用户对浅显语言摘要的反馈意见

M. Stoll, Michelle Bähr, Eva Becker, Martin Kerwer, Gesa Benz, Mark René Jonas, Anita Chasiotis
{"title":"用户对浅显语言摘要的反馈意见","authors":"M. Stoll, Michelle Bähr, Eva Becker, Martin Kerwer, Gesa Benz, Mark René Jonas, Anita Chasiotis","doi":"10.24989/fs.v46i1-2.2244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Plain Language Summaries (PLSs) describe scientific studies in a lay friendly way. This study investigates user feedback on PLSs based on a conceptual PLS framework. Our aim was to explore the users’ perspective on PLSs and to verify whether the topics named by users correspond to the categories of the conceptual framework. In an online study, we presented German PLSs of psychological studies to participants. They were asked for their feedback in three open questions. We received 2032 responses from 1098 participants, which were coded by two raters based on the conceptual framework. Participants had homogeneous views on some topics (e.g., the content of the PLSs). These results provide direct indications for users’ expectations towards PLSs. We observed diverging views on other topics (e.g., text length). These results indicate different needs among users. We conclude that a good fit between PLS and target group is important. The presentation of PLSs should allow users to choose information according to their needs. Finally, not all of the framework’s categories were mentioned by the participants. Implications of this finding are discussed.","PeriodicalId":514542,"journal":{"name":"Fachsprache","volume":" 28","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"User Feedback on Plain Language Summaries\",\"authors\":\"M. Stoll, Michelle Bähr, Eva Becker, Martin Kerwer, Gesa Benz, Mark René Jonas, Anita Chasiotis\",\"doi\":\"10.24989/fs.v46i1-2.2244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Plain Language Summaries (PLSs) describe scientific studies in a lay friendly way. This study investigates user feedback on PLSs based on a conceptual PLS framework. Our aim was to explore the users’ perspective on PLSs and to verify whether the topics named by users correspond to the categories of the conceptual framework. In an online study, we presented German PLSs of psychological studies to participants. They were asked for their feedback in three open questions. We received 2032 responses from 1098 participants, which were coded by two raters based on the conceptual framework. Participants had homogeneous views on some topics (e.g., the content of the PLSs). These results provide direct indications for users’ expectations towards PLSs. We observed diverging views on other topics (e.g., text length). These results indicate different needs among users. We conclude that a good fit between PLS and target group is important. The presentation of PLSs should allow users to choose information according to their needs. Finally, not all of the framework’s categories were mentioned by the participants. Implications of this finding are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":514542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fachsprache\",\"volume\":\" 28\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fachsprache\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v46i1-2.2244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fachsprache","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v46i1-2.2244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通俗语言摘要(PLSs)以通俗易懂的方式描述科学研究。本研究以概念性 PLS 框架为基础,调查用户对 PLS 的反馈。我们的目的是探索用户对 PLS 的看法,并验证用户命名的主题是否符合概念框架的类别。在一项在线研究中,我们向参与者展示了德国心理学研究的 PLS。我们通过三个开放式问题征求他们的反馈意见。我们收到了来自 1098 名参与者的 2032 份回复,并由两名评分员根据概念框架对这些回复进行了编码。参与者对某些问题(如 PLS 的内容)的看法不尽相同。这些结果直接表明了用户对 PLS 的期望。我们注意到,在其他主题(如文本长度)上,参与者的观点则存在分歧。这些结果表明了用户的不同需求。我们的结论是,PLS 与目标群体之间的良好契合非常重要。PLS 的呈现方式应允许用户根据自己的需求选择信息。最后,并非所有的框架类别都被参与者提及。我们对这一发现的影响进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
User Feedback on Plain Language Summaries
Plain Language Summaries (PLSs) describe scientific studies in a lay friendly way. This study investigates user feedback on PLSs based on a conceptual PLS framework. Our aim was to explore the users’ perspective on PLSs and to verify whether the topics named by users correspond to the categories of the conceptual framework. In an online study, we presented German PLSs of psychological studies to participants. They were asked for their feedback in three open questions. We received 2032 responses from 1098 participants, which were coded by two raters based on the conceptual framework. Participants had homogeneous views on some topics (e.g., the content of the PLSs). These results provide direct indications for users’ expectations towards PLSs. We observed diverging views on other topics (e.g., text length). These results indicate different needs among users. We conclude that a good fit between PLS and target group is important. The presentation of PLSs should allow users to choose information according to their needs. Finally, not all of the framework’s categories were mentioned by the participants. Implications of this finding are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信