Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12614000852651
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
31/07/2014
Date registered
8/08/2014
Date last updated
8/08/2014
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
Examining the Effect of Working Memory Training on Academic Achievement in School Children
Query!
Scientific title
Examining the Effect of Working Memory Training on Academic Achievement in School Children
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
285083
0
Nil
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Academic Achievement
292614
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Mental Health
292932
292932
0
0
Query!
Studies of normal psychology, cognitive function and behaviour
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
We complete an examination of computerised working memory training. The study consists of three conditions, or arms: Active (Arm 1), Placebo (Arm 2), Control (Arm 3).
Active condition: We used the RM (i.e., school age) version of Cogmed Working Memory Training (Cogmed, 2014). Cogmed RM is a computerised training program, which requires children to complete a number of interactive visuo-spatial tasks each day. Each game requires the child to hold and manipulate information in working memory. For example, in one of the games, blocks on the screen will momentarily glow, one at a time, in a certain order. The child is required to remember the order, and then select the lit blocks in the reverse order.
Trials within the training program are scaffolded to the participant’s ability, matching the difficulty of trials to the child’s ongoing performance. Participants completed the computerised training every school day for five weeks. Each training session took approximately 45 minutes, and was completed in a computer laboratory of the child’s school, under the supervision of a teacher. We attempted to train 4 class teachers in the web-based Coach training provided by Cogmed, however, two teachers reported that the training was too difficult and did not complete the program. As a result, teachers were trained as training aides by the first author, who also oversaw the technical administration of training.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
289922
0
Behaviour
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Placebo condition: A low level, unscaffolded version of Cogmed training was used as a placebo. The training program involves the same tasks as the active version completed and is also completed on a daily basis for five weeks, however, the difficulty of trials remains constant. A much discussed limitation of the placebo version of Cogmed is the discrepancy in training time between active and placebo conditions. Specifically, training time is consistently lower in the placebo version of training (Chacko, Bedard, et al., 2013). In order to approximate the conditions’ training time and contact with the supportive adult, it has been suggested that the number of trials is increased in the placebo version. As previous attempts to increase training time on a case-by-case basis have been unsuccessful (Chacko, Bedard, et al., 2013), we increased the training weight by 30% for all participants in the placebo condition at the beginning of training. This increases the number of trials completed for each session.
Control condition: No further contact with researchers during the five-week training time.
Query!
Control group
Placebo
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
292794
0
Academic Achievement
Mathematics: Normed score on the Progressive Achievement Test of Mathematics.
Reading Comprehension: Normed score on the Progressive Achievement Test of Reading.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
292794
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
292794
0
Timepoint: pre-intervention, post-intervention, three months after intervention
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
309695
0
Behaviour difficulties, recorded on the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) by parents (Parent-report CBCL) and teachers (Teacher-report CBCL).
Query!
Assessment method [1]
309695
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
309695
0
Timepoint: pre-intervention, post-intervention, three months after intervention
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
Year 6 or Year 7 student
Attending a government primary school
Completing schooling in English
Query!
Minimum age
9
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
14
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Yes
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
Persistent non attendance at school
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Educational / counselling / training
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
We employed a cluster randomised controlled design. After school principals had given consent, each class of students was randomly allocated to control, active or placebo using a random number generation chart. This process was performed by the lead researcher. Trial eligibility for each student was assessed by the class teacher, who was blind to condition allocation.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
A random number chart will be used to allocate to condition.
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Counterbalancing of assessment sessions.
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Sample size was determined by calculations of statistical power. Thirty three participants per condition is recommended to detect a medium effect (d = 0.5) with power of .80 (Cohen, 1988; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 2008). We therefore aimed to recruit a minimum of 33 participants per condition to ensure adequate power.
Our hypotheses will be analysed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs). A series of linear regressions using bootstrapping procedures will also be completed to determine the hypothesised mediation effects.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Active, not recruiting
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
1/05/2014
Query!
Actual
1/05/2014
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
7/05/2014
Query!
Actual
7/05/2014
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
99
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
SA
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
8485
0
5045 - Glenelg
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [2]
8486
0
5048 - Brighton
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
289688
0
Other
Query!
Name [1]
289688
0
ARC Science of Learning Research Centre
Query!
Address [1]
289688
0
ARC-SRI: Science of Learning Research Centre (project number SR120300015)
Science of Learning Research Centre
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, SA 5001
Query!
Country [1]
289688
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Other
Query!
Name
ARC-SRI: Science of Learning Research Centre
Query!
Address
Science of Learning Research Centre
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, SA 5001
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
288383
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
288383
0
Query!
Address [1]
288383
0
Query!
Country [1]
288383
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
291429
0
Flinders University Social and Behavioural research Ethics committee
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
291429
0
Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics committee Flinders University GPO Box 2100 Adelaide SA 5001
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
291429
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
291429
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
291429
0
20/03/2014
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
291429
0
6414
Query!
Ethics committee name [2]
291430
0
Department of Education and Child Development
Query!
Ethics committee address [2]
291430
0
Department of Education and Child Development Level 8, 31 Flinders Street, Adelaide SA 5000
Query!
Ethics committee country [2]
291430
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [2]
291430
0
Query!
Approval date [2]
291430
0
25/03/2014
Query!
Ethics approval number [2]
291430
0
DECD CS/14/511-8
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Working memory (WM) training programs have received considerable empirical attention in recent years. Evidence for the efficacy of these programs in improving WM capacity is mixed (Gibson et al., 2011; Gibson, Gondoli, Johnson, Steeger, & Morrissey, 2012; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013; Shipstead, Hicks, & Engle, 2012). Current literature has explored whether WM training may be used to improve symptoms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD, for a review of treatment effiacy see Chacko, Feirsen, et al., 2013; Rapport et al., 2013), and academic performance (for review of efficacy see Titz & Karbach, 2014). Although findings suggest some positive impact of training, the strength and clinical significance of the effect is uncertain. In light of the differing results, the need to explore the mechanisms through which WM training impacts outcomes has been highlighted (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Shah, 2012). Indeed, supporters (e.g., Gathercole, Dunning, & Holmes, 2012) and critics (e.g., Shipstead et al., 2012) of WM training alike acknowledge that further understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underpinning WM training is needed. We sought to close this important gap in the literature by exploring potential mechanisms through which WM training may improve academic skills, specifically, reading comprehension and mathematics.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
50330
0
Dr Caitlin Hitchcock
Query!
Address
50330
0
Science of Learning Research Centre (Science21)
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, SA 5001
Query!
Country
50330
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
50330
0
+61882012316
Query!
Fax
50330
0
Query!
Email
50330
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
50331
0
Caitlin Hitchcock
Query!
Address
50331
0
Science of Learning Research Centre (Science21)
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, SA 5001
Query!
Country
50331
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
50331
0
+61882012316
Query!
Fax
50331
0
Query!
Email
50331
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
50332
0
Caitlin Hitchcock
Query!
Address
50332
0
Science of Learning Research Centre (Science21)
Flinders University
GPO Box 2100
Adelaide, SA 5001
Query!
Country
50332
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
50332
0
+61882012316
Query!
Fax
50332
0
Query!
Email
50332
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF