Computer-paced versus experimenter-paced working memory span tasks: Are they equally reliable and valid?

a r t i c l e i n f o Working memory span tasks are popular measures, in part, because performance on these tasks predicts performance on other measures of cognitive ability. The traditional method of span-task administration is the experimenter-paced version, whose reliability and validity have been repeatedly demonstrated. However, computer-paced span tasks are becoming increasingly more popular. Despite their popularity, no study had systematically compared experimenter-paced and computer-paced versions of the reading span and operation span tasks. Such a comparison is important because research labs in many universities across many countries administer these span tasks with a variety of methods. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of computer-paced span tasks and to compare these estimates to those of experimenter-paced span tasks. Results indicated that experimenter-paced and computer-paced span tasks share some overlap, but also measure additional and distinct processes. Computer-paced span tasks were highly reliable measures as well as valid indicators of fluid intelligence (Gf). Thus, computer-paced span tasks may be the optimal type of administration given their methodological advantages over experimenter-paced span tasks. Working memory (WM) span tasks have been widely used over the past several decades because performance on these tasks predicts performance on higher-order cognitive tasks (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle, 2005). One popular verbal span task is called the reading span (RSPAN) task. The original version of the RSPAN task developed by Daneman and Carpenter (1980) involved judging whether sentences (e.g., " Lori left the engine on and parked the grape. ") made sense. After a series of sentences, participants were instructed to recall the final word from each sentence (e.g., grape), and word recall on the RSPAN task predicted reading comprehension ability. Another popular verbal span task, the operation span (OSPAN) task (Turner & Engle, 1989), requires participants to solve mathematical equations while remembering words (e.g., " Is (10/2) + 3 = 7? " CHAIR). Importantly , a meta-analysis conducted by Daneman and Merikle (1996) demonstrated that, regardless of whether the processing component involved solving math problems or reading sentences, span tasks with processing components significantly predicted comprehension. Although the processing components have been thoroughly investigated , less research on the administration of span tasks has been conducted. Studies evaluating WM have included a variety of self-paced, experiment-paced, and computer-paced span tasks. With self-paced administration , participants determine how long they spend processing information (e.g., reading …