Table 4.

Intercorrelation of raw and transformed task accuracy scores at every assessment

	Baseline		AL		DL
Tasks	Raw	Transformed	Raw	Transformed	Raw	Transformed
KT vs. LM	.18**	.22***	.37***	.41***	.28***	.34***
KT vs. SNB	.11	.14*	.38***	.37**	.25***	.26***
LM vs. SNB	.26***	.28***	.24**	.28**	.19**	.24***

Note. KT = Keep Track task; LM = Letter Memory task; SNB = Spatial 2-Back task. Baseline represents assessment at the baseline session. AL = ascending limb (or corresponding timepoint) assessment in the experimental session; DL = descending limb (or corresponding timepoint) assessment in the experimental session. Correlations were computed as Pearson’s r. For ease of comparison with the extant literature, correlations are presented for both raw and transformed (angularized and winsorized; see Analytic Strategy) task scores. The number of participants contributing pairwise complete data was: for Baseline, KT vs. LM n = 231, KT vs. SNB n = 229, LM vs. SNB n = 229; for AL, KT vs. LM n = 119, KT vs. SNB n = 119, LM vs. SNB n = 118; and for DL, KT vs. LM n = 226, KT vs. SNB n = 227, LM vs. SNB n = 226.

^*p < .05

^**p < .01

^***p < .001