External validation of the computerized, group administrable adaptation of the “operation span task”

Abstract

One of the most widely used tasks for measuring working memory capacity is the operation span task (OSPAN; Turner & Engle, 1989). This task has almost always been applied individually, and stimuli presentation is controlled by the experimenter. Recently, De Neys, d'Ydewalle, Schaeken, and Vos (2002) improved the administration procedure by designing an automated, group-administrable version of the task (GOSPAN). They found GOSPAN to be reliable, and they also provided evidence on its validity (a significant positive correlation between GOSPAN and OSPAN scores). However, an external test of GOSPAN validity is still lacking. In this work, we present such a validation for the automated version, when the task is administered both individually (Experiment 1) and to groups (Experiment 2). There are abundant previous data on the relation between working memory capacity and reading comprehension. In this work, this relation is studied using an automated OSPAN version to measure working memory capacity. Given that our results are similar to those found using the original OSPAN, our data support the external validity of the automated version of the task. We also tested the reliability of the task and found high internal consistency in both experiments. Although a number of different models and definitions

Computer-paced versus experimenter-paced working memory span tasks: Are they equally reliable and valid?

“…In fact, some researchers have speculated that self-paced span tasks may not measure WM; rather, they are more similar to measures of STM because participants are given extra time to rehearse (Conway et al, 2005). However, given that researchers use experimenter-paced (Bunting, 2006;Kane, Poole, Tuholski, & Engle, 2006;La Pointe & Engle, 1990;McCabe, 2008) and computer-paced span tasks (Babcock & Salthouse, 1990;Hambrick & Oswald, 2005;Oberauer, 2005;Pardo-Vazquez & Fernandez-Rey, 2008) interchangeably in the literature (sometimes with little or no justification), these types of span administration should be systematically compared.…”

The Monkey game: A computerized verbal working memory task for self-reliant administration in primary school children

“…Although researchers have less control over behavioral assessment when using self-reliant online assessment, online assessment also provides researchers the possibility to collect data in much larger samples than in more controlled settings (Van de Weijer-Bergsma, Kroesbergen, Prast, & Van Luit, 2014 ; Van der Ven et al, 2013 ). The feasibility of computerized or online self-reliant working memory tasks has been shown in adults (De Neys, d’Ydewalle, Schaeken, & Vos, 2002 ; Pardo-Vázquez & Fernández-Rey, 2008 ), as well as in primary school children (Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al, 2014 ; Van der Ven et al, 2013 ). To the best of our knowledge, previous studies with primary school children have focused on visual–spatial working memory tasks (Van de Weijer-Bergsma et al, 2014 ; Van der Ven et al, 2013 ), whereas self-reliant assessment of verbal working memory tasks has not yet been examined.…”

The Evidence Base for Improving School Outcomes by Addressing the Whole Child and by Addressing Skills and Attitudes, Not Just Content

“…Similarly, Hasher and Zacks (1988; Zacks & Hasher, 2006) emphasize inhibitory components of working memory: (a) gating out irrelevant information from the working-memory workspace and (b) deleting no-longer-relevant information from that limited-capacity workspace. A large literature has assessed working-memory development and function using “complex span tasks” (also called “working memory span tasks”; Bailey, Dunlosky, & Kane, 2008; Barrouillet et al, 2009; Chein & Morrison, 2010; Conway et al, 2005; Pardo-Vázquez & Fernández-Rey, 2008; Unsworth et al, 2009). Those tasks require more than just holding information in mind and manipulating it.…”