Combining Multiple Complex Span Tasks into a Single Working Memory Measure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47604/ijp.3628Keywords:
Rasch Model, Working Memory, , Speaking Span Task, Listening Span Task, Complex Span Tasks, Working Memory AssessmentAbstract
Purpose: The adequate measurement of working memory (WM) capacity presents some limitations. One of the main challenges is that WM assessment is confounded by the level of expertise of individuals in the particular domain required to perform the task, such as verbal fluency in the case of the speaking span task. Another drawback is that there is little psychometric evidence to support the use of complex span tasks as measures of WM capacity. Therefore, it is not clear if these assessment tools do in fact measure the theoretical construct they are intended to measure (i.e., WM) or something else. The purpose of this study was to address these shortcomings by developing a new measure that combines the listening and the speaking span tasks and collecting validity evidence for its use through the Rasch model.
Methodology: The participants were 290 Japanese high school students who were administered the speaking and the listening span tasks for which I collected validity evidence in Bazan (2020) and Bazan (2021), respectively. Both tasks were performed individually on a face-to-face basis with the stimuli being played on a computer that I operated. Performance was audio-recorded and scored dichotomously (i.e., right or wrong) using the same scoring system as in the two previous studies. That is, a credit was given for each item recalled successively in the order of appearance until memory failure to recall in order. Scores were put together and analyzed as if they belonged to a single test through the Rasch dichotomous model. The analysis involved an evaluation of whether later presented items within a set increased in difficulty as predicted by WM theory, person and item fit to the Rasch model, person and item reliability and separation, and the dimensionality of the combined WM measure.
Findings: The Wright map confirmed a hierarchy of item difficulty consistent with the theoretical expectation that the further the item appears within the set, the more difficult it should be. Over 96% of participants and almost all items fit the Rasch model, with person and item reliability indices demonstrating high replicability of the ordering of the persons’ ability and item difficulty across similar samples. Person separation indicated that the measure is sensitive enough to separate participants into three levels of the construct (i.e., high spans, average spans, and low spans) whereas item separation showed that the items can be divided into 9 levels of difficulty, which is excellent according to the guidelines. The examination of dimensionality revealed that the combined measure taps into a single unidimensional construct, namely WM capacity.
Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice and Policy: This study provides evidence for the usefulness of the combining approach to mitigate the influence of domain-specific skills on WM measurement.
Downloads
References
Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.
Bayliss, D. M., Jarrold, C., Baddeley, A. D., & Gunn, D. M. (2005). The relationship between short-term memory and working memory: complex span made simple?. Memory, 13(3–4), 414–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000332
Bazan, B. (2020). A Rasch-validation study of a novel speaking span task. Shiken, 24(1), 1–21. Retrieved from http://teval.jalt.org/node/95
Bazan, B. (2021). The construction and validation of a new listening span task. Shiken, 25(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.37546/JALTSIG.TEVAL25.1-4
Bazan, B. (2024). Listening automaticity: A reduction of dual-task Interference and working memory demands. IPR Journals and Book Publishers.
Bond, T. G., Yan, Z., & Heene, M. (2021). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Buntig M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(5), 769–786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
Cowan N. (2017). The many faces of working memory and short-term storage. Psychonomic Bulletin and review, 24(4), 1158–1170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1191-6
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
Daneman, M., & Green, I. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90018-5
Daneman, M., & Merikle, P. M. (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3(4), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03214546
Dehn, M. J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Duncan, P. W., Bode, R. K., Lai, S. M., & Perera, S. (2003). Rasch analysis of a new stroke-specific outcome scale: The stroke impact scale. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 84, 950–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00035-2
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 128(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2007). Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 21(1), 1095. http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt211a.htm
Howieson, D. B., & Lezak, M. D. (2012). Separating memory from other cognitive disorders. In A. D. Baddeley, M. D. Kopelman, M. D., & B. A. Wilson (Eds.), The handbook of memory disorders (2nd ed., pp. 637–654). Wiley.
Ivanova, M. V., & Hallowell, B. (2014). A new modified listening span task to enhance validity of working memory assessment for people with and without aphasia. Journal of Communication Disorders, 52, 78–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.06.001
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 133(2), 189–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Structure in Rasch residuals: Why principal components analysis (PCA)? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12(2), 636.
Linacre, J. M. (2007). A user’s guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch-model computer program. MESA.
Linacre, J. M. (2018a). WINSTEPS (Version 4.3.1) [Computer Software]. Winsteps.com.
Linacre, J. M. (2018b). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program user’s guide. Beaverton.
Miyake, A. (2001). Individual differences in working memory: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.163
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A.H., Howerter, A, Wager, T. D. (2000) The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "Frontal Lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology. 41(1), 49-100. https://doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Rettinger, D. A., Shah, P., & Hegarty, M. (2001). How are visuospatial working memory, executive functioning, and spatial abilities related? A latent-variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 130(4), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.621
Monteiro, F., Nascimento, L. B., Leitão, J. A., Santos, E. J. R., Rodrigues, P., Santos, I. M., Simões, F., & Nascimento, C. S. (2025). Optimizing working memory assessment: development of shortened versions of complex spans, updating, and binding tasks. Psychological Research, 89(2), 65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02083-7
Munakata, Y., Morton, J.B., & O’Reilly, R.C. (2007). Variation in working memory due to typical and atypical development. In A. R. A Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, M. Akira, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 162–193). Oxford University Press.
Oberauer, K., Süß, H. M., Wilhelm, O., & Wittman, W. W. (2003). The multiple faces of working memory: Storage, processing, supervision, and coordination. Intelligence, 31(2), 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00115-0
Oswald, F. L., McAbee, S. T., Redick, T. S., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2015). The development of a short domain-general measure of working memory capacity. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1343–1355. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0543-2
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Danmarks Paedagogiske Institut.
Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207–230. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164671
Schmiedek, F., Lövdén, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2014). A task is a task is a task: putting complex span, n-back, and other working memory indicators in psychometric context. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01475
Ünal, G., Özge, D. and Marinis, T. (2020). Assessing complex working memory in Turkish-speaking children: The listening span task adaptation into Turkish. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01688
Wilhelm O, Hildebrandt A, Oberauer K. (2013) What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 4(433), 1–22. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433
Wright, B. D. (1996). Comparing Rasch measurement and factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 3(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540026
Wright, B. D., Linacre, M., Gustafsson, J.-E., & Martin-Löf, P. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370. https://rasch.org/rmt/rmt83.htm
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1982). Rating scale analysis. MESA.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bartolo Bazan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
