Validation of the Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test

Abstract

The Vanderbilt Holistic Face Processing Test (VHPT-F) is a new measure of holistic face processing with better psychometric properties relative to prior measures developed for group studies (Richler et al., 2014). In fields where psychologists study individual differences, validation studies are commonplace and the concurrent validity of a new measure is established by comparing it to an older measure with established validity. We follow this approach and test whether the VHPT-F measures the same construct as the composite task, which is group-based measure at the center of the large literature on holistic face processing. In Experiment 1, we found a significant correlation between holistic processing measured in the VHPT-F and the composite task. Although this correlation was small, it was comparable to the correlation between holistic processing measured in the composite task with the same faces, but different target parts (top or bottom), which represents a reasonable upper limit for correlations between the composite task and another measure of holistic processing. These results confirm the validity of the VHPT-F by demonstrating shared variance with another measure of holistic processing based on the same operational definition. These results were replicated in Experiment 2, but only when the demographic profile of our sample matched that of Experiment 1.

Keywords: VHPT; face recognition; holistic processing; individual differences; measurement.

FIGURE 1

(A) Example VHPT-F trials where the top face half is the target. The correct response is the face on the left. On congruent trials, the target part is paired with the distractor as during study. On incongruent trials, the target part is paired with a new distractor part, and the distractor part from the study face is paired with a foil (the task-irrelevant part of the study face is outlined in blue here for illustrative purposes only). (B) Example composite task trials. In these examples, the bottom is the target part and the correct response is “same.” On congruent trials, the target and distractor face halves are associated with the same response (“same” in this example). On incongruent trials, the face halves are associated with different responses (in this example, the bottom half is “same” but the top half is “different”).

FIGURE 2

Mean performance for congruent and incongruent trials in the (A) VHPT-F and (B) composite task. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for within-subject effects (Loftus and Masson, 1994).

FIGURE 3

Mean performance for all holistic processing measures. (A) Accuracy on congruent and incongruent trials in the VHPT-F. (B) Sensitivity (d’) as a function of congruency and alignment in the composite task. (C) Accuracy for same-incongruent aligned and misaligned trials in the composite task. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals for within-subject effects (Loftus and Masson, 1994).

FIGURE 4

Correlation between age (years) and accuracy on congruent (Left) and incongruent (Right) VHPT-F trials.