Cargando…

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports

Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laborator...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kane, Michael J., Smeekens, Bridget A., Meier, Matt E., Welhaf, Matthew S., Phillips, Natalie E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8613094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33835393
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x
_version_ 1784603566064795648
author Kane, Michael J.
Smeekens, Bridget A.
Meier, Matt E.
Welhaf, Matthew S.
Phillips, Natalie E.
author_facet Kane, Michael J.
Smeekens, Bridget A.
Meier, Matt E.
Welhaf, Matthew S.
Phillips, Natalie E.
author_sort Kane, Michael J.
collection PubMed
description Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yield different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8613094
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86130942021-12-10 Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports Kane, Michael J. Smeekens, Bridget A. Meier, Matt E. Welhaf, Matthew S. Phillips, Natalie E. Behav Res Methods Article Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yield different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility–restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they’d been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn’t offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some “good news”—that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods—and some “bad news”—that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x. Springer US 2021-04-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8613094/ /pubmed/33835393 http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Kane, Michael J.
Smeekens, Bridget A.
Meier, Matt E.
Welhaf, Matthew S.
Phillips, Natalie E.
Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title_full Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title_fullStr Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title_full_unstemmed Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title_short Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
title_sort testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8613094/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33835393
http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01557-x
work_keys_str_mv AT kanemichaelj testingtheconstructvalidityofcompetingmeasurementapproachestoprobedmindwanderingreports
AT smeekensbridgeta testingtheconstructvalidityofcompetingmeasurementapproachestoprobedmindwanderingreports
AT meiermatte testingtheconstructvalidityofcompetingmeasurementapproachestoprobedmindwanderingreports
AT welhafmatthews testingtheconstructvalidityofcompetingmeasurementapproachestoprobedmindwanderingreports
AT phillipsnataliee testingtheconstructvalidityofcompetingmeasurementapproachestoprobedmindwanderingreports