A Dutch, computerized, and group administrable adaptation of the operation span test

One of the most popular tests to measure Working Memory (WM) capacity is the operation span task (OSPAN) by Turner and Engle (1989). We present a Dutch, computerized, and group administrable adaptation (GOSPAN) of this test. The GOSPAN requires no active intervention of the experimenter and allows testing large groups at the same time. Participants received sets of operation-word strings (e.g., "IS 4/2 - 1 = 5 ? BALL") on the computer screen. Participants first read the operation silently and pressed a key to indicate whether the answer was correct or not. The number of correct responses and mean response latencies were recorded. After the participant typed down the response, the corresponding word (e.g., "BALL") from the operation-word string was presented shortly (800 ms). We tested 424 first year psychology students with the GOSPAN. Forty-six participants were individually retested with the standard OSPAN task. The alpha coefficient for the GOSPAN was .74 and the correlation with the standard OSPAN reached .50 (.70 when corrected for attenuation). The study provides researchers with a time saving, reliable, and valid adaptation of the OSPAN task.

[1]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[2]  G. Waters,et al.  The Measurement of Verbal Working Memory Capacity and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension , 1996, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[3]  R. Engle Working Memory Capacity as Executive Attention , 2002 .

[4]  G. d'Ydewalle,et al.  Working Memory Capacity and the Nature of Generated Counterexamples. , 2019, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[5]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[6]  Murray Singer,et al.  Individual differences in bridging inference processes , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[7]  Randall W. Engle,et al.  Simple and complex word spans as measures of working memory capacity. , 1990 .

[8]  G. Hitch,et al.  What limits children's working memory span? Theoretical accounts and applications for scholastic development. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[9]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Irrelevant Sound Disrupts Order Information in Free Recall as in Serial Recall , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[10]  R. H. Baayen,et al.  The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM) , 1996 .

[11]  Pierre Barrouillet,et al.  From algorithmic computing to direct retrieval: Evidence from number and alphabetic arithmetic in children and adults , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[12]  M. J. Emerson,et al.  The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity, proactive interference, and divided attention: limits on long-term memory retrieval. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[14]  R. Engle,et al.  Is working memory capacity task dependent , 1989 .

[15]  Randall W Engle,et al.  Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  K. Klein,et al.  The relationship of life event stress and working memory capacity , 2001 .

[17]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity?! , 1990 .

[18]  K. Klein,et al.  The reliability and stability of the turner and Engle working memory task , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[19]  R. Case,et al.  Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span , 1982 .