How we cite

We call our work research-informed. That means we use research to shape our tools, and we show you exactly what it does and doesn't say.

Our rules

Real sources only. Every study we mention links to its DOI, and we check each one against Crossref.
Said the way the study says it. We word claims to match what was found, and we name the limits in plain sentences, such as who took part and what wasn't studied.
Our ideas are labeled. Features that come from our own judgment are called design ideas.
No treatment claims. Our templates are planning tools. They don't treat, cure, or improve ADHD or any condition, and they don't replace professional care.
Respectful language. We write about ADHD and neurodivergence without framing anyone as broken, lazy, or in need of becoming neurotypical.
Careful with sources. We avoid relying on authors or outlets with documented prejudice against marginalized groups, and we judge that on evidence, not rumor.
Most research isn't about ADHD. Many studies we cite were done mostly with people without ADHD. We say so when it applies.

Evidence labels

Established (meta-analysis): A finding that holds up across many studies pooled together. Still general: it may not have been tested with reading or with people with ADHD.
Preliminary: Promising results from one study or a few, or from observational data. Worth knowing, not settled.
Preliminary as cited: The finding is well known, but we cite one paper for it, so we label it by that paper's strength.
Expert theory: An influential theory or expert framework, not a direct test of our feature.
Our design idea: Something we chose because it seems kind and practical. No study tested it, and we say so.

All sources used on this site

Sources

Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674
Preliminary 96 volunteers forming an everyday eating, drinking, or activity habit over 12 weeks. Not about reading or ADHD.
Breines, J. G., & Chen, S. (2012). Self-compassion increases self-improvement motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(9), 1133–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212445599
Preliminary Four lab experiments with university students. Not about reading or ADHD.
Dai, H., Milkman, K. L., & Riis, J. (2014). The fresh start effect: Temporal landmarks motivate aspirational behavior. Management Science, 60(10), 2563–2582. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1901
Preliminary Observational field data (searches, gym visits, goal commitments), so it shows a pattern rather than cause and effect.
Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024192
Preliminary Lab and online experiments about unfinished goals in general, not books.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Established (meta-analysis) 94 independent tests across many kinds of goals, mostly with participants without ADHD.
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
Established (meta-analysis) 138 studies of general goals (often health goals), not reading or ADHD specifically.
Buehler, R., et al. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366
Preliminary as cited One multi-study paper with students. Our 25% buffer is a design choice, not a number from the paper.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
Expert theory About problem solving and learning, not forms or trackers.

Each DOI was checked against Crossref on 2026-10-31. Evidence labels are explained on How we cite.

Spotted a mistake? Email kindlycited@proton.me and we'll fix it.