How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries
Psychological research, including research into adult reading, is frequently based on convenience samples of undergraduate students. This practice raises concerns about the external validity of many accepted findings. The present study seeks to determine how strong this student sampling bias is in l...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271191-22 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 22 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0271191 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Wild, Heather Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani Kuperman, Victor |
| description | Psychological research, including research into adult reading, is frequently based on convenience samples of undergraduate students. This practice raises concerns about the external validity of many accepted findings. The present study seeks to determine how strong this student sampling bias is in literacy and numeracy research. We use the nationally representative cross-national data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to quantify skill differences between (i) students and the general population aged 16-65, and (ii) students and age-matched non-students aged 16-25. The median effect size for the comparison (i) of literacy scores across 32 countries was d = .56, and for comparison (ii) d = .55, which exceeds the average effect size in psychological experiments (d = .40). Numeracy comparisons (i) and (ii) showed similarly strong differences. The observed differences indicate that undergraduate students are not representative of the general population nor age-matched non-students. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0271191 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2686848032</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A709596870</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_b568ad5ecbb6486bb4a890c9884df824</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A709596870</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c720t-326b4a740affade9f0676708f69435f74e045004ece8753db7808afd2a442b113</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4tjO45zAVUrYCuttBJfV8txJq27rt21nUL_PW6bLa20B5RDkpln3hm_yWTZywKNC1IVHxau91aa8cpZGCNcFUVdPMrOi5rgEcOIPD56PsuehbBAqCScsafZGSl5qiDsPLu9cr9zDysPAWyUUa8hlx7yEPs2BXLl7BqsBqtSTC5XBsKnfLJLb3LX5UZH8FJtcmnb3PbL_Uu41caEXNuc4CTR2-g1hOfZk06aAC-G-0X288vnH5dXo-ubr9PLyfVIVRjFEcGsobKiSHadbKHuEKtYhXjHakrKrqKAaIkQBQW8KknbVBxx2bVYUoqboiAX2eu97sq4IAafgsCMM045IjgR0z3ROrkQK6-X0m-Ek1rsAs7PhPRRKwOiKRmXbQmqaRjlrEmj8RqpmnPadhzTpPVmrxWCk_4g1jqV3LBR8LKuttTHYaa-WUKrUsZLc9L6NGP1XMzcWtSY1XWBksC7QcC7ux5CFEsdFBgjLbh-d7oq2Yd5-W-iA_qwBwM1k-mY2nYu9VVbUTGpUF3WSXDbdvwAla4Wljr9HNDpFD8peH9SkJgIf-JM9iGI6fdv_8_e_Dpl3x6xc5AmzoMzfdTOhlOQ7kHlXQgeuoPJBRLbzbl3Q2w3Rwybk8peHX-gQ9H9qpC_ug0T3A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2686848032</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Wild, Heather ; Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani ; Kuperman, Victor</creator><creatorcontrib>Wild, Heather ; Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani ; Kuperman, Victor</creatorcontrib><description>Psychological research, including research into adult reading, is frequently based on convenience samples of undergraduate students. This practice raises concerns about the external validity of many accepted findings. The present study seeks to determine how strong this student sampling bias is in literacy and numeracy research. We use the nationally representative cross-national data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to quantify skill differences between (i) students and the general population aged 16-65, and (ii) students and age-matched non-students aged 16-25. The median effect size for the comparison (i) of literacy scores across 32 countries was d = .56, and for comparison (ii) d = .55, which exceeds the average effect size in psychological experiments (d = .40). Numeracy comparisons (i) and (ii) showed similarly strong differences. The observed differences indicate that undergraduate students are not representative of the general population nor age-matched non-students.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271191</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35802736</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Age ; Analysis ; Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Canada ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; College students ; Decision making ; Education ; Educational research ; Humans ; Information processing ; Lesen ; Literacy ; Memory ; Methods ; Numeracy ; Older people ; People and Places ; Physical Sciences ; PIAAC ; Population ; Psychological research ; Reading ; Reading comprehension ; Research Design ; SAT assessment ; Selection bias ; Skills ; Social Sciences ; Soziologie, Anthropologie ; Students ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Undergraduate study ; University students ; Young adults</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271191-22</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2022 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2022 Wild et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 Wild et al 2022 Wild et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c720t-326b4a740affade9f0676708f69435f74e045004ece8753db7808afd2a442b113</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c720t-326b4a740affade9f0676708f69435f74e045004ece8753db7808afd2a442b113</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6668-6442 ; 0000-0001-8961-3767</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9269910/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9269910/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35802736$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/85974$$DView record in SSOAR (Social Science Open Access Repository)$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wild, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuperman, Victor</creatorcontrib><title>How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Psychological research, including research into adult reading, is frequently based on convenience samples of undergraduate students. This practice raises concerns about the external validity of many accepted findings. The present study seeks to determine how strong this student sampling bias is in literacy and numeracy research. We use the nationally representative cross-national data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to quantify skill differences between (i) students and the general population aged 16-65, and (ii) students and age-matched non-students aged 16-25. The median effect size for the comparison (i) of literacy scores across 32 countries was d = .56, and for comparison (ii) d = .55, which exceeds the average effect size in psychological experiments (d = .40). Numeracy comparisons (i) and (ii) showed similarly strong differences. The observed differences indicate that undergraduate students are not representative of the general population nor age-matched non-students.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational research</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Lesen</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Numeracy</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>PIAAC</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Psychological research</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>SAT assessment</subject><subject>Selection bias</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Soziologie, Anthropologie</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Undergraduate study</subject><subject>University students</subject><subject>Young adults</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk02P0zAQhiMEYpeFf4AgEhKCQ4tjO45zAVUrYCuttBJfV8txJq27rt21nUL_PW6bLa20B5RDkpln3hm_yWTZywKNC1IVHxau91aa8cpZGCNcFUVdPMrOi5rgEcOIPD56PsuehbBAqCScsafZGSl5qiDsPLu9cr9zDysPAWyUUa8hlx7yEPs2BXLl7BqsBqtSTC5XBsKnfLJLb3LX5UZH8FJtcmnb3PbL_Uu41caEXNuc4CTR2-g1hOfZk06aAC-G-0X288vnH5dXo-ubr9PLyfVIVRjFEcGsobKiSHadbKHuEKtYhXjHakrKrqKAaIkQBQW8KknbVBxx2bVYUoqboiAX2eu97sq4IAafgsCMM045IjgR0z3ROrkQK6-X0m-Ek1rsAs7PhPRRKwOiKRmXbQmqaRjlrEmj8RqpmnPadhzTpPVmrxWCk_4g1jqV3LBR8LKuttTHYaa-WUKrUsZLc9L6NGP1XMzcWtSY1XWBksC7QcC7ux5CFEsdFBgjLbh-d7oq2Yd5-W-iA_qwBwM1k-mY2nYu9VVbUTGpUF3WSXDbdvwAla4Wljr9HNDpFD8peH9SkJgIf-JM9iGI6fdv_8_e_Dpl3x6xc5AmzoMzfdTOhlOQ7kHlXQgeuoPJBRLbzbl3Q2w3Rwybk8peHX-gQ9H9qpC_ug0T3A</recordid><startdate>20220708</startdate><enddate>20220708</enddate><creator>Wild, Heather</creator><creator>Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani</creator><creator>Kuperman, Victor</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>RS5</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6668-6442</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8961-3767</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220708</creationdate><title>How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries</title><author>Wild, Heather ; Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani ; Kuperman, Victor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c720t-326b4a740affade9f0676708f69435f74e045004ece8753db7808afd2a442b113</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational research</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Lesen</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Numeracy</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>PIAAC</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Psychological research</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>SAT assessment</topic><topic>Selection bias</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Soziologie, Anthropologie</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Undergraduate study</topic><topic>University students</topic><topic>Young adults</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wild, Heather</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuperman, Victor</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SSOAR (Social Science Open Access Repository)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wild, Heather</au><au>Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani</au><au>Kuperman, Victor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2022-07-08</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0271191</spage><epage>22</epage><pages>e0271191-22</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Psychological research, including research into adult reading, is frequently based on convenience samples of undergraduate students. This practice raises concerns about the external validity of many accepted findings. The present study seeks to determine how strong this student sampling bias is in literacy and numeracy research. We use the nationally representative cross-national data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies to quantify skill differences between (i) students and the general population aged 16-65, and (ii) students and age-matched non-students aged 16-25. The median effect size for the comparison (i) of literacy scores across 32 countries was d = .56, and for comparison (ii) d = .55, which exceeds the average effect size in psychological experiments (d = .40). Numeracy comparisons (i) and (ii) showed similarly strong differences. The observed differences indicate that undergraduate students are not representative of the general population nor age-matched non-students.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>35802736</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0271191</doi><tpages>e0271191</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6668-6442</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8961-3767</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271191-22 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2686848032 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Adult Age Analysis Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie Biology and Life Sciences Canada Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability College students Decision making Education Educational research Humans Information processing Lesen Literacy Memory Methods Numeracy Older people People and Places Physical Sciences PIAAC Population Psychological research Reading Reading comprehension Research Design SAT assessment Selection bias Skills Social Sciences Soziologie, Anthropologie Students Surveys and Questionnaires Undergraduate study University students Young adults |
| title | How representative are student convenience samples? A study of literacy and numeracy skills in 32 countries |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T21%3A32%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20representative%20are%20student%20convenience%20samples?%20A%20study%20of%20literacy%20and%20numeracy%20skills%20in%2032%20countries&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Wild,%20Heather&rft.date=2022-07-08&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0271191&rft.epage=22&rft.pages=e0271191-22&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0271191&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA709596870%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2686848032&rft_id=info:pmid/35802736&rft_galeid=A709596870&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_b568ad5ecbb6486bb4a890c9884df824&rfr_iscdi=true |