ArticleCommunications psychology2024
A measure of reliability convergence to select and optimize cognitive tasks for individual differences research.
Article in Communications psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Psychedelics in the Treatment of Adult ADHD: A Systematic and Mechanistic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Behavioural separation of face memory and face perception.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Seeing and deciding to help: neural and attentional mechanisms of prosociality in younger and older adults.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
- Large-scale experimental investigation of the reliability of confidence measures.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Precise individual measures of inhibitory control.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Bias in data-driven replicability analysis of univariate brain-wide association studies.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A measure of reliability convergence to select and optimize cognitive tasks for individual differences research.Communications psychology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Surging interest in individual differences has faced setbacks in light of recent replication crises in psychology, for example in brain-wide association studies exploring brain-behavior correlations. A crucial component of replicability for individual differences studies, which is often assumed but not directly tested, is the reliability of the measures we use. Here, we evaluate the reliability of different cognitive tasks on a dataset with over 250 participants, who each completed a multi-day task battery. We show how reliability improves as a function of number of trials, and describe the convergence of the reliability curves for the different tasks, allowing us to score tasks according to their suitability for studies of individual differences. We further show the effect on reliability of measuring over multiple time points, with tasks assessing different cognitive domains being differentially affected. Data collected over more than one session may be required to achieve trait-like stability.
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.