .072, but not for benevolence, F(2, 1189.573) = 1.722, p = .179, f = .050.
“Effect sizes were consistently very small, and the omnibus test on group differences was only significant for integrity, F(2, 1,187.886)= 3.488, p = .031,f = .072,but not for benevolence, F(2, 1,189.573)= 1.722, p = .179,f = .050,which is why these results should be interpreted cautiously.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPLSs yielded a slightly higher proportion of correct responses to knowledge items (58.92%) than scientific abstracts (53.89%), with an odds ratio of 1.33 in the logistic mixed model.
“The proportion of correct responses to knowledge items was slightly higher for PLSs (58.92%) compared to scientific abstracts (53.89%)-with an odds ratio of 1.33 in the corresponding logistic mixed model (see Table E2 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataUser experience was higher for PLSs (M = 5.56, SD = 1.59) than for scientific abstracts (M = 4.88, SD = 1.84), and this difference was significant, F(1, 808.514) = 42.659, p < .001, f = .204.
“Additionally, we observed the expected difference between PLSs (M = 5.56, SD = 1.59) and scientific abstracts (M = 4.88, SD = 1.84) for user experience.Mixed model analyses revealed that these differences were significant, F(1, 808.514) = 42.659,p < .001,f = .204.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAll other hypothesized group differences for H3 were nonsignificant, and H3a, H3d, and H3e were rejected.
“All other hypothesized group differences were, however, nonsignificant.H3a, H3d, and H3e were therefore rejected.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCredibility ratings of the presented evidence significantly decreased when PLSs indicated that COI existed (M = 5.77, SD = 1.54) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (M = 6.06, SD = 1.49, p = .002) or no information on COI was provided (M = 5.96, SD = 1.54, p = .044).
“Credibility ratings significantly decreased when PLSs indicated that COI existed (M = 5.77, SD = 1.54) compared to when PLSs indicated that COI were absent (M = 6.06,SD = 1.49, p = .002)or no information on COI was provided (M = 5.96, SD = 1.54, p = .044).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThere were no significant differences in perceived personal relevance (F(1, 802.749) = 2.205, p = .138, f = .045) or user experience (F(1, 794.861) = 2.567, p = .110, f = .051) between PLSs that provided a practical relevance statement and PLSs that provided no relevance statement.
“Mixed model results indicate, however, that these differences were not significant for personal relevance, F(1, 802.749) = 2.205, p = .138,f = .045,and user experience, F(1, 794.861) = 2.567, p = .110,f = .051(see Table E4 in ESM 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataEffects of the practical relevance statement tended to be-at least descriptively-beneficial and not detrimental.
“Still, effects of this statement tended to be-at least descriptively-beneficial and not detrimental and our results therefore remain overall inconclusive.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationEvidence on the effectiveness of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses, as well as guidance on how to write such PLSs, is lacking.
“Evidence on the effectiveness of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses, as well as guidance on how to write such PLSs are, however, lacking.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Stoll et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataH4a, H4b, and H4c were rejected.
“Consequently, H4a, H4b, and H4c were rejected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn a prior study, German university students rated PLSs to be more comprehensible than the corresponding scientific abstracts and also acquired more knowledge on the summarized studies when reading PLSs.
“In this study, German university students rated PLSs to be more comprehensible than the corresponding scientific abstracts and also acquired more knowledge on the summarized studies when reading PLSs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al., 2021 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe target sample size was set to 2,268 participants.
“Thus, the target sample size was set to 2,268 participants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe current results support the unpublished prior findings, and a user experience index was computed as the mean of the three items.
“Consequently, the current results support these unpublished prior findings, and we computed a user experience index as the mean of the three abovementioned items.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
PremisereasoningFor laypersons, information that helps assessing the trustworthiness of scientific sources is especially important.
“For laypersons, information that helps assessing the trustworthiness of scientific sources (e.g., study authors) is especially important.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataH3c and H3f were confirmed.
“As a consequence, H3c and H3f were confirmed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe target quota size specified in the preregistration was not fully achieved for male participants younger than 45 years with Hauptschulabschluss (132 participants instead of 189).
“The target quota size specified in our preregistration was not fully achieved for male participants younger than 45 years with Hauptschulabschluss (132 participants instead of 189; see Discussion).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown data2,451 participants responded to at least one outcome variable, with 2,256 completing the survey.
“2,451 participants responded to at least one outcome variable, with 2,256 completing the survey.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationIn a recent study, Hendriks et al. (2016) showed that integrity and benevolence, but not expertise, were affected when ethical aspects were discussed within a research blog.
“In a recent study, their research group (Hendriks et al., 2016) showed that integrity and benevolence, but not expertise, were affected when ethical aspects were discussed within a research blog.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hendriks et al., 2016 source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationVarious sources of bias exist that can impact the trustworthiness of research outputs, such as publication bias.
“Various sources of bias exist that can impact the trustworthiness of research outputs, such as publication bias (Boutron et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Boutron et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe user experience index was only computed for cases that provided data on all three items, and McDonald's ω was .878.
“This user experience index was only computed for cases that provided data on all three items, and McDonald's ω was .878.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationA prior study of the project suggested that English PLSs of individual psychological studies achieve their aim of fostering the public understanding of science.
“One exception is a prior study of our project which suggested that English PLSs of individual psychological studies achieve their aim of fostering the public understanding of science (Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al., 2021).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al., 2021 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenAll study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of Trier University.
“All study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of Trier University.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe study and its hypotheses were preregistered at PsychArchives prior to the start of data collection.
“The study and its hypotheses were preregistered at PsychArchives (https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives. 5181) prior to the start of data collection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationBeing affiliated to companies with a financial interest in the research subject can be construed as a potential persuasive intent, which might negatively affect integrity and benevolence judgements, but not judgements on expertise.
“Hendriks et al. (2016) argued that being affiliated to companies with a financial interest in the research subject at hand can be construed as a potential persuasive intent, which might negatively affect integrity and benevolence judgements, but not judgements on expertise.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hendriks et al., 2016 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThis study was preregistered at PsychArchives.
“Open Data Preregistration: This study was preregistered at PsychArchives (https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5181).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationMixed model and mixed model ANOVA results are comparable for simple designs with complete data, so results of the power analyses can be transferred (as a lower bound) to the mixed model approach.
“However, mixed model and mixed model ANOVA results are comparable for simple designs with complete data, which is why we argue that results of our power analyses can be transferred (as a lower bound) to this mixed model approach (see, for example, Murrar & Brauer, 2018, on the equivalence of both approaches in simple designs).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Murrar & Brauer, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe authors do not expect the recruitment shortfall to affect the internal validity of the findings, because participants were randomly allocated to experimental conditions and the distribution of quotas across conditions did not differ significantly.
“We do not expect this to affect the internal validity of our findings, since participants were randomly allocated to experimental conditions and the distribution of quotas across conditions did not differ significantly (see R-Output at PsychArchives (https://doi.org/10.23668/ psycharchives.14209)).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataEvaluation processes result in a discounting of evidence if a statement indicating a COI is reported, but not if no information on COI is provided.
“Exploratory findings on the credibility of the corresponding evidence (i.e., the meta-analytic findings that were presented by the PLSs) further suggest that these evaluation processes also result in a discounting of evidence if a statement indicating a COI is reported, but not if no information on COI is provided.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe study faced problems in recruiting male participants younger than 45 years with Hauptschulabschluss, and the corresponding target quota size was not fully achieved.
“As mentioned above, a limitation of our study was that we faced problems in recruiting male participants younger than 45 years with Hauptschulabschluss, which is why the corresponding target quota size was not fully achieved.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataContent-related knowledge did not decrease with an increasing number of effects reported in the PLS, but user experience decreased when including additional effects.
“Content-related knowledge did not decrease with an increasing number of effects that were reported in the PLS, but user experience decreased when including additional effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningDifferences in user experience between scientific abstracts and PLSs might be even larger in reality, because the abstracts were written in German for the German-speaking sample and explicitly designed to contain the same information as the PLSs.
“However, differences in user experience between scientific abstracts and PLSs might be even larger in reality, since abstracts were written in German for our German-speaking sample and explicitly designed to contain the same information as the presented PLSs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe scientific abstracts analyzed were not actually published abstracts but were written by the study authors.
“With regard to our findings on Research Question 1, one might also object that the scientific abstracts we analyzed were not actually published abstracts but written by us, the study authors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationMixed models are more flexible compared to repeated measures ANOVAs with between-level factors, especially when handling missing data.
“We analyzed our data by means of mixed models (i.e., with experimental conditions as factors), as they are more flexible compared to repeated measures ANOVAs with betweenlevel factors-especially when it comes to handling missing data (Brown, 2021).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Brown, 2021 source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenResearch data and R-Output are available at PsychArchives.
“Research data and R-Output are available at PsychArchives (https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14209).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataPLSs educated readers on scientific matters such as meta-analyses as a methodological approach and publication bias as a problem in science.
“Moreover, we also demonstrated that PLSs educated readers on scientific matters such as meta-analyses as a methodological approach and publication bias as a problem in science.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataH6a and H6b were rejected.
“Therefore, H6a and H6b were rejected.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataIncluding COI statements supports laypersons in evaluating scientific evidence, while the evidence on further PLS characteristics was mixed.
“Investigating PLSs of psychological meta-analyses in a general population sample, we showed that including COI statements supports laypersons in evaluating scientific evidence, while the evidence on further PLS characteristics was mixed.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningThe actual power of mixed models might be slightly higher in this specific case because incomplete cases can be included.
“The actual power of mixed models might be slightly higher in our specific case because incomplete cases can be included (i.e., if participants do not provide data on both research summaries).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
A beneficial effect of presenting information on publication bias in PLSs is that laypersons acquire knowledge on this concept.
“Additionally, we assume that a beneficial effect of presenting information on publication bias in PLSs is that laypersons acquire knowledge on this concept and propose the following hypothesis:”
The paper relies on this without support.
The recommendation to present no more than seven outcomes has not been empirically investigated so far.
“However, this recommendation has, to our knowledge, not been empirically investigated so far.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Meta-analyses often include more than one meta-analytical effect that the authors want to communicate to the public by means of PLSs.
“Meta-analyses often include more than one meta-analytical effect that the authors want to communicate to the public by means of PLSs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Word count differences between PLSs and scientific abstracts, and among PLSs with different numbers of effects, are similar to those in naturalistic settings.
“For example, word count differs substantially between PLSs and scientific abstracts but also between PLSs with 1, 4, or seven effects, as it would in naturalistic settings.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 808.514) = 42.659reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 808.514) = 42.659,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 801.598) = 0.377reported p = .686 · recomputed p = .686
“F(2, 801.598) = 0.377, p = .686”
- ConsistentF(1, 802.749) = 2.205reported p = .138 · recomputed p = .138
“F(1, 802.749) = 2.205, p = .138”
- ConsistentF(1, 794.861) = 2.567reported p = .11 · recomputed p = .110
“F(1, 794.861) = 2.567, p = .110”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Cites
Statistical power analyses using G∗Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.41.4.1149 · Cited by 37,615 · see citing works
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Higgins, J. P. T., Green, S., & Ben Van Den, A. (2020) · International Coaching Psychology Review · doi:10.53841/bpsicpr.2020.15.2.123 · Cited by 5,670 · see citing works
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_446 · Cited by 5,538 · see citing works
Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4 · Cited by 5,531
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation
Frey, B. B. (2018) · doi:10.4135/9781506326139 · Cited by 1,471 · see citing works
Psychotherapy for depression in adults: A meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies.
Cuijpers, P., van Straten, A., Andersson, G., & van Oppen, P. (2008) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0013075 · Cited by 1,050 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of action video game impact on perceptual, attentional, and cognitive skills.
Bediou, B., Adams, D. M., Mayer, R. E., Tipton, E., Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000130 · Cited by 807 · see citing works
An Introduction to Linear Mixed-Effects Modeling in R
Brown, V. A. (2021) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245920960351 · Cited by 576 · see citing works
Barth, J., Munder, T., Gerger, H., Nüesch, E., Trelle, S., Znoj, H., Jüni, P., & Cuijpers, P. (2013) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001454 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Measuring emotions during epistemic activities: the Epistemically-Related Emotion Scales
Pekrun, R., Vogl, E., Muis, K. R., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2016.1204989 · Cited by 373 · see citing works
Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis
van Aert, R. C. M., Wicherts, J. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0215052 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science
Anvari, F., & Lakens, D. (2018) · Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010) · Personal Epistemology in the Classroom · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511691904.006 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication
Kuehne, L. M., & Olden, J. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1500882112 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research
Stoll, M., Kerwer, M., Lieb, K., & Chasiotis, A. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268789 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citationPerceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships
Besley, J. C., McCright, A. M., Zahry, N. R., Elliott, K. C., Kaminski, N. E., & Martin, J. D. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175643 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., Stricker, J., Günther, A., & Rosman, T. (2021) · Collabra: Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.18898 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationHendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2016) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662516646048 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Kerwer, M., Stoll, M., Jonas, M., Benz, G., & Chasiotis, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.771399 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Self-citationJiang, S., Ng, A. Y. K., & Ngien, A. (2022) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2022.2115591 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
M Barbara, A., Dobbins, M., Haynes, R. B., Iorio, A., Lavis, J. N., & Levinson, A. J. (2016) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/humanfactors.6208 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Mixed Model Analysis of Variance
(2018) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n436 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
(2016) · OhioLink ETD Center (Ohio Library and Information Network) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- American Psychological Association, 2018, Guidance for translational abstracts and public significance statements: Demonstrating the public significance of research
- Cochrane Norway, 2019, How to write a plain language summary of a Cochrane intervention review
- Duke M., 2012, How to write a lay summary
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jonas, M., Kerwer, M., Stoll, M., Benz, G., & Chasiotis, A. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0300675 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“In the context of project”PLan Psy”, several experimental studies were conducted to validate older versions of the guideline [5, 6].”
Self-citationHesp, B. R., Chen, B. Y.-H., Ganesan, S., Lee, J. H. Y., Lee, S. W. L., Onuma, A., Wang, S., Wei, A., Yuan, J., & Stentiford, T. (2025) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-025-07433-7 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Leveraging Psychological Insights for Effective Science Communication
Rosman, T., Edelsbrunner, P. A., Hendriks, F., Vaupotič, N., & Wingen, T. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000584
Breuer, C., Stoll, M., Benz, G., Jonas, M., Kerwer, M., & Chasiotis, A. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0343625
“To find an answer to this question, we conducted 4 experimental studies with large, representative samples and derived criteria for a good PLS of psychological meta-analyses from the results [14; 15; 16].”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kerwer, M., Jonas, M., Stoll, M., Benz, G., & Chasiotis, A.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (DE)
- Venue
- Zeitschrift für Psychologie
- Publisher
- Hogrefe Publishing Group
- Published
- 2025-01
- Volume
- 233
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 30-39
- ISSN
- 0044-3409 (ISSN-L)
- 2190-8370
- 2151-2604
- OpenAlex
- W4402315808
- Semantic Scholar
- cb50525a40daaf3ddbefbd63afa0026b5fa20e22
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 1.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zeitschrift für Psychologie (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- plain language summaries, conflicts of interest, publication bias, practical relevance, epistemic trustworthiness, knowledge acquisition, abstracts, science communication
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-22.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-22.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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