Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41062901›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Building a construct-valid battery of performance and self-report indicators of sustained attention consistency.

Matthew S Welhaf, Matt E Meier, Michael J Kane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors.

Matthew S WelhafUNC Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA.
Matt E MeierAppalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA.
Michael J KaneUNC Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA. mjkane@uncg.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous work has argued that the ability to sustain attention consistency can be best modeled as the individual-difference covariation in objective performance-based measures (e.g., reaction-time [RT] variability; accuracy) and self-report measures of task-unrelated thought (TUT). Latent variable studies demonstrate that a general, higher-order attention consistency factor correlates more strongly with nomological network constructs than do either lower-order, measurement-specific factors. The present study aimed to replicate and extend this measurement approach by building a construct-valid battery of sustained attention consistency tasks and testing associations with the conative factors of task interest and success motivation. We analyzed data from 402 subjects who completed a battery of seven attention-consistency functions and found that the hierarchical model provided an adequate fit to the data. Further, attention-consistency associations with motivation and interest, while evident with the lower-order factors, were again stronger with the general higher-order factor (and each conative factor predicted unique variance in general attention consistency in structural regression models). We also refined our task battery by removing poor-performing indicators and demonstrated similar patterns of correlations among the attention and conative factors. We suggest that studies examining attention consistency should use a combination of performance and self-report indicators to capture its individual-differences variation in the most construct valid way. We finally provide recommendations on which tasks and measures might be most useful when measuring sustained attention consistency in future research.

Indexed as

AttentionSelf ReportAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMotivationReaction TimeYoung AdultAttention consistencyConstruct validityMind wanderingReaction time variability

Identifiers

PMID41062901
PMCPMC12507979

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.