Latent Factors Underlying Individual Differences in Attention Measures

Abstract

Following theoretical considerations that relate attention to perception and also to the executive control of performance in complex tasks ( Bundesen, 1990 ; Logan & Gordon, 2001 ), two latent factors underlying individual differences in attention measures are assumed: Perceptual attention and Executive attention. The included attention measures are derived from the neuropsychology-based attention model by Sturm and Zimmermann (2000) , the action-oriented five-component model by Neumann (1992) , and the working memory model according to Baddeley (1986) . Furthermore, one psychometric attention measure ( Moosbrugger & Goldhammer, 2005 ) was selected. A sample of 232 students aged between 19 and 40 completed a test battery of 11 attention and concentration tests. For investigating the appropriateness of the hypothesized two-factor structure, confirmatory factor models, including Perceptual attention and Executive attention as latent factors, were tested. The results support the two-factor structure and, thereby, the hypothesis, that perceptual and executive attention are major factors underlying individual differences in attention measures.

An Examination of the Relationship Between Attention Profiles and Simulated Driving Performance

“…The best known of these is probably the Useful Field of View test (Ball et al, 2000). Others include a battery used in the DriveABLE ™ assessment, the Multi-dimensional Attention Test (MAT), the Test for Attentional Performance-Mobility Version (TAP-M) (Moosbrugger et al, 2006). We believe that the multivariate approach used in the present study may provide more diagnostic information about a wider range of attention abilities than these other batteries.…”

Intelligence and Cognitive Control

“…It needs to be added that in the two-factor model with non-nested factors, the latent variables respectively the factors were allowed to correlate among each other, whereas they were prevented from correlating with each other in the two-factor model with nested factors. The fit statistics obtained for the three models were clearly in favour of the two-factor model with nested factors although the other two-factor model also showed an acceptable to good degree of model-data fit (Moosbrugger et al, 2006). In contrast, the general attention model showed to be inappropriate.…”

“…So there are two options. The results of the study by Moosbrugger et al (2006) suggest that the general attention factor should be represented at the lower latent level instead of the upper latent level.…”

“…In 1969, Moray listed five different concepts of attention. The length of this list of concepts has increased since that time considerably (see Mirsky, Anthony, Duncan, Ahearn, & Kellam, 1991;Moosbrugger, Goldhammer, & Schweizer, 2006). A comparison of concepts can reveal that these concepts refer to quite different stages of information processing and show different characteristics, so that it is reasonable to address them as different types of attention.…”

“…A confirmatory approach to the investigation of the structure of attention was selected by Moosbrugger et al (2006). Eleven different types of attention were considered (alertness, selective/ focused attention, attentional switching, spatial attention, supervisory attention, sustained attention, attention according to the concentration tradition, attention as inhibition, attention as planning, divided attention, attention as interference).…”