Target-Specific Learning Contributes to Practice Effects in Paper-and-Pencil Tests of Attention

被引:3
|
作者
Wuehr, Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] TU Dortmund Univ, Dept Psychol, Emil Figge Str 50, D-44227 Dortmund, Germany
来源
SWISS JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY | 2019年 / 78卷 / 1-2期
关键词
attention; d2; test; practice; unitization; visual search;
D O I
10.1024/1421-0185/a000221
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Previous studies revealed that performance in paper-and-pencil tests of attention, such as the d2-R test, improves with practice, though the sources of these practice effects are yet unknown. Practice effects in psychometric tests are a serious problem because they impede the evaluation of test performance and constrain the utility of these tests. This study addresses the role of target-specific learning for practice in a d2-like paper-and-pencil test of attention. Two variants of a d2-like test, which exclusively differed in the set of target stimuli, were constructed. Participants were tested on two days separated by one week. Participants in the control condition searched for the same targets (among the same distractors) in each session, whereas participants in the test group searched for different targets (among the same distractors) in each session. Results showed practice benefits in both groups, but benefits were larger in the control group than in the test group. The results suggest that practice improves the processing of target features in paper-and-pencil tests of attention. Hence, using two versions with different sets of targets may effectively reduce practice effects in d2-like tests of attention. Further implications of the findings are discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 35
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] THE EFFECTS OF COMPUTERIZED VERSUS PAPER-AND-PENCIL ADMINISTRATION ON MEASURES OF NEGATIVE AFFECT
    GEORGE, CE
    LANKFORD, JS
    WILSON, SE
    [J]. COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 1992, 8 (2-3) : 203 - 209
  • [22] Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire
    Buchanan, T
    Ali, T
    Heffernan, TM
    Ling, J
    Parrott, AC
    Rodgers, J
    Scholey, AB
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2005, 37 (01) : 148 - 154
  • [24] Nonequivalence of on-line and paper-and-pencil psychological tests: The case of the prospective memory questionnaire
    Tom Buchanan
    Tarick Ali
    Thomas M. Heffernan
    Jonathan Ling
    Andrew C. Parrott
    Jacqui Rodgers
    Andrew B. Scholey
    [J]. Behavior Research Methods, 2005, 37 : 148 - 154
  • [25] Computer versus paper-and-pencil administration mode and response distortion in noncognitive selection tests
    Potosky, D
    Bobko, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1997, 82 (02) : 293 - 299
  • [26] A COMPARISON OF PAPER-AND-PENCIL AND COMPUTERIZED FORMS OF LINE ORIENTATION AND ENHANCED CUED RECALL TESTS
    Askar, Petek
    Altun, Arif
    Cangoz, Banu
    Cevik, Vildan
    Kaya, Galip
    Turksoy, Hasan
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS, 2012, 110 (02) : 383 - 396
  • [27] Stance Classification with Target-Specific Neural Attention Networks
    Du, Jiachen
    Xu, Ruifeng
    He, Yulan
    Gui, Lin
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONFERENCE ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2017, : 3988 - 3994
  • [28] Teaching and learning angles in elementary school: physical versus paper-and-pencil sequences
    Munier, Valerie
    Devichi, Claude
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2024, 55 (06) : 1420 - 1443
  • [29] Equivalence and predictive validity of paper-and-pencil and computerized adaptive formats of the Differential Aptitude Tests
    Alkhadher, O
    Clarke, DD
    Anderson, N
    [J]. JOURNAL OF OCCUPATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 71 : 205 - 217
  • [30] Creativity assessment: Comparability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach-Kogan Creativity Tests
    Lau, Sing
    Cheung, Ping Chung
    [J]. THINKING SKILLS AND CREATIVITY, 2010, 5 (03) : 101 - 107