ArticleJournal of Intelligence2019
Towards a Process Model of Sustained Attention Tests.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Restoration of Attention by Rest in a Multitasking World: Theory, Methodology, and Empirical Evidence.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Students home alone-profiles of internal and external conditions associated with mathematics learning from home.European journal of psychology of education = Journal europeen de psychologie de l'education · 2023Article
- On doing multi-act arithmetic: A multitrait-multimethod approach of performance dimensions in integrated multitasking.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Intrinsic Connectivity Changes Mediate the Beneficial Effect of Cardiovascular Exercise on Sustained Visual Attention.Cerebral cortex communications · 2020Article
- On the Locus of the Practice Effect in Sustained Attention Tests.Journal of Intelligence · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Taking up new approaches and calls for experimental test validation, in the present study we propose and validate a process model of sustained attention tests. Four sub-components were postulated: the perception of an item, a simple mental operation to solve the item, a motor reaction, and the shift to the next item. In two studies, several cognitive tasks and modified versions of the d2-R test of sustained attention were applied in order to determine performance in the proposed sub-components. Their contribution for the prediction of performance in sustained attention tests and tests of higher cognitive abilities was assessed. The sub-components of the process model explained a large amount of variance in sustained attention tests, namely 55-74%. More specifically, perceptual and mental operation speed were the strongest predictors, while there was a trend towards a small influence of motor speed on test performance. The measures of item shifting showed low reliabilities and did not predict test scores. In terms of discriminant validity, results of Study 1 indicated that the postulated sub-components were insufficient to explain a large amount of variance in working memory span tasks, in Study 2 the same was demonstrated for reasoning tasks. Altogether, the present study is the first to disentangle sub-components in sustained attention tests and to determine their role for test performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.