Friedman Naomi P, Miyake Akira
Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA.
Behav Res Methods. 2005 Nov;37(4):581-90. doi: 10.3758/bf03192728.
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.
本研究比较了对一项广受欢迎的工作记忆广度任务——丹曼和卡彭特（1980）阅读广度测试进行计分的四种常用方法。与量化完成的最高组大小或正确组中的单词数量的传统广度分数相比，更具连续性的指标，如回忆的单词总数或所有组平均每组的单词比例，分布更接近正态，可靠性更高，与标准指标（阅读理解和言语学术能力评估测试）的相关性也更高。此外，创建任意分组（例如，高广度组和低广度组）会导致可靠性差，并大大降低预测能力。建议研究人员使用连续性指标对广度任务进行计分，并避免对工作记忆广度组进行事后二分法处理。
