Empirical recommendations for improving the stability of the dot-probe task in clinical research.
Open accessAbstract
The dot-probe task has been widely used in research to produce an index of biased attention based on reaction times (RTs). Despite its popularity, very few published studies have examined psychometric properties of the task, including test-retest reliability, and no previous study has examined reliability in clinically anxious samples or systematically explored the effects of task design and analysis decisions on reliability. In the current analysis, we used dot-probe data from 3 studies in which attention bias toward threat-related faces was assessed at multiple (≥5) time-points. Two of the studies were similar (adults with social anxiety disorder, similar design features) whereas 1 was more disparate (pediatric healthy volunteers, distinct task design). We explored the effects of analysis choices (e.g., bias score formula, outlier handling method) on reliability and searched for convergent findings across the 3 studies. We found that, when concurrently considering the 3 studies, the most reliable RT index of bias used data from dot-bottom trials, comparing congruent to incongruent trials, with rescaled outliers, particularly after averaging across more than 1 assessment point. Although reliability of RT bias indices was moderate to low, within-session variability in bias (attention bias variability; ABV), a recently proposed RT index, was more reliable across sessions. Several eyetracking-based indices of attention bias (available in the pediatric healthy sample only) showed reliability that matched the optimal RT index (ABV). On the basis of these findings, we make specific recommendations to researchers using the dot-probe, particularly those wishing to investigate individual differences and/or single-patient applications.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Concerns have been raised about the reliability of dot probe tasks.
“However, it should be noted that concerns have been raised about the reliability of dot probe tasks (Chapman et al., 2019; Price et al., 2015; Schmukle, 2005).”
From Toward objective characterizations of suicide risk: A narrative review of laboratory-based cognitive and behavioral tasks (2023) · cites this paper as Price et al., 2015
The dot-probe task has notoriously poor psychometric properties that may have impeded the ability to sensitively detect changes over time.
“Although in a separate study, ketamine failed to illustrate a similar impact on attentional bias towards negative cues 128 , the use of a reaction time measure (the dot-probe task) with notoriously poor psychometric properties 136-138 may have impeded the ability to sensitively detect changes over time.”
From Neuroplasticity in cognitive and psychological mechanisms of depression: an integrative model (2020) · cites this paper as [136]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 45 · Cited by 312
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- First MB Spitzer RL Williams JBW Gibbon M Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders - patient edition 1995 New York Psychiatric Institute New York
- Nunnally J Bernstein I Psychometric Theory 1994 McGraw-Hill New York 3rd ed.
- Authors
- Price, R. B., Kuckertz, J. M., Siegle, G. J., Ladouceur, C. D., Silk, J. S., Ryan, N. D., Dahl, R. E., & Amir, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- San Diego State University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2015-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-376
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- PMC
- PMC4442069
- OpenAlex
- W2170529946
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 45
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 28.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2015-03-02)
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (MH080215, MH082998, MH018269, 5R01MH087623-03)
- National Institute of Mental Health (1K23MH100259)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- dot-probe task, test-retest reliability, reaction time, eye tracking, social anxiety disorder, childhood anxiety, outlier handling, task design
- MeSH terms
- Attentional Bias, Phobia, Social, Adolescent, Adult, Arousal, Facial Expression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Individuality, Male, Middle Aged, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Reaction Time, Research, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult
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