Working Memory Span Tasks: a Methodological Review and User&
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2005, 12 (5), 769-786 THEORETICAL AND REVIEW ARTICLES Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide ANDREW R. A. CONWAY University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois MICHAEL J. KANE University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina MICHAEL F. BUNTING University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois D. ZACH HAMBRICK Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan OLIVER WILHELM Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany and RANDALL W. ENGLE Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Working memory (WM) span tasks—and in particular, counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks—are widely used measures of WM capacity. Despite their popularity, however, there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the merits of WM span tasks as measurement tools. Here, we review the genesis of these tasks and discuss how and why they came to be so influential. In so doing, we address the reliability and validity of the tasks, and we consider more technical aspects of the tasks, such as optimal administration and scoring procedures. Finally, we discuss statistical and methodological techniques that have commonly been used in conjunction with WM span tasks, such as latent variable analysis and extreme-groups designs. Other than standardized instruments, such as intelligence cally fruitful construct. It plays an important role in con- test batteries, working memory (WM) span tasks, such as temporary global models of cognition (e.g., J. R. Anderson the counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks, & Lebiere, 1998; Cowan, 1995), and it is purportedly in- are among the most widely used measurement tools in cog- volved in a wide range of complex cognitive behaviors, such nitive psychology. These tasks have come to prominence as comprehension, reasoning, and problem solving (Engle, not only for their methodological merit, but also because 2002). Also, WMC is an important individual-differences theoretical advances in the study of human behavior since variable and accounts for a significant portion of variance the cognitive revolution have placed WM as a central con- in general intellectual ability (Conway, Cowan, Bunting, struct in psychology. Methodologically, WM span tasks Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002; Conway, Kane, & Engle, have proven to be both reliable and valid measures of WM 2003; Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999; Kane capacity (WMC), which we will document below. How- et al., 2004; Kyllonen, 1996; Kyllonen & Christal, 1990; ever, the larger factor in accounting for their increased use Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002). is simply that WM has become a widely useful, scientifi- Furthermore, neuroimaging and neuropsychological stud- ies have revealed that WM function is particularly depen- dent on cells in the prefrontal cortex of the brain, which We thank Chris Fraley for assistance in the effect size simulations and has traditionally held a prominent status in the biological for helpful discussions about prior versions of the manuscript. A.R.A.C. is approach to studying complex goal-directed human be- now at Princeton University. M.F.B. is now at the University of Missouri. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to A. R. A. havior (Kane & Engle, 2002). Conway, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Green Hall, A diverse set of researchers is now using WM as a con- Princeton, NJ 08544-1010 (e-mail: [email protected]). struct in research programs, as well as measures of WMC 769 Copyright 2005 Psychonomic Society, Inc. 770 CONWAY ET AL. in the arsenal of research tools. Within psychology, dis- We will begin with a historical overview of the devel- cussions of WM are now common in almost all branches opment of WM span tasks, followed by guidelines for of the discipline, including cognitive, clinical, social, de- administration and scoring. The reliability and validity velopmental, and educational psychology. For example, of the tasks will then be discussed. The tasks will then be clinical research has demonstrated that WM is related to contrasted with other empirical measures of WM func- depression (Arnett et al., 1999) and to the ability to deal tion. Finally, we will discuss common research strategies with life event stress (Klein & Boals, 2001) and is affected that have been used in conjunction with these tasks, such by alcohol consumption (Finn, 2002). Social psycholo- as latent variable analysis and extreme-groups designs. gists have revealed that students under stereotype threat The review is limited to considering just three WM span suffer reduced WMC and that WMC mediates the effect tasks; counting span (Case, Kurland, & Goldberg, 1982), of stereotype threat on standardized tests (Schmader & operation span (Turner & Engle, 1989), and reading span Johns, 2003). Also, WMC is taxed and, subsequently, (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980). These three span tasks depleted as a result of interracial interaction for highly were chosen because there is much more data from these prejudiced individuals (Richeson et al., 2003; Richeson & tasks than from any of the others (e.g., spatial WM span Shelton, 2003). In neuropsychology, deficits in WMC may tasks; see Kane et al., 2004; Shah & Miyake, 1996), and be a marker of early onset of Alzheimer’s disease (Rosen, the principles outlined here should generalize not only to Bergeson, Putnam, Harwell, & Sunderland, 2002). De- other span tasks, but also to other measures of cognitive velopmental research suggests that the development of ability. Our hope is that this review will serve as an ex- WMC in children is central to the development of cogni- ample of how to assess measurement instruments within tive abilities in general (Munakata, Morton, & O’Reilly, any particular research domain. We also hope that it lays in press) and that declines in WMC as a result of aging bare the importance of taking issues of measurement seri- are central to general cognitive-aging effects (Hasher & ously in one’s research program. We should also note at Zacks, 1988). In short, recent research across the disci- the outset that the particular tasks under review here have pline implicates WM as a central psychological construct been used primarily to investigate individual differences (for reviews, see Feldman-Barrett, Tugade, & Engle, 2004; in healthy young adults, and therefore, our recommen- Unsworth, Heitz, & Engle, 2005). dations apply best for similar purposes in similar popu- Although the WM construct has been successfully and lations. That said, we will indicate, where possible, how appropriately exported from cognitive psychology to other these tasks might be modified for other applications. disciplines, WM tasks have, in our opinion, suffered a bit Finally, we note that the review is as theory neutral as in translation. Presumably because of their documented possible with respect to a particular model of WM and/or reliability and validity, WM span tasks, among all the the nature of individual differences in WMC, because our available measures of WMC, have been embraced most goal is to review the merits of WM span tasks as research strongly by researchers outside of cognitive psychology. tools for any researcher, with any theoretical stance. How- Inevitably, as WM is exported to other scientific disci- ever, it is simply impossible to review the history of these plines and as a more varied pool of investigators use WM tasks, discuss their validity, or even suggest how to score span tasks, misconceptions and misuses are bound to in- them without revealing some theoretical bias. Therefore, crease. In particular, the literature presents inconsistent at the outset, we will briefly outline our theoretical ap- information regarding the reliability of WM span tasks, proach to WM, for the simple purpose of warning the as well as inconsistent and, in our opinion, problematic reader of any bias that may reveal itself later. procedures for administration and scoring. We therefore believe that the time is right for a review of BRIEF THEORETICAL OVERVIEW how and why WM span tasks came to dominate the mea- OF WM AND WMC surement landscape of WM research and to provide guide- lines for researchers who would like to use these tasks. That We view WM as a multicomponent system responsible is, we perceive a need for a thorough review of all aspects for active maintenance of information in the face of ongo- of WM span tasks, from optimal administration and scor- ing processing and/or distraction. Active maintenance of ing procedures to assessment of reliability and validity. information is the result of converging processes—most Another motivating factor is more self-serving. Each au- notably, domain-specific storage and rehearsal processes thor of this article receives numerous inquiries about these and domain-general executive attention. Furthermore, the tasks, including questions about administration, scoring, extent to which maintenance depends on domain-specific assessment of reliability, use of extreme-groups designs, skills versus domain-general executive attention varies as and so forth, and so we devote considerable time to in- a function of individual ability, task context, and ability structing other researchers about the proper use of these × context interactions. For instance, a novice chess player tasks. As such, an important purpose of the present article will rely more on domain-general executive attention to is to provide a “user’s guide” for WM span tasks, such that maintain game information (e.g.,