The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reaction time in differential and developmental research: A review and commentary on the problems and alternatives.
Open accessAbstract
Reaction time is believed to be a good indicator of the speed and efficiency of mental processes and is a ubiquitous variable in the behavioral sciences. Despite this popularity, there are numerous issues associated with using reaction time (RT), specifically in differential and developmental research. Here, we identify and focus on two main problems-unreliability and sensitivity to speed-accuracy interactions. The use of difference scores is a primary factor that leads to many RT measures having demonstrably low reliability, and RT measures in general often do not properly account for speed-accuracy interactions. Both factors jeopardize the validity and interpretability of results based on RT. Here, we evaluate conceptually and empirically how these issues affect individual differences research. Although the empirical evidence we provide are primarily within the domains of attention control and task switching, we highlight examples from various other areas of psychological inquiry. We also discuss many of the statistical and methodological alternatives available to researchers conducting correlational studies. Ultimately, we encourage researchers comparing individuals of differing cognitive and developmental levels to strongly consider using these alternatives in lieu of RT, specifically RT difference scores. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“One complication is that the testing effect is a difference score between a condition that receives retrieval practice and one that does not, and difference scores are inherently poor in reliability (Draheim et al. 2019).”
From Practicing Retrieval Facilitates Learning (2021) · cites this paper as Draheim et al. 2019
In the citing paper
“However, treating RT and accuracy as distinct outcomes does not appropriately account for the speed-accuracy trade-off that exists between the two parameters24,25.”
From Delayed goal-directed processing underlies inhibitory control challenges in adult ADHD (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
Citations
Cites
Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions
Stroop, J. R. (1935) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0054651 · Cited by 18,622
Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03203267 · Cited by 7,230
The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition
Salthouse, T. A. (1996) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 · Cited by 5,902
Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/089892902317361886 · Cited by 3,717
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Control and interference in task switching—A review
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0019842 · Cited by 1,485
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L. (2012) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003 · Cited by 1,259
Executive Attention, Working Memory Capacity, and a Two-Factor Theory of Cognitive Control
Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2003) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(03)44005-x · Cited by 1,104
Self-citationWorking Memory and Executive Attention: A Revisit
Engle, R. W. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617720478 · Cited by 339
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 260
Neural Variability and Cognitive Control in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder
Ye, J., Mehta, S., Peterson, H., Ibrahim, A., Saeed, G., Linsky, S., Kreinin, I., Tsang, S. W., Nwanaji-Enwerem, U., Raso, A., et al. (2025) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.55165 · Cited by 10
Reliably measuring learning-dependent distractor suppression with eye tracking
Kim, A. J., Grégoire, L., & Anderson, B. A. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02552-8 · Cited by 11
Pierce, M. E., Mirabito, G., & Verhaeghen, P. (2024) · Cogent Mental Health · doi:10.1080/28324765.2024.2400878 · Cited by 11
“A third possible reason might be that trait assessments are, by design, geared towards stability (e.g., in the appraisal of their reliability) and maximize the measurement of interindividual (not intraindividual) differences (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Bhagwat, A. P., & Deodhe, N. P. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.48104 · Cited by 8
“To be considered PBT, the training must satisfy two fundamental characteristics [1].”
BackgroundHui, B., & Wu, Z. (2023) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226312300027x · Cited by 9
“An important reason is that these tasks are often used in the psycholinguistics literature to demonstrate a group-level effect, so the extent to which these tasks function well as an individual-difference measure in applied contexts remains an open question (Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundLittman, R., Hochman, S., & Kalanthroff, E. (2023) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02131-3 · Cited by 8
“…between the satisfactory reliability of the task’s conditions and the low reliability of the task’s effects, which otherwise produce robust replicable group-level effects, presumably stems from the nature of the well-studied “reli-ability of difference scores” (see review in Draheim et al., 2019).”
In Search of the Executive Cognitive Processes Proposed by Process-Overlap Theory
Frischkorn, G. T., & von Bastian, C. C. (2021) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence9030043 · Cited by 11
“Thus, using executive processing measures that focus on accuracy might increase the relationship of executive processes with intelligence (Draheim et al. 2019, 2021).”
InfluentialCastagna, P. J., & Crowley, M. J. (2021) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565641.2021.1952206 · Cited by 9
Wit, L. D., Piai, V., Thangwaritorn, P., Johnson, B., O’Shea, D. M., Amofa, P., Marsiske, M., Kessels, R. P. C., Schaefer, N., & Smith, G. E. (2021) · Neuropsychology Review · doi:10.1007/s11065-021-09504-5 · Cited by 8
“Further, there are several factors that can impact reliability which, in turn, can impact difference scores as described by a recent review (Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundImpact of coffee-derived chlorogenic acid on cognition: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Johal, K., Jones, D. J. W., Bell, L., Lovegrove, J. A., & Lamport, D. J. (2024) · Nutrition Research Reviews · doi:10.1017/s0954422424000209 · Cited by 9
Comparing self–other distinction across motor, cognitive and affective domains
Pronizius, E., Bukowski, H., & Lamm, C. (2024) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.240662 · Cited by 13
“…we implemented several strategies to cancel out measurement noise, such as accounting for both reaction time and accuracy (BIS scores; [102,103]) introducing an alternative index of SOD (‘conflict index’) to achieve a more accurate representation of the construct, and cancelling out the…”
MethodSpieszny, M., Kamys, Z., Kasicki, K., Wąsacz, W., Ambroży, T., Jaszczur-Nowicki, J., & Rydzik, Ł. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app14177974 · Cited by 7
Markovitch, B., Markopoulos, P., & Birk, M. V. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642418 · Cited by 7
“Many cognitive tasks, particularly conflict tasks [27, 43, 76], have low reliability and, therefore, often fail to correspond to meaningful real-life outcomes [19, 78].”
BackgroundSpinelli, G., & Lupker, S. (2024) · Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-024-02892-9 · Cited by 7
“Part of the reason for this poor reliability is that the list-wide PC effect is a difference score (more precisely, a difference of difference scores), a type of score that inevitably has lower reliability than its components (Draheim et al., 2019; Rodebaugh et al., 2016).”
BackgroundYangüez, M., Raine, L. B., Chanal, J. P., Bavelier, D., & Hillman, C. H. (2023) · Psychology of sport and exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2023.102514 · Cited by 9
Mouse Tracking as a Method for Examining the Perception and Cognition of Digital Maps
Krassanakis, V., & Misthos, L.-M. (2023) · Digit. · doi:10.3390/digital3020009 · Cited by 7
“Mouse tracking extends the data that are collected by the traditional experimental approach of recording the reaction times—an approach widely implemented in psychological research [44]—by providing spatiotemporal information related to participants’ searching strategies.”
BackgroundBejjani, C., Hoyle, R., & Egner, T. (2021) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.31234/osf.io/bfn7d · Cited by 7
Hood, A. V. B., & Hutchison, K. A. (2020) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02169-x · Cited by 8
Testing the attention-distractibility trait
Meier, M. E. (2021) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-021-01162-5 · Cited by 14
Can art change the way we see?
Benear, S. L., Sunday, M. A., Davidson, R., Palmeri, T., & Gauthier, I. (2019) · Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000288 · Cited by 7
“…detect experimental effects within subjects with high sensitivity often show very little reliability with regards to between-subjects variance (Ross, Richler, & Gauthier, 2015; Hedge, used in this field) and/or response times are especially problematic (Draheim, Mashburn, Martin, & Engle, 2019).”
More than “just a test”—Task-switching paradigms offer an early warning system for cognitive decline
Karayanidis, F., & McKewen, M. (2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2021.02.006 · Cited by 10
The forced-response method: A new chronometric approach to measure conflict processing
Lee, T. G., Sellers, J., Jonides, J., & Zhang, H. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02516-y · Cited by 11
“However, there have been long-standing concerns about using free RT to index cognitive processes (Cronbach & Furby, 1970; Draheim et al., 2019; Edwards, 2001; Friedman & Miyake, 2004; Hedge et al., 2018, 2020; Miller & Ulrich, 2013).”
Development and Differentiation of Executive Function Structure
Yangüez, M., Bediou, B., Bavelier, D., & Chanal, J. P. (2025) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1080/15248372.2025.2547621 · Cited by 9
“…measure EF components, c) jointly modeling RTs and accuracy to address a speed-accuracy tradeoff, which are problematic for developmental research (Draheim et al., 2019), d) proposing a robust methodology to investigate EF structure (Yangüez, Bediou, et al., 2024), and e) considering a large…”
Carriedo, N., Rodríguez‐Villagra, O. A., Moriano, J. A., Montoro, P. R., & Iglesias-Sarmiento, V. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316347 · Cited by 7
Kong, Z., Chen, J., Liu, J., Zhou, Y., Duan, Y., Li, H., & Yang, L. (2024) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.16448 · Cited by 7
“The inadequate reliability of the attention network scores might be mainly due to the nature of the difference score approach (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Li, D., Liu, R., Ye, F., Li, R.-N., Li, X.-Y., Liu, J., Zhang, X.-S., Zhou, J.-J., & Wang, G. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.05.045 · Cited by 6
Electrophysiological correlates of symbolic numerical order processing
Brunner, C., Schadenbauer, P., Schröder, N., Grabner, R., & Vogel, S. E. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0301228 · Cited by 6
“Another explanation draws on the low reliability of behavioral difference score measures [45].”
BackgroundA Commercial off-the-Shelf Immersive virtual reality game: its Effect on Engineering Students
Rakha Ramadhana, A. B., & Chen, H. (2023) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-11701-z · Cited by 8
“Although reaction time has many advantages, several issues arise when it is investigated, particularly in differential and developmental study (Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundThe role of reliability in experiments.
Rouder, J., Mehrvarz, M., & Schnuerch, M. (2026) · British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/bmsp.70042 · Cited by 5
Davis, E. E., Tehrani, E. K., & Campbell, K. L. (2024) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-024-02464-w · Cited by 6
“Instead of using difference scores, which are known to be more variable than the individual means that go into them (Draheim et al., 2019) and to account for between-individual variability in baseline RT, we regressed mean RTs for intact pairs onto rearranged pairs across participants for each…”
Voluntary and cued language switching in late bilingual speakers
Mooijman, S., Schoonen, R., Ruiter, M. B., & Roelofs, A. (2023) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728923000755 · Cited by 13
“Firstly, concerns have been raised about the reliability of difference scores and this could explain the discrepancy in findings between the switch costs (a difference score) and overall RTs (e.g., Draheim et al., 2019; Segal et al., 2021).”
ResultReliability of individual differences in distractor suppression driven by statistical learning
Ivanov, Y., Theeuwes, J., & Bogaerts, L. (2023) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02157-7 · Cited by 8
“This is why RT-based difference scores are still widely used for measuring individual-level cognitive capacities in both research and clinical settings (Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundMethodPramono, B. A., Mustar, Y. S., Sumartiningsih, S., Marsudi, I., Hariyanto, A., Sidik, M., & Kusuma, I. M. (2023) · Physical Education Theory and Methodology · doi:10.17309/tmfv.2023.3.05 · Cited by 5
Moving beyond response times with accessible measures of manual dynamics
Smith, K., Morrison, S., Henderson, A. M. E., & Erb, C. D. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-20579-9 · Cited by 9
Sripada, C. (2022) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1613 · Cited by 5
“There is growing evidence that the pure insertion assumption is false: The top-down control process operates in both the incongruent and congruent condition, but it operates more strongly in the former (to overcome the countervailing automatic associations) (Draheim et al., 2019; Heathcote et al., under review; Weigar…”
BackgroundKautto, A., Jansson-Verkasalo, E. M., & Mainela‐Arnold, E. (2021) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00523 · Cited by 9
Investigating holistic face processing within and outside of face-responsive brain regions
Foster, C., Bülthoff, I., Bartels, A., & Zhao, M. (2020) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117565 · Cited by 6
Developing attention in typical children related to disabilities
Posner, M. I., Rothbart, M. K., & Ghassemzadeh, H. (2020) · Handbook of clinical neurology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-64150-2.00019-8 · Cited by 11
Joint Cognitive Models Reveal Sources of Robust Individual Differences in Conflict Processing
Molloy, M. F., Lee, T. G., Jonides, J., Zhang, H., Sellers, J., Heathcote, A., Sripada, C., & Weigard, A. S. (2026) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-026-00263-1 · Cited by 4
“Although this index is simple to compute and reflects conflict effects that have been widely replicated across studies on a group-level, its use in studying individual differences has proved challenging (Draheim et al., 2019) due to its poor psychometric properties.”
Assessing the validity evidence for habit measures based on time pressure
Martínez-López, P., Vázquez-Millán, A., Garre-Frutos, F., & Luque, D. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02865-2 · Cited by 2
“Subtracting one from the other can remove systematic variability, decreasing the proportion of “true” variance relative to error variance and thus lowering reliability (Cronbach & Furby, 1970; see also Draheim et al., 2019).”
A construct validation study of time-sensitive word-knowledge measures
Hui, B., Godfroid, A., & Elgort, I. (2025) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amaf037 · Cited by 10
Vivion, M., Guida, A., Ramanoël, S., & Mathy, F. (2025) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-025-01702-3 · Cited by 4
“…times are considered to be poorly reliable (Draheim et al., 2016), we checked the reliability of our d RTs using Lord (1963)’s formula (see also Draheim et al., 2019): where σ 2 Left and σ 2 Right are the variances in the response times for the left hand and the right hand, r Left and r…”
Epstein, B., & Marton, K. (2025) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2024.101185 · Cited by 4
Measuring visual ability in linguistically diverse populations
Hooper, M., Tomarken, A. J., & Gauthier, I. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02579-x · Cited by 4
Oriyama, K., Mukai, K., Harada, K., & Masumoto, K. (2024) · Experimental Aging Research · doi:10.1080/0361073x.2024.2315917 · Cited by 8
“Thus, the results may also reflect the difference between differential and experimental approaches (for review, Draheim, Mashburn, Martin, & Engle, 2019).”
Burgoyne, A. P., Seeburger, D. T., & Engle, R. W. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02328-6 · Cited by 6
“We highlight the importance of the adaptive response deadline procedure in these tasks because it provides a method of handling speed–accuracy trade-offs, which are known to pose problems for studies of individual differences in attention control (Draheim et al., 2019; Heitz, 2014).”
Self-citationEdelsbrunner, P. A. (2024) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-024-00500-8 · Cited by 4
“The authors only analyzed incongruent Stroop trials instead of the typical approach of analyzing differences between congruent and incongruent trials, again undermining interpretations (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Time-of-day effects on speed and accuracy performance during simulated shiftwork
Pilcher, J. J., Grandits, J. B., Wilkes, M. J., & Lindsey, M. M. (2023) · Chronobiology International · doi:10.1080/07420528.2023.2283572 · Cited by 4
“…model provides useful information, it has limited applicability to different types of tasks and often requires hundreds of trials to provide stable data for analyses (Draheim et al. 2019), making this approach less useful for examining the impact of sleep deprivation and shiftwork conditions.”
BackgroundZacharopoulos, G., Sella, F., Emir, U., & Kadosh, R. C. (2022) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.11.04.515156 · Cited by 4
“However, we acknowledge that recent psychometric work suggests that experimental difference scores from cognitive tasks can suffer from poor measurement properties, such as low reliability and unaccounted speed–accuracy interactions ( Draheim et al., 2019 ).”
BackgroundNoise-induced differences in the complexity of spoken language
Pham, C. T., & Karuza, E. A. (2022) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218221124869 · Cited by 4
Schutte, A. R., Wu, Y., & Jacoby, M. N. (2022) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218221092776 · Cited by 4
“To address reliability issues with using response time difference scores in inhibitory control tasks (Draheim et al., 2019), we computed the reliabilities for the different potential variables that involved an inhibitory component and used the measure that provided the greatest level of reliability…”
MethodResultInfluentialIt is not always positive: emotional bias in young and older adults
Viviani, G., Luca, F. D., Antonucci, G., Yankouskaya, A., & Pecchinenda, A. (2021) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-021-01614-2 · Cited by 5
An Investigation on How Inhibition in Cognitive Processing Contributes to Fluid Reasoning
Wang, T., Li, C., Wei, W., & SCHWEIZER, K. W. (2020) · Advances in Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.5709/acp-0295-7 · Cited by 5
“It worth pointing out that low reliability of the tasks measuring inhibition is a widespread threat to the validity of studies on this topic (e.g., Draheim et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMarkovitch, B., Kamps, J. C. C., Markopoulos, P., & Birk, M. V. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108720 · Cited by 5
Reid, C. A., Dhamankar, M., Marsh, S., Peterson, E. R., Erb, C. D., & Waldie, K. E. (2026) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/j.dr.2026.101266 · Cited by 3
Robison, M. K., Campbell, S., Garner, L. D., Sibley, C. M., & Coyne, J. T. (2026) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02897-8 · Cited by 5
“…project was borne out of recent debates regarding the psychometric coherence and theoretical utility of attention control as a cognitive construct (Draheim et al., 2019, 2021, 2024; Enkavi et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2018; Löffler et al., 2024; Mashburn et al., 2024; Rey-Mermet et al., 2018,…”
Comparing the reliability of individual differences for various measurement models in conflict tasks
Donzallaz, M. C., Boehm, U., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Matzke, D., & Haaf, J. M. (2026) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-025-02801-7 · Cited by 3
Lin, G., Bai, D. L., Huang, Y., Lee, S., Vu, M. T. T., & Chiu, T.-C. (2025) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/73038 · Cited by 3
“For instance, directly comparing attention between individuals with high accuracy but slow response times and those with lower accuracy but faster responses can be difficult [36].”
Sun, Y., Lin, Y., & Han, S. (2025) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-025-02160-x · Cited by 4
“Numerous studies have shown that reaction time is highly sensitive to speed-accuracy trade-offs (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Kyriacou, M., & Köder, F. (2024) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716424000444 · Cited by 6
Estimating correlations in low-reliability settings with constrained hierarchical models
Mehrvarz, M., & Rouder, J. N. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02568-0 · Cited by 6
“However, finding consistent patterns of individual differences has proven difficult (Enkavi et al., 2019; Hedge et al., 2018; Draheim et al., 2019).”
Dimensional versus categorical approach: A comparative study of mathematical cognition
Mishra, A., & Khan, A. (2024) · Trends in Neuroscience and Education · doi:10.1016/j.tine.2024.100245 · Cited by 4
Anjomshoae, F., Wiebe, S. A., & Nicoladis, E. (2024) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s136672892400021x · Cited by 4
“…trials and congruent trials is reliable at .90, and if the RT interference effect (difference score) is reliable at .80, the RT interference effect will only have a reliability of .50 (see Draheim et al., 2019) many studies using CFA approach used the inhibiting effect and switching costs.”
MethodNiculescu, I., Rappaport, L., & Romero, K. (2024) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699931.2024.2337138 · Cited by 3
“Typically, response time data require at least 20 trials to produce stable estimates, and the few trials were likely insufficient to produce stable estimates of mean response time (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Lowes, J., Hancock, P. J. B., & Bobak, A. K. (2024) · Visual Cognition · doi:10.1080/13506285.2024.2359743 · Cited by 3
“In their review of reaction time and individual di ff erences, Draheim et al. (2019) point out that participants with di ff erent levels of ability are likely to respond di ff er-ently to the same instructions, as are participants of di ff erent ages.”
Lee, H. J., Kang, J., Yu, H., Lim, C. E., Oh, E., Choi, J. M., You, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0295041 · Cited by 3
Libero, T. D., Carissimo, C., Cerro, G., Fattorini, L., Ferrigno, L., & Rodio, A. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2023 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe) · doi:10.1109/eeeic/icpseurope57605.2023.10194745 · Cited by 3
Eben, C., Fournier, L., Verbruggen, F., & Billieux, J. (2023) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103849 · Cited by 5
Mini review: Individual differences and domain-general mechanisms in object recognition
Gauthier, I., Cha, O., & Chang, T. (2022) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2022.1040994 · Cited by 3
“, 2015), limited by the use of difference scores or response times (Peter et al., 1993; Draheim et al., 2019), both known to limit reliability.”
InfluentialPitchford, B., & Arnell, K. M. (2022) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-022-01689-5 · Cited by 5
“Despite the potentially problematic nature of different measures in reliably capturing individual differences (Draheim et al., 2019), the reliabilities of reward responsiveness were remarkably high, while reliabilities for Stroop interference were moderate and in line with reliabilities reported in previous research (…”
ResultPalumbo, I. M., Patrick, C. J., & Latzman, R. D. (2022) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579422000347 · Cited by 5
“…consideration of supporting literature (e.g., Washburn, Latzman, Schwartz, & Bramlett, 2015; Engle et al., 1999; Hedge, Powell, & Sumner, 2018; Draheim et al., 2019) and an extensive iterative process, IC was modeled via three neurocognitive task-based indicators: accuracy summary scores for…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCold Entropy: Assessing Individual Differences in Cognitive Adaptability during Cold Stress
Dunn, T., Jones, D. M., & Heaney, J. (2022) · Ecological psychology · doi:10.1080/10407413.2022.2055473 · Cited by 3
“This approach, however, ignores critical aspects of data at the individual level (e.g., Balota & Yap, 2011; Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundFinn, P., Nemes, L., Bailey, A., Gunn, R. L., Wiemers, E. A., & Redick, T. S. (2022) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-022-00241-y · Cited by 4
“, 2018), the use of difference scores to operationally define inhibitory ability can be problematic for individual difference analyses (Draheim et al., 2019).”
BackgroundReciprocal associations between implicit attitudes and drinking in emerging adulthood
Paige, K. J., Weigard, A. S., & Colder, C. R. (2022) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.14759 · Cited by 3
Textor, C., & Pak, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/1071181321651309 · Cited by 3
“We also use three newly developed measures of attention control that bypass issues endemic with traditional measures that rely on difference scores (Draheim et al., 2019).”
MethodDelayed goal-directed processing underlies inhibitory control challenges in adult ADHD
Osborne, J. B., Sellers, J., Zhang, H., Wang, S., Liberatore, S., Sripada, C., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-42307-3 · Cited by 2
“Establishing Performance Differences Between and Within Groups using SMART”
Schaefer, S. B., Radev, S. T., Göttmann, J., & Schubert, A. (2026) · Computational Brain & Behavior · doi:10.1007/s42113-026-00266-y · Cited by 1
Seidel-Marzi, O., & Cañal‐Bruland, R. (2025) · Journal of Sports Sciences · doi:10.1080/02640414.2025.2533005 · Cited by 3
“…inverse efficiency score (IES) was calculated to account for speed-accuracy trade-offs, which is a known issue in individual differences research (Draheim et al., 2019), as different individuals may place different weights on speed and accuracy despite instructions to be as fast and accurate as…”
Increasing Computation Resolves Conflicts in Vision Language Models
Wang, B.-Y., Li, Y.-J., Qiao, Y.-T., Wang, M., Zhao, T., Sun, Y., Deng, B., Deng, H.-K., Vasconcelos, N., & Luo, D. (2025) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18969 · Cited by 2
Davis, E. E., Thomas, H., Price, M., Mahy, C. E. V., & Campbell, K. L. (2025) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2025.2493337 · Cited by 2
“…to include tasks that use accuracy as an outcome measure (see Draheim et al., 2021) because reaction time difference scores suffer from low reliability and cannot account for speed-accuracy trade-offs; this latter issue may be especially problematic in developmental research (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Pinelli, M., Portrat, S., Dessus, P., Joët, G., Eichenlaub, J., Brugniaux, J. V., & Palluel, E. (2025) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2025.2477144 · Cited by 4
Antoniou, K., & Spanoudis, G. C. (2024) · Bilingualism Language and Cognition · doi:10.1017/s1366728924000506 · Cited by 7
Söderström, M., Rocha‐Hidalgo, J., Muñoz, L. E., Bochyńska, A., Werker, J. F., Skarabela, B., Seidl, A. H., Ryjova, Y., Rennels, J. L., Potter, C. E., et al. (2024) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000924000254 · Cited by 6
“…emphasize individual differences and are thus optimized to maximize between-subjects variance, and “ experimental ” approaches which emphasize group-level differences between (experimentally manipulated) conditions and are thus optimized to maximize within-subjects variance (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Modrek, A., & Wolf, S. (2024) · Social Development · doi:10.1111/sode.12764 · Cited by 2
Relationship between Cortical Excitability and Complex Reaction Time
Moscatelli, F., Polito, R., Monda, V., Cibelli, G., Valenzano, A. A., Monda, A., Scarinci, A., Messina, A., Monda, M., Limone, P., et al. (2023) · The Open Neurology Journal · doi:10.2174/011874205x271097231110063832 · Cited by 2
Wray, C., Kowalski, A. J., Mpondo, F., Ochaeta, L., Belleza, D., DiGirolamo, A. M., Waford, R., Richter, L., Lee, N., Scerif, G., et al. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290238 · Cited by 2
Ruuskanen, V., Hagen, T., Espeseth, T., & Mathôt, S. (2024) · Journal of Cognition · doi:10.5334/joc.365 · Cited by 4
The direction of attention in second language phonological contrast learning
Conover, L. (2023) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/10.0019714 · Cited by 3
Affes, S., Borji, R., Zarrouk, N., Fendri, T., Sahli, S., & Rebai, H. (2023) · Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly · doi:10.1123/apaq.2022-0016 · Cited by 2
Cotton, K., & Ricker, T. J. (2022) · Attention Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/s13414-022-02598-w · Cited by 2
“As in Experiment 1, our difference scores were unreliable, making it difficult to firmly rule out a relationship (Draheim et al., 2019).”
ResultAnalyzing Processing Time Data in Applied Linguistics and Second Language Research
Hui, B. (2019) · Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science · doi:10.1558/jrds.39117 · Cited by 2
Does Global Slowing Explain Age Effects in Inhibitory Control?
Sellers, J., Zhang, H., Jonides, J., & Lee, T. G. (2026) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976261479660
Trial-level noise and the reliability of the perceptual load effect: a preliminary investigation
Smith, D. M., Hauenstein, C. E., & Schumacher, E. (2026) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-026-02361-y · Cited by 1
“When the difference score is calculated, this common variance is removed; consequently, the proportion of error variance increases (Cronbach & Furby, 1970; Draheim et al., 2019).”
InfluentialDynamic changes in interpretation bias as predictors of social anxiety symptom change during CBT.
Ginat-Frolich, R., Duken, S., Kivity, Y., Salemink, E., & Huppert, J. (2026) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2026.103212 · Cited by 1
Cognitive Processes in the Cultural Classification of Music
Li, M. G., Olsen, K. N., & Thompson, W. F. (2026) · Music & Science · doi:10.1177/10298649261442428 · Cited by 1
Attention Control and Working Memory, Varying Definitions and Measurements
Byrnes, D., & Was, C. A. (2026) · International Journal of Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijcs2010004 · Cited by 1
Predictors of Visuospatial Skill and the Role of Observational Drawing
Vodyanyk, M. M., Yangüez, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2026) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/00315125261419411 · Cited by 1
Mrkonja, L., Feng, Z., Marchant, N. J., Vries, T. J. D., Leganes‐Fonteneau, M., & Wiers, R. W. H. J. (2026) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2026.102086
Measuring individual differences in the speed of attention using the distractor intrusion task
Zivony, A., von Bastian, C. C., & Pye, R. E. (2026) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02916-8 · Cited by 1
“Moreover, DI rates do not rely on speeded responses, and are therefore unaffected by speed–accuracy trade-offs and by variability in overall response speed (Draheim et al., 2019).”
Alecu, Ș., & Onea, G. (2025) · Timisoara Physical Education and Rehabilitation Journal · doi:10.2478/tperj-2025-0017 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Draheim, C., Mashburn, C. A., Martin, J. D., & Engle, R. W.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 145
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 508-535
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2923932768
- Cited by
- 322
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 46 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 5
- FWCI
- 17.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Naval Research (N00014-12-1-0406; N00014-12-1-1011)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- reaction time, individual differences, developmental research, speed-accuracy trade-off, reliability statistics, difference scores, attentional control, task switching, alternative measures, cognitive development
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Reaction Time, Reproducibility of Results, Behavioral Research
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
