{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h1>Speaking with Accountability: Cognitive Effects of Extempore Practice in Emerging Adults — A Mixed-Methods RCT with Integrated Reporting</h1><h2>Abstract</h2><p><strong>Background:</strong> Extempore speaking that emphasizes verifiable claims and structured peer feedback may strengthen higher-order cognition, yet rigorous evidence in youth populations is limited. <strong>Objective:</strong> To evaluate whether a 12-week accountable extempore speaking intervention improves critical thinking, cognitive flexibility, and higher-order problem solving among university students aged 18–20, and to contextualize outcomes through qualitative inquiry and mixed-methods integration.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> In a randomized controlled trial (N = 312; Intervention = 156; Control = 156), participants complete pre/post assessments on the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), the Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), and a Bloom’s Taxonomy Scenario Test. Primary analyses use ANCOVA (post-test DV, pre-test covariate) with effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals, complemented by within-group t-tests, assumption checks, and robustness analyses. A qualitative subsample (n = 48) participates in semi-structured interviews and video-supported analysis, coded in NVivo with κ ≥ 0.80. Joint displays align statistical gains with experiential themes to derive meta-inferences. Reporting follows APA 7, CONSORT (flow and allocation), COREQ (qualitative rigor), and mixed-methods integration guidelines.</p><p><strong>Anticipated Contributions:</strong> We expect greater gains for the intervention group, converging with themes of metacognitive growth, evidence accountability, and transfer to academic and social contexts. Mixed-methods integration will clarify mechanisms and boundary conditions, informing pedagogy and program design. <strong>Innovation:</strong> A companion Authorship Pattern Analysis concept is outlined to profile methodological and cognitive signature traits across scholarly teams, supporting meta-research, integrity checks, and collaboration mapping.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> This protocol details a high-rigor, power-adequate mixed-methods RCT with accessible visualization and integration strategies designed to advance evidence on accountable speaking and cognitive development.</p><h2>Keywords</h2><ul><li>accountable extempore speaking</li><li>critical thinking</li><li>cognitive flexibility</li><li>mixed-methods randomized trial</li><li>ANCOVA</li><li>NVivo thematic analysis</li><li>integration joint displays</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Comprehensive Content Integration Summary</h2><ul><li><strong>Research Focus:</strong> Does accountable extempore speaking improve higher-order cognition (critical thinking, flexibility, application/creation) in 18–20-year-olds?</li><li><strong>Design:</strong> Mixed-methods RCT; 12-week intervention; matched control with topic exposure parity via structured reading/writing sessions.</li><li><strong>Sample:</strong> N=312 (156 per group), stratified purposive recruitment; qualitative n=48 interviews; weekly reflections for process data.</li><li><strong>Measures:</strong> WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s Scenario Test (Analyze/Evaluate/Create). Qualitative: interviews, video segments (30-second units), journals.</li><li><strong>Quantitative Analysis:</strong> Descriptives, paired t-tests, ANCOVA with baseline covariates; effect sizes (Cohen’s d, partial η²), CI reporting; multiple comparisons by Bonferroni (α=0.017) with FDR for exploratory; assumption checks and robustness (Welch, non-parametrics, bootstrapping, MI).</li><li><strong>Qualitative Analysis:</strong> Braun & Clarke thematic analysis; deductive/inductive coding; κ ≥ 0.80; confirmability via audit trail, reflexivity, member checking.</li><li><strong>Integration:</strong> Joint displays linking gain profiles to experiential themes; triangulation across tests, interviews, video coding, reflections; meta-inferences on mechanisms and transfer.</li><li><strong>Standards & Accessibility:</strong> APA 7, CONSORT, COREQ; alt text, colorblind-safe palettes, CI/error bars, accessible tables, PNG/SVG outputs; data security with encryption, de-identification, 2FA.</li><li><strong>Innovation Add-on:</strong> Authorship Pattern Analysis (multi-layered cognitive signature profiling) to map methodological preferences, reporting standards, and thematic innovation across co-author teams in related literature.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Intervention (n)', 'Control (n)', 'Interviews (n)'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Planned Sample Counts', 'data': [156, 156, 48], 'backgroundColor': ['#2E86AB', '#A23B72', '#6C757D'], 'borderColor': ['#1F5F79', '#6E284D', '#494F54'], 'borderWidth': 1}]}}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Line', 'data': {'labels': ['Week 1', 'Week 2', 'Week 3', 'Week 4', 'Week 5', 'Week 6', 'Week 7', 'Week 8', 'Week 9', 'Week 10', 'Week 11', 'Week 12'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Quantitative Analysis Active', 'data': [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], 'borderColor': '#2E86AB', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(46,134,171,0.2)', 'fill': True}, {'label': 'Qualitative Analysis Active', 'data': [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1], 'borderColor': '#A23B72', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(162,59,114,0.2)', 'fill': True}, {'label': 'Integration (Joint Displays)', 'data': [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1], 'borderColor': '#17A398', 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(23,163,152,0.2)', 'fill': True}]}}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Radar', 'data': {'labels': ['APA 7 (stats)', 'CONSORT 2010', 'COREQ', 'Mixed-Methods Integration', 'Data Security & Privacy'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Readiness (0–5 scale)', 'data': [5, 5, 4.5, 4.5, 5], 'backgroundColor': 'rgba(33,150,243,0.2)', 'borderColor': 'rgba(33,150,243,1)'}]}}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Doughnut', 'data': {'labels': ['Tables', 'Figures', 'Joint Displays', 'CONSORT Flow'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Planned Visualization Inventory', 'data': [5, 3, 1, 1], 'backgroundColor': ['#4CAF50', '#2196F3', '#FFC107', '#9C27B0'], 'borderColor': ['#3D8B40', '#1B7FC7', '#C99A06', '#6F1C89'], 'borderWidth': 1}]}}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Key Themes and Findings Catalog (Anticipated)</h2><ul><li><strong>Cognitive Processing Changes:</strong> speed of retrieval, synthesis across domains, flexible re-framing; indicators include references to “faster connections,” “seeing links,” and swift restructuring mid-speech.</li><li><strong>Metacognitive Awareness:</strong> self-monitoring, strategy naming, calibration of confidence; indicators include “catching myself,” “planning how to respond,” and post hoc evaluation language.</li><li><strong>Accountability Effects:</strong> source verification behavior, precision in claims, correction across sessions; indicators include explicit citation, fact-checking talk, and public correction logs.</li><li><strong>Transfer Experiences:</strong> application in coursework and social problem-solving; indicators include cross-course examples, group work improvements, and everyday reasoning anecdotes.</li><li><strong>Confidence & Anxiety Trajectories:</strong> reduced apprehension, productive risk-taking, feedback receptivity; indicators include “less nervous,” “willing to try,” and positive feedback assimilation.</li><li><strong>Process Barriers (Divergence Cases):</strong> topic unfamiliarity, time pressure, facilitation variability; tracked via video-coded self-corrections and reflection journals.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Joint Display Blueprint and Reporting Plan</h2><ul><li><strong>Joint Display Structure:</strong> Rows = cognitive measures (WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s); Columns = quantitative gains (means, CIs, effect sizes), aligned qualitative evidence (themes, exemplar quotes), and integration inference (convergent/partial/divergent).</li><li><strong>Figure 1 (CONSORT Flow):</strong> Recruitment → Allocation → Follow-up → Analysis, with counts and attrition reasons; accessible alt text included.</li><li><strong>Figure 2 (Pre–Post by Group):</strong> Error-bar plots with 95% CIs; Intervention = blue, Control = gray; shapes encode measure type.</li><li><strong>Figure 3 (Effect Sizes):</strong> CI bars for Cohen’s d across measures; Bonferroni-adjusted significance markers and exact p-values reported.</li><li><strong>Figure 4 (Theme Frequencies):</strong> Horizontal bars of themes and sub-themes; annotation of participant counts and κ values.</li><li><strong>Table 1–5:</strong> Demographics/baseline, pre–post descriptives, ANCOVA results, qualitative themes + quotes, mixed-methods integration matrix; APA/COREQ-compliant captions and notes.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Reference Mapping for Consistent Citation</h2><p>Use consistent in-text citation keys across manuscript, figures, and supplements. Provisional keys and references:</p><ul><li><strong>braun_clarke_2006_ta</strong> — Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology.</li><li><strong>moher_2010_consort</strong> — Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. BMJ.</li><li><strong>tong_2007_coreq</strong> — Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., &amp; Craig, J. (2007). COREQ: A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care.</li><li><strong>benjamini_hochberg_1995_fdr</strong> — Benjamini, Y., &amp; Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate. JRSS-B.</li><li><strong>chi_1994_self_explanation</strong> — Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.-H., &amp; LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science.</li><li><strong>perkins_salomon_1988_transfer</strong> — Perkins, D. N., &amp; Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership.</li><li><strong>bellon_2000_debate</strong> — Bellon, J. (2000). A research-based justification for debate across the curriculum. Argumentation and Advocacy.</li><li><strong>billings_roberts_2014_socratic</strong> — Billings, L., &amp; Roberts, T. (2014). The Socratic seminar in the classroom. ASCD.</li><li><strong>good_2021_mmr_guidelines</strong> — Good, A., et al. (2021). Reporting standards for mixed-methods research (guidance article). [Journal/guideline source to confirm].</li></ul><p>Note: Verify final bibliographic details (authors, years, titles, venues, DOIs) against authoritative sources before submission.</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Authorship Pattern Analysis — Concept Integration</h2><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> Profile methodological and cognitive signature traits across co-authored intervention studies to detect collaboration micro-patterns and innovation pathways.</p><ul><li><strong>Signals:</strong> writing style features, analysis sequences (e.g., pre/post + ANCOVA + joint displays), reporting standards (APA/CONSORT/COREQ), and recurrent cognitive constructs.</li><li><strong>Training Corpus:</strong> Multi-authored mixed-methods studies in education/psychology from reputable journals; include metadata on roles (e.g., statistician, qualitative lead, video coder).</li><li><strong>Outputs:</strong> co-author theme networks, expertise nodes, latent collaboration clusters, and integrity anomaly flags (e.g., improbable reporting patterns).</li><li><strong>Value-add to this study:</strong> informs literature synthesis, reviewer assignment, and interdisciplinary team formation for follow-on projects.</li></ul>'}