Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40839441›Full record

ArticlePsychology and aging2026

The construct validity of daily cognitive variability.

Andrew J Aschenbrenner, Joshua J Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Andrew J AschenbrennerDepartment of Neurology, Washington University in St. Louis.ORCID 0000-0002-4317-7282
Joshua J JacksonDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis.

Funding

Within-person dynamics of cognition and personality in healthy aging and Alzheimer's disease.K01AG071847 · NIA · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI ASCHENBRENNER, ANDREW · 2021 to 2025
$526k
National Institutes of Health; National Institute on AgingNIA NIH HHS K01 AG071847
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40839441
PMCPMC12373022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.