Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35928929›Full record

ArticleCurrent directions in psychological science2022

Do Rating and Task Measures of Control Abilities Assess the Same Thing?

Naomi P Friedman, Daniel E Gustavson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current directions in psychological science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors.

Naomi P FriedmanInstitute for Behavioral Genetics and Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Daniel E GustavsonDepartment of Medicine and Vanderbilt Genetics Institute, Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Funding

Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan behavioral development & cognitive aging (CATSLife2)R01AG046938 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI REYNOLDS, CHANDRA A, WADSWORTH, SALLY J · 2015 to 2024
$18.5M
14/21 ABCD-USA Consortium: Research Project Site at CU BoulderU01DA051018 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI Marie T Banich, Naomi P. Friedman · 2020 to 2026
$11.4M
Brain and Genetic Predictors of Individual Differences in Pain and Placebo AnalgesiaR01DA046064 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI FRIEDMAN, NAOMI P., WAGER, TOR D. · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
A Twin Study of Adolescent Alcohol and Drug Use Development: Leveraging Intensive Longitudinal AssessmentsU01DA046413 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI FRIEDMAN, NAOMI P., VRIEZE, SCOTT IAN · 2018 to 2022
$2.7M
Biotyping Mood Health in Late Adolescence: Neurocognitive Dimensions and Stress PathwaysR01MH117131 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI KAISER, ROSELINDE H · 2020 to 2023
$2.5M
Integrative Prioritization of Alcohol and Drug-Addiction Related Genetic LociR01DA042742 · NIDA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI PALMER, ROHAN HUGH CRAIG · 2018 to 2022
$1.7M
Developing Inhibitory ControlR01HD078532 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI MUNAKATA, YUKO · 2017 to 2021
$1.5M
Biotyping Mood Health in Late Adolescence: Neurocognitive Dimensions and Stress PathwaysR56MH117131 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO · PI KAISER, ROSELINDE H · 2018 to 2018
$523k
The Role of Executive Functions in Cognitive Aging and Risk for Mild Cognitive ImpairmentR03AG065643 · NIA · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI GUSTAVSON, DANIEL · 2020 to 2021
$173k
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG046938NIA NIH HHS R03 AG065643NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD078532NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042742NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA046064NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA046413NIDA NIH HHS U01 DA051018NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH117131NIMH NIH HHS R56 MH117131
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to control our thoughts and actions is broadly associated with health and success, so it is unsurprising that measuring self-control abilities is a common goal across many areas of psychology. Puzzlingly, however, different measures of control - questionnaire ratings and computerized cognitive tasks - show only weak relationships to each other. We review evidence that this discrepancy is not just a result of poor reliability or validity of ratings or tasks. Rather, ratings and tasks seem to assess different aspects of control, distinguishable along six main dimensions. To improve the psychological science surrounding self-control, it will be important for future work to investigate the relative importance of these dimensions to the dissociations between self-control measures, and for researchers to motivate and explain which aspects of control they are studying when one or both types of measures are deployed. Keywords: cognitive control, executive function, self-regulation, self-control, impulsivity.

Identifiers

PMID35928929
PMCPMC9347699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.