PsyArXiv
metadata only
Analyzing Binary Judgments: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Comparison of Aggregated and Trial-Level Approaches for Hypothesis Testing
Binary judgments are widely used in psychological research to investigate cognitive processes and decision making. Statistical approaches for analyzing such data differ in whether responses are aggregated (e.g., analysis of variance, ANOVA) or modeled at the trial level (e.g., generalized linear mix
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Analyzing Binary Judgments: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Comparison of Aggregated and Trial-Level Approaches for Hypothesis Testing#1494232
- Analyzing Binary Judgments: An Empirical and Simulation-Based Comparison of Aggregated and Trial-Level Approaches for Hypothesis Testing#1494161
- Structure compatibility and restructuring in judgment and choice#766740
- Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”#768577
- Stereotype strength and attentional bias: Preference for confirming versus disconfirming information depends on processing capacity#814672
Record · ID 1494114
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive