Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis
Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Psychonomic bulletin & review 2020-06, Vol.27 (3), p.423-434 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 434 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 423 |
container_title | Psychonomic bulletin & review |
container_volume | 27 |
creator | Sala, Giovanni Gobet, Fernand |
description | Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (
m
= 41,
k
= 393,
N
= 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (
g
¯
= 0.001,
SE
= 0.055,
p
= .982,
τ
2
= 0.000). Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, which was wholly explained by the type of controls (nonactive vs. active) and by statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results. Since the empirical evidence shows the absence of both generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2338999366</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2338999366</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6863802342deb64a510c2a7b2ad89b4fe9ec974eee9bd1f970ade6fa0eca6f8a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPxCAUhYnROOPoH3BhmrhxU4XSUnA3mfhKJnEzxiWh7e3ISB9Ca9J_L7U-EhcuCHDvdw6Xg9ApwZc0TfiVIzSOaIiJ8ItxEg57aE4SSsKERnjfnzEToaA8nqEj53YY44QJdohmlAgqCBZztHlu7Kuut0EFVWOHoLNK1-Nd10E3tDpXxgxBAe9gmnas5y_aFBbq62AZVL3ptBl7Xt6pUNXKDE67Y3RQKuPg5GtfoKfbm83qPlw_3j2sluswj4noQsYZ5TjynyggY7FKCM4jlWaRKrjI4hIE5CKNAUBkBSlFilUBrFQYcsVKrugCXUy-rW3eenCdrLTLwRhVQ9M7GVHKhRCUMY-e_0F3TW_9vJ6KCecYxwn1VDRRuW2cs1DK1upK2UESLMfM5ZS59JnLz8zl4EVnX9Z9VkHxI_kO2QN0Apxv1Vuwv2__Y_sBSh2Odg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2418800453</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Sala, Giovanni ; Gobet, Fernand</creator><creatorcontrib>Sala, Giovanni ; Gobet, Fernand</creatorcontrib><description>Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (
m
= 41,
k
= 393,
N
= 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (
g
¯
= 0.001,
SE
= 0.055,
p
= .982,
τ
2
= 0.000). Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, which was wholly explained by the type of controls (nonactive vs. active) and by statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results. Since the empirical evidence shows the absence of both generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-9384</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-5320</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31939109</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Academic achievement ; Behavioral Science and Psychology ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; Cognitive Psychology ; Dyslexia ; Intelligence ; Learning disabilities ; Memory ; Meta-analysis ; Population ; Psychology ; Researchers ; Systematic review ; Theoretical Review ; Training</subject><ispartof>Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020-06, Vol.27 (3), p.423-434</ispartof><rights>The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2020</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Jun 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6863802342deb64a510c2a7b2ad89b4fe9ec974eee9bd1f970ade6fa0eca6f8a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6863802342deb64a510c2a7b2ad89b4fe9ec974eee9bd1f970ade6fa0eca6f8a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-1589-3759</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31939109$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sala, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gobet, Fernand</creatorcontrib><title>Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis</title><title>Psychonomic bulletin & review</title><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><description>Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (
m
= 41,
k
= 393,
N
= 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (
g
¯
= 0.001,
SE
= 0.055,
p
= .982,
τ
2
= 0.000). Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, which was wholly explained by the type of controls (nonactive vs. active) and by statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results. Since the empirical evidence shows the absence of both generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children.</description><subject>Academic achievement</subject><subject>Behavioral Science and Psychology</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Cognitive Psychology</subject><subject>Dyslexia</subject><subject>Intelligence</subject><subject>Learning disabilities</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Theoretical Review</subject><subject>Training</subject><issn>1069-9384</issn><issn>1531-5320</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtPxCAUhYnROOPoH3BhmrhxU4XSUnA3mfhKJnEzxiWh7e3ISB9Ca9J_L7U-EhcuCHDvdw6Xg9ApwZc0TfiVIzSOaIiJ8ItxEg57aE4SSsKERnjfnzEToaA8nqEj53YY44QJdohmlAgqCBZztHlu7Kuut0EFVWOHoLNK1-Nd10E3tDpXxgxBAe9gmnas5y_aFBbq62AZVL3ptBl7Xt6pUNXKDE67Y3RQKuPg5GtfoKfbm83qPlw_3j2sluswj4noQsYZ5TjynyggY7FKCM4jlWaRKrjI4hIE5CKNAUBkBSlFilUBrFQYcsVKrugCXUy-rW3eenCdrLTLwRhVQ9M7GVHKhRCUMY-e_0F3TW_9vJ6KCecYxwn1VDRRuW2cs1DK1upK2UESLMfM5ZS59JnLz8zl4EVnX9Z9VkHxI_kO2QN0Apxv1Vuwv2__Y_sBSh2Odg</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Sala, Giovanni</creator><creator>Gobet, Fernand</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1589-3759</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis</title><author>Sala, Giovanni ; Gobet, Fernand</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c419t-6863802342deb64a510c2a7b2ad89b4fe9ec974eee9bd1f970ade6fa0eca6f8a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Academic achievement</topic><topic>Behavioral Science and Psychology</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Cognitive Psychology</topic><topic>Dyslexia</topic><topic>Intelligence</topic><topic>Learning disabilities</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Theoretical Review</topic><topic>Training</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sala, Giovanni</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gobet, Fernand</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sala, Giovanni</au><au>Gobet, Fernand</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Psychonomic bulletin & review</jtitle><stitle>Psychon Bull Rev</stitle><addtitle>Psychon Bull Rev</addtitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>423</spage><epage>434</epage><pages>423-434</pages><issn>1069-9384</issn><eissn>1531-5320</eissn><abstract>Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (
m
= 41,
k
= 393,
N
= 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls (
g
¯
= 0.001,
SE
= 0.055,
p
= .982,
τ
2
= 0.000). Crucially, all the models exhibited a null or low amount of true heterogeneity, which was wholly explained by the type of controls (nonactive vs. active) and by statistical artifacts, in contrast to the claim that this field has produced mixed results. Since the empirical evidence shows the absence of both generalized effects and true heterogeneity, we conclude that there is no reason to keep investing resources in WM training research with TD children.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>31939109</pmid><doi>10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1589-3759</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1069-9384 |
ispartof | Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020-06, Vol.27 (3), p.423-434 |
issn | 1069-9384 1531-5320 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2338999366 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Academic achievement Behavioral Science and Psychology Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability Cognitive Psychology Dyslexia Intelligence Learning disabilities Memory Meta-analysis Population Psychology Researchers Systematic review Theoretical Review Training |
title | Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T23%3A00%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Working%20memory%20training%20in%20typically%20developing%20children:%20A%20multilevel%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Psychonomic%20bulletin%20&%20review&rft.au=Sala,%20Giovanni&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=423&rft.epage=434&rft.pages=423-434&rft.issn=1069-9384&rft.eissn=1531-5320&rft_id=info:doi/10.3758/s13423-019-01681-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2338999366%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2418800453&rft_id=info:pmid/31939109&rfr_iscdi=true |