Cited by 2,882Cognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide

Open access
Conway, Andrew R. A., Kane, Michael J., Bunting, Michael F., Hambrick, D. Zach, Wilhelm, Oliver, Engle, Randall W.·2005·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

Working memory (WM) span tasks-and in particular, counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks-are widely used measures of WM capacity. Despite their popularity, however, there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the merits of WM span tasks as measurement tools. Here, we review the genesis of these tasks and discuss how and why they came to be so influential. In so doing, we address the reliability and validity of the tasks, and we consider more technical aspects of the tasks, such as optimal administration and scoring procedures. Finally, we discuss statistical and methodological techniques that have commonly been used in conjunction with WM span tasks, such as latent variable analysis and extreme-groups designs.

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/bf03196772

Cites

109 of 109 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?

  • Cognitively-informed executive function tests demonstrated superior predictive and ecological validity compared to informant-rated scales.

    “Cognitively-informed executive function tests also demonstrated superior predictive and ecological validity compared to informant-rated scales.131”

    From Executive function deficits in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [131]

    The VALIDITY section says working-memory span tasks predict performance on a range of cognitive tasks and have greater predictive validity than simple memory-span tasks. It does not compare cognitively informed executive-function tests with informant-rated scales or establish superior ecological validity. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The low working memory conditions control for encoding, because the high working memory conditions involve both encoding and working memory maintenance/recall.

    “In other words, the low working memory conditions control for encoding, because the high working memory conditions involve both encoding and working memory maintenance/recall (29, 97).”

    From Working memory and inhibitory control deficits in children with ADHD: an experimental evaluation of competing model predictions (2024) · cites this paper as [97]

    The 'Brief Theoretical Overview of WM and WMC' (page not provided) describes working memory as actively maintaining information, and the task descriptions discuss recall. But the paper does not establish that low-working-memory conditions control for encoding or that high conditions differ from them specifically by adding maintenance and recall. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • It states that no ADHD heterogeneity study had simultaneously measured and controlled all three primary executive functions, and single-task assessments may limit conclusions.

    “no study of ADHD-related heterogeneity has simultaneously measured and controlled for all three primary executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000), and conclusions may be limited by the use of single tasks to assess neurocognitive construct(s) (Conway et al., 2005).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Conway et al., 2005

  • No study of ADHD-related heterogeneity has simultaneously measured and controlled for all three primary executive functions, and conclusions may be limited by using single tasks to assess neurocognitive constructs.

    “As noted by Coghill et al. (2014), no study of ADHD-related heterogeneity has simultaneously measured and controlled for all three primary executive functions (Miyake et al., 2000), and conclusions may be limited by the use of single tasks to assess neurocognitive construct(s) (Conway et al., 2005).”

    From Executive Functioning Heterogeneity in Pediatric ADHD (2019) · cites this paper as Conway et al., 2005

  • The proportion of stimuli correct per trial during recall phases of word span and stroop span tasks was used to assess working memory capacity as recommended.

    “The proportion of stimuli correct per trial (% recalled correctly) during the recall phases of the word span and stroop span tasks was used to assess working memory capacity as recommended (29, 97).”

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: 1

  1. [4]4. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Conway, Andrew R. A.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2005-10
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
769-786
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2164740960
Cited by
2,882
References
109
Citations by year
2026: 105 · 2025: 177 · 2024: 165 · 2023: 140 · 2022: 150 · 2021: 186 · 2020: 176 · 2019: 218 · 2018: 161 · 2017: 176 · 2016: 170 · 2015: 187 · 2014: 151 · 2013: 159 · 2012: 137
FWCI
7.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
working memory span, operation span, reading span, working memory capacity, reliability statistics, validity, test administration, scoring methods, latent variable analysis
MeSH terms
Group Processes, Humans, Memory, Psychological Theory, Reading

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