Computer-paced versus experimenter-paced working memory span tasks: Are they equally reliable and valid?

Working memory span tasks are popular measures, in part, because performance on these tasks predicts performance on other measures of cognitive ability. The traditional method of span-task administration is the experimenter-paced version, whose reliability and validity have been repeatedly demonstrated. However, computer-paced span tasks are becoming increasingly more popular. Despite their popularity, no study had systematically compared experimenter-paced and computer-paced versions of the reading span and operation span tasks. Such a comparison is important because research labs in many universities across many countries administer these span tasks with a variety of methods. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of computer-paced span tasks and to compare these estimates to those of experimenter-paced span tasks. Results indicated that experimenter-paced and computer-paced span tasks share some overlap, but also measure additional and distinct processes. Computer-paced span tasks were highly reliable measures as well as valid indicators of fluid intelligence (Gf). Thus, computer-paced span tasks may be the optimal type of administration given their methodological advantages over experimenter-paced span tasks.

► Computer-paced measures of working memory were compared to traditional measures.
► Computer-paced tasks were both reliable and valid.
► Computer-paced span tasks also accounted for unique variance in fluid intelligence.
► Span tasks seem to capture different processes based on how they are administered.
► WM research should use computer-paced tasks because of their psychometric advantages.