Cited by 115Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyCognitive Functions and Memory

The concurrent validity and test?retest reliability of a visuospatial working memory task

HOCKEY, A, GEFFEN, G·2004·Intelligence

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.intell.2004.07.009

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HOCKEY, A., & GEFFEN, G.
Affiliations
The University of Queensland (AU)
Venue
Intelligence
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
591-605
ISSN
0160-2896 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997094494
Cited by
115
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Intelligence (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
visuospatial working memory, n-back task, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, reaction time, processing speed, working memory capacity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review