Intertemporal choices refer to decisions involving tradeoffs between costs and benefits at different times. Two types of models, namely, attribute-and alternative-based models, have been developed to account for the intertemporal choices of individuals.Although behavioral evidence favors attribute-based models, eye-tracking data have produced mixed evidence. Examining the causal link between eye gaze and intertemporal choice may help resolve the controversy in these two intertemporal models.This study then performs a gaze-contingent manipulation to direct the gaze time of the participants while they are choosing between two intertemporal options. The intertemporal choices of these participants were found to be biased toward a randomly determined target when their gazes were directed to the target attribute (Study 1, N = 45), but their choices were not biased when their gazes were directed to the target option (Study 2, N = 45). The gazed longer attribute also mediated the effect of gaze-contingent manipulation on intertemporal choice. These findings suggest a causal link between intertemporal choices and the gaze-contingent manipulation of the attribute-based gaze pattern and contribute to the theoretical understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved in making intertemporal choices.

P values and confidence intervals (CIs) are the most widely used statistical indices in scientific literature. Several surveys have revealed that these two indices are generally misunderstood. However, existing surveys on this subject fall under psychology and biomedical research, and data from other disciplines are rare. Moreover, the confidence of researchers when constructing judgments remains unclear. To fill this research gap, we surveyed 1,479 researchers and students from different fields in China. Results reveal that for significant (i.e., p < .05, CI does not include zero) and non-significant (i.e., p > .05, CI includes zero) conditions, most respondents, regardless of academic degrees, research fields and stages of career, could not interpret p values and CIs accurately. Moreover, the majority were confident about their (inaccurate) judgements (see osf.io/mcu9q/ for raw data, materials, and supplementary analyses). Therefore, as misinterpretations of p values and CIs prevail in the whole scientific community, there is a need for better statistical training in science.

No abstract

Objectives:As an important part of health literacy, oral health literacy has been adapted to dental practice and research. The 14-item short version of the Health Literacy in Dentistry (HeLD) scale demonstrated excellent reliability, validity and precision when tested among English-speaking populations. However, an appropriate and reliable assessment of this scale in other language contexts remains lacking.The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of HeLD (HeLD-C) for the Chinese population must therefore be examined. Methods:The short version of HeLD was translated into Chinese, and one item was deleted because of its unsuitability for the Chinese healthcare system. The psychometric properties of HeLD-C were evaluated in a sample of 404 Chinese participants aged from 19 to 72 years. The item selection analyses were performed by comparing the difference of each item between the high-and low-score groups. The internal consistency reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient.Construct validity was assessed using exploratory structural equation modelling.For the criterion validity, correlations between the HeLD-C and the criterion validity scales, including the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS), oral hygiene maintenance habits, and oral health status were tested using Pearson's correlation.Results: Results of item selection reveal significant differences among all items between the high-and low-score groups (Ps < .001). The internal consistency reliability of HeLD-C was measured using Cronbach's α (0.92), whereas its construct validity was measured using χ 2 [df] (3.30), comparative fit index (0.95), Tucker-Lewis index (0.94), root mean square error of approximation (0.08), and standardized root mean square residual (0.05). The criterion validity analyses show that HeLD-C is correlated with the criterion validity scales, including eHEALS, oral hygiene maintenance habits and oral health status (Ps < .001). Conclusions:Chinese version of HeLD is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the oral health literacy of the Chinese adult population.

No abstract