A meta-analysis on the relationship between subjective cognitive failures as measured by the cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and objective performance on executive function tasks.

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Stephanie C Goodhew, Mark Edwards
{"title":"A meta-analysis on the relationship between subjective cognitive failures as measured by the cognitive failures questionnaire (CFQ) and objective performance on executive function tasks.","authors":"Stephanie C Goodhew, Mark Edwards","doi":"10.3758/s13423-024-02573-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) has been widely used as a measure of subjective cognitive function in everyday life for decades. However, the evidence on how it relates to objective performance on executive function tasks is mixed. One possible reason for these mixed results is that the CFQ has selective relationships with some aspects of executive function and not others. Here, therefore, we classified tasks according to an influential framework of executive functions-switching, updating, inhibition, and we also considered the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a category because it was custom designed to gauge cognitive failures. We synthesized a large body of available evidence and performed four Bayesian meta-analyses on the relationship between CFQ scores and objective performance on executive function tasks in these four categories. Results suggested that CFQ scores were associated with objective performance on SART (18 effect sizes, μ = -.19, BF<sub>10</sub> = 18.03, i.e., 18.03 times more evidence of a relationship versus no relationship), updating working memory (49 effect sizes, μ = -.06, BF<sub>10</sub> = 17.80), and inhibition tasks (41 effect sizes, μ = -.07, BF<sub>10</sub> = 15.40), whereas there was not definitive evidence regarding switching (34 effect sizes, μ = -.06, BF<sub>10</sub> = .50, i.e., two times greater evidence for no relationship). This suggests that subjective cognitive function can predict objective performance on at least some executive function tasks. We discuss methodological and theoretical factors that constrain the maximum observable correlation and consider the relative insights that subjective measures versus task performance provide.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02573-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) has been widely used as a measure of subjective cognitive function in everyday life for decades. However, the evidence on how it relates to objective performance on executive function tasks is mixed. One possible reason for these mixed results is that the CFQ has selective relationships with some aspects of executive function and not others. Here, therefore, we classified tasks according to an influential framework of executive functions-switching, updating, inhibition, and we also considered the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a category because it was custom designed to gauge cognitive failures. We synthesized a large body of available evidence and performed four Bayesian meta-analyses on the relationship between CFQ scores and objective performance on executive function tasks in these four categories. Results suggested that CFQ scores were associated with objective performance on SART (18 effect sizes, μ = -.19, BF10 = 18.03, i.e., 18.03 times more evidence of a relationship versus no relationship), updating working memory (49 effect sizes, μ = -.06, BF10 = 17.80), and inhibition tasks (41 effect sizes, μ = -.07, BF10 = 15.40), whereas there was not definitive evidence regarding switching (34 effect sizes, μ = -.06, BF10 = .50, i.e., two times greater evidence for no relationship). This suggests that subjective cognitive function can predict objective performance on at least some executive function tasks. We discuss methodological and theoretical factors that constrain the maximum observable correlation and consider the relative insights that subjective measures versus task performance provide.

Abstract Image

关于认知失败问卷(CFQ)测量的主观认知失败与执行功能任务客观表现之间关系的荟萃分析。
几十年来,认知失败问卷(CFQ)一直被广泛用于测量日常生活中的主观认知功能。然而,关于它与执行功能任务的客观表现之间的关系的证据却不尽相同。造成这些混合结果的一个可能原因是,CFQ 与执行功能的某些方面有选择性的关系,而与其他方面则没有。因此,我们根据执行功能的一个有影响力的框架--转换、更新、抑制--对任务进行了分类,我们还将持续注意反应任务(SART)视为一个类别,因为它是为测量认知失败而专门设计的。我们综合了大量现有证据,对 CFQ 分数与这四类执行功能任务的客观表现之间的关系进行了四次贝叶斯元分析。结果表明,CFQ 分数与 SART 的客观表现相关(18 个效应大小,μ = -.19, BF10 = 18.03,即:CFQ 分数是 SART 客观表现的 18.03 倍、18.03倍)、更新工作记忆(49个效应大小,μ=-.06,BF10=17.80)和抑制任务(41个效应大小,μ=-.07,BF10=15.40),而在转换任务(34个效应大小,μ=-.06,BF10=.50,即2倍的证据表明没有关系)方面则没有确切的证据。这表明,主观认知功能至少可以预测某些执行功能任务的客观表现。我们讨论了限制可观察到的最大相关性的方法和理论因素,并考虑了主观测量与任务表现所提供的相对洞察力。
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
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
×
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