Robert S Stawski1, Stuart W S MacDonald2,3, Paul W H Brewster2,3, Elizabeth Munoz4, Eric S Cerino1, Drew W R Halliday2,3. 1. School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, British Columbia. 3. Institute on Aging and Lifelong Health, University of Victoria, British Columbia. 4. Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To formally identify and contrast the most commonly-employed quantifications of response time inconsistency (RTI) and elucidate their utility for understanding within-person (WP) and between-person (BP) variation in cognitive function with increasing age. METHOD: Using two measurement burst studies of cognitive aging, we systematically identified and computed five RTI quantifications from select disciplines to examine: (a) correlations among RTI quantifications; (b) the distribution of BP and WP variation in RTI; and (c) the comparability of RTI quantifications for predicting attention switching. RESULTS: Comparable patterns were observed across studies. There was significant variation in RTI BP as well as WP across sessions and bursts. Correlations among RTI quantifications were generally strong and positive both WP and BP, except for the coefficient of variation. Independent prediction models indicated that slower mean response time (RT) and greater RTI were associated with slower attention switching both WP and BP. For selecting simultaneous prediction models, collinearity resulted in inflated standard errors and unstable model estimates. DISCUSSION: RTI reflects a novel dimension of performance that is a robust and theoretically informative predictor of BP and WP variation in cognitive function. Among the plenitude of RTI quantifications, not all are interchangeable, nor of comparable predictive utility.
OBJECTIVES: To formally identify and contrast the most commonly-employed quantifications of response time inconsistency (RTI) and elucidate their utility for understanding within-person (WP) and between-person (BP) variation in cognitive function with increasing age. METHOD: Using two measurement burst studies of cognitive aging, we systematically identified and computed five RTI quantifications from select disciplines to examine: (a) correlations among RTI quantifications; (b) the distribution of BP and WP variation in RTI; and (c) the comparability of RTI quantifications for predicting attention switching. RESULTS: Comparable patterns were observed across studies. There was significant variation in RTI BP as well as WP across sessions and bursts. Correlations among RTI quantifications were generally strong and positive both WP and BP, except for the coefficient of variation. Independent prediction models indicated that slower mean response time (RT) and greater RTI were associated with slower attention switching both WP and BP. For selecting simultaneous prediction models, collinearity resulted in inflated standard errors and unstable model estimates. DISCUSSION: RTI reflects a novel dimension of performance that is a robust and theoretically informative predictor of BP and WP variation in cognitive function. Among the plenitude of RTI quantifications, not all are interchangeable, nor of comparable predictive utility.
Authors: Elizabeth Munoz; Robert S Stawski; Martin J Sliwinski; Joshua M Smyth; Stuart W S MacDonald Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Eric S Cerino; Robert S Stawski; G John Geldhof; Stuart W S MacDonald Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Jinshil Hyun; Jiyue Qin; Cuiling Wang; Mindy J Katz; Jelena M Pavlovic; Carol A Derby; Richard B Lipton Journal: J Pain Date: 2021-11-13 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Sandi Phibbs; Robert S Stawski; Stuart W S MacDonald; Elizabeth Munoz; Joshua M Smyth; Martin J Sliwinski Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2017-11-24 Impact factor: 3.658
Authors: Lauren A Rutter; Ipsit V Vahia; Brent P Forester; Kerry J Ressler; Laura Germine Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 5.750