↓ Skip to main content

Comparability, stability, and reliability of internet-based mental chronometry in domestic and laboratory settings

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Comparability, stability, and reliability of internet-based mental chronometry in domestic and laboratory settings
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1036-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Miller, K. Schmidt, C. Kirschbaum, S. Enge

Abstract

The internet-based assessment of response time (RT) and error rate (ERR) has recently become a well-validated alternative to traditional laboratory-based assessment, because methodological research has provided evidence for negligible setting- and setup-related differences in RT and ERR measures of central tendency. However, corresponding data on potential differences in the variability of such performance measures are still lacking, to date. Hence, the aim of this study was to conduct internet-based mental chronometry in both poorly standardized domestic and highly standardized laboratory environments and to compare the variabilities of the corresponding performance measures. Using the Millisecond Inquisit4Web software, 127 men and women completed three different RT-based cognitive paradigms (i.e., go/no-go, two-back, and number-letter). Each participant completed all paradigms in two environments (i.e., at home and in the laboratory), with a time lag of seven days and in a counterbalanced order. Mixed-effects modeling was employed to estimate the between-setting variability across a comprehensive set of performance measures, including conventional measures of central tendency (i.e., mean RT and ERR) and further measures characterizing the joint distribution of RT/ERR. The latter measures were estimated using the diffusion model. The results suggested negligible differences between the domestic and laboratory settings. Thus, this study provides novel evidence suggesting that the statistical power of internet-based mental chronometry is commonly not compromised by increased environmental variance. The within- and between-session reliabilities were in a satisfactory range-that is, comparable to performance measures collected offline in laboratory settings. In consequence, our results support the broad applicability, robustness, and cost efficiency of mental chronometry assessment using the internet.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 43%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,698,342
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#453
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,331
of 351,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.