Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39733220›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Within-subject reliability, occasion specificity, and validity of fluctuations of the Stroop and go/no-go tasks in ecological momentary assessment.

Justin Hachenberger, Axel Mayer, Denny Kerkhoff, Friederike Eyssel, Stefan Fries, Tina B Lonsdorf, Hilmar Zech, Lorenz Deserno, Sakari Lemola

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Justin HachenbergerDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany. justin.hachenberger@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8799-6706
Axel MayerDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Denny KerkhoffDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Friederike EysselDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Stefan FriesDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Tina B LonsdorfDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.
Hilmar ZechDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Lorenz DesernoDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sakari LemolaDepartment of Psychology, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Following the (revised) latent state-trait theory, the present study investigates the within-subject reliability, occasion specificity, common consistency, and construct validity of cognitive control measures in an intensive longitudinal design. These indices were calculated applying dynamic structural equation modeling while accounting for autoregressive effects and trait change. In two studies, participants completed two cognitive control tasks (Stroop and go/no-go) and answered questions about goal pursuit, self-control, executive functions, and situational aspects, multiple times per day. The sample (aged 18-30 years in both studies) consisted of 21 participants (14 female) in the pilot study and 70 participants (48 female) in the main study. Findings indicated poor within-subject reliability for the Stroop task error rate and reaction time difference between congruent and incongruent trials and moderate to good within-subject reliability for the go/no-go task error rate and reaction time. Occasion specificity-the systematic variance accounted for by state residuals-was at a modest level (between 1.4% and 11.1%) for the Stroop error rate and reaction time difference, and at a moderate level (between 16.1% and 37.2% for the go/no-go error rate and reaction time) in the two studies. Common consistency-the variance accounted for by latent trait variables-was at a moderate to high level for all of the investigated scores. Indicative of construct validity, the Stroop and go/no-go task error rates correlated positively with each other on the within- and between-subject level. Within-subject correlations between task scores and subjective self-control measures were very small and mostly nonsignificant.

Indexed as

Ecological Momentary AssessmentExecutive FunctionReaction TimeStroop TestAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePilot ProjectsReproducibility of ResultsYoung AdultCognitive controlDynamic structural equation modelingEcological momentary assessmentGo/no-goIntensive longitudinal designStroop

Identifiers

PMID39733220
PMCPMC11682018

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.