How random noise and a graphical convention subverted behavioral scientists' explanations of self-assessment data¶
Nuhfer, E., Fleischer, S., Cogan, C., Wirth, K., & Gaze, E. (2017). How random noise and a graphical convention subverted behavioral scientists' explanations of self-assessment data: Numeracy underlies better alternatives. Numeracy, 10(1).
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Dunning-Kruger Effect
- … popular in public discourse, where it is often invoked loosely; the original empirical claim has been substantially refined and in places contested by subsequent statistical analysis, which has identified regression-to-the-mean and floor/ceiling effects as alternative explanations for much of the original pattern.
This sourceShows the iconic scissors chart can emerge from random noise plus regression to the mean; supports D16-101 (regression-to-the-mean and floor/ceiling effects as alternative explanations).
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
The article argues noise and graphing conventions, not a real skill-perception deficit, produced the self-assessment pattern; it never addresses public-discourse popularity or floor/ceiling effects.
“How Random Noise and a Graphical Convention Subverted Behavioral Scientists' Explanations of Self-Assessment Data: Numeracy Underlies Better Alternatives”
- … popular in public discourse, where it is often invoked loosely; the original empirical claim has been substantially refined and in places contested by subsequent statistical analysis, which has identified regression-to-the-mean and floor/ceiling effects as alternative explanations for much of the original pattern.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:5e3889619feb · see in the full table