Cited by 167Cognitive Abilities and TestingMemory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and Memory

The Contributions of Strategy Use to Working Memory Span: A Comparison of Strategy Assessment Methods

Dunlosky, John, Kane, Michael J.·2007·Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Abstract

In two experiments, we tested whether individual differences in strategy production account for individual differences in performance on a working memory span task. We measured the strategies used during a standard experimenter-paced operation span (OSPAN) task by having participants make both set-by-set reports of strategy use for individual item sets and global reports of strategy use. In Experiment 1, although normatively effective strategies were self-reported on only a small proportion of OSPAN sets, individual differences in effective strategy use correlated with span performance. Experiment 2 replicated this outcome using a sample of 100 participants but, as important, it demonstrated that individual differences in effective strategy use did not mediate the relationship between OSPAN and measures of verbal ability. Discussion focuses on the interpretation of strategy–span relationships and the relative utility of general reports of strategy use versus the set-by-set reports introduced here for the OSPAN task.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17470210600926075

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Use of internally generated strategies as measured by self-reports has been found to be related to better complex span performance in several studies.

    “Besides practice with an externally provided strategy, also the use of internally generated strategies as measured by self-reports has been found to be related to better complex span performance in several studies9,10,14–16.”
  • The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance.

    “The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings mainly from complex span studies that have indicated that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective10–13, and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance9,10,14–16.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dunlosky, J., & Kane, M. J.
Affiliations
Kent State University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Dunlosky, John
  • Kane, Michael J.
Venue
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Published
2007-09
Volume
60
Issue
9
Pages
1227-1245
ISSN
  • 0033-555X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0218
  • 1747-0226
OpenAlex
W2068780666
Cited by
164
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
working memory span, strategy use, operation span, individual differences, verbal ability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Individuality, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Reaction Time, Reading, Mental Recall, Thinking, Time Factors

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