Unreliability of the dot probe task

By S. Schmukle. 2005

564 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/32c975690820a3037c14c417a9d6b296ee9ea9e5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. S. R. Staugaard
2. Ernst H. W. Koster
3. Amit Bernstein
4. Ariel Zvielli
5. J. LeMoult
6. A. Strother
7. S. Lilienfeld
8. Ian H. Gotlib

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. S. R. Staugaard
2. Boris Egloff
3. S. Schmukle
4. Ernst H. W. Koster
5. J. LeMoult
6. Amit Bernstein
7. Ariel Zvielli
8. Ian H. Gotlib

Citations in the corpus

• Psychological measurement and the replication crisis: Four sacred cows. (2020, background): “When they belatedly did so, they discovered that this task displayed only marginal internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Chapman, Devue, & Grimshaw, 2019; Kruijt, Parsons, & Fox, 2019; Schmukle, 2005; Staugaard, 2009).”
• Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces (2009, methodology): “Schmukle, 2005), reaction times from congruent trials were subtracted from reaction times from incongruent trials and divided by 2. Means, standard deviations and reliability estimates for the bias indices from the standard dot-probe task are presented in Table 2. To estimate the internal reliabilit”
• Temporal Dynamics of Attentional Bias (2015, methodology): “Third, we began to test whether observed temporal dynamics of AB—observed via TL-BS—may help account for questionable psychometrics of modified dot probe data and specifically traditional mean BSs (e.g., Schmukle, 2005).”
• Attention Bias Modification Training Via Smartphone to Reduce Social Anxiety: A Randomized, Controlled Multi-Session Experiment (2014, background): “The finding of substantial dot-probe attention bias score reliability in later weeks demonstrates that smartphones are capable of delivering reliable reaction-time based assessments that are at least as good as those administered via PC (Ataya et al. 2012; Browning et al. 2011; Schmukle 2005; Stauga”
• Psychological Science Needs a Standard Practice of Reporting the Reliability of Cognitive-Behavioral Measurements (2019, unknown): “This growth in use of the task occurred despite two early publications that highlighted its reliability problems (Schmukle, 2005; Staugaard, 2009).”
• Measuring Attentional Bias to Threat: Reliability of Dot Probe and Eye Movement Indices (2014, background): “Schmukle (2005) and Staugaard (2009) examined the split-half and test–retest reliability of dot probe scores in unselected undergraduate participants.”
• Does the Implicit Association Test for assessing anxiety measure trait and state variance? (2004, background): “Unfortunately, the reliability of both measures is not satisfactory at all (Kindt, Bierman, & Brosschot, 1996; Schmukle, 2003).”
• Depression: A cognitive perspective. (2019, background): “First and foremost, despite considerable progress in the measurement of cognition in depression, the psychometric properties of many information-processing tasks are still unknown or poor (Brown et al., 2014; Schmukle, 2005).”