ReviewCognitive research: principles and implications2024
Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial.
Review in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primability as a Predictor of L2 Alignment and Writing Performance: Evidence from a Comparative Continuation Task.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- Subdomains of executive function correlate with accuracy on a change detection task.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- 35+ years of the additional singleton task: Design features and guidelines.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Review
- Editorial Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2026Article
- On the Construct Validity of Performance-Based Emotion Recognition Tests: Correlations with Social-Emotional Functioning and Cognitive Skills.Psychologica Belgica · 2026Article
- How to Measure the Reliability of Tasks in Experimental Psychology.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Miyake Revisited: Validating the Factor Structure of an Open-Source Cognitive Control Test Battery.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- The Point-Scoring Reaction-Time Task: Evidence for reliability of sensitivity to reward (but not punishment) and links with alcohol involvement.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- Upright and inverted unfamiliar face-matching tasks - everything correlates everywhere all at once.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- From real-time measures to real world differences: New [and old] statistical approaches to individual differences in real-time language processing.Brain research · 2025Review
- How efficient is translation in language testing? Deriving valid student vocabulary tests in Spanish (StuVoc1-Esp and StuVoc2-Esp) from established English tests.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Dictation and vocabulary knowledge tests for adult native Chinese readers.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Peer victimization but not social anxiety negatively influences predicted enjoyment during peer interactions.Journal of mood and anxiety disorders · 2025Article
- Are we capturing individual differences? Evaluating the test-retest reliability of experimental tasks used to measure social cognitive abilities.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Reliability and validity of the Brief Attention and Mood Scale of 7 Items: a self-administered, online assessment.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Assessing the Utility of Predicted Brain Age for Explaining Variability in Language Abilities in Healthy Older Adults.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2025Article
- IDLaS-DE - A Web-Based Platform for Running Customized Studies on Individual Differences in German Language Skills.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Pre-protocol of the Virtual Spatial Configuration Task (VSCT): A Novel Virtual Reality-Based Tool for Assessing Cognitive Map Formation Abilities.Open research Europe · 2025Article
- Reliably measuring learning-dependent distractor suppression with eye tracking.Behavior research methods · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimental psychology is witnessing an increase in research on individual differences, which requires the development of new tasks that can reliably assess variations among participants. To do this, cognitive researchers need statistical methods that many researchers have not learned during their training. The lack of expertise can pose challenges not only in designing good, new tasks but also in evaluating tasks developed by others. To bridge the gap, this article provides an overview of test psychology applied to performance tasks, covering fundamental concepts such as standardization, reliability, norming and validity. It provides practical guidelines for developing and evaluating experimental tasks, as well as for combining tasks to better understand individual differences. To further address common misconceptions, the article lists 11 prevailing myths. The purpose of this guide is to provide experimental psychologists with the knowledge and tools needed to conduct rigorous and insightful studies of individual differences.
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.