Episodic Memory
Refutation Text Task
Also called: refutational text, conceptual change texts, misconception correction
Measure how texts that refute a misconception change beliefs. Participants rate science statements, read refutational or expository texts, then rate again and answer questions, scored by text type.
9-12 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
- 118
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
Summer comes when Earth is closest to the Sun.
Why there are seasons
Many people think that summer comes when Earth is closest to the Sun. That is not correct.
The seasons are caused by the tilt of Earth's axis.
Summer comes when Earth is closest to the Sun.
What it measures
Measures how much texts that refute a misconception change beliefs, compared with texts that only explain. Participants rate 16 statements about everyday science, read 8 short texts, rate the statements again and answer a question about each text.
Constructs
- Conceptual change
- Knowledge revision
- Learning from text
- Misconception correction
Research uses
- Learning research
- Science education research
- Educational psychology
How the paradigm works
Texts that state a misconception and explain why it is wrong, called refutation texts, change mistaken beliefs more than texts that only explain the science. Participants rate 16 statements about everyday science from 1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true): for each of 8 topics, a common misconception and the scientific idea. They then read one short text per topic. A refutational text opens by stating the misconception, saying it is wrong and giving evidence against it; an expository text opens with neutral sentences of about the same length. Both end with the same explanation. Participants rate the same statements again in a new order and answer one three-choice question per topic, one answer of which restates the misconception. The last screen lists each misconception with the correct idea.
Scores
- Refutation Advantagepoints
- Drop in misconception ratings after refutational texts minus the drop after expository texts, in points on the 1 to 6 scale. Positive values mean refutational texts changed beliefs more.
- Compare text types
- Belief Change, Refutationalpoints
- Mean drop in a misconception's rating from before to after its refutational text.
- Higher means more belief change
- Belief Change, Expositorypoints
- Mean drop in a misconception's rating from before to after its expository text.
- Higher means more belief change
- Misconception Rating Beforescore
- Mean rating of the 8 misconceptions before reading, from 1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true).
- Informational
- Misconception Rating Afterscore
- Mean rating of the 8 misconceptions after reading.
- Lower means fewer misconceptions endorsed
- Misconceptions Held Beforecount
- Misconceptions rated on the true side of the scale (4 to 6) before reading.
- Informational
- Misconceptions Held Aftercount
- Misconceptions rated on the true side of the scale after reading.
- Lower means fewer misconceptions endorsed
- Scientific Idea Changepoints
- Mean rise in the ratings of the 8 scientific statements from before to after reading.
- Informational
- Rating Accuracy Before%
- Statements rated on their correct side before reading: misconceptions 1 to 3, scientific ideas 4 to 6.
- Informational
- Rating Accuracy After%
- Statements rated on their correct side after reading.
- Higher means more correct
- Questions Correct, Refutational%
- Questions answered correctly about topics read in a refutational text.
- Higher means more correct
- Questions Correct, Expository%
- Questions answered correctly about topics read in an expository text.
- Higher means more correct
- Questions Correct%
- Percentage of all recorded questions answered correctly. Missing answers count as wrong.
- Higher means more correct
- Misconception Answerscount
- Questions answered with the choice that restates the misconception.
- Informational
- Questions Recordedcount
- Unique questions from the scored run.
- 8 standard
- Ratings Beforecount
- Statements rated before reading.
- 16 standard
- Ratings Aftercount
- Statements rated after reading.
- 16 standard
- Median Rating Timems
- Median time to rate a statement, leaving out ratings under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Median Reading Timeseconds
- Median time spent on a text.
- Informational
- Earlier Sessionscount
- Earlier sessions of this test by the same participant; the texts and the corrections are new only the first time.
- 0 expected
Use and evidence
118 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 246 of 670 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 34 |
| 2024 | 23 |
| 2023 | 22 |
| 2022 | 18 |
| 2021 | 21 |
| 2020 | 27 |
| 2019 | 16 |
| 2018 | 18 |
| 2017 | 20 |
| 2016 | 20 |
| 2015 | 12 |
| 2014 | 7 |
| 2013 | 12 |
| 2012 | 8 |
| 2011 | 7 |
| 2010 | 10 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 5 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 2 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 1 |
| 2000 | 4 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 19
- 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 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Topics
- 8 everyday science topics, such as why there are seasons and whether heavy objects fall faster, written in each of 8 languages. Each fact was checked against a public source.
- Statements
- 16: for each topic, a common misconception, which is false, and the scientific idea, which is true. Rated from 1 (definitely false) to 6 (definitely true) before reading and again after.
- Texts
- 1 per topic. A refutational text states the misconception, says it is wrong and gives evidence; an expository text opens with neutral sentences of about the same length. Both end with the same explanation.
- Text types
- 4 refutational and 4 expository by default, assigned by seed. All-refutational and all-expository settings support study-group comparisons.
- Questions
- 8 questions, 1 per topic, each with 3 answers, one of which restates the misconception. No feedback.
- Order and timing
- Seeded order of statements, texts, questions and answers. Ratings, reading and answers are untimed; no return to an earlier text.
- Scores
- Drop in misconception ratings after refutational texts minus the drop after expository texts, in scale points. Belief change by text type, misconceptions held before and after, rating accuracy and question accuracy by text type are also saved.
- Last screen
- Lists each misconception with the correct idea, so every participant leaves with the corrections.
The texts are our own. The two versions of each text differ only in their opening. The test reveals its corrections, so each person takes it once. 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: refutation_text_rating from the run with the most ratings, one truth rating from 1 to 6 per statement before and after reading, untimed, with that run's questions. A rating is a judgment with no correct option, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The same rating on every statement invalidates, and so do fewer than 90% of the planned statements rated in either phase. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more statements invalidate. Fewer questions than topics and an earlier session of this test are flagged for review. A hidden tab is flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Belief change compares each statement's two ratings, so both phases need nearly all statements; the 90% limit is a ConductScience choice, as in the Illusory Truth Task. Ratings that never vary cannot depend on the statements. A second session has read every text and been told which statements were false, so it no longer measures a first correction. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Texts | Half refutational (standard) | Half refutational (standard), All refutational, All expository |
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 Refutation Text Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Kendeou P, van den Broek P, 2007; Tippett CD, 2010; Guzzetti BJ, Snyder TE, Glass GV, Gamas WS, 1993), with the standard settings (texts: Half refutational). The main score was refutation advantage (drop in misconception ratings after refutational texts minus the drop after expository texts, in points on the 1 to 6 scale).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 116. https://doi.org/10.2307/747886Meta-analysis comparing reading-education and science-education interventions that promote conceptual change in science.
- Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491Refutation and nonrefutation texts on the same topics, equated in length, read by people with and without misconceptions about Newtonian motion.
- Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(6), 951–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9203-xReview of 20 years of studies: reading refutation text rather than traditional expository text is more likely to produce conceptual change.
- Schroeder, N. L., & Kucera, A. C. (2022). Refutation text facilitates learning: A meta-analysis of between-subjects experiments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 957–987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09656-zMeta-analysis of 44 comparisons: refutation text had a moderate advantage over other learning conditions (g = 0.41).
Source papers
- Kendeou and van den Broek (2007); Tippett (2010): refutation and expository texts compared.Paradigm source, Adults who read the session language
Questions
How long does the Refutation Text Task take?
About 9 to 12 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?
Refutation Advantage, Belief Change, Refutational, Belief Change, Expository, Misconception Rating Before, Misconception Rating After, Misconceptions Held Before, Misconceptions Held After, Scientific Idea Change, Rating Accuracy Before, Rating Accuracy After, Questions Correct, Refutational, Questions Correct, Expository, Questions Correct, Misconception Answers, Questions Recorded, Ratings Before, Ratings After, Median Rating Time, Median Reading Time and Earlier Sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Refutation Text Task used in research?
118 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 17% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 246 of 670 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.48.0, counted 12 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Refutation Text 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?
Texts (Half refutational (standard), All refutational, All expository). 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.