15 Construct Validity of the Stroop Interference task in Youth and the Contribution of Effort

Abstract

Objective:

Previous literature has studied the cognitive processes that contribute to performance on the Stroop interference condition in adults and found that the Stroop task performance (i.e., color-word interference) is comprised of multiple cognitive skills, including speed of visual search, working memory, and conflict monitoring (Perianez et al. 2020). However, the relationship of these cognitive processes to Stroop interference in youth remains understudied. Moreover, no studies have examined the contribution of effort measurement to the interference condition in healthy youth.

Participants and Methods:

Golden Stroop Test interference performance was examined in healthy youth athletes (n=174) aged 8-16 years (mean age=12.07) who participated in a baseline neuropsychological evaluation as part of a clinical research program on sports concussion. Predictor variables included speed of visual search, working memory, processing speed, verbal fluency effort (i.e., validity tests), visuospatial abilities, visual processing, and executive functioning skills such as cognitive flexibility and reasoning.

Results:

Speed of visual search as measured by Trail Making Test visual scanning time (p<0.00), and effort as measured by Reliable Digit Span and Trail Making Test ratio (p=0.03; p<0.00, respectively) significantly contributed to Stroop interference performance in healthy youth. We provided three validity measures; however, only those requiring higher-order cognitive processes predicted Stroop performance: Reliable Digit Span (p=0.03) and the Trail Making Test ratio (p<0.00). The standalone validity measure (TOMM) was not a significant predictor of Stroop performance (p>0.05).

Conclusions:

In contrast to adults, working memory and processing speed did not significantly predict Stroop performance, while visual search speed did predict Stroop interference. Furthermore, two embedded validity indicator (EVI) measures predicted Stroop interference, in contrast to a standalone validity measure requiring lower cognitive processes, which did not predict Stroop performance. Therefore, EVI’s that include an executive functioning component may not accurately represent effort in youth, perhaps due to their less developed executive functioning relative to adults (Lezak et al., 2012; Shanmugan & Satterthwaite, 2017). Overall, understanding the cognitive processes contributing to Stroop performance in healthy youth will allow clinicians to better detect deficits in those cognitive processes and understand how they may impact Stroop performance. This would lead to a better understanding of executive functioning and the accurate measurement of effort in healthy youth.