Perlow Richard, Jattuso Mia
120459 Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge , Lethbridge, Canada.
Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Psychol Rep. 2018 Jun;121(3):430-444. doi: 10.1177/0033294117729183. Epub 2017 Sep 14.
Researchers have operationalized working memory in different ways and although working memory-performance relationships are well documented, there has been relatively less attention devoted to determining whether seemingly similar measures yield comparable relations with performance outcomes. Our objective is to assess whether two working memory measures deploying the same processes but different item content yield different relations with two problem-solving criteria. Participants completed a computation-based working memory measure and a reading-based measure prior to performing a computerized simulation. Results reveal differential relations with one of the two criteria and support the notion that the two working memory measures tap working memory capacity and other cognitive abilities. One implication for theory development is that researchers should consider incorporating other cognitive abilities in their working memory models and that the selection of those abilities should correspond to the criterion of interest. One practical implication is that researchers and practitioners shouldn't automatically assume that different phonological loop-based working memory scales are interchangeable.
研究人员以不同方式对工作记忆进行了操作化处理，尽管工作记忆与表现之间的关系已有充分记录，但对于确定看似相似的测量方法是否能产生与表现结果可比的关系，关注相对较少。我们的目标是评估两种采用相同过程但项目内容不同的工作记忆测量方法，与两种解决问题的标准之间是否产生不同的关系。参与者在进行计算机模拟之前，完成了一项基于计算的工作记忆测量和一项基于阅读的测量。结果显示，与两个标准之一存在差异关系，并支持这样一种观点，即这两种工作记忆测量方法考察的是工作记忆容量和其他认知能力。对理论发展的一个启示是，研究人员应考虑在其工作记忆模型中纳入其他认知能力，且这些能力的选择应与感兴趣的标准相对应。一个实际的启示是，研究人员和从业者不应自动假定不同的基于语音回路的工作记忆量表是可互换的。
