Sustained attention is frequently assessed using either objective behavioral measures, such as reaction-time variability during a task, or subjective self-report measures, such as rates of task-unrelated thought (TUT) during a task. The current studies examined whether the individual-difference overlap in these measures provides a more construct valid assessment of sustained attention ability than does either alone. Whereas prior research typically considered behavioral measures to provide convergent validity for TUT reports, we argue that they mutually validate each other; each measurement approach has its own sources of error, so their shared variance should best reflect the sustained attention construct. We reanalyzed two latent-variable studies where reaction-time variability and TUTs were measured in multiple tasks (Kane et al., 2016, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1017-1048; Unsworth et al., 2021, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 1303-1331). These studies also included several nomological-network constructs that allowed for testing the convergent and discriminant validity of a general sustained attention factor. Confirmatory factor analyses assessing bifactor (preregistered) and hierarchical (non-preregistered) models, suggested that sustained attention can be modeled as the shared variance among objective and subjective measures. This sustained attention factor was related to working memory capacity, attention control, processing speed, task-specific motivation and alertness, and self-reported cognitive failures and positive schizotypy. Multiverse analyses of trial- and subject-level outlier decisions suggested that bifactor models of general sustained attention ability are less robust than hierarchical models. The results provide evidence for the general ability to sustain attention and provide suggestions for improving its measurement.