The reliability paradox¶
Hedge, P., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2017). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Reliability Paradox
- The reliability paradox, articulated most sharply by Hedge, Powell, and Sumner (2018) for cognitive experimental paradigms, is the finding that tasks which produce robust, large group-level effects — the Stroop interference effect, flanker compatibility, the implicit association test, the attentional blink — routinely show poor test-retest reliability when their scores are used as individual-differences measures
This sourceThe study that coined the reliability paradox, showing seven classic cognitive tasks - among them Stroop and Eriksen flanker - produce robust group effects but poor test-retest reliability when used to rank individuals. The mechanism that low between-participant variance - the very thing that makes a task robust for group comparisons - yields a low reliability ratio even when the group effect is unambiguous. Hedge, Powell and Sumner's 2018 study 'The reliability paradox', on why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. That the tasks showed robust, easily replicable group effects while their test-retest intraclass correlations were poor, several below 0.5.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“In three studies, we assessed test-retest reliability of seven classic tasks: Eriksen Flanker, Stroop, stop-signal, go/no-go, Posner cueing, Navon, and Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Code (SNARC).”
- The reliability paradox, articulated most sharply by Hedge, Powell, and Sumner (2018) for cognitive experimental paradigms, is the finding that tasks which produce robust, large group-level effects — the Stroop interference effect, flanker compatibility, the implicit association test, the attentional blink — routinely show poor test-retest reliability when their scores are used as individual-differences measures
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 in part. 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:94ba5b29ce4f · see in the full table