ArticlePsychological research2024
A Nomothetic Span Approach to the Construct Validation of Sustained Attention Consistency: Re-Analyzing Two Latent-Variable Studies of Performance Variability and Mind-Wandering Self-Reports.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Relative Accuracy of Different Methods for Measuring Mind Wandering Subtypes: A Systematic Review.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- A meta-analysis on the relationship between subjective cognitive failures as measured by the cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and objective performance on executive function tasks.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of emotional valence of mind wandering on sustained attention performance.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025Pooled it
- Are the correlates of mind wandering consistent across younger and older adults?Psychological research · 2026Article
- Building a construct-valid battery of performance and self-report indicators of sustained attention consistency.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Objective markers of sustained attention fluctuate independently of mind-wandering reports.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Using objective and subjective measures of mind wandering to predict progression to development of cognitive impairment and test associations with Alzheimer disease biomarkers.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2025Article
- Cross-sectional and longitudinal changes in mind-wandering in older adulthood.Psychology and aging · 2024Article
- Protocol and preregistration for the CODEC project: measuring, modelling and mechanistically understanding the nature of cognitive variability in early childhood.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Antecedents of mind wandering states in healthy aging and mild cognitive impairment.Neuropsychology · 2024Article
- Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2024Article
- A combined experimental-correlational approach to the construct validity of performance-based and self-report-based measures of sustained attention.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ability to sustain attention consistency is frequently assessed using either objective behavioral measures, such as reaction time (RT) variability, or subjective self-report measures, such as rates of task-unrelated thought (TUT). The current studies examined whether the individual-difference covariation in these measures provides a more construct valid assessment of attention consistency than does either alone. We argue that performance and self-report measures mutually validate each other; each measurement approach has its own sources of error, so their shared variance should best reflect the attention consistency construct. We reanalyzed two latent-variable studies where RT variability and TUTs were measured in multiple tasks (Kane et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 145:1017-1048, 2016; Unsworth et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 150:1303-1331, 2021), along with several nomological network constructs to test the convergent and discriminant validity of a general attention consistency factor. Confirmatory factor analyses assessing bifactor (preregistered) and hierarchical (non-preregistered) models suggested that attention consistency can be modeled as the shared variance among objective and subjective measures. This attention consistency factor was related to working memory capacity, attention (interference) control, processing speed, state motivation and alertness, and self-reported cognitive failures and positive schizotypy. Although bifactor models of general attention consistency provide the most compelling construct validity evidence for a specific ability to sustain attention, multiverse analyses of outlier decisions suggested they are less robust than hierarchical models. The results provide evidence for the general ability to sustain attention consistency and suggestions for improving its measurement.
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.