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 Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

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 annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

O’Keefe et al. (2018)  did not sufficiently narrow the implicit theory-of-interest development to accurately address the targeted domain: potential development of an entirely new interest. This was revealed when current participants expressed alternative interpretations of the word “change” in the indicator’s stem. This study therefore sought to first characterize a way to think about implicit theories of interest and refine the wording. However, the revised items revealed low reliability in a targeted population of Singaporeans. Was this due to the manipulation of the questions or the new test population? This was evaluated by following the same sampling procedure as  O’Keefe et al. (2018)  and participants were presented with both the revised and the original versions of the items. Factor analysis revealed a preferred factor structure for both versions having potential implications for understand implicit theories, as well as the dimensions of implicit theories-of-interests specifically.

Can You Develop New Interests? an Improved Instrument for Measuring Implicit Theories of Interest Development