The common factor of executive functions measures nothing but speed of information uptake.

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Christoph Löffler, Gidon T Frischkorn, Dirk Hagemann, Kathrin Sadus, Anna-Lena Schubert
{"title":"The common factor of executive functions measures nothing but speed of information uptake.","authors":"Christoph Löffler, Gidon T Frischkorn, Dirk Hagemann, Kathrin Sadus, Anna-Lena Schubert","doi":"10.1007/s00426-023-01924-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is an ongoing debate about the unity and diversity of executive functions and their relationship with other cognitive abilities such as processing speed, working memory capacity, and intelligence. Specifically, the initially proposed unity and diversity of executive functions is challenged by discussions about (1) the factorial structure of executive functions and (2) unfavorable psychometric properties of measures of executive functions. The present study addressed two methodological limitations of previous work that may explain conflicting results: The inconsistent use of (a) accuracy-based vs. reaction time-based indicators and (b) average performance vs. difference scores. In a sample of 148 participants who completed a battery of executive function tasks, we tried to replicate the three-factor model of the three commonly distinguished executive functions shifting, updating, and inhibition by adopting data-analytical choices of previous work. After addressing the identified methodological limitations using drift-diffusion modeling, we only found one common factor of executive functions that was fully accounted for by individual differences in the speed of information uptake. No variance specific to executive functions remained. Our results suggest that individual differences common to all executive function tasks measure nothing more than individual differences in the speed of information uptake. We therefore suggest refraining from using typical executive function tasks to study substantial research questions, as these tasks are not valid for measuring individual differences in executive functions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11143038/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01924-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate about the unity and diversity of executive functions and their relationship with other cognitive abilities such as processing speed, working memory capacity, and intelligence. Specifically, the initially proposed unity and diversity of executive functions is challenged by discussions about (1) the factorial structure of executive functions and (2) unfavorable psychometric properties of measures of executive functions. The present study addressed two methodological limitations of previous work that may explain conflicting results: The inconsistent use of (a) accuracy-based vs. reaction time-based indicators and (b) average performance vs. difference scores. In a sample of 148 participants who completed a battery of executive function tasks, we tried to replicate the three-factor model of the three commonly distinguished executive functions shifting, updating, and inhibition by adopting data-analytical choices of previous work. After addressing the identified methodological limitations using drift-diffusion modeling, we only found one common factor of executive functions that was fully accounted for by individual differences in the speed of information uptake. No variance specific to executive functions remained. Our results suggest that individual differences common to all executive function tasks measure nothing more than individual differences in the speed of information uptake. We therefore suggest refraining from using typical executive function tasks to study substantial research questions, as these tasks are not valid for measuring individual differences in executive functions.

Abstract Image

执行功能的共同因素衡量的只是信息吸收的速度。
关于执行功能的统一性和多样性及其与其他认知能力(如处理速度、工作记忆能力和智力)的关系,一直存在争论。具体来说,最初提出的执行功能的统一性和多样性受到了以下讨论的质疑:(1)执行功能的因子结构;(2)执行功能测量的不利心理测量属性。本研究解决了以往研究中可能解释相互矛盾结果的两个方法上的局限性:(a) 准确性指标与反应时间指标的使用不一致;(b) 平均成绩与差异分数的使用不一致。在完成一系列执行功能任务的 148 名参与者样本中,我们试图通过采用前人工作中的数据分析选择,复制通常被区分为转移、更新和抑制三种执行功能的三因素模型。在利用漂移-扩散模型解决了已发现的方法论局限后,我们只发现了一个执行功能的共同因素,该因素完全由信息吸收速度的个体差异所解释。执行功能方面没有任何特定的变异。我们的研究结果表明,所有执行功能任务中的个体差异只不过是信息吸收速度的个体差异。因此,我们建议不要使用典型的执行功能任务来研究实质性的研究问题,因为这些任务对于测量执行功能的个体差异是无效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
137
期刊介绍: Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信