This study examined the reliability (retest and split-half) of four common behavioral measures of cognitive control. In Experiment 1 (N = 96), we examined N - 2 task repetition costs as a marker of task-level inhibition, and the cue-stimulus interval (CSI) effect as a marker of time-based task preparation. In Experiment 2 (N = 48), we examined a Stroop-like face-name interference effect as a measure of distractor interference control, and the sequential congruency effect ("conflict adaptation effect") as a measure of conflict-triggered adaptation of cognitive control. In both experiments, the measures were assessed in two sessions on the same day, separated by a 10 min-long unrelated filler task. We observed substantial experimental effects with medium to large effect sizes. At the same time, split-half reliabilities were moderate, and retest reliabilities were poor, for most measures, except for the CSI effect. Retest reliability of the Stroop-like effect was improved when considering only trials preceded by congruent trials. Together, the data suggest that these cognitive control measures are well suited for assessing group-level effects of cognitive control. Yet, except for the CSI effect, these measures do not seem suitable for reliably assessing interindividual differences in the strength of cognitive control, and therefore are not suited for correlational approaches. We discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between robustness at the group level and reliability at the level of interindividual differences.
