Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38485883›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Exploring the multiverse of analysis options for the alcohol Stroop.

Andrew Jones, Elena Petrovskaya, Tom Stafford

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Andrew Jones *School of Psychology, Tom Reilly Building, Liverpool John Moore's University, Byrom Street, L3 3AF, Liverpool, UK. a.j.jones@ljmu.ac.uk.
Elena Petrovskaya *Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK.
Tom StaffordDepartment of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The alcohol Stroop is a widely used task in addiction science to measure the theoretical concept of attentional bias (a selective attention to alcohol-related cues in the environment), which is thought to be associated with clinical outcomes (craving and consumption). However, recent research suggests findings from this task can be equivocal. This may be because the task has many different potential analysis pipelines, which increase researcher degrees of freedom when analysing data and reporting results. These analysis pipelines largely come from how outlying reaction times on the task are identified and handled (e.g. individual reaction times > 3 standard deviations from the mean are removed from the distribution; removal of all participant data if > 25% errors are made). We used specification curve analysis across two alcohol Stroop datasets using alcohol-related stimuli (one published and one novel) to examine the robustness of the alcohol Stroop effect to different analytical decisions. We used a prior review of this research area to identify 27 unique analysis pipelines. Across both data sets, the pattern of results was similar. The alcohol Stroop effect was present and largely robust to different analysis pipelines. Increased variability in the Stroop effect was observed when implementing outlier cut-offs for individual reaction times, rather than the removal of participants. Stricter outlier thresholds tended to reduce the size of the Stroop interference effect. These specification curve analyses are the first to examine the robustness of the alcohol Stroop to different analysis strategies, and we encourage researchers to adopt such analytical methods to increase confidence in their inferences across cognitive and addiction science.

Indexed as

Reaction TimeStroop TestAdolescentAdultAlcohol DrinkingAttentionAttentional BiasCuesEthanolFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultEthanolAlcoholAlcohol StroopCravingMultiverseSpecification curve analysis

Identifiers

PMID38485883
PMCPMC11133151

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.