Task sequencing does not systematically affect the factor structure of cognitive abilities

被引:3
|
作者
Robison, Matthew K. [1 ]
Celaya, Xavier [2 ]
Ball, B. Hunter [1 ]
Brewer, Gene A. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Texas Arlington, Dept Psychol, Arlington, TX 76019 USA
[2] Arizona State Univ, Dept Psychol, 501 S Nedderman Dr,Box 19528, Arlington, TX 76019 USA
关键词
Individual differences; Working memory; Attention control; Long-term memory; Fluid intelligence; WORKING-MEMORY CAPACITY; LATENT-VARIABLE ANALYSIS; GENERAL FLUID INTELLIGENCE; SHORT-TERM-MEMORY; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; SECONDARY MEMORY; ATTENTION CONTROL; SPAN; MIND; PERFORMANCE;
D O I
10.3758/s13423-023-02369-0
中图分类号
B841 [心理学研究方法];
学科分类号
040201 ;
摘要
Latent variable analyses of cognitive abilities are among the major means by which cognitive psychologists test theories regarding the structure of human cognition. Models are fit to observed variance-covariance structures, and the fit of those models are compared to assess the merits of competing theories. However, an often unconsidered and potentially important methodological issue is the precise sequence in which tasks are delivered to participants. Here we empirically tested whether differences in task sequences systematically affect the observed factor structure. A large sample (N = 587) completed a battery of 12 cognitive tasks measuring four constructs: working memory, long-term memory, attention control, and fluid intelligence. Participants were assigned to complete the assessment in one of three sequences: fixed and grouped by construct vs. fixed and interleaved across constructs vs. random by participant. We generated and tested two hypotheses: grouping task sequences by construct (i.e., administering clusters of tasks measuring a cognitive construct consecutively) would (1) systematically increase factor loadings and (2) systematically decrease interfactor correlations. Neither hypothesis was supported. The measurement models were largely invariant across the three conditions, suggesting that latent variable analyses are robust to such subtle methodological differences as task sequencing.
引用
收藏
页码:670 / 685
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Task sequencing does not systematically affect the factor structure of cognitive abilities
    Matthew K. Robison
    Xavier Celaya
    B. Hunter Ball
    Gene A. Brewer
    [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2024, 31 : 670 - 685
  • [2] How Does Leisure Reading Affect Social Cognitive Abilities?
    Mumper, Micah L.
    Gerrig, Richard J.
    [J]. POETICS TODAY, 2019, 40 (03) : 453 - 473
  • [3] How financial incentives and cognitive abilities affect task performance in laboratory settings: an illustration
    Rydval, O
    Ortmann, A
    [J]. ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2004, 85 (03) : 315 - 320
  • [4] Psychosis and Psychotic-Like Symptoms Affect Cognitive Abilities but Not Motivation in a Foraging Task
    Hegelstad, Wenche ten Velden
    Kreis, Isabel
    Tjelmeland, Hakon
    Pfuhl, Gerit
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2020, 11
  • [5] Inspection time in the structure of cognitive abilities: Where does IT fit?
    Burns, NR
    Nettelbeck, T
    [J]. INTELLIGENCE, 2003, 31 (03) : 237 - 255
  • [6] Hemispheric lateralization does not affect the cognitive and mechanical cost of a sequential motor task
    Christoph Schütz
    Thomas Schack
    [J]. Experimental Brain Research, 2019, 237 : 3133 - 3142
  • [7] Hemispheric lateralization does not affect the cognitive and mechanical cost of a sequential motor task
    Schuetz, Christoph
    Schack, Thomas
    [J]. EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH, 2019, 237 (12) : 3133 - 3142
  • [8] Does cognitive load affect creativity? An experiment using a divergent thinking task
    Rodet, Cortney S.
    [J]. ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2022, 220
  • [9] Effect of Cognitive Abilities on Crowdsourcing Task Performance
    Hettiachchi, Danula
    van Berkel, Niels
    Hosio, Simo
    Kostakos, Vassilis
    Goncalves, Jorge
    [J]. HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION - INTERACT 2019, PT I, 2019, 11746 : 442 - 464
  • [10] THE STRUCTURE OF COGNITIVE-ABILITIES
    SHADRIKOV, VD
    [J]. PSIKHOLOGICHESKII ZHURNAL, 1985, 6 (03) : 38 - 46