ArticlePsychology and aging2026
The construct validity of daily cognitive variability.
Article in Psychology and aging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Developing a psychological test battery to measure cognition in daily life.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognition is a dynamic process and is subject to substantial variation across short and long timescales. It is becoming common to assess cognition repeatedly over short intervals to determine the correlates and consequences of such "cognitive variability." A high-frequency cognitive assessment approach is also an ideal method for measuring how cognition operates in daily life. Nevertheless, several fundamental questions regarding the nature of cognitive variability remain unanswered. We utilize data from the COGITO study, which administered nine separate cognitive tests to more than 200 participants for 100 days to answer the following questions: Do different tasks exhibit similarly reliable levels of variability, and does variability cluster into distinct cognitive domains? This rich data set was analyzed using Bayesian mixed-effects location scale models which simultaneously estimate individual means and variability. All nine tasks exhibited significant variability across the 100 days of testing. Tasks within the domains of episodic memory or processing speed were moderately correlated with each other suggesting some degree of domain specificity. Working memory tasks, on the other hand, did not correlate well with each other suggesting variability in these tasks is dominated by momentary or task-specific influences. These findings not only advance our theoretical understanding of what cognitive variability is but also provide insight into which cognitive tests are most suitable for high-frequency administration and thus may be most amenable to use for studying aging and cognitive processes as they occur in daily life. Appropriate limits on the generalizability of our results are noted. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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.