Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring.

IF 4.6 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Behavior Research Methods Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-07 DOI:10.3758/s13428-024-02480-7
David Martinez
{"title":"Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring.","authors":"David Martinez","doi":"10.3758/s13428-024-02480-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Story recall is an episodic memory paradigm that is popular among researchers interested in the effects of aging, disease, and/or injury on memory functioning; it is less popular among individual-differences researchers studying neurotypical young adults. One reason differential psychologists may favor other episodic memory paradigms is that the prospect of scoring story recall is daunting, as it typically requires manually scoring hundreds or thousands of freely recalled narratives. In this study, I investigated two questions related to scoring story recall for individual differences research. First, whether there is anything to gain by scoring story recall for memory of central and peripheral details or if a single score is sufficient. Second, I investigated whether scoring can be automated using computational methods - namely, BERTScore and GPT-4. A total of 235 individuals participated in this study. At the latent variable level, central and peripheral factors were highly correlated (r = .99), and the two factors correlated with external factors (viz., fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and working memory capacity) similarly. Regarding automated scoring, both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were strongly correlated with manually derived scores (r ≥ .97); additionally, factors estimated from the various scoring methods all showed a similar pattern of correlations with the external factors. Thus, differential psychologists may be able to streamline scoring by disregarding detail type and by using automated approaches. Further research is needed, particularly of the automated approaches, as both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were occasionally leptokurtic while manual scores were not.</p>","PeriodicalId":8717,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":"8362-8378"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-024-02480-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Story recall is an episodic memory paradigm that is popular among researchers interested in the effects of aging, disease, and/or injury on memory functioning; it is less popular among individual-differences researchers studying neurotypical young adults. One reason differential psychologists may favor other episodic memory paradigms is that the prospect of scoring story recall is daunting, as it typically requires manually scoring hundreds or thousands of freely recalled narratives. In this study, I investigated two questions related to scoring story recall for individual differences research. First, whether there is anything to gain by scoring story recall for memory of central and peripheral details or if a single score is sufficient. Second, I investigated whether scoring can be automated using computational methods - namely, BERTScore and GPT-4. A total of 235 individuals participated in this study. At the latent variable level, central and peripheral factors were highly correlated (r = .99), and the two factors correlated with external factors (viz., fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, and working memory capacity) similarly. Regarding automated scoring, both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were strongly correlated with manually derived scores (r ≥ .97); additionally, factors estimated from the various scoring methods all showed a similar pattern of correlations with the external factors. Thus, differential psychologists may be able to streamline scoring by disregarding detail type and by using automated approaches. Further research is needed, particularly of the automated approaches, as both BERTScore and GPT-4 derived scores were occasionally leptokurtic while manual scores were not.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为个体差异研究中的故事回忆评分:中心细节、外围细节和自动评分。
故事回忆是一种外显记忆范式,在对衰老、疾病和/或损伤对记忆功能的影响感兴趣的研究人员中很受欢迎;但在研究神经畸形青少年的个体差异研究人员中却不太受欢迎。差异心理学家偏爱其他外显记忆范式的原因之一是,对故事回忆进行评分的前景令人生畏,因为这通常需要对成百上千个自由回忆的叙述进行人工评分。在本研究中,我调查了与为个体差异研究中的故事回忆评分有关的两个问题。首先,对故事回忆的中心和外围细节记忆进行评分是否有任何益处,或者是否只需一个评分就足够了。其次,我研究了是否可以使用计算方法(即 BERTScore 和 GPT-4)进行自动评分。共有 235 人参与了这项研究。在潜变量水平上,中心因子和外围因子高度相关(r = 0.99),这两个因子与外部因子(即流体智力、结晶智力和工作记忆能力)的相关性相似。在自动评分方面,BERTScore 和 GPT-4 得出的分数与人工得出的分数都有很强的相关性(r ≥ 0.97);此外,各种评分方法估算出的因子都与外部因子显示出相似的相关模式。因此,差异心理学家可以通过忽略细节类型和使用自动方法来简化评分。由于 BERTScore 和 GPT-4 得出的分数偶尔会出现畸变,而人工评分则不会出现畸变,因此还需要进一步研究,尤其是对自动方法的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
9.30%
发文量
266
期刊介绍: Behavior Research Methods publishes articles concerned with the methods, techniques, and instrumentation of research in experimental psychology. The journal focuses particularly on the use of computer technology in psychological research. An annual special issue is devoted to this field.
期刊最新文献
Dissecting the components of error in analogue report tasks. A template and tutorial for preregistering studies using passive smartphone measures. Scoring story recall for individual differences research: Central details, peripheral details, and automated scoring. A tutorial: Analyzing eye and head movements in virtual reality. Behavioral science labs: How to solve the multi-user problem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1