READ ME File For Dataset in support of the Southampton doctoral thesis ' Systematic review and investigation of Judgment of Learning (JoL) reactivity Dataset DOI: 10.5258/SOTON/D2418 ReadMe Author: Lloyd Chilcott, University of Southampton This dataset supports the thesis entitled Systematic review and investigation of Judgment of Learning (JoL) reactivity AWARDED BY: Univeristy of Southampton DATE OF AWARD: [2022] Date of data collection: [2020 - 2022] Information about geographic location of data collection: UK Based research with an international sample via online recruitment (Prolific.com) Licence: [CC-BY] DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA This dataset contains: exp023_analysis.R - R Script used for statistical analysis. Requires the programme 'Rstudio' to run. exp023_data.csv - The complete results dataset following study completion. exp023_JOL_rhyme.html - The 'JoL with rhyme recognition test' HTML programme for the study phase. Requires a programme to run HTML, such as web browser (e.g., Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox). exp023_NoJOL_recog.html - The 'No-JoL with standard recognition test' HTML programme for the study phase. Requires a programme to run HTML, such as web browser (e.g., Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox). exp023_NoJOL_rhyme.html - The 'No-JoL with rhyme recognition test' HTML programme for the study phase. Requires a programme to run HTML, such as web browser (e.g., Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox). exp023_JOL_recog.html - The 'JoL with rhyme recognition test' HTML programme for the study phase. Requires a programme to run HTML, such as web browser (e.g., Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox). Final_stimuli_with_associative_strengths.xlsx - The words used in the study stimuli. Participant_Information_Sheet.docx - Information given to each participant before consenting to the experiment. This document was accepted as part of the ethics application. v3_53213.A3_consent_form.doc - Information given to each participant before consenting to the experiment. This document was accepted as part of the ethics application. METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION -------------------------- Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: The Thesis contains two methods of data collection/generation: a systematic literature review and a quantitative empirical study. The systematic literature review assessed the evidence and theoretical accounts of Judgment of Learning (JoL) reactivity. A search of Scopus, PsychInfo and ProQuest databases was conducted in February 2022. We included studies with an adult neuro-typical and non-clinical population, using immediate JoLs with a no-JoL control group, with an outcome on a recognised cognitive task. We included peer-review and thesis papers and excluded non-English papers. The themes and findings of the systematic search were collated and presented in a narratively driven summary. Eighteen papers containing 44 experiments and 4891 participants were included in the final analysis. The empirical study adopts a Transfer Appropriate Processing (TAP) paradigm (Morris et al., 1977) with word pair associates. In an initial encoding phase, we presented the participants with related, rhyming, or unrelated word pairs to induce different levels of processing (LoP). Half of the participants made a JoL after studying each word pair, while the remaining participants simply studied each word pair for an equivalent duration. Afterwards, all participants completed either standard or rhyme old/new recognition tests, where they had to discriminate the targets from the encoding phase (or rhymes of the targets) from novel foils. Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9 Methods for processing the data: The submitted data was exported as a .txt file and processed in R to a .csv file. The .csv file was analysed with R scripts. Software- or Instrument-specific information needed to interpret the data, including software and hardware version numbers: R code requires the statistical programme Rstudio. R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.r-project.org/ Environmental/experimental conditions: For the empirical study, the participants completed the experiment on a full-screen web browser on a remote laptop or desktop PC. The experiment lasted approximately 20 minutes. Describe any quality-assurance procedures performed on the data: For the systematic literature review, a second reviewer independently cross-reviewed a random sample of 20 studies from the 654 available studies to inform the reliability of the eligibility decision-making. The second reviewer could not review a larger sample due to time restraints. There was an inter-rater reliability of 95% agreement (one study of the 20 cross-reviewed papers resulted in a discrepant inclusion decision). The two reviewers discussed and resolved the divergent decision before the first reviewer proceeded to the full-text eligibility search. One author was contacted to clarify the distinction between their thesis paper and a published article. People involved with sample collection, processing, analysis and/or submission: Tina Seabrooke (lead supervisor), Philip Higham (supervisor) and Rebecca Everitt (research assistant). -------------------------- DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION -------------------------- exp023_data.csv Number of variables: 23 Number of cases/rows: 13,999 Variable list, defining any abbreviations, units of measure, codes or symbols used: Subject - Anonymous subject number Exp - Experiment number Time - Time the participant completed the experiment Browser and otherbrowser - Particpant's web browser Age - Participant's age Gender - Participant's self-identified gender botcheck - A 1 (Yes) or 0 (No) response to if the participant passed the bot check at the start of the experiment cheat_check - A yes or no response to the participant's response to the cheat check at the end of the experiment Stim_check_acc - An accuracy check of the participants engagement with the stimulus test_check - A check of the particpant's understanding of the test Encodinggroup - The encoding condition of each particpant (JOL vs NOJOL) testgroup - The test group of each participant (Recognition vs Rhyme) running - The stage of the experiment condition - The type of encoding experienced at the stage of the experiment cue - The cue word used in the stage of the experiment target - The target word used at the stage of the experiment test_rhyme - The rhyme test words used at the test stage of the experiment. responses - The participant response to each stage of the experiment, including a response time to the JoL and a YES/NO response to the recognition test. rt - Response time of the participants' JoLs acc - Accuracy of the participants response, 1 (true, a correct response) or 0 (false, an incorrect response) Missing data codes: NA Specialized formats or other abbreviations used: NA Final_stimuli_with_associative_strengths Number of variables: 10 Number of cases/rows: 31 Variable list, defining any abbreviations, units of measure, codes or symbols used: Semantic - The selected semantic word to the target word Rhyme - The selected rhyme word to the target word Unrelated - The selected unrelated word to the target word test_rhyme - The rhyming word to the target word for the test phase Sem_FSG - The semantic word's forward strength Sem_BSG - The semantic word's backwards strength Unr_FSG - The unrelated word's forward strength Unr_FSG - The unrelated word's forward strength Target length - The number of letters in the target word Missing data codes: NA Specialized formats or other abbreviations used: NA Date that the file was created: October, 2022 --------------