Woolie
Senior Member
Interesting find, @MSEsperanza.
Re the Stoll paper: I was reading along, thinking it was a pretty good way of assessing cognitive fatigability. Then hope turned to disappointment when I got to the bit where they interpret a null result (lack of a significant correlation) as positive evidence that fatigue and fatigability are independent measures.
Here is the bit where it all seems to unravel (in bold):
What they seem to have here is two variables that respond similarly to a single manipulation, suggesting they are very tightly related. The fact that they don't directly correlate with one another is probably because each measure captures different kinds of "noise" (RT effects may vary depending on a person's overall cognitive capacity - cognitive "reserve" - whereas self-report measures will be affected by personality variables). They could still be tapping into the same core construct - this seems very likely to me, given that they are both sensitive to cognitive load.
I'm also a bit unclear what the "well-being" measure might be, and my German is not good enough for me to read the original. Sounds very woolly, however (no pun intended!).
Re the Stoll paper: I was reading along, thinking it was a pretty good way of assessing cognitive fatigability. Then hope turned to disappointment when I got to the bit where they interpret a null result (lack of a significant correlation) as positive evidence that fatigue and fatigability are independent measures.
Here is the bit where it all seems to unravel (in bold):
Reaction time performance was significantly prolonged after the cognitive
load-based intervention. Furthermore, the participants indicated a significantly reduction in well-being afterward. There were no significant
changes in reaction time performance or well-being due to the relaxation intervention. There was no significant correlation between the reduction in well-being and the reaction time performance decline, although performance and well-being were similarly affected by load..
What they seem to have here is two variables that respond similarly to a single manipulation, suggesting they are very tightly related. The fact that they don't directly correlate with one another is probably because each measure captures different kinds of "noise" (RT effects may vary depending on a person's overall cognitive capacity - cognitive "reserve" - whereas self-report measures will be affected by personality variables). They could still be tapping into the same core construct - this seems very likely to me, given that they are both sensitive to cognitive load.
I'm also a bit unclear what the "well-being" measure might be, and my German is not good enough for me to read the original. Sounds very woolly, however (no pun intended!).