Reliability of two versions of the dot-probe task using photographic faces

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

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, result): “This growth was in spite of two early papers highlighted reliability problems with the dot-probe (Schmukle, 2005; Staugaard, 2009).”
Measuring Attentional Bias to Threat: Reliability of Dot Probe and Eye Movement Indices (2014, methodology): “…rather than side-by-side, since previous research has found the following: (1) the reliability of the dot probe with stimuli side-by-side was poor (Staugaard 2009) and (2) the probability of looking at the left image first in eye movement tasks was high (e.g., .76, Nelson et al. 2010; manuscript…”
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).”