ArticlePloS one2023
Evaluation of the reliability and validity of computerized tests of attention.
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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impaired attention in pediatric narcolepsy type 1.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2026Article
- Time/Movement Estimation and Mental Rotation Tasks as Early Cognitive Markers in Alzheimer's Disease.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Is poor control over thoughts and emotions related to a higher tendency to delay tasks? The link between procrastination, emotional dysregulation and attentional control.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025Article
- The interplay between executive functions and updating predictive representations.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Carotid revascularization improves cognition in patients with carotid stenosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evidence for a competitive relationship between executive functions and statistical learning.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Preliminary findings on long-term effects of fMRI neurofeedback training on functional networks involved in sustained attention.Brain and behavior · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.