ArticleBehavior research methods2023
An easy way to improve scoring of memory span tasks: The edit distance, beyond "correct recall in the correct serial position".
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stable tendencies in spontaneous working memory usage during flexible behaviour.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Generalisation between motor and declarative memory sequences: A conceptual replication of Mosha & Robertson (2016).iScience · 2026Article
- The Production of Clitics in Serbian Speakers with Stroke Aphasia.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Cross-frequency interactions in band importance functions.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026Article
- Complex span measures of working memory do not mediate the effects of age on the P3 and N400 ERPs.Aging brain · 2025Article
- Frequency Modulation Detection Thresholds are Unrelated to Individual Differences in Verbal Memory Capacity.Auditory perception & cognition · 2025Article
- Using mobile EEG to study auditory work strain during simulated surgical procedures.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Characterizing correlations in partial credit speech recognition scoring with beta-binomial distributions.JASA express letters · 2024Article
- Should Intelligence Tests Be Speeded or Unspeeded? A Brief Review of the Effects of Time Pressure on Response Processes and an Experimental Study with Raven's Matrices.Journal of Intelligence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For researchers and psychologists interested in estimating a subject's memory capacity, the current standard for scoring memory span tasks is the partial-credit method: subjects are credited with the number of stimuli that they manage to recall correctly in the correct serial position. A critical issue with this method, however, is that intrusions and omissions can radically change the scores depending on where they occur. For example, when recalling the sequence ABCDE, "ABCD" is worth 4 points but "BCDE" is worth 0 points. This paper presents an improved scoring method based on the edit distance, meaning the number of changes required to edit the recalled sequence into the target. Edit-distance scoring gives results close to partial-credit scoring, but without the corresponding vulnerability to positional shifts. A reanalysis of memory performance in two large datasets (N = 1093 and N = 758) confirms that in addition to being more logically consistent, edit-distance scoring demonstrates similar or better psychometric properties than partial-credit, with comparable validity, a small increase in reliability, and a substantial increase of test information (measurement precision in the context of item response theory). Test information was especially improved for harder items and for subjects with ability in the lower range, whose scores tend to be severely underestimated by partial-credit scoring. Code to compute edit-distance scores with various software is made available at https://osf.io/wdb83/ .
Indexed as
Identifiers
35794418What 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.