Cited by 1,861Cognitive Abilities and TestingNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

An automated version of the operation span task

Open access
Unsworth, Nash, Heitz, Richard P., Schrock, Josef C., Engle, Randall W.·2005·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

We present an easy-to-administer and automated version of a popular working memory (WM) capacity task (operation span; Ospan) that is mouse driven, scores itself, and requires little intervention on the part of the experimenter. It is shown that this version of Ospan correlates well with other measures of WM capacity and has both good internal consistency (alpha = .78) and test-retest reliability (.83). In addition, the automated version of Ospan (Aospan) was shown to load on the same factor as two other WM measures. This WM capacity factor correlated with a factor composed of fluid abilities measures. The utility of the Aospan was further demonstrated by analyzing response times (RTs) that indicated that RT measures obtained in the task accounted for additional variance in predicting fluid abilities. Our results suggest that Aospan is a reliable and valid indicator of WM capacity that can be applied to a wide array of research domains.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03192720

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Engle, R. W., Nations, J. K., & Cantor, J. (1990). Word knowledge and working memory capacity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 799-804.
  2. Raven, J. C., Raven, J. E., & Court, J. H. (1998). Progressive matri- ces. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Maryville College (US)
Corresponding author
Engle, Randall W.
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2005-08
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
498-505
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W2134066710
Cited by
1,861
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 109 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 126 · 2018: 131 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 126 · 2015: 151 · 2014: 118 · 2013: 101 · 2012: 84
FWCI
20.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Air Force Office of Scientific Research (F49620, F49620-00-1-131)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
operation span, working memory capacity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, factor structure, fluid intelligence, reaction time (psychology), psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Electronic Data Processing, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Reaction Time

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