Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

On the Characteristics of Sustained Attention Test Performance

The Role of the Preview Benefit

Published Online:September 26, 2019https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000543

Abstract

Abstract. Most psychometric tests assessing sustained attention are characterized by a specific presentation mode: Many items are presented simultaneously and the test takers are required to constantly process and react to them until the testing time is up. The aim of the present study was to look into two mechanisms that potentially underlie performance in these tests: The ability to focus on the currently relevant item and the ability to preprocess upcoming items to prepare for upcoming actions. In order to assess both abilities, the d2-R test of sustained attention was modified and its stimulus arrangement (single, blocks vs. rows of stimuli) was manipulated. The measure of focusing was unreliable and unrelated to performance in standard sustained attention tests. However, the data indicated a strong preview benefit. That is, the test takers preprocessed upcoming items when they got a valid preview of them, which considerably enhanced performance. Moreover, interindividual differences in the preview benefit proved to be internally reliable as well as reliable in retest and were substantially related to performance in three conventional sustained attention tests. We conclude that preprocessing constitutes an important component of performance in sustained attention tests and most likely represents a stable cognitive ability rather than a strategy.

References

  • AERA, APA, NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Blotenberg, I., & Schmidt-Atzert, L. (2019). Towards a process model of sustained attention tests. Journal of Intelligence, 7, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence7010003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornstein, R. F. (2011). Toward a process-focused model of test score validity: Improving psychological assessment in science and practice. Psychological Assessment, 23, 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022402 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hale, S., & Jansen, J. (1994). Global processing-time coefficients characterize individual and group differences in cognitive speed. Psychological Science, 5, 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1994.tb00290.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jäger, A. O., Süß, H. M., & Beauducel, A. (1997). Berliner Intelligenzstruktur-Test (BIS) [Berlin Intelligence Structure Test]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Krumm, S., Hüffmeier, J., & Lievens, F. (2019). Experimental test validation: Examining the path from test elements to test performance. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35, 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000393 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Krumm, S., Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Eschert, S. (2008). Investigating the structure of attention: How do test characteristics of paper-pencil sustained attention tests influence their relationship with other attention tests? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.2.108 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Krumm, S., Schmidt-Atzert, L., Schmidt, S., Zenses, E. M., & Stenzel, N. (2012). Attention tests in different stimulus presentation modes. Journal of Individual Differences, 33, 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000085 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Marschner, G. (1980). Revisions-Test [Revision test]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Miller, J., & Ulrich, R. (2013). Mental chronometry and individual differences: Modeling reliabilities and correlations of reaction time means and effect sizes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 819–858. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0404-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rogosa, D., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve approach to the measurement of change. Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 92, 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.726 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L., & Brickenkamp, R. (2017). Test d2-R – Elektronische Fassung des Aufmerksamkeits- und Konzentrationstests d2-R [Electronic version of the d2-R test of sustained attention]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L., Bühner, M., & Enders, P. (2006). Messen Konzentrationstests Konzentration? Eine Analyse der Komponenten von Konzentrationsleistungen [Do concentration tests assess concentration? Analyzing components of concentration test performances]. Diagnostica, 52, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924.52.1.33 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Schmidt-Atzert, L., Krumm, S., & Bühner, M. (2008). Aufmerksamkeitsdiagnostik: Ableitung eines Strukturmodells und systematische Einordnung von Tests [The assessment of attention: A structural model and categorization of tests]. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie, 19, 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1024/1016-264X.19.2.59 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime 2.0 software. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schweizer, K. (2005). An overview of research into the cognitive basis of intelligence. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.26.1.43 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Schweizer, K., & Moosbrugger, H. (2004). Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence, 32, 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2004.06.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Westhoff, K., & Hagemeister, C. (2005). Konzentrationsdiagnostik [The assessment of concentration]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar