trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Readers process active-voice sentences faster and understand them more easily than passive-voice sentences.

the verdict
CONTESTED PARTIAL
Recorded sources
1 source for · 1 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that readers process active-voice sentences faster and understand them more easily than passive-voice sentences?

Partly. One writing guide states that readers can more easily process active-voice sentences than passive-voice ones, while a 1968 eye-voice-span study found the passive form was more highly constrained and yielded a greater span. Neither source directly measures comprehension ease across both voices, so the evidence only partially addresses the claim.

Verdict: CONTESTED PARTIAL · 1 source for, 1 against · Last checked

The private library was unavailable for some searches in this check. Missing library results are not evidence against the claim.

Evidence for · 1
2020
Get citation
Nuzzo, R. L. (2020). Principles for Writing about Quantitative Research. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12350

Evidence against · 1
1968
Get citation
Levin, H. & Kaplan, E. L. (1968). Eye-Voice Span (EVS) within Active and Passive Sentences. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1177/002383096801100405

Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work