Table 4.
Summary of test-retest reliability from the literature.
| Task | Measure | Study | Reliability | Correlation coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eriksen flanker | RT cost | van Leeuwen et al. (2007) E1 | 0.48 | Pearson's r |
| van Leeuwen et al. (2007) E2 | 0.48 | Pearson's r | ||
| Wöstmann et al. (2013) | 0.91 | ICC | ||
| Paap & Sawi (2016) | 0.52 | Pearson's r | ||
| Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.57 | ICC | ||
| Error cost | van Leeuwen et al. (2007) E1 | 0.29 | Pearson's r | |
| van Leeuwen et al. (2007) E2 | 0.14 | Pearson's r | ||
| Wöstmann et al. (2013) | 0.65 | ICC | ||
| Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.72 | ICC | ||
| Posner cueing task | Cueing effect | Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.70 | ICC |
| Navon task | Local RT cost | Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.14 | ICC |
| Local error cost | Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.82 | ICC | |
| Global RT cost | Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0 | ICC | |
| Global error cost | Hedge et al. (2018b) | 0.17 | ICC | |
| Digit vigilance test (DVT) | Task duration | Lee, Li, Liu, & Hsieh (2011) | 0.83 | ICC |
| Continuous performance task (CPT) | Commission errors | Weafer, Baggott, & de Wit (2013) | 0.73 | Pearson's r |
| Wöstmann et al. (2013) | 0.51 | ICC | ||
| Soreni, Crosbie, Ickowicz, & Schachar (2009) | 0.72 | ICC | ||
| Omission errors | Weafer et al. (2013) | 0.42 | Pearson's r | |
| Tasi test | % Hits | Fernández-Marcos, de la Fuente, & Santacreu (2018) | 0.15 | ICC |
| % Commission errors | Fernández-Marcos et al. (2018) | 0.23 | ICC | |
| Mean RT | Fernández-Marcos et al. (2018) | 0.85 | ICC | |
| Conjunctive Continuous Performance Task-Visual (CCPT-V) | Mean RT/hits | Shalev, Ben-Simon, Mevorach, Cohen, & Tsal (2011) | 0.76 | Pearson's r |
| Trees Simple Visual Discrimination (DiViSA) | Commission errors | Fernández-Marcos et al. (2018) | 0.75 | ICC |
| Test duration (seconds) | Fernández-Marcos et al. (2018) | 0.72 | ICC | |
| Conjunctive Visual Search Test (CVST) | Mean RT | Shalev et al. (2011) | 0.52 | Pearson's r |
| Adaptative Choice Visual Search (ACVS) | Optimal choice (%) | Irons & Leber (2018) | 0.83 | Pearson's r |
| Switch rate (%) | Irons & Leber (2018) | 0.77 | Pearson's r | |
| Mouse Click Foraging Task (MCFT) | Mean run length (feature condition) | Clarke et al. (2022)* | 0.70 | Pearson's r |
| Mean run length (conjunction search) | Clarke et al. (2022) | 0.88 | Pearson's r | |
| Split-Half Line Segment (SHLS) | Accuracy (hard targets) | Clarke et al. (2022) | [0.71, 0.89]† | Pearson's r |
| Value driven attentional-capture | RT cost | Anderson & Kim (2019) | 0.11 | Pearson's r |
| % Trials with initial fixation on high-value distractor | Anderson & Kim (2019) | 0.80 | Pearson's r | |
| Dot-probe task | RT cost | Staugaard (2009) | 0.20‡ | Pearson's r |
| Schmukle (2005) | 0.09 | Pearson's r | ||
| % Trials with initial fixation on fear face | Price, Kuckertz, Siegle, Ladouceur, Silk Ryan, & Amier, et al. (2015) | 0.71 | ICC | |
| Attentional blink | Switch AB | Dale & Arnell (2013) | 0.62 | Pearson's r |
| Dale & Arnell (2013) | 0.39 | Pearson's r | ||
| Change detection task | K/capacity | Dai et al. (2019) | 0.70 | Pearson's r |
| Visuospatial N-back task | Mean accuracy 2-back | van Leeuwen et al. (2007) | 0.16 | Pearson's r |
| Hockey & Geffen (2004) | 0.54 | Pearson's r | ||
| Mean accuracy 3-back | van Leeuwen et al. (2007) | 0.70 | Pearson's r | |
| Hockey & Geffen (2004) | 0.73 | Pearson's r | ||
| Visuoverbal N-back task | Mean accuracy 3-back | Soveri et al. (2018) | 0.57 | ICC |
Note. *Clarke et al. (2022) re-analyzed data from Hartkamp and Thornton (2017) to estimate test-retest reliability for the foraging paradigm. †The 95% confidence interval for Pearson's correlation coefficient. ‡Reliability for 500 ms angry condition reported.