In choice reaction tests, applying task rules instead of responding associatively can help participants shield against interference from distractors. However, the mechanism of such shielding functions remains unclear. Through four experiments, we show how the shielding function can be explained by the Relative-Speed-of-Processing theory. Experiment 1A demonstrated that applying task rules can reduce the relative processing advantage of the distractor by facilitating the target processing speed, thereby eliminating the interference effect. In Experiments 1B, and 1C, we manipulated the relative processing advantage between targets and distractors by adjusting the temporal sequence of the presence of the targets and distractors: stimuli appearing first would gain more relative processing advantage. The results showed that when the relative processing advantage of a distractor was large enough, applying task rules cannot help participants shield against the interference. Contrarily, when the relative processing advantage of the distractor was small, even without applying task rules, participants did not experience the interference. In Experiment 2, we directly manipulated the processing speed of the targets and the distractor, so that participants who responded associatively would facilitate target processing speed, but participants who applied task rules would not. Contrary to previous studies but in line with our prediction, in Experiment 2, only participants who applied task rules had interference effects. Our results suggested that applying the task rule might not help us shield against the interference directly. Instead, applying task rules improves target-processing speed, which in turn reduces the relative processing advantage of the distractor and eliminates the interference.
Stress is among the most prevalent problems in life; thus, measurement of stress is of great importance for disease prevention and evaluation. This work aims to develop a computerized adaptive test (CAT) application to measure stress (CAT-S) based on item response theory (IRT). Two types of analyses were performed. The first analysis was to meet the psychometric requirements of the CATS. A Paper and Pencil (P&P) test involving 226 items was developed based on eight stress-related scales, and 972 Chinese college students completed the test. The first seven scales were used to build the item bank, and the last scale (i.e., the Perceived Stress Scale, PSS) was used to determine the convergent validity of the CATS. With some statistical considerations, such as item fit, discrimination, differential item functioning (DIF), and the assumption of unidimensionality, the final item bank comprised 93 items. The second analysis was to simulate the CAT adaptively using the existing item response. A Bayesian method called Expected a Posterior method (EAP) was used to estimate θ. For the item selection strategy, the greatest item information was considered at each step. The stopping rule was determined by the fixed length (10, 11, 12,. . ., 20, and 93) or the prespecified level of measurement precision (standard errors of 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8). Finally, the criterion validity was tested by using PSS as a criterion and analyzing the effect of CATS diagnosis with a receiver operating curve (ROC). The results showed that (1) the final stress item bank had good quality based on the psychometric evaluation, (2) the CAT-scores were highly correlated with the scores of the final item bank, (3) the scores of the P&P form of PSS were correlated with those of the CATS (r > 0.5), (4) the value of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was greater than 0.7 under each stopping rule, and (5) the CATS needed only a small number of items to obtain a highly precise measure of stress. Therefore, the CATS presented the theoretically expected advantages, which enabled a rapid, accurate, and efficient dynamic and intelligent measurement of stress.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.