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
Back to Basics: The Importance of Conceptual Clarification in Psychological Science
Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T., & Eronen, M. I. (2022) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09637214221096485 · Cited by 221
How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mechanism
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2022) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5 · Cited by 269
Best research practices for using the Implicit Association Test
Greenwald, A. G., Brendl, M., Cai, H., Cvencek, D., Dovidio, J. F., Friese, M., Hahn, A., Hehman, E., Hofmann, W., Hughes, S., et al. (2022) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01624-3 · Cited by 209
A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control.Preprint
Draheim, C., Tsukahara, J., Martin, J., Mashburn, C. A., & Engle, R. (2019) · Journal of experimental psychology. General · doi:10.31234/osf.io/q985d · Cited by 192
“In addition, data and ideas from the present study were disseminated in various conference presentations (Draheim, Martin, Tsukahara, Mashburn, & Engle, 2018; Draheim, Mashburn, & Engle, 2018; Draheim et al., 2019; Engle, 2017).”
MethodSelf-citationAttention Control: A Cornerstone of Higher-Order Cognition
Burgoyne, A. P., & Engle, R. W. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420969371 · Cited by 186
Self-citation
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
