Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Measures of working memory capacity (WMC), such as complex span tasks (e.g., operation span), have become some of the most frequently used tasks in cognitive psychology. However, due to the length of time it takes to complete these tasks many researchers trying to draw conclusions about WMC forgo properly administering multiple tasks. But can the complex span tasks be shortened to take less administration time? We address this question by splitting the tasks into three blocks of trials, and analyzing each block’s contribution to measuring WMC and predicting fluid intelligence (Gf). We found that all three blocks of trials contributed similarly to the tasks’ ability to measure WMC and Gf, and the tasks can therefore be substantially shortened without changing what they measure. In addition, we found that cutting the number of trials by 67 % in a battery of these tasks still accounted for 90 % of the variance in their measurement of Gf. We discuss our findings in light of administering the complex span tasks in a method that can maximize their accuracy in measuring WMC, while minimizing the time taken to administer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The results of the larger battery can be found in Shipstead et al. (2014). It may be noted that the sample size for this study is larger than the sample size in Shipstead et al. This difference is due to subjects who did not complete, or accurately complete, tasks within the battery other than those presented here.

  2. The maximum number of items to recall varies between the three tasks. These differences in the maximum recall number are based on previous studies and were used to maintain consistency with previous research using these tasks.

  3. Using a maximum-likelihood estimation, we found that \( \boldsymbol{\chi} \) 2 was significantly reduced using a two-factor solution as opposed to a one-factor solution, Δ\( \boldsymbol{\chi} \) 2 (5) = 94.61, p < .01. Based on previous research (Engle, 2002; Engle et al., 1999; Kane et al., 2004) and this analysis, we used the two-factor solution.

  4. Due to the fact that the dependent measures for these regressions were not identical, we used Fisher’s r-to-Z transformation for this analysis.

  5. In addition to these regression analyses, we conducted two confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using the three blocks of each task to form each of three factors (i.e., an OSpan factor). In the first CFA, the three blocks of trials were allowed to load freely on each task’s factor. In the other CFA, the factor loadings were set to be equal for each block. Consistent with the findings of the regression analyses, these two CFAs did not significantly differ from one another, \( \boldsymbol{\chi} \) 2(6) = 10.74, p = .10. In other words, no single block of trials was a better indicator of the task than any other block.

  6. It is important to note that Panel B demonstrates the individual contribution of each task to a factor score that includes that task – a method that is generally problematic for interpretation. As such, 100 % of the variance in “All Three” is predicted by using Blocks 1, 2, and 3 – the variables are identical. However, since we are interpreting the ability of each task to measure the WMC factor we have chosen to include Panel B regardless of this limitation.

References

  • Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 30–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barch, D. M., Berman, M. G., Engle, R., Jones, J. H., Jonides, J., MacDonald, A., … Sponheim, S. R. (2009). CNTRICS final task selection: working memory. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 35, 136-152.

  • Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 296–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, A. R., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N., Elliott, E. M., Scott Saults, J., Morey, C. C., Mattox, S., Hismjatullina, A., & Conway, A. R. (2005). On the capacity of attention: Its estimation and its role in working memory and cognitive aptitudes. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 42–100.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests (pp. 109-113). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 145–199). NY: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient is the same for two tests administered to the same sample. Psychometrika, 45, 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gevins, A., & Cutillo, B. (1993). Spatiotemporal dynamics of component processes in human working memory. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 87, 128–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, T. L., Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., Hambrick, D. Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2013). Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence. Psychological Science, 24, 2409–2419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, R. W., Goldberg, J. O., Miles, A. A., & McDermid Vaz, S. (2008). Predictors of medication competence in schizophrenia patients. Psychiatry Research, 157, 47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kail, R. V. (2007). Longitudinal evidence that increases in processing speed and working memory enhance children's reasoning. Psychological Science, 18, 312–313.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence are strongly related constructs: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 66–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?! Intelligence, 14, 389–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Park, S. (2005). Working memory impairments in schizophrenia: a meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 599–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. Chicago: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, S. J., & Vogel, E. K. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Süß, H. (2005). Working memory and intelligence—their correlation and their relation: Comment on Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle (2005). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 61–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Section 4: The Advanced Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 164–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440–452.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Trani, A. N., Redick, T. S., Sloan, P., Bunting, M. F., … Engle, R. W. (2014). Working memory capacity and executive functions, Part 1: General fluid intelligence. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin, 138, 628–654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Psychometric monographs.

  • Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N., Redick, T. S., Heitz, R. P., Broadway, J. M., & Engle, R. W. (2009). Complex working memory span tasks and higher-order cognition: A latent-variable analysis of the relationship between processing and storage. Memory, 17, 635–654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K. (2013). What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 4.

  • Wittman, W. W. (1988). Multivariate reliability theory. Principles of symmetry and successful validation strategies. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (2nd ed.). Perspectives on individual differences. (pp. 505-560). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the Office of Naval Research (N00014- 12-1-0406 and N00014-12-1-1011) and the Center for Advanced Study of Language (H98230-07-D-0175 and H98230-07-D-0175) to Randall W. Engle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, 654 Cherry St., Atlanta, GA, 30332, USA

    Jeffrey L. Foster, Tyler L. Harrison, Kenny L. Hicks & Randall W. Engle

  2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Zach Shipstead

  3. Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Thomas S. Redick

Authors
  1. Jeffrey L. Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zach Shipstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tyler L. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kenny L. Hicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas S. Redick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Randall W. Engle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey L. Foster.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foster, J.L., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T.L. et al. Shortened complex span tasks can reliably measure working memory capacity. Mem Cogn 43, 226–236 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-014-0461-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation