Research Data

Dataset to: Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices.

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Stricker, Johannes
Chasiotis, Anita
Kerwer, Martin
Günther, Armin

Abstract / Description

Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.
Dataset for: Stricker J, Chasiotis A, Kerwer M, Günther A (2020) Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231160

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2020

Publisher

PsychArchives

Is referenced by

Citation

Stricker, J., Chasiotis, A., Kerwer, M., & Günther, A. (2020). Dataset to: Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices. [Data set]. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.2768
  • 2
    2020-02-20
    We updated the search for relevant articles in February 2020. This lead to the inclusion of 15 additional articles.
  • 1
    2020-01-17
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Stricker, Johannes
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Chasiotis, Anita
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Kerwer, Martin
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Günther, Armin
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2020-02-20T15:43:41Z
  • Made available on
    2020-01-17T11:04:28Z
  • Made available on
    2020-02-20T15:43:41Z
  • Date of first publication
    2020
  • Abstract / Description
    Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.
    en
  • Abstract / Description
    Dataset for: Stricker J, Chasiotis A, Kerwer M, Günther A (2020) Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0231160. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231160
    en
  • Table of contents
    export_abstracts: PLS and scientific abstracts
    en
  • Citation
    Stricker, J., Chasiotis, A., Kerwer, M., & Günther, A. (2020). Dataset to: Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices. [Data set]. PsychArchives. https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.2768
    en
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/2336.2
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2768
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    PsychArchives
    en
  • Is referenced by
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231160
  • Is related to
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.2723
  • Is related to
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231160
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Dataset to: Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices.
    en
  • DRO type
    researchData
    en