Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brownstein, S. C., &Weiner, M. (1974).Barron’s how to prepare for college entrance examinations (12th ed.). Woodbury, NY: Barron’s Educational Series.
Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization.Applied Psychological Measurement,7, 249–253.
Cohen, J., &Cohen, P. (1983).Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Daneman, M., &Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 450–466.
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 422–433.
Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and comprehension: A test of four hypotheses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 972–992.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., &Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 309–331.
Friedman, N. P., &Miyake, A. (2000). Differential roles for visuospatial and verbal working memory in situation model construction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 61–83.
Friedman, N. P., &Miyake, A. (2004a). The reading span test and its predictive power for reading comprehension ability.Journal of Memory & Language,51, 136–158.
Friedman, N. P., &Miyake, A. (2004b). The relations among inhibition and interference control functions: A latent variable analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 101–135.
Glass, G. V., &Hopkins, K. D. (1996).Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Humphreys, L. G., &Fleishman, A. (1974). Pseudo-orthogonal and other analysis of variance designs involving individual-differences variables.Journal of Educational Psychology,66, 464–472.
Judd, C. M., &McClelland, G. H. (1989).Data analysis: A modelcomparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Kane, M. J., &Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 47–70.
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., &Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 189–217.
Klein, K., &Fiss, W. H. (1999). The reliability and stability of the Turner and Engle working memory task.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,31, 429–432.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., &Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.Psychological Methods,7, 19–40.
Maxwell, S. E., &Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance.Psychological Bulletin,113, 181–190.
McClelland, G. H. (1997). Optimal design in psychological research.Psychological Methods,2, 3–19.
McClelland, G. H. (2000). Nasty data: Unruly, ill-mannered observations can ruin your analysis. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.),Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 393–411). New York: Cambridge University Press.
McClelland, G. H., &Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects.Psychological Bulletin,114, 376–390.
McNamara, D. S., &Scott, J. L. (2001). Working memory capacity and strategy use.Memory & Cognition,29, 10–17.
Miyake, A. (2001). Individual differences in working memory: Introduction to the special section.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 163–168.
Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., &Friedman, N. P. (1999). Good interactions are hard to find.Brain & Behavioral Sciences,22, 108–109.
Miyake, A., Just, M. A., &Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neutral contexts.Journal of Memory & Language,33, 175–202.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shah, P., &Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 4–27.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Tirre, W. C., &Peña, C. M. (1992). Investigation of functional working memory in the reading span test.Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 462–472.
Turner, M. L., &Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent?Journal of Memory & Language,28, 127–154.
Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,49A, 51–79.
Waters, G. S., &Caplan, D. (2003). The reliability and stability of verbal working memory measures.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 550–564.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was partially supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship (to N.P.F.) and by a research grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH63207) and a training grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH01865).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Friedman, N.P., Miyake, A. Comparison of four scoring methods for the reading span test. Behavior Research Methods 37, 581–590 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192728
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192728