Cited by 15Historical and Modern Theater StudiesPsychological Testing and AssessmentCognitive Functions and Memory

Evaluating the stroop test with older adults: construct validity, short term test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to mental fatigue

Faria, Larissa Oliveira, Frois, Thais, Fortes, Leonardo de Sousa, Bertola, Laiss, Albuquerque, Maicon Rodrigues·2024·Perceptual and Motor Skills

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

Crossref · 10.1177/00315125241253425

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Venue
Perceptual and Motor Skills
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