A Randomized Control Trial of Working Memory Training with and without Strategy Instruction: Effects on Young Children's Working Memory and Comprehension
Peng, Peng; Fuchs, Douglas (2017). Journal of Learning Disabilities, v50 n1 p62-80 Jan-Feb 2017. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1122419
-
examining58Students, grade1
IES Performance Measure
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2017
- IES Performance Measure (findings for Verbal working memory (WM) training)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Articulation - Number Rate Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.74 |
8.14 |
No |
-- | |
|
Counting Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
15.80 |
14.20 |
No |
-- | |
|
Listening Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
10.01 |
9.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Listening Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
8.09 |
7.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Block Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
20.73 |
19.95 |
No |
-- | |
|
Articulation - Word Rate Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.03 |
5.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Articulation - Word Rate Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
6.09 |
6.02 |
No |
-- | |
|
Articulation - Number Rate Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.61 |
7.58 |
No |
-- | |
|
Digit Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
22.91 |
23.16 |
No |
-- | |
|
Block Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
18.00 |
18.79 |
No |
-- | |
|
Digit Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
23.33 |
23.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Counting Recall |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
14.03 |
14.84 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
QRI - Passage Listening Comprehension Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
4.35 |
3.40 |
No |
|
|
|
QRI - Retell Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
17.62 |
14.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
QRI - Retell Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
12.48 |
11.50 |
No |
-- | |
|
QRI - Passage Listening Comprehension Score |
Verbal working memory (WM) training vs. Intervention |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.85 |
3.95 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
South
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a mid-sized city in the Southeastern United States. First grade students from 13 elementary schools participated in the study.
Study sample
The authors present baseline statistics separately for the three study groups (Table 1). At baseline, children in all three groups were just over 7 years old. Approximately half of students were female (although this percentage was somewhat lower in the "no strategy instruction" group). In the Rehearsal group, 47% of students were female, 47% were African American, 32% were Caucasian, 10.5% were Hispanic, and 10.5% were other race. In the No strategy instruction group, 37% of students were female, 68% were African American, 10.5% were Caucasian, 16% were Hispanic, and 5% were other race. In both intervention conditions, 84% of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch. In the Comparison group, 50% of students were female, 25% were African American, 50% were Caucasian, 15% were Hispanic, and 10% were other race. 70% of students in the comparison group were eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
Intervention Group
The study focuses on a replicable intervention for students called WM training. WM training is a practice that aims to improve students’ working memory, or their ability to store information temporarily while engaging in cognitively demanding activities, by practicing WM tasks. Students in this intervention worked specifically on four verbal WM tasks. The study also examines whether using a rehearsal strategy further improves students’ working memory, beyond just regular WM training. Students in the two WM training groups (no rehearsal strategy and rehearsal strategy) participated in 10, one-on-one sessions. One session was administered per day for 10 consecutive school days. Each session lasted 35 minutes and was administered in a quiet location in the school. Twenty-two research assistants were trained to deliver the sessions.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group did not receive any WM training. They remained in their normal first-grade classes.
Support for implementation
The first author conducted a 2-day workshop for all 22 RAs to teach them how to administer the WM training. All RAs were trained to work with students in both intervention groups (i.e., the groups with and without rehearsal strategy instruction). After this workshop, the first author met with each RA individually to role-play a training session. RAs were required to achieve at least 90% on a fidelity score before they could begin working with children. The first author also observed each RA during a training session and provided immediate feedback after the session. He also met with all of the RAs twice as a group during the 10-day implementation period to review training procedures and answer questions. All training sessions with students were audiotaped. The first author listened to one complete audio file per student to document fidelity. An RA listened to 20% of these files, and interrater agreement between the RA and first author was 82%. For the test administration, two project staff trained the 22 RAs in how to administer and score each outcome measure. Project staff began each session by explaining the purpose and design of the tests. The RAs then role-played as examiner and examinee and received feedback from staff. Following training, RAs were required to find partners and practice administering the tests for 5 hours. Two days after training, each RA role-played "testing" project staff on all measures. RAs were required to receive at least 90% accuracy in their administration and scoring of each test prior to working with students.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).