Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed Cover

Qualitative Individual Differences are Useful, but Reliability Should be Assessed and Not Assumed

By: Craig Hedge  
Open Access
|Aug 2021

References

  1. Brown, V. M., Chen, J., Gillan, C. M., & Price, R. B. (2020). Improving the Reliability of Computational Analyses: Model-Based Planning and Its Relationship With Compulsivity. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. DOI: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.12.019
  2. Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of Generalizability: a Liberalization of Reliability Theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16(2), 137163. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1963.tb00206.x
  3. Haaf, J. M., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Developing Constraint in Bayesian Mixed Models. Psychological Methods, 22(4), 779798. DOI: 10.1037/met0000156
  4. Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 11661186. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
  5. Hedge, C., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Powell, G., Bompas, A., & Sumner, P. (2019). Slow and steady? Strategic adjustments in response caution are moderately reliable and correlate across tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 75. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2019.102797
  6. Novick, M. R. (1966). The axioms and principal results of classical test theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 3, 118. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(66)90002-2
  7. Parsons, S., Kruijt, A.-W., & Fox, E. (2019). Psychological Science Needs a Standard Practice of Reporting the Reliability of Cognitive-Behavioral Measurements. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(4), 378395. DOI: 10.1177/2515245919879695
  8. Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The hare and the tortoise: Emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(5), 12261243. DOI: 10.1037/a0036801
  9. Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 26(2), 452467. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-018-1558-y
  10. Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2021). Are There Reliable Qualitative Individual Difference in Cognition? Journal of Cognition, 4(1): 46, 1–16. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/3ezmw
  11. Tidwell, J. W., Dougherty, M. R., Chrabaszcz, J. R., Thomas, R. P., & Mendoza, J. L. (2014). What counts as evidence for working memory training? Problems with correlated gains and dichotomization. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0560-7
  12. Watts, F. N., McKenna, F. P., Sharrock, R., & Trezise, L. (1986). Colour naming of phobia‐related words. British Journal of Psychology, 77(1), 97108. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1986.tb01985.x
  13. Wiecki, T. V., Sofer, I., & Frank, M. J. (2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the Drift-Diffusion Model in Python. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 7. DOI: 10.3389/fninf.2013.00014
  14. Wilkinson, L. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594604. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.169 | Journal eISSN: 2514-4820
Language: English
Submitted on: Apr 29, 2021
|
Accepted on: May 15, 2021
|
Published on: Aug 27, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Craig Hedge, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.