Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37314574›Full record

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.

Matthew S Welhaf, Michael J Kane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effects of emotional valence of mind wandering on sustained attention performance.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Naturalistic assessment of reaction time variability in older adults at risk for Alzheimer's disease.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS · 2024
    Article
  12. 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

2 authors.

Matthew S WelhafDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, CB 1125 One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899, USA. wmatt@wustl.edu.
Michael J KaneDepartment of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC, 27402-6170, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AttentionThinkingHumansMemory, Short-TermReaction TimeSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID37314574
PMCPMC10805875

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.