Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37040066›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

On the psychometric evaluation of cognitive control tasks: An Investigation with the Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control (DMCC) battery.

Jean-Paul Snijder, Rongxiang Tang, Julie M Bugg, Andrew R A Conway, Todd S Braver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Improving the Reliability of Cognitive Task Measures: A Narrative Review.Biological psychiatry. Cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging · 2023
    Review
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

5 authors.

Jean-Paul SnijderDepartment of Psychology, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. jean-paul.snijder@uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9341-1447
Rongxiang TangDepartment of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Julie M BuggDepartment of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Andrew R A ConwayDivision of Behavioral & Organizational Sciences, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, CA, USA.
Todd S BraverDepartment of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive ControlR37MH066078 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BRAVER, TODD S · 2013 to 2022
$7.2M
NIMH NIH HHS R37 MH066078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The domain of cognitive control has been a major focus of experimental, neuroscience, and individual differences research. Currently, however, no theory of cognitive control successfully unifies both experimental and individual differences findings. Some perspectives deny that there even exists a unified psychometric cognitive control construct to be measured at all. These shortcomings of the current literature may reflect the fact that current cognitive control paradigms are optimized for the detection of within-subject experimental effects rather than individual differences. In the current study, we examine the psychometric properties of the Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control (DMCC) task battery, which was designed in accordance with a theoretical framework that postulates common sources of within-subject and individual differences variation. We evaluated both internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and for the latter, utilized both classical test theory measures (i.e., split-half methods, intraclass correlation) and newer hierarchical Bayesian estimation of generative models. Although traditional psychometric measures suggested poor reliability, the hierarchical Bayesian models indicated a different pattern, with good to excellent test-retest reliability in almost all tasks and conditions examined. Moreover, within-task, between-condition correlations were generally increased when using the Bayesian model-derived estimates, and these higher correlations appeared to be directly linked to the higher reliability of the measures. In contrast, between-task correlations remained low regardless of theoretical manipulations or estimation approach. Together, these findings highlight the advantages of Bayesian estimation methods, while also pointing to the important role of reliability in the search for a unified theory of cognitive control.

Indexed as

CognitionIndividualityBayes TheoremHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsCognitive controlDual Mechanisms of ControlHierarchical Bayesian modelingIndividual differencesReliability

Identifiers

PMID37040066
PMCPMC10088767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.