Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

CORRECTION article

Front. Psychol., 09 January 2026

Sec. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement

Volume 16 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1764815

This article is part of the Research TopicStatistical Guidelines: New Developments in Statistical Methods and Psychometric Tools – Volume IIView all 7 articles

Correction: Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models

This article is a correction to:

  1. Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models

    1. Read original article
Ottavia M. Epifania,Ottavia M. Epifania1,2Pasquale Anselmi Pasquale Anselmi3*Egidio RobustoEgidio Robusto3
  • 1Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy
  • 2Psicostat, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
  • 3Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, Padova, Italy

A Correction on
Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models

by Epifania, O. M., Anselmi, P., and Robusto, E. (2025). Front. Psychol. 16:1652403. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1652403

The reference for Epifania et al., 2024 was erroneously omitted from the final publication.

The reference appears in full below:

Epifania, O. M., Anselmi, P., and Robusto, E. (2024). A guided tutorial on linear mixed-effects models for the analysis of accuracies and response times in experiments with fully crossed design. Psychol. Methods. doi: 10.1037/met0000708

The original version of this article has been updated.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: Rasch model, log-normal model, implicit association test, single category implicit association test, re-analyses

Citation: Epifania OM, Anselmi P and Robusto E (2026) Correction: Comparing the ability of the IAT and of the SC-IAT to account for behavioral outcomes: a re-analysis using linear mixed-effects models. Front. Psychol. 16:1764815. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1764815

Received: 10 December 2025; Accepted: 11 December 2025;
Published: 09 January 2026.

Approved by:

Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland

Copyright © 2026 Epifania, Anselmi and Robusto. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Pasquale Anselmi, cGFzcXVhbGUuYW5zZWxtaUB1bmlwZC5pdA==

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.