Psychological Science needs a standard practice of reporting the reliability of cognitive behavioural measurements

Psychological science relies on behavioural measures to assess cognitive processing; however, the field has not yet developed a tradition of routinely examining the reliability of these behavioural measures. Reliable measures are essential to draw robust inferences from statistical analyses, while subpar reliability has severe implications for the measures’ validity and interpretation. Without examining and reporting the reliability of cognitive behavioural measurements, it is near impossible to ascertain whether results are robust or have arisen largely from measurement error. In this paper we propose that researchers adopt a standard practice of estimating and reporting the reliability of behavioural assessments. We illustrate this proposal using an example from experimental psychopathology, the dot-probe task; although we argue that reporting reliability is relevant across fields (e.g. social cognition and cognitive psychology). We explore several implications of low measurement reliability, and the detrimental impact that failure to assess measurement reliability has on interpretability and comparison of results and therefore research quality. We argue that the field needs to a) report measurement reliability as routine practice so that we can b) develop more reliable assessment tools. To provide some guidance on estimating and reporting reliability, we describe bootstrapped split half estimation and IntraClass Correlation Coefficient procedures to estimate internal consistency and test-retest reliability, respectively. For future researchers to build upon current results it is imperative that all researchers provide sufficient psychometric information to estimate the accuracy of inferences and inform further development of cognitive behavioural assessments.