Working Memory
Reading Span Task
Also called: RSPAN, automated reading span, complex span task, sentence span
Measure complex working memory with sentences judged for sense while letters are held in mind and recalled in order.
12-16 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 171
- Evidence grade
- B
- Registered clinical studies
- 22
What it measures
Measures working memory capacity with the automated reading span procedure. Participants judge whether sentences make sense while remembering letters, then recall the letters in order.
Constructs
- Working memory capacity
- Executive attention
- Serial recall
- Reading comprehension under memory load
Research uses
- Individual-difference studies of working memory capacity
- Reading comprehension and language research
- Cognitive training and intervention outcome studies
How the paradigm works
The reading span task measures complex working memory: keeping letters in mind while reading and judging sentences. On each item the participant reads a sentence, clicks Continue, and then answers whether it made sense. A letter to remember follows. After each set, the participant clicks the letters in the order shown on a 4 by 3 letter grid, using a Blank button for any letter they forgot.
More about the paradigm
The task follows the automated complex span procedure (Unsworth et al. 2005; Redick et al. 2012) with sentences in place of math problems. Practice has three parts: letters only, 15 sentences only, and both together. The sentence practice sets each participant's time limit for later sentences at their mean reading time plus 2.5 standard deviations. The test has 15 sets, three each of 3 to 7 letters in random order, for 75 letters and 75 sentences; a setting gives one or two sets of each size instead. Each letter shows for 800 ms, adjustable from 500 to 1500 ms. A sentence that runs past the time limit counts as a speed error and the task moves on to the letter.
The sentences were written for this task in plain English, 10 to 15 words each. Every sentence has a version that makes sense and a version made nonsensical by changing one word. No sentence is shown twice in a session, and half the sentences shown make sense.
The main score is the partial span score: letters recalled in the correct position, 0 to 75. The absolute span score, sentence accuracy, speed and accuracy errors, and recall at each set size are also reported. Sessions with sentence accuracy below 85% are flagged. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Partial Span Scorecount
- Letters recalled in the correct position across all sets (0 to 75 at the standard settings).
- Higher is better
- Absolute Span Scorecount
- Sum of set sizes for sets recalled perfectly.
- Higher is better
- Partial-Credit Unit Score%
- Mean proportion of letters recalled in the correct position per set.
- Higher is better
- Sentence Accuracy%
- Sentences judged correctly within the time limit, out of all sentences shown.
- Below 0.85 flags the session
- Sentence Errorscount
- Speed errors plus accuracy errors.
- Lower is better
- Speed Errorscount
- Sentences not read within the participant's time limit.
- Lower is better
- Accuracy Errorscount
- Sentences judged wrongly as making sense or not.
- Lower is better
- Low Sentence Accuracyflag
- 1 when sentence accuracy is below 85%; review before analysis.
- Informational
- Recall, Sets of 3%
- Proportion of letters recalled in the correct position in sets of 3.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 4%
- Proportion of letters recalled in the correct position in sets of 4.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 5%
- Proportion of letters recalled in the correct position in sets of 5.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 6%
- Proportion of letters recalled in the correct position in sets of 6.
- Higher is better
- Recall, Sets of 7%
- Proportion of letters recalled in the correct position in sets of 7.
- Higher is better
- Median Reading Timems
- Median time to read a sentence and click Continue, for sentences read within the time limit.
- Context for the time limit
- Reading Time Limitms
- The participant's time limit per sentence: mean practice reading time plus 2.5 SD.
- Informational
Use and evidence
171 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 15% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 138 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 38 |
| 2024 | 33 |
| 2023 | 27 |
| 2022 | 33 |
| 2021 | 40 |
| 2020 | 32 |
| 2019 | 26 |
| 2018 | 38 |
| 2017 | 53 |
| 2016 | 52 |
| 2015 | 56 |
| 2014 | 60 |
| 2013 | 38 |
| 2012 | 41 |
| 2011 | 40 |
| 2010 | 20 |
| 2009 | 29 |
| 2008 | 29 |
| 2007 | 21 |
| 2006 | 21 |
| 2005 | 15 |
| 2004 | 24 |
| 2003 | 17 |
| 2002 | 14 |
| 2001 | 15 |
| 2000 | 11 |
Use grade C
100 to 299 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade B
At least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 11
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 48
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 22
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 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Letters
- F H J K L N P Q R S T Y, each shown for 800 ms (standard; 500 to 1,500).
- Sets
- 15 sets, three each of 3 to 7 letters in random order: 75 letters and 75 sentences (standard; one to three sets of each size).
- Sentences
- Plain English sentences of 10 to 15 words, written for this task. Each has a version that makes sense and one made nonsensical by changing one word; half the sentences shown make sense, and none is shown twice in a session.
- Judgment
- After reading, the participant clicks Continue, then Makes sense or Does not make sense.
- Time limit
- Each participant's mean reading time in sentence practice plus 2.5 standard deviations. A sentence not read in time is a speed error.
- Recall
- Click the letters in order on a 4 by 3 grid, with a Blank button for a forgotten letter, then 2,000 ms of feedback.
- Practice
- Letters only (sets of 2, 2, 3 and 3), 15 sentences only with feedback, then three sets of 2 with both.
- Sentence criterion
- Sessions below 85% sentence accuracy are flagged.
The automated reading span uses its own sentence set. These sentences were written for this task, so published reading span norms are not applied. The sentences are English; sessions run in other languages are flagged for review.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: test-phase answers to whether each sentence makes sense (chance 50%, half make sense) and speed errors, in the order shown, from the scored run. Sentence accuracy below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One button on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Speed errors are missed responses: more than max(3, 25%) invalidate, any is flagged. Answers under 200 ms on at least half the sentences invalidate. Sentence accuracy below 85% and a session run in another language are flagged. Letter recall is not judged against chance. A hidden tab withholds the percentile.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Typical participants make about one speed error on the automated reading span (Redick et al. 2012, M 1.41), so more than a quarter signals non-engagement. Unsworth et al. (2005) and Redick et al. (2012) kept participants whose processing accuracy reached 85%, so accuracy below that is flagged. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast. The word lists are English. A session run in another language shows English words to a participant who may not read English fluently, so it is flagged for review. A hidden tab lets the study, delay or response timers run without the participant, so a percentile is withheld after one.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Sets of each size | 3 | 1 to 3 |
| Letter display time (ms) | 800 | 500 to 1,500 |
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
- Instructions and screens: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. Words and sentences: English.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Reading Span Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), with the standard settings (sets of each size: 3; letter display time (ms): 800). The main score was partial span score (letters recalled in the correct position across all sets (0 to 75 at the standard settings)).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
- Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498-505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720The automated procedure: practice parts, the time limit and the 85% criterion.
- Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769-786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772Partial and absolute scoring.
- Redick, T. S., Broadway, J. M., Meier, M. E., Kuriakose, P. S., Unsworth, N., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 164-171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000123Set sizes and counts of the automated reading span, and its reliability.
Source papers
- Daneman M, Carpenter PA (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4):450-466.Paradigm source, Young adults
- Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC, Engle RW (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3):498-505.Paradigm source, 18-35
- Conway ARA, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user's guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5):769-786.Paradigm source, Adults
- Redick TS, Broadway JM, Meier ME, Kuriakose PS, Unsworth N, Kane MJ, Engle RW (2012). Measuring working memory capacity with automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(3):164-171.Paradigm source, 17-35
Questions
How long does the Reading Span Task take?
About 12 to 16 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?
Partial Span Score, Absolute Span Score, Partial-Credit Unit Score, Sentence Accuracy, Sentence Errors, Speed Errors, Accuracy Errors, Low Sentence Accuracy, Recall, Sets of 3, Recall, Sets of 4, Recall, Sets of 5, Recall, Sets of 6, Recall, Sets of 7, Median Reading Time and Reading Time Limit. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Reading Span Task used in research?
171 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 15% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 138 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade C). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Reading Span Task have?
In the published research, 11 papers report its test-retest reliability and 22 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade B in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Sets of each size (1 to 3) and letter display time (ms) (500 to 1,500). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
The instructions and screens are in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. The words and sentences stay in English, so sessions in other languages are flagged for review. 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.