Evaluating the Stroop Test With Older Adults: Construct Validity, Short Term Test-Retest Reliability, and Sensitivity to Mental Fatigue.

IF 1.4 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Perceptual and Motor Skills Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-13 DOI:10.1177/00315125241253425
Larissa Oliveira Faria, Thais Frois, Leonardo de Sousa Fortes, Laiss Bertola, Maicon Rodrigues Albuquerque
{"title":"Evaluating the Stroop Test With Older Adults: Construct Validity, Short Term Test-Retest Reliability, and Sensitivity to Mental Fatigue.","authors":"Larissa Oliveira Faria, Thais Frois, Leonardo de Sousa Fortes, Laiss Bertola, Maicon Rodrigues Albuquerque","doi":"10.1177/00315125241253425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted two studies to evaluate the construct validity, short term test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to mental fatigue of the Stroop task when used with older adults. In Study 1, 40 participants visited our lab on two separate days. On the first visit, they took five screening scales, and we measured their height and body mass. On the second visit, they completed the Stroop task twice with a 30-minute interval between assessments. In Study 2, 15 different participants took a 30-minute Flanker/Reverse Flanker task during the interval between the two administrations of the Stroop tasks and they gave subjective ratings of their mental fatigue on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) prior to taking either of the Stroop tasks. In Study 1, participants showed a ceiling effect on the Stroop accuracy measure, there was strong concurrent validity for the Stroop with significant score differences between the Stroop's congruent and incongruent conditions (<i>p</i> < .001), and there was excellent response time reliability (ICC = 0.926) on day two when participants took the Stroop twice within a 30-minute inter-test interval. However, there were significant test-retest performance differences with respect to cognitive inhibition (<i>p</i> < .001). In Study 2, mental fatigue from the Flanker/Reverse Flanker test resulted in a significantly worse second Stroop performance (<i>p</i> = .045). We concluded that the Stroop task demonstrated strong concurrent validity and response time reliability among older adults, but it showed sensitivity to mental fatigue, and repeated administrations within the short 30-minute test-retest interval revealed that the most important Stroop measure (cognitive inhibition) was unreliable. We discuss the implications of these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":19869,"journal":{"name":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perceptual and Motor Skills","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00315125241253425","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted two studies to evaluate the construct validity, short term test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to mental fatigue of the Stroop task when used with older adults. In Study 1, 40 participants visited our lab on two separate days. On the first visit, they took five screening scales, and we measured their height and body mass. On the second visit, they completed the Stroop task twice with a 30-minute interval between assessments. In Study 2, 15 different participants took a 30-minute Flanker/Reverse Flanker task during the interval between the two administrations of the Stroop tasks and they gave subjective ratings of their mental fatigue on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) prior to taking either of the Stroop tasks. In Study 1, participants showed a ceiling effect on the Stroop accuracy measure, there was strong concurrent validity for the Stroop with significant score differences between the Stroop's congruent and incongruent conditions (p < .001), and there was excellent response time reliability (ICC = 0.926) on day two when participants took the Stroop twice within a 30-minute inter-test interval. However, there were significant test-retest performance differences with respect to cognitive inhibition (p < .001). In Study 2, mental fatigue from the Flanker/Reverse Flanker test resulted in a significantly worse second Stroop performance (p = .045). We concluded that the Stroop task demonstrated strong concurrent validity and response time reliability among older adults, but it showed sensitivity to mental fatigue, and repeated administrations within the short 30-minute test-retest interval revealed that the most important Stroop measure (cognitive inhibition) was unreliable. We discuss the implications of these findings.

评估老年人的 Stroop 测试:结构有效性、短期测试-重测可靠性以及对精神疲劳的敏感性。
我们进行了两项研究,以评估 Stroop 任务在用于老年人时的建构效度、短期测试再测可靠性以及对心理疲劳的敏感性。在研究 1 中,40 名参与者分别在两天内访问了我们的实验室。在第一次来访时,他们做了五项筛选量表,我们还测量了他们的身高和体重。第二次来访时,他们完成了两次 Stroop 任务,两次评估之间间隔 30 分钟。在研究 2 中,15 名不同的参与者在两次执行 Stroop 任务的间隔期间参加了一次 30 分钟的 Flanker/Reverse Flanker 任务,他们在参加任何一次 Stroop 任务之前都用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对自己的精神疲劳程度进行了主观评分。在研究 1 中,受试者在 Stroop 准确性测量中表现出了天花板效应;Stroop 的并发效度很高,在 Stroop 的一致和不一致条件下得分差异显著(p < .001);受试者在测试间隔为 30 分钟的情况下进行两次 Stroop 测试,第二天的反应时间可靠性极佳(ICC = 0.926)。然而,在认知抑制方面,测试后的表现存在明显差异(p < .001)。在研究 2 中,Flanker/Reverse Flanker 测试中的心理疲劳导致第二次 Stroop 表现明显较差(p = .045)。我们得出的结论是,Stroop 任务在老年人中表现出很强的并发效度和反应时间可靠性,但它对精神疲劳很敏感,而且在短短 30 分钟的测试-再测间隔内重复施测显示,最重要的 Stroop 测量(认知抑制)并不可靠。我们将讨论这些发现的意义。
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
Perceptual and Motor Skills
Perceptual and Motor Skills PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
110
×
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