English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Research evidence in the social sciences often relies on effect size statistics, which are hard to understand for the public and do not always provide clear information for decision-makers. One area where interpretation of research evidence has profound effects on policy is college admission testing. In this paper, we conducted two experiments testing how different effect size presentations affect validity perception and policy preferences toward standardized admission tests (e.g., ACT, SAT). We found that compared to traditional effect size statistics (e.g., correlation coefficient), participants perceived admission tests to be more predictively valid when the same evidence was presented using an alternative effect size presentation. The perceived validity of the admission test was also positively associated with admission test policies (e.g., test-optional policy) preferences. Our findings show that policy preferences toward admission tests depend on the perception of statistical evidence, which is malleable and depends on how evidence is presented.

Malleability of Statistical Perception: Impact of Validity Presentation on College Admission Test Policy Preferences