Cargando…

The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences

Individual differences in cognitive paradigms are increasingly employed to relate cognition to brain structure, chemistry, and function. However, such efforts are often unfruitful, even with the most well established tasks. Here we offer an explanation for failures in the application of robust cogni...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hedge, Craig, Powell, Georgina, Sumner, Petroc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28726177
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
_version_ 1783329598728044544
author Hedge, Craig
Powell, Georgina
Sumner, Petroc
author_facet Hedge, Craig
Powell, Georgina
Sumner, Petroc
author_sort Hedge, Craig
collection PubMed
description Individual differences in cognitive paradigms are increasingly employed to relate cognition to brain structure, chemistry, and function. However, such efforts are often unfruitful, even with the most well established tasks. Here we offer an explanation for failures in the application of robust cognitive paradigms to the study of individual differences. Experimental effects become well established – and thus those tasks become popular – when between-subject variability is low. However, low between-subject variability causes low reliability for individual differences, destroying replicable correlations with other factors and potentially undermining published conclusions drawn from correlational relationships. Though these statistical issues have a long history in psychology, they are widely overlooked in cognitive psychology and neuroscience today. In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC). Reliabilities ranged from 0 to .82, being surprisingly low for most tasks given their common use. As we predicted, this emerged from low variance between individuals rather than high measurement variance. In other words, the very reason such tasks produce robust and easily replicable experimental effects – low between-participant variability – makes their use as correlational tools problematic. We demonstrate that taking such reliability estimates into account has the potential to qualitatively change theoretical conclusions. The implications of our findings are that well-established approaches in experimental psychology and neuropsychology may not directly translate to the study of individual differences in brain structure, chemistry, and function, and alternative metrics may be required. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5990556
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59905562018-06-19 The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences Hedge, Craig Powell, Georgina Sumner, Petroc Behav Res Methods Article Individual differences in cognitive paradigms are increasingly employed to relate cognition to brain structure, chemistry, and function. However, such efforts are often unfruitful, even with the most well established tasks. Here we offer an explanation for failures in the application of robust cognitive paradigms to the study of individual differences. Experimental effects become well established – and thus those tasks become popular – when between-subject variability is low. However, low between-subject variability causes low reliability for individual differences, destroying replicable correlations with other factors and potentially undermining published conclusions drawn from correlational relationships. Though these statistical issues have a long history in psychology, they are widely overlooked in cognitive psychology and neuroscience today. In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC). Reliabilities ranged from 0 to .82, being surprisingly low for most tasks given their common use. As we predicted, this emerged from low variance between individuals rather than high measurement variance. In other words, the very reason such tasks produce robust and easily replicable experimental effects – low between-participant variability – makes their use as correlational tools problematic. We demonstrate that taking such reliability estimates into account has the potential to qualitatively change theoretical conclusions. The implications of our findings are that well-established approaches in experimental psychology and neuropsychology may not directly translate to the study of individual differences in brain structure, chemistry, and function, and alternative metrics may be required. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2017-07-19 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5990556/ /pubmed/28726177 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Hedge, Craig
Powell, Georgina
Sumner, Petroc
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title_full The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title_fullStr The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title_full_unstemmed The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title_short The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
title_sort reliability paradox: why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990556/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28726177
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
work_keys_str_mv AT hedgecraig thereliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences
AT powellgeorgina thereliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences
AT sumnerpetroc thereliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences
AT hedgecraig reliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences
AT powellgeorgina reliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences
AT sumnerpetroc reliabilityparadoxwhyrobustcognitivetasksdonotproducereliableindividualdifferences