Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794418›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2023

An easy way to improve scoring of memory span tasks: The edit distance, beyond "correct recall in the correct serial position".

Corentin Gonthier

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Cross-frequency interactions in band importance functions.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Corentin GonthierLaboratoire de psychologie des Pays de la Loire (LPPL UR 4638), Nantes Université, 44000, Nantes, France. corentin.gonthier@univ-nantes.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8573-0413

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MemoryMental RecallCognitionHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsDamerau–Levenshtein distanceEdit distancePartial-credit scoringScoringSerial recallShort-term memoryWorking memory

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.