Language
Known Authors Task
Also called: author recognition test, author recognition task, print exposure checklist
Measure print exposure, how much people read. Participants mark the authors they know in lists that mix real authors with made-up names, with a list for each session language.
2-4 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 49
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures print exposure, how much a person reads. Participants mark the names they know as authors in lists that mix widely read authors with made-up names, warned that marking a made-up name lowers the score. Scores authors marked minus made-up names marked, with its own list of authors for each session language.
Constructs
- Print exposure
- Reading experience
- Literary knowledge
Research uses
- Reading research
- Literacy research
- Individual differences in language
How the paradigm works
People who read more meet more authors' names, so recognizing authors is a quick, indirect measure of print exposure. In this author recognition checklist, participants see lists of names: half are authors widely read in the session language, from classics read at school to recent popular writers, and half are made-up names. They select each name they know is an author and are told that marking a made-up name lowers the score. Each of the eight languages has its own 20 authors and 20 made-up names; the made-up names were checked against library catalogs and Wikidata so that none matches a known author or person. The names come in lists of eight, four authors and four made-up names each, in seeded order; the 24-name setting uses the first 12 of each kind. A practice list of everyday words, with the animals to be selected, gives feedback first. There is no deadline.
Scores
- Author Scorescore
- Authors marked minus made-up names marked.
- Higher means more authors recognized
- Corrected Percentagepoints
- Percentage of authors marked minus percentage of made-up names marked, in percentage points.
- Higher means more authors recognized
- Authors Markedcount
- Real authors the participant marked.
- Informational
- Made-Up Names Markedcount
- Made-up names the participant marked.
- 0 expected
- Names Showncount
- Names shown in the most complete run.
- 40 standard
- Names Plannedcount
- Names in the chosen form.
- 40 standard
- Median Time per Listms
- Median time spent on a list, leaving out lists under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Lists Under 100 mscount
- Lists finished within 100 ms of appearing.
- 0 expected
Use and evidence
49 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 36% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 363 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 13 |
| 2024 | 10 |
| 2023 | 9 |
| 2022 | 6 |
| 2021 | 11 |
| 2020 | 14 |
| 2019 | 9 |
| 2018 | 8 |
| 2017 | 3 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 4 |
| 2014 | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 3 |
| 2011 | 3 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 6 |
| 2007 | 5 |
| 2006 | 3 |
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 25
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Names
- 40 names in each of 8 languages: 20 authors widely read in that language and 20 made-up names. The 24-name setting uses the first 12 of each.
- Lists
- 5 lists of 8 names at the standard length, 4 authors and 4 made-up names on each, in seeded order.
- Instructions
- Participants select the names they know are authors and are told that marking a made-up name lowers the score.
- Practice
- One list of 6 everyday words: select the 3 animals, with feedback.
- Responses
- A tap, click or key marks a name and unmarks it; Continue works with any number marked. No deadline, on desktop, tablet and phone.
- Scores
- Authors marked minus made-up names marked; the same difference in percentage points; counts of each kind; median time per list.
The author lists are our own and differ by language, so compare scores within one language. Every made-up name was checked against library catalogs and Wikidata so that none matches a known author or person. The printed tests use one sheet; here the names come in lists of eight. Scores support research and do not diagnose. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: author_names_test from the most complete run, one row per list of eight names, each name checked against the canonical list for its id and language. Marking is untimed and the score subtracts made-up names marked. Fewer than half of the planned names invalidates and any shortfall is flagged. Every name marked, on 16 or more names, is flagged. Lists finished in under 200 ms on at least half of the lists invalidate. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Marking made-up names is what the score corrects for, so it is scored rather than excluded; marking every name, though, suggests the names were not read, so it is flagged. Eight names cannot be read in 200 ms. The lists keep authors and made-up names in equal numbers, so a run with fewer than half of them answered no longer measures the same thing. Another tab can be used to look up a name, so a percentile is withheld after a hidden tab.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Names | 40 names (standard) | 40 names (standard), 24 names |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Known Authors Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Stanovich KE, West RF, 1989; Acheson DJ, Wells JB, MacDonald MC, 2008), with the standard settings (names: 40 names). The main score was author score (authors marked minus made-up names marked).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24(4), 402–433. https://doi.org/10.2307/747605The author recognition checklist of real authors and foils as a measure of print exposure.
- Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & MacDonald, M. C. (2008). New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278An updated list mixing classic and recent authors with foils, marked under a guessing penalty and scored authors minus foils.
- Moore, M., & Gordon, P. C. (2015). Reading ability and print exposure: Item response theory analysis of the author recognition test. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1095–1109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0534-3The standard score, hits minus false alarms, and an item analysis of the author list.
- Brysbaert, M., Sui, L., Dirix, N., & Hintz, F. (2020). Dutch Author Recognition Test. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.95A version built for one language, with its own authors and language-matched foils, scored in percentages.
Source papers
- Stanovich and West (1989); Acheson, Wells and MacDonald (2008): author recognition.Paradigm source, Adults who read the session language
Questions
How long does the Known Authors Task take?
About 2 to 4 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Author Score, Corrected Percentage, Authors Marked, Made-Up Names Marked, Names Shown, Names Planned, Median Time per List and Lists Under 100 ms. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Known Authors Task used in research?
49 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 36% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 363 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Known Authors Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Names (40 names (standard), 24 names). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.