Executive Function
Familiarity Claims Task
Also called: overclaiming task, knowledge familiarity ratings
Measure familiarity judgments for real and invented terms, separating discernment from response bias.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 139
- Evidence grade
- C
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures familiarity judgments for real and invented terms. Participants rate terms from physics, nature and the arts. Signal-detection scores separate discernment from response bias, alongside the share of invented terms rated familiar.
Constructs
- Familiarity judgments
- Knowledge discernment
- Response bias
Research uses
- Knowledge calibration research
- Metacognition research
- Within-study comparisons
How the paradigm works
The Familiarity Claims Task measures how people rate their knowledge of real and invented terms. Participants rate 30 terms from physics, nature and the arts, from 0 (never heard of it) to 4 (know it well). Twenty-four terms are real and six are invented. The short form uses 15 terms with the same four-to-one ratio in each domain. Two everyday examples introduce the scale before the scored ratings. Terms are selected and ordered using the session seed. There is no time limit.
More about the paradigm
Signal detection separates discernment from response bias. For each threshold above 0, 1, 2 and 3, real-term familiarity claims count as hits and invented-term claims as false alarms. A loglinear 0.5 correction in each cell keeps extreme response patterns finite. Discernment is the mean d-prime across those four thresholds; response bias is the mean criterion c. Positive c means fewer familiarity claims, and negative c means more. The share of invented terms rated above 0 is reported separately, alongside real-term claim rate and mean ratings.
Scores
- Discernmentscore
- Mean signal-detection d-prime across the four thresholds of the 0 to 4 scale, with a 0.5 correction in each cell.
- Higher means greater separation of real and invented terms
- Response biasscore
- Mean criterion c across four rating thresholds. Uses the conventional c sign.
- Positive means fewer familiarity claims; negative means more
- Real terms rated familiar%
- Share of real terms rated above 0.
- Compare with invented terms rated familiar
- Invented terms rated familiar%
- Share of invented terms rated above 0.
- Higher means more familiarity claimed for invented terms
- Mean real-term ratingscore
- Mean rating of real terms on the 0 to 4 scale.
- Descriptive
- Mean invented-term ratingscore
- Mean rating of invented terms on the 0 to 4 scale.
- Descriptive
- Items answeredcount
- Valid ratings in the selected run.
- At least 90% of planned items are needed
- Items plannedcount
- Number of terms planned for the run.
- 15 or 30
- Median response timems
- Median response time, excluding responses under 100 ms.
- Descriptive
- Responses under 100 mscount
- Very fast ratings, retained in judgment scores.
- Expected to be 0
- Earlier sessionscount
- Earlier sessions for this participant when known.
- Repeat sessions are flagged because the debrief identifies invented terms
Use and evidence
139 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 56% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 200 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 58 |
| 2024 | 18 |
| 2023 | 25 |
| 2022 | 17 |
| 2021 | 21 |
| 2020 | 20 |
| 2019 | 25 |
| 2018 | 10 |
| 2017 | 15 |
| 2016 | 19 |
| 2015 | 12 |
| 2014 | 11 |
| 2013 | 7 |
| 2012 | 2 |
| 2011 | 9 |
| 2010 | 5 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 1 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 1 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 1 |
| 2001 | 3 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade C
At least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 5
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 87
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Terms
- 30 original terms: 24 real and 6 invented, across physics, nature and the arts. The shorter setting uses 15 terms: 12 real and 3 invented. Each domain has four real terms per invented term. Items follow the session language.
- Practice
- 2 everyday terms outside the scored bank, with feedback confirming the chosen rating.
- Trial
- A term and five buttons from 0 (never heard of it) to 4 (know it well), with no time limit and a 300 ms gap. A 500 ms blank begins the scored trials.
- Order
- Seeded selection without replacement within each domain, followed by a shuffle.
- Score
- Discernment and response bias are averaged across all 4 rating thresholds, with a 0.5 correction in each cell. Positive criterion c means fewer familiarity claims. Any rating above 0 contributes to the invented-term claim rate.
- Debrief
- Every invented term is listed, two per page. Each person takes the task once.
The terms and translations were written for this task. Results describe familiarity judgments on these items. Norms and percentiles are off.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: familiarity_claims_test from the run with most rows, ties going to the last run. Judgments are untimed. Below 90% of planned items answered invalidates. One rating on at least 90% of 12 or more answers is flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half of 4 or more items invalidate. An earlier session is flagged because the debrief reveals the invented items. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Discernment and response bias are the outcomes of interest, so an inaccurate or uniform judgment is not itself grounds to exclude a participant. The 90% completion rule is a ConductScience choice to retain the planned mixture. Very fast answers may not reflect reading. Prior exposure to the answers changes what a repeat session measures.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Terms | 30 terms (standard) | 15 terms, 30 terms (standard) |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Familiarity Claims Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Paulhus et al., 2003; Hautus, 1995), with the standard settings (terms: 30 terms). The main score was discernment (mean signal-detection d-prime across the four thresholds of the 0 to 4 scale, with a 0.5 correction in each cell).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890-904. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.890Familiarity ratings of real terms and foils, with signal-detection indices averaged across rating thresholds. This version uses original terms and a 0 to 4 scale.
- Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46-51. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203619The loglinear correction for extreme response proportions.
Source papers
- Paulhus, D. L., Harms, P. D., Bruce, M. N., & Lysy, D. C. (2003). The over-claiming technique: Measuring self-enhancement independent of ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 890-904.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Familiarity Claims Task take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Discernment, Response bias, Real terms rated familiar, Invented terms rated familiar, Mean real-term rating, Mean invented-term rating, Items answered, Items planned, Median response time, Responses under 100 ms and Earlier sessions. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Familiarity Claims Task used in research?
139 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 56% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 200 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Familiarity Claims Task have?
In the published research, 5 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade C in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Terms (15 terms, 30 terms (standard)). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.