Evaluating the stroop test with older adults: construct validity, short term test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to mental fatigue
Abstract
We conducted two studies to evaluate the construct validity, short term test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to mental fatigue of the Stroop task when used with older adults. In Study 1, 40 participants visited our lab on two separate days. On the first visit, they took five screening scales, and we measured their height and body mass. On the second visit, they completed the Stroop task twice with a 30-minute interval between assessments. In Study 2, 15 different participants took a 30-minute Flanker/Reverse Flanker task during the interval between the two administrations of the Stroop tasks and they gave subjective ratings of their mental fatigue on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) prior to taking either of the Stroop tasks. In Study 1, participants showed a ceiling effect on the Stroop accuracy measure, there was strong concurrent validity for the Stroop with significant score differences between the Stroop’s congruent and incongruent conditions ( p < .001), and there was excellent response time reliability (ICC = 0.926) on day two when participants took the Stroop twice within a 30-minute inter-test interval. However, there were significant test-retest performance differences with respect to cognitive inhibition ( p < .001). In Study 2, mental fatigue from the Flanker/Reverse Flanker test resulted in a significantly worse second Stroop performance ( p = .045). We concluded that the Stroop task demonstrated strong concurrent validity and response time reliability among older adults, but it showed sensitivity to mental fatigue, and repeated administrations within the short 30-minute test-retest interval revealed that the most important Stroop measure (cognitive inhibition) was unreliable. We discuss the implications of these findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
There is good test-retest reliability of Stroop test for response latencies for same-day administration (r = 0.93).
“There is good test-retest reliability of Stroop test for the response latencies for same-day administration (r = 0.93).33”
From Influence of habitual physical activity on cognitive performance of healthy young adults after passive heat exposure (2026) · cites this paper as [33]
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965 · see citing works
A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016) · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 · Cited by 29,639 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhuo, F., Gaurani, R. J., Low, I. C. C., Deshayes, T. A., Lee, J. K. W., Cheung, S. S., Choo, P. L., & Tan, X. R. (2026) · Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness · doi:10.1016/j.jesf.2025.200436 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Faria, L. O., Frois, T., Fortes, L. D. S., Bertola, L., & Albuquerque, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (BR)
- Universidade Federal da Paraíba (BR)
- Universidade Federal de São Paulo (BR)
- Corresponding author
- Albuquerque, Maicon Rodrigues
- ORCID
- Venue
- Perceptual and Motor Skills
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2024-05-13
- Volume
- 131
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1120-1144
- ISSN
- 0031-5125 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-688X
- OpenAlex
- W4396871864
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 6.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perceptual and Motor Skills (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (313.220/2021–2)
- Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (Finance Code 001)
- National Institutes of Science and Technology (406.935/2022-0 INCT-NeurotecR)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Historical and Modern Theater Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- Stroop task, older adults, mental fatigue, cognitive inhibition, test-retest reliability, construct validity, concurrent validity, reaction time (psychology), flanker task, ceiling effect, cognitive aging
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Mental Fatigue, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Stroop Test
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