Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36706136›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Evaluation of the reliability and validity of computerized tests of attention.

Robert Langner, Frank Scharnowski, Silvio Ionta, Carlos E G Salmon, Brian J Piper, Gustavo S P Pamplona

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impaired attention in pediatric narcolepsy type 1.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Robert LangnerInstitute of Systems Neuroscience, Medical Faculty, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3237-001X
Frank ScharnowskiDepartment of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Silvio IontaSensory-Motor Laboratory (SeMoLa), Jules-Gonin Eye Hospital/Fondation Asile des Aveugles, Department of Ophthalmology/University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Carlos E G SalmonInBrain Lab, Department of Physics, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Brian J PiperDepartment of Medical Education, Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, United States of America.
Gustavo S P PamplonaDepartment of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Psychiatric Hospital, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-0278-203X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different aspects of attention can be assessed through psychological tests to identify stable individual or group differences as well as alterations after interventions. Aiming for a wide applicability of attentional assessments, Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) is an open-source software system for designing and running computerized tasks that tax various attentional functions. Here, we evaluated the reliability and validity of computerized attention tasks as provided with the PEBL package: Continuous Performance Task (CPT), Switcher task, Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT), Mental Rotation task, and Attentional Network Test. For all tasks, we evaluated test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), as well as internal consistency through within-test correlations and split-half ICC. Across tasks, response time scores showed adequate reliability, whereas scores of performance accuracy, variability, and deterioration over time did not. Stability across application sites was observed for the CPT and Switcher task, but practice effects were observed for all tasks except the PVT. We substantiate convergent and discriminant validity for several task scores using between-task correlations and provide further evidence for construct validity via associations of task scores with attentional and motivational assessments. Taken together, our results provide necessary information to help design and interpret studies involving attention assessments.

Indexed as

AttentionSoftwareNeuropsychological TestsReaction TimeReproducibility of ResultsWakefulness

Identifiers

PMID36706136
PMCPMC9882756

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.