ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Testing the validity and reliability of the Matching Familiar Figures Test-2021: An updated behavioral measure of reflection-impulsivity.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT) is a well-known and extensively used behavioral measure of reflection-impulsivity. However, the instrument has several deficiencies, including images designed for school-age children in the United States during the 1960s. Most importantly, an adult version of the instrument is currently unavailable and the lack of a single repository for the images raises questions regarding the MFFT's validity and reliability. We developed a 21st century version of the MFFT using images that are familiar to adults and reside in a freely accessible repository. We conducted two studies examining validity and reliability issues. In Study 1, participants interacting with the MFFT-2021, versus those interacting with the original MFFT20, spent more time on the task, took more time in making their first response, and were more likely to complete the task without errors, even though the average number of errors was higher than the comparison group. The coherence of these results is evidence of convergent validity. Regarding predictive validity, the MFFT-2021 remained a reliable predictor of rational thinking, such that participants who demonstrated more reflection (less impulsivity) tended to avoid rational thinking errors. Also, performance on the MFFT-2021 predicted higher quality judgments in processing job characteristic cues with embedded interactions, a form of configural information processing. We also found evidence of concurrent validity: performance on the MFFT-2021 differed in a predictable manner for participants grouped by their performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test. In Study 2, we tested discriminant validity by comparing participant performance on the MFFT-2021 to their performance on the Information Sampling Task (IST), another behavioral measure of reflection-impulsivity used in studies of psychopharmacological and addiction behaviors. For our participants (undergraduate business students), we found that the MFFT was a stronger predictor of performance on rational thinking tasks, and, contrary to prior studies, our exploratory factor analysis identified separate factors for the MFFT-2021 and the IST, supporting discriminant validity, indicating that these two instruments measure different subtypes of reflection-impulsivity.
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.