ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Digital questionnaire response time (DQRT): A ubiquitous and low-cost digital assay of cognitive processing speed.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strain and recovery activities over a week predict short-term changes in processing speed measured in everyday environments: A survey response-time study in workers from a large internet panel.Neuropsychology · 2026Article
- Be My Assistant or My Partner? How AI Relational Roles and Goal Distance Impact Consumers' Intentions to Participate in Collective Sustainable Behavior.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Examination of Total Hours of Volunteering or Informal Helping Among Older Adults and Risk of Future Functional Disability Using Data From a Large Panel Study.The American journal of occupational therapy : official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association · 2026Article
- Response-time process signals for selective escalation in reduced-item mental health symptom screening.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Digital survey tools have all but replaced paper and pen in the psychological sciences, and consequently new forms of potentially useful research paradata are now routinely gathered. A particularly common byproduct of research is questionnaire timestamps, which some have suggested can be used as a measure of cognitive function. Here, we conducted a comprehensive validation of this measure, which we call the "digital questionnaire response time," or "DQRT." Using data from N = 2,977 users of a smartphone app, we first ran a data-driven bootstrapping approach to examine how best to quantify DQRT. DQRT was slower in older adults (r = 0.26) and in those with lower educational attainment and socioeconomic status. Testing the association between DQRT and working memory (range r = 0.11-0.14), model-based planning (range r = 0.03-0.06), and processing speed (range r = 0.29-0.39) across cross-sectional and longitudinal subsamples, we found support for a cognitive characterization of DQRT as a measure of cognitive processing speed. DQRT was more strongly correlated with nine out of 13 lifestyle and health factors, and four out of nine mental health factors than a task-based measure of processing speed. DQRT showed good test-retest reliability, and associations between DQRT and task-based processing speed were higher within individuals (r = 0.35) than between individuals (r = 0.25). Finally, we highlight substantial, but addressable, potential confounds inherent in the measure. We conclude that DQRT has important limitations, but overall can serve as a valid and reliable index of cognitive processing speed that can be gathered at unprecedented scale, unobtrusively, and repeatedly, during a variety of real-world digital behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.