What Is the Test-Retest Reliability of Common Task-Functional MRI Measures? New Empirical Evidence and a Meta-Analysis¶
Elliott, M. L., Knodt, A. R., Ireland, D., Morris, M. L., Poulton, R., Ramrakha, S., Sison, M. L., et al. (2020). What Is the Test-Retest Reliability of Common Task-Functional MRI Measures? New Empirical Evidence and a Meta-Analysis. Psychological Science.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Reliability Paradox
- Elliott and colleagues (2020) meta-analyzed the test-retest reliability of common task-fMRI measures and found it poor, with reliabilities around 0.4, far too low for individual-differences or biomarker use
This sourceA meta-analysis of common task-fMRI measures finding poor test-retest reliability (mean ICC = .397) and judging them unsuitable for biomarker or individual-differences use.
SupportedVerified against the publisher's abstract
“Measuring brain activity using task functional MRI (fMRI) is a major focus of biomarker development”
- Elliott and colleagues (2020) meta-analyzed the test-retest reliability of common task-fMRI measures and found it poor, with reliabilities around 0.4, far too low for individual-differences or biomarker use
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:916e1015e9ca · see in the full table