Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test
Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test
复制标题
DOI：
10.3758/bf03192728
复制
发表时间：
2005-11-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Miyake, A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Friedman, NP;Miyake, A
这项研究比较了对流行的工作记忆广度任务进行评分的四种常见方法，即 Daneman 和 Carpenter（1980）的阅读广度测试。与量化已完成的最高组大小或正确组中单词数量的传统跨度分数相比，更连续的测量（例如回忆的单词总数或所有组中平均每组单词的比例）更呈正态分布，具有更高的可靠性，并且与标准测量（阅读理解和 Verbal SAT）具有更高的相关性。此外，任意组的创建（例如，高跨度和低跨度组）会导致可靠性差并大大降低预测能力。建议研究人员通过连续测量对跨度任务进行评分，并避免事后对工作记忆跨度组进行二分。
This study compared four common methods for scoring a popular working memory span task, Daneman and Carpenter's (1980) reading span test. More continuous measures, such as the total number of words recalled or the proportion of words per set averaged across all sets, were more normally distributed, had higher reliability, and had higher correlations with criterion measures (reading comprehension and Verbal SAT) than did traditional span scores that quantified the highest set size completed or the number of words in correct sets. Furthermore, creation of arbitrary groups (e.g., high-span and low-span groups) led to poor reliability and greatly reduced predictive power. It is recommended that researchers score span tasks with continuous measures and avoid post hoc dichotomization of working memory span groups.