Assessing the validity of multinomial models using extraneous variables: An application to prospective memory

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 64, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 2194-2210

  Rummel, Jan ^a   Dennis Boywitt, C ^a   Meiser, Thorsten ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Construct validity; Multinomial model; Prospective memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855779523     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2011.586708     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1990). Multinomial processing models of source monitoring. Psychological Review, 97, 548-564.
2. Batchelder, W. H., & Riefer, D. M. (1999). Theoretical and empirical review of multinomial process tree modeling. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 57-86.
3. Bayen, U. J., & Kuhlmann, B. G. (2011). Influences of source-item contingency and schematic knowledge on source monitoring: Tests of the probability-matching account. Journal of Memory and Language, 64, 1-17.
4. Bayen, U. J., & Murnane, K. (1996). Aging and the use of perceptual and temporal information in source memory tasks. Psychology and Aging, 11, 293-303.
5. Bayen, U. J., Murnane, K., & Erdfelder, E. (1996). Source discrimination, item detection, and multinomial models of source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 197-215.
6. Brewer, G. A., Knight, J. B., Marsh, R. L., & Unsworth, N. (2010). Individual differences in event-based prospective memory: Evidence for multiple processes supporting cue detection. Memory & Cognition, 38, 304-311.
7. Bröder, A., & Schütz, J. (2009). Recognition ROCs are curvilinear-or are they? On premature arguments against the two-high-threshold model of recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 35, 587-606.
8. Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., Steffens, M. C., & Martensen, H. (1997). The nature of memory processes underlying recognition judgments in the process dissociation procedure. Memory & Cognition, 25, 508-517.
9. Buchner, A., Erdfelder, E., & Vaterrodt-Plünnecke, B. (1995). Toward unbiased measurement of conscious and unconscious memory processes within the process dissociation framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 137-160.
10. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
11. Cohen, A.-L., Jaudas, A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (2008). Number of cues influences the cost of remembering to remember. Memory & Cognition, 36, 149-156.
12. Cressie, N., & Read, T. R. C. (1989). Pearson's χ2 and the loglikelihood ratio statistic G2: A comparative review. International Statistical Review, 19, 19-43.
13. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
14. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (1990). Normal aging and prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 717-726.
15. Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Prospective memory: Multiple retrieval processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 286-290.
16. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Manzi, M., Cochran, B., & Baker, M. (2000). Prospective memory and aging: Forgetting intentions over short delays. Psychology and Aging, 15, 671-683.
17. Einstein, G. O., McDaniel, M. A., Thomas, R., Mayfield, S., Shank, H., Morrisette, N., et al. (2005). Multiple processes in prospective memory retrieval: Factors determining monitoring versus spontaneous retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 327-342.
18. Erdfelder, E., & Buchner, A. (1998). Process-dissociation measurement models: Threshold theory or detection theory? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 83-96.
19. Erdfelder, E., Auer, T. S., Hilbig, B. E., Assfalg, A., Moshagen, M., & Nadarevic, L. (2009). Multinomial processing tree models: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 217, 108-124.
20. Harrison, T. L., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Prospective memory: Are preparatory attentional processes necessary for a single focal cue? Memory and Cognition, 38, 860-867.
21. Hicks, J. L., Marsh, R. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). Task interference in time-based, event-based, and dual intention prospective memory conditions. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 430-444.
22. Horn, S. S., Bayen, U. J., Smith, R. E., & Boywitt, C. D. (2011). The multinomial model of prospective memory: Validity of ongoing-task parameters. Experimental Psychology, 58, 247-255.
23. Hu, X., & Batchelder, W. H. (1994). The Statistical analysis of general processing tree models with the Em algorithm. Psychometrica, 59, 21-47.
24. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513-541.
25. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
26. Klauer, K. C., & Meiser, T. (2000). A sourcemonitoring analysis of illusory correlations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1074-1093.
27. Malmberg, K. J. (2002). On the form of ROCs constructed from confidence ratings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 380-387.
28. Marsh, R. L., Cook, G. I., & Hicks, J. L. (2006). Task interference from event-based intentions can be material specific. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1636-1643.
29. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Cook, G. I. (2005). On the relationship between effort toward an ongoing task and cue detection in event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 68-75.
30. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., Cook, G. I., Hansen, J. S., & Pallos, A. L. (2003). Interference to ongoing activities covaries with the characteristics of an event-based intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 861-870.
31. Marsh, R. L., Hicks, J. L., & Hancock, T. W. (2000). On the interaction of ongoing cognitive activity and the nature of an event-based intention. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 29-41.
32. McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2007). Prospective memory: An overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
33. Meiser, T., & Bröder, A. (2002). Memory for multidimensional source information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 28, 116-137.
34. Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Cognitive, processes in stereotype formation: The role of correct contingency learning for biased group judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 599-614.
35. Meiser, T., & Schult, J. C. (2008). On the automatic nature of the task-appropriate processing effect in event-based prospective memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 290-311.
36. Moshagen, M. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42-54.
37. Murnane, K., & Bayen, U. J. (1996). An evaluation of empirical measures of source identification. Memory & Cognition, 24, 417-428.
38. Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
39. Rummel, J. (2010). Psychological distance to a prospective memory cue influences the probability of fulfilling a delayed intention. Memory, 18, 284-292.
40. Rummel, J., & Meiser, T. (2011). Performance expectancies and task interference in prospective memory tasks with salient cues. Manuscript submitted for publication.
41. Scullin, M. K., Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2009). Evidence for spontaneous retrieval of suspended but not finished prospective memories. Memory & Cognition, 37, 425-433.
42. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2010). Control of cost in prospective memory: Evidence for spontaneous retrieval processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 190-203.
43. Scullin, M. K., McDaniel, M. A., Shelton, J. T., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Focal/nonfocal cue effects in prospective memory: Monitoring difficulty or different retrieval processes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 36, 736-749.
44. Smith, R. E. (2008). Connecting the past and the future: Attention, memory, and delayed intentions. In M. Kliegel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective memory-Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental and applied perspectives (pp. 29-52). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Smith, R. E., & Bayen, U. J. (2004). A multinomial model of event-based prospective memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 30, 756-777.
46. Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 734-746.
47. Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34-50.
48. Stahl, C., & Meiser, T. (2009). New directions in multinomial modeling. Journal of Psychology, 217, 105-107
49. Vogt, V., & Bröder, A. (2007). Independent retrieval of source dimensions: An extension of results by Starns and Hicks (2005) and a comment on the ACSIM measure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 443-450.
50. West, R., Krompinger, J., & Bowry, R. (2005). Disruptions of preparatory attention contribute to failures of prospective memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 502-507.
51. Wu, H., Myung, J. I., & Batchelder, W. H. (2010). On the minimum description length complexity of multinomial processing tree models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 291-303.