» Articles » PMID: 33570657

Effects of Repeated Testing in a Pen-and-paper Test of Selective Attention (FAIR-2)

Overview
Journal Psychol Res
Specialty Psychology
Date 2021 Feb 11
PMID 33570657
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The FAIR-2 ('Frankfurter Aufmerksamkeitsinventar') is a pen-and-paper test of visual attention in which participants have to search for targets among distractors. For similar pen-and-paper tests of attention (e.g., d2), the repetition of the test causes large improvements in performance that threaten both its (retest) reliability and validity. We investigated the size and possible sources of practice effects in the FAIR-2 in three experiments. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants were tested twice using the original FAIR-2. We compared how performance changed after 2 weeks (Experiment 1) or 3 months (Experiment 2), when the test was repeated (complete repetition), or when targets and distractors changed their roles (test reversal). For Experiment 3, we used self-constructed versions of the FAIR that allowed for a third neutral condition (complete alternation) without any stimulus overlap between the two tests. The complete repetition condition produced strong performance gains (25-35%) that persisted for 3 months. For the complete-alternation condition, we observed small to moderate improvements, suggesting that stimulus-independent learning had occurred in session 1. Finally, performance did not differ between test reversal and complete alternation, therefore, suggesting that improvements in target processing had caused the large improvements in the complete-repetition condition.

Citing Articles

Modifiable factors influencing attention performance in healthy children: insights from a comprehensive school nutrition study.

Ober P, Poulain T, Meigen C, Spielau U, Sobek C, Kiess W BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1629.

PMID: 38898432 PMC: 11186167. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19059-8.

References
1.
Rabbitt P . IGNORING IRRELEVANT INFORMATION. Br J Psychol. 1964; 55:403-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1964.tb00925.x. View

2.
Bravo M, Farid H . Task demands determine the specificity of the search template. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2011; 74(1):124-31. DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0224-5. View

3.
Goldstone R . Perceptual learning. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998; 49:585-612. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.585. View

4.
Frank S, Reavis E, Tse P, Greenlee M . Neural mechanisms of feature conjunction learning: enduring changes in occipital cortex after a week of training. Hum Brain Mapp. 2013; 35(4):1201-11. PMC: 6869163. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.22245. View

5.
Blanca M, Alarcon R, Arnau J, Bono R, Bendayan R . Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option?. Psicothema. 2017; 29(4):552-557. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2016.383. View