Targeting the Three Stages of Retrieval from Secondary Memory in a Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Working Memory Training Study
Ralph, Kathryn J.; Gibson, Bradley S.; Gondoli, Dawn M.; Sztybel, Pedro; Pauszek, Joseph R.; Miller, Robert W.; Litzow, Emily (2017). Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, v1 p455-477. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED586839
-
examining101Students, grades6-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised randomized controlled trial, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
242.00 |
243.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
242.00 |
244.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Algebra subscale |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
253.00 |
251.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
247.00 |
248.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Geometry subscale |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
247.00 |
250.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
247.00 |
250.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Data Analysis subscale |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
245.00 |
248.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Computation subscale |
Two-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) vs. Non-adaptive one-component working memory training—Ralph et al. (2017) |
6 Months |
Full sample;
|
244.00 |
248.00 |
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.
-
Female: 56%
Male: 44% -
Race Asian 14% Black 2% Other or unknown 9% White 75% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 2% Other or unknown 98% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in three middle schools in one school district. The interventions were administered in the students’ homes and the academic assessments were completed at school.
Study sample
A total of 101 students in grades 6–8 were included in the study. Students were assigned to one of three study groups: a two-component working memory training (WMT; 33 students), an adaptive one-component WMT (33 students), and a non-adaptive one-component WMT (35 students). Approximately 44% of the students were male, 8% were receiving special education services, 6% had an Individualized Education Plan, and 5% had a learning disorder. Approximately 75% were White, 14% were Asian, 2% were Black, and 9% other race. Two percent were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
Students in the intervention group used a version of the Cogmed WMT computer program called two-component WMT that was intended to improve long-term (or secondary) memory. The intervention was administered to students individually in their homes over the internet. In each training session, the student completed eight working memory exercises that asked students to recall a certain number of items (span length). Four exercises were “critical exercises” that students completed in every training session. Four exercises were a subset of eight “common exercises” that rotated across training sessions. Each of the exercises involved 15 trials with adaptive span length, meaning that the number of items the student was asked to recall in a trial increased as the student recalled items accurately. The common exercises had a 100% recall accuracy threshold (RAT)—that is, the student was first asked to recall two items; once they recalled two items with no errors, they were asked to recall three items; once they recalled three items with no errors, they were asked to recall four items; and so on. Researchers expected students to use their short-term (or primary) memory in completing these 100% RAT exercises. The critical exercises had a reduced accuracy threshold after three items—that is, 100% recall accuracy was required for two- and three-item spans, but the student was allowed to make one error on four- , five-, and six-item spans (for example, once the student recalled four items with no more than one error, they were asked to recall five items); two errors on seven-, eight-, and nine-item spans; three errors on 10-, 11-, and 12-item spans; and so on. Because the reduced RAT could enable a student to attain longer spans than they might attain with 100% RAT, the researchers expected students to use their long-term memory in completing the reduced-RAT exercises. Training sessions were intended to last 30–45 minutes each day, five school days per week, for 5 weeks. Students trained for 25 days, on average, and spent at least 75% of the last 10 days of training attempting to recall spans of four or more items in the critical exercises.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison groups used versions of the Cogmed WMT computer program that researchers expected to exercise their short-term memory but not their long-term memory. The comparison interventions were administered to students individually in their homes over the internet. As in the intervention group, the student completed eight exercises per training session, consisting of four critical exercises that did not change and four common exercises that rotated across sessions. In the adaptive one-component WMT comparison group, all eight exercises had an adaptive span length with 100% RAT, and each exercise consisted of 15 trials. In the non-adaptive one-component WMT comparison group, all eight exercises had a fixed span length of two items with 100% RAT, meaning students were always asked to recall two items with no errors; each exercise consisted of 20 trials. Students in the adaptive one-component WMT group trained for 25 days, on average, and spent at least 75% of the last 10 days of training attempting to recall spans of four or more items in the critical exercises. Students in the non-adaptive one-comparison WMT group trained for 25 days, on average.
Support for implementation
At the beginning of the study, all students in the three groups and their families were coached on how to use the WMT computer program. As students went through the program, they received weekly, scripted calls from trained coaches to check compliance with the program and to assist the student with any technical issues.
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).