Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, CB 1125 One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130-4899, USA.
Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, P.O. Box 26170, Greensboro, NC, 27402-6170, USA.
Psychol Res. 2024 Feb;88(1):39-80. doi: 10.1007/s00426-023-01820-0. Epub 2023 Jun 14.
The ability to sustain attention consistency is frequently assessed using either objective behavioral measures, such as reaction time (RT) variability, or subjective self-report measures, such as rates of task-unrelated thought (TUT). The current studies examined whether the individual-difference covariation in these measures provides a more construct valid assessment of attention consistency than does either alone. We argue that performance and self-report measures mutually validate each other; each measurement approach has its own sources of error, so their shared variance should best reflect the attention consistency construct. We reanalyzed two latent-variable studies where RT variability and TUTs were measured in multiple tasks (Kane et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 145:1017-1048, 2016; Unsworth et al. in J Exp Psychol Gen 150:1303-1331, 2021), along with several nomological network constructs to test the convergent and discriminant validity of a general attention consistency factor. Confirmatory factor analyses assessing bifactor (preregistered) and hierarchical (non-preregistered) models suggested that attention consistency can be modeled as the shared variance among objective and subjective measures. This attention consistency factor was related to working memory capacity, attention (interference) control, processing speed, state motivation and alertness, and self-reported cognitive failures and positive schizotypy. Although bifactor models of general attention consistency provide the most compelling construct validity evidence for a specific ability to sustain attention, multiverse analyses of outlier decisions suggested they are less robust than hierarchical models. The results provide evidence for the general ability to sustain attention consistency and suggestions for improving its measurement.
注意力一致性的维持能力通常通过客观行为测量，如反应时间（RT）变异性，或主观自我报告测量，如任务无关思维（TUT）的比率来评估。本研究旨在探讨这些测量指标的个体差异协变是否比单一指标更能提供注意力一致性的更具构念效度评估。我们认为，表现和自我报告测量相互验证；每种测量方法都有自己的误差来源，因此它们的共同方差应该最能反映注意力一致性的构念。我们重新分析了两项潜变量研究，其中在多个任务中测量了 RT 变异性和 TUT（Kane 等人，在《实验心理学杂志：一般》145：1017-1048，2016 年；Unsworth 等人，在《实验心理学杂志：一般》150：1303-1331，2021 年），以及几个准则网络结构，以测试一般注意力一致性因素的会聚和区分效度。评估双因素（预先注册）和层次（非预先注册）模型的验证性因素分析表明，注意力一致性可以建模为客观和主观测量之间的共享方差。该注意力一致性因素与工作记忆容量、注意力（干扰）控制、加工速度、状态动机和警觉性以及自我报告的认知失误和积极的精神分裂症倾向有关。虽然一般注意力一致性的双因素模型为维持注意力的特定能力提供了最有说服力的构念效度证据，但异常值决策的多元宇宙分析表明，它们不如层次模型稳健。结果为维持注意力一致性的一般能力提供了证据，并为改善其测量提供了建议。
