![]() ![]() Laboratory studies often utilize tasks, such as the operation span task (Ospan Turner & Engle, 1989), reading span task ( Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), or the n-back task ( Dobbs & Rule, 1989) to assess WM function. The present study addressed these concerns by providing a systematic evaluation of the construct and criterion-related validity of various WM measures. Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2005) commented on this issue in more general terms by saying that, “many intelligence measures have been developed with substantially greater criterion-related validity, as opposed to construct validity” (p. However, this assumption has not been fully tested. The assumption is that the psychometric instruments used in the clinical setting accurately depict the WM construct discussed by cognitive psychologists. Clinical psychologists often use psychometric indices, such as subscales of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III) and the Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-III), to measure WM function. Cognitive psychologists use laboratory tasks that have been extensively analyzed for their reliability and construct validity (for review see Conway, Kane, Bunting, Hambrick, Wilhelm, & Engle, 2005). ![]() For example, cognitive and clinical psychologists typically define WM similarly, but use different methods to assess WM function. The prominence of the WM construct has resulted in the use of different measurement techniques that often vary substantially in their methodology. ![]() Additionally, the importance of the construct has been noted across areas of psychology, as researchers in clinical psychology have evaluated the relationship of WM to deficits in schizophrenia ( Barch, 2003) and depression ( Harvey et al., 2004), social psychologists have assessed the role of WM in stereotype threat ( Bonnot & Croizet, 2007), and neuropsychologists have assessed WM ability as a way to identify the early onset of Alzheimer’s disease ( Rosen, Bergeson, Putnam, Harwell, & Sunderland, 2002). WM has been heavily investigated by researchers, and has been shown to play a key role in complex behaviors such as reading comprehension ( Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), the acquisition of language ( Baddeley, Gathercole, & Papagno, 1998), and fluid abilities ( Salthouse & Pink, 2008 Gray, Chabris, & Braver, 2003). The strong relationship between WM and complex cognition underscores the key importance of this construct in many aspects of human behavior. Working memory (WM) was recently defined as “a temporary storage system under attentional control that underpins our capacity for complex thought” ( Baddeley, 2007, p. The results revealed that the lab measures, along with the LNS task, were the best predictors of fluid abilities. Additionally, a latent variable approach was taken using fluid intelligence as a criterion construct to further discriminate between the WM tests. Factor analyses revealed that a factor comprising scores from the three lab WM measures and the clinical subtest, Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS), provided the best measurement of WM. Performance on all of the WM subtests of the clinical batteries shared positive correlations with the lab measures however, the Arithmetic and Spatial Span subtests shared lower correlations than the other WM tests. A large sample of undergraduates completed three laboratory-based WM measures (operation span, listening span, and n-back), as well as the WM subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. The present study examined the relationship between WM measures used in the laboratory and those used in applied settings. The working memory (WM) construct is conceptualized similarly across domains of psychology, yet the methods used to measure WM function vary widely. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |