Dataset Information

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports.

ABSTRACT: Psychology faces a measurement crisis, and mind-wandering research is not immune. The present study explored the construct validity of probed mind-wandering reports (i.e., reports of task-unrelated thought [TUT]) with a combined experimental and individual-differences approach. We examined laboratory data from over 1000 undergraduates at two U.S. institutions, who responded to one of four different thought-probe types across two cognitive tasks. We asked a fundamental measurement question: Do different probe types yield different results, either in terms of average reports (average TUT rates, TUT-report confidence ratings), or in terms of TUT-report associations, such as TUT rate or confidence stability across tasks, or between TUT reports and other consciousness-related constructs (retrospective mind-wandering ratings, executive-control performance, and broad questionnaire trait assessments of distractibility-restlessness and positive-constructive daydreaming)? Our primary analyses compared probes that asked subjects to report on different dimensions of experience: TUT-content probes asked about what they'd been mind-wandering about, TUT-intentionality probes asked about why they were mind-wandering, and TUT-depth probes asked about the extent (on a rating scale) of their mind-wandering. Our secondary analyses compared thought-content probes that did versus didn't offer an option to report performance-evaluative thoughts. Our findings provide some "good news"-that some mind-wandering findings are robust across probing methods-and some "bad news"-that some findings are not robust across methods and that some commonly used probing methods may not tell us what we think they do. Our results lead us to provisionally recommend content-report probes rather than intentionality- or depth-report probes for most mind-wandering research.

SUBMITTER: Kane MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8613094 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Observable Movement Quality (OMQ) Scale measures generic movement quality. Each item of the OMQ Scale focuses on a different element; together, the 15 items assess the whole construct of movement quality. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the construct validity of the OMQ Scale using 7 hypotheses defined to conform to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments. DESIGN:This was an exploratory validation study. METHODS:A pediatric physical therapist assessed motor performance in 101 children using an age-specific motor test and the OMQ Scale. The direction, magnitude, and rationale for 7 hypotheses, which concerned relationships (n = 2), probability of low scores (n = 4), and difference between diagnosis subgroups (n = 1), were defined. RESULTS:The results confirmed 6 of the 7 hypotheses, indicating sufficient construct validity. Significant positive relationships were found between OMQ Scale total scores and the severity of motor disabilities (r = 0.72) and z scores on motor tests (r = 0.60). Probabilities for low scores on OMQ Scale items-exceeding the chi-square critical value-were confirmed for children diagnosed with spasticity, psychomotor retardation, mitochondrial diseases, and ataxia; however, probabilities for low OMQ Scale item scores on strength regulation in children with ataxia were not confirmed. OMQ Scale total scores for children who were not ambulatory because of neurological conditions were significantly different from those for children who were not ambulatory because of fatigue (r = 0.66). LIMITATIONS:The sample of children was based on theoretical assumptions about relevant variations in clinical representations; on the basis of the results, it appears that children with low strength regulation were underrepresented. CONCLUSION:The confirmation of nearly all hypotheses supported the validity of the OMQ Scale for measuring movement quality in clinical practice in addition to standardized age-adequate motor performance tests.

Project description:A significant body of literature supports the contention that pupil size varies depending on cognitive load, affective state, and level of drowsiness. Here we assessed whether oculometric measures such as gaze position, blink frequency and pupil size were correlated with the occurrence and time course of self-reported mind-wandering episodes. We recorded the pupil size of two subjects engaged in a monotonous breath counting task while keeping their eyes on a fixation cross. This task is conducive to producing mind-wandering episodes. Each subject performed ten 20-min sessions, for total duration of about 4 h. Subjects were instructed to report spontaneous mind-wandering episodes by pressing a button when they lost count of their breath. After each button press, subjects filled in a short questionnaire describing the characteristics of their mind-wandering episode. We observed larger pupil size during the breath-focusing period compared to the mind-wandering period (p < 0.01 for both subjects). Our findings contradict previous research showing a higher baseline pupil size during mind wandering episodes in visual tasks. We discuss possible explanations for this discrepancy. We also analyzed nine other oculometric measures including blink rate, blink duration and gaze position. We built a support vector machine (SVM) classifier and showed that mean pupil size was the most reliable predictor of mind wandering in both subjects. The classification accuracy of mind wandering data segments vs. breath-focusing data segments was 81% for the first subject and 77% for the second subject. Additionally, we analyzed oculometric measures in light of the phenomenological data collected in the questionnaires. We showed that how well subjects remembered their thoughts while mind wandering was positively correlated with pupil size (subject 1, p < 0.001; subject 2, p < 0.05). Feelings of well being were also positively correlated with pupil size (subject 1, p < 0.001; subject 2, p < 0.001). Our results suggest that oculometric data could be used as a neurocognitive marker of mind-wandering episodes.

Dataset Information

Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets