Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39249726›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2025

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.

Stephanie C Goodhew, Mark Edwards

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Lost in Thought or Just Lonely? Everyday Cognitive Competence in Middle Adulthood.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025
    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.

Stephanie C GoodhewSchool of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. Stephanie.Goodhew@anu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5066-8303
Mark EdwardsSchool of Medicine and Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) has been widely used as a measure of subjective cognitive function in everyday life for decades. However, the evidence on how it relates to objective performance on executive function tasks is mixed. One possible reason for these mixed results is that the CFQ has selective relationships with some aspects of executive function and not others. Here, therefore, we classified tasks according to an influential framework of executive functions-switching, updating, inhibition, and we also considered the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a category because it was custom designed to gauge cognitive failures. We synthesized a large body of available evidence and performed four Bayesian meta-analyses on the relationship between CFQ scores and objective performance on executive function tasks in these four categories. Results suggested that CFQ scores were associated with objective performance on SART (18 effect sizes, μ = -.19, BF

Indexed as

CognitionExecutive FunctionAttentionBayes TheoremHumansInhibition, PsychologicalMemory, Short-TermNeuropsychological TestsSurveys and QuestionnairesCognitive failuresCognitive Failures QuestionnaireExecutive functionInhibitionSARTShiftingSwitchingWorking memory

Identifiers

PMID39249726
PMCPMC12000218

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.