Shelton Jill T, Elliott Emily M, Hill B D, Calamia Matthew R, Gouvier Wm Drew
Louisiana State University.
Intelligence. 2009 May 1;37(3):283. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2008.11.005.
The working memory (WM) construct is conceptualized similarly across domains of psychology, yet the methods used to measure WM function vary widely. The present study examined the relationship between WM measures used in the laboratory and those used in applied settings. A large sample of undergraduates completed three laboratory-based WM measures (operation span, listening span, and n-back), as well as the WM subtests from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-III and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Performance on all of the WM subtests of the clinical batteries shared positive correlations with the lab measures; however, the Arithmetic and Spatial Span subtests shared lower correlations than the other WM tests. Factor analyses revealed that a factor comprising scores from the three lab WM measures and the clinical subtest, Letter-Number Sequencing (LNS), provided the best measurement of WM. Additionally, a latent variable approach was taken using fluid intelligence as a criterion construct to further discriminate between the WM tests. The results revealed that the lab measures, along with the LNS task, were the best predictors of fluid abilities.
工作记忆（WM）这一概念在心理学各领域的概念化方式相似，但用于测量WM功能的方法却差异很大。本研究考察了实验室中使用的WM测量方法与应用场景中使用的测量方法之间的关系。一大群本科生完成了三项基于实验室的WM测量（操作广度、听觉广度和n-back），以及韦氏成人智力量表第三版和韦氏记忆量表第三版中的WM子测验。临床成套测验中所有WM子测验的表现与实验室测量结果均呈正相关；然而，算术和空间广度子测验的相关性低于其他WM测验。因素分析表明，由三项实验室WM测量得分和临床子测验字母数字排序（LNS）组成的一个因素能最好地测量WM。此外，采用了一种以流体智力作为标准结构的潜在变量方法，以进一步区分WM测验。结果表明，实验室测量方法与LNS任务一起，是流体能力的最佳预测指标。
