The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 38 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Cognitive function in older adults is related to independent living and need for care. However, few studies have addressed whether improving cognitive functions might have short- or long-term effects on activities related to living independently. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether 3 cognitive training interventions improve mental abilities and daily functioning in older, independent-living adults. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, single-blind trial with recruitment conducted from March 1998 to October 1999 and 2-year follow-up through December 2001. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 2832 persons aged 65 to 94 years recruited from senior housing, community centers, and hospital/clinics in 6 metropolitan areas in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 10-session group training for memory (verbal episodic memory; n = 711), or reasoning (ability to solve problems that follow a serial pattern; n = 705), or speed of processing (visual search and identification; n = 712); or a no-contact control group (n = 704). For the 3 treatment groups, 4-session booster training was offered to a 60% random sample 11 months later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive function and cognitively demanding everyday functioning. RESULTS: Thirty participants were incorrectly randomized and were excluded from the analysis. Each intervention improved the targeted cognitive ability compared with baseline, durable to 2 years (P<.001 for all). Eighty-seven percent of speed-, 74% of reasoning-, and 26% of memory-trained participants demonstrated reliable cognitive improvement immediately after the intervention period. Booster training enhanced training gains in speed (P<.001) and reasoning (P<.001) interventions (speed booster, 92%; no booster, 68%; reasoning booster, 72%; no booster, 49%), which were maintained at 2-year follow-up (P<.001 for both). No training effects on everyday functioning were detected at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the effectiveness and durability of the cognitive training interventions in improving targeted cognitive abilities. Training effects were of a magnitude equivalent to the amount of decline expected in elderly persons without dementia over 7- to 14-year intervals. Because of minimal functional decline across all groups, longer follow-up is likely required to observe training effects on everyday function.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
25 Own result · 21 Not checked yet · 16 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the vast majority of this sample remained functionally independent over the course of the 24-month observation period.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No training effects on everyday functioning were detected at 2 years.”
- Also stated in: § COMMENT · hedged
“It did not, however, demonstrate the generalization of such interventions to everyday performance, at least in the initial 2 years.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § COMMENT · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“boosters for reasoning and speed training administered shortly before A1 produced significantly better performance.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“secondary analyses indicated large immediate intervention gains on the cognitive outcomes.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No effect was detected for memory booster on the memory proximal composite.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants randomized to reasoning booster performed marginally better on the functioning composite at A1 (P<.10).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The impact of reasoning and speed booster training was greater at A1 than at A2.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, a very high percentage of trained participants achieved reliable improvement on the cognitive abilities”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and these re-test effects were evident across study intervals.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, for the crucial everyday measures of IADL and ADL performance, the observed decline rates were significantly below established population norms.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These effects were generally small on the effect-size scale-most were below 0.10-and did not differ significantly from zero at A1 or A2.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eighty-seven percent of speed-, 74% of reasoning-, and 26% of memorytrained participants demonstrated reliable cognitive improvement immediately after the intervention period.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · boosted
“Eighty-seven percent of speedtrained, 74% of reasoning-trained, and 26% of memory-trained participants demonstrated reliable improvement on the pertinent cognitive composite immediately following intervention.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a relatively low ADL decline rate (defined as ≥2 points on the summary measure) of 6% was observed at 12 months, with a modest increase to 8% at 24 months.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Booster training enhanced training gains in speed (P<.001) and reasoning (P<.001) interventions (speed booster, 92%; no booster, 68%; reasoning booster, 72%; no booster, 49%), which were maintained at 2-year follow-up (P<.001 for both).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Each intervention improved the targeted cognitive ability compared with baseline, durable to 2 years (P<.001 for all).”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“Each training program produced an immediate effect on its corresponding cognitive ability.”
- Also stated in: § COMMENT · boosted
“Overall, this large-scale study demonstrated that cognitive interventions helped normal elderly individuals to perform better on multiple measures of the specific cognitive ability for which they were trained.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
boosteddirectn = 2,832 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants randomized to speed booster performed significandy better at A1 on the functioning and everyday speed composites (P<.05), and marginally better at A2 (P<.10).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“booster effects occurred for the speed conditions (boost, 92%; no boost, 68%; control, 32%) and the reasoning conditions (boost, 72%; no boost, 49%; control, 31%).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a comparable proportion of control participants also improved, and the proportion of control participants exhibiting reliable retest gain remained fairly constant across study intervals.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“cognitive effects were maintained from baseline to A2, particularly for boosted participants (79% [speed boost] vs37% [controls]; 57% [reasoning boost] vs 35% [controls]).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Immediate speed training effects (1.46 SD) were therefore 9 times greater than the expected decline over a 2-year interval in elderly persons without dementia.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although training impact on the proximal composites decreased over time, it remained statistically significant, attesting to the durability of the intervention training effects.”
- Also stated in: § COMMENT · boosted
“In summary, it is clear that proximal training effects occurred, that they continued (albeit at lower levels) through 24 months”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § COMMENT · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 12 months, only 25% of participants experienced a 2-point or greater drop in the 36-point IADL scale, while by 24 months 28% had experienced this small increase in dependency.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the 30-point ADL performance scale, 6% were more dependent at 12 months and 8% at 24 months.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“limited education has been found to be a risk factor for dementia.7”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Nearly half of community-dwelling persons aged 60 years and older express concern about declining mental abilities.1”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analytic sample consists of 2802 participants randomized by the New England Research Institutes with a concealed system.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plainn = 2,802- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ACTIVE trial was sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Nursing Research, and was randomized, controlled, and single-blind, using a 4group design, including a no-contact control group and 3 intervention groups (memory training, reasoning training, or speed-of-processing training).”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Booster training was provided to a random sub sample in each intervention group.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Assessors were blinded to participant intervention assignment.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intention-to-treat analyses were used.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plainn = 2,802- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Then, to determine if selective attrition influenced the trial results, missing data were imputed using multiple imputation procedures, 46 and the analysis was repeated.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Training exposure and social contact were standardized across interventions so that each intervention served as a contact control for the other 2 interventions.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > Study Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While effect sizes were universally higher after adjusting for age, sex, education, visual function, and mental status, the overall pattern of results was the same and is not presented here.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the ACTIVE trial improved on previous studies in that it used a multisite, randomized, controlled design; included a large, diverse sample; used common multisite intervention protocols; and examined primary outcomes as well as long-term transfer effects to everyday activities.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plainn = 2,802- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“these effect sizes are comparable with or greater than the amount of longitudinal decline that has been reported in previous studies (Table 5), suggesting that these interventions have the potential to reverse age-related decline.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53]
- Not checked yetcites [54]
- Not checked yetcites [55]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, analyses of imputed data sets did not differ in outcomes, suggesting that the trial results were not influenced by selective attrition.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eighty-nine percent of participants completed treatment (≥8 training sessions), and 80% of the sample was retained at the 2-year follow-up, despite the advanced age of the cohort.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“age-related decline for reasoning ability in samples of elderly persons without dementia has been found to be on the order of 0.22 SD over a 7-year interval (ages 67-74 years) and to increase to 0.42 SD over a 14-year interval (ages 67-81 years).53”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of transfer to real-world outcomes is not particularly surprising.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Several decades of cognitive science research show that transfer from cognitive training to real-world outcomes is difficult to obtain.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that we retained more than 80% of the initial sample over the 2-year follow-up period and found no differential loss across treatment and control conditions, there should have been sufficient power to detect a significant effect of the cognitive training on the functional outcomes.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Power calculations were based on 6 Bonferroni corrected, 2-sided comparisons with an overall a level of .05, a correlation of 0.7 between baseline and follow-up (based on pilot data), and an 80% completion rate.17”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Reliable age-related decline on everyday problem-solving tasks has been shown not to occur until individuals are in their mid seventies, whereas declines on basic abilities such as reasoning and memory typically occur in their mid sixties.58”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > COMMENT
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Many cognitive abilities and processes are linked to functional status, need for care, and quality of life.
“Although there is substantial evidence that many cognitive abilities and processes are related to measures of functional status, need for care, and quality of life”
The paper relies on this without support.
Few studies have tested whether improving cognition affects short- or long-term activities needed for independent living.
“few studies have addressed whether improving cognitive functions might have shortor long-term effects on activities related to living independently.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Neural plasticity persists throughout life.
“neural plasticity endures across the lifespan”
The paper relies on this without support.
Environmental cognitive stimulation is a key predictor of improving and maintaining cognitive functioning, even in old age.
“cognitive stimulation in the environment is an important predictor of enhancement and maintenance of cognitive functioning, even in old age.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Earlier cognitive training studies in older adults often gave little attention to suitable control groups, participant representativeness or heterogeneity, generalizability beyond specific laboratories, or adherence to training protocols.
“prior cognitive training studies with older adults have often paid relatively little attention to the use of appropriate control groups, the representativeness or heterogeneity of participants, the generalizability of training findings beyond particular laboratories, or adherence of participants to training protocols.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The wider effects of training on daily functioning in older adults have largely not been studied.
“the broader implications of training on daily functioning in older adults, for the most part, have not been studied.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior cognitive interventions, especially memory training, have not demonstrated two-year durability.
“since prior interventions (especially memory) have not shown 2-year durability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior cognitive training research did not use intention-to-treat analyses and excluded participants who dropped out or were noncompliant.
“prior cognitive training research has not used intention-to-treat analyses, instead excluding participants who dropped out or were noncompliant.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prior research did not use samples diverse in education and ethnicity.
“In addition, prior research has not used diverse samples in terms of education and ethnicity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Several decades of cognitive science research show that transfer from cognitive training to real-world outcomes is difficult to obtain.
“In addition to several decades of cognitive science research demonstrating the difficulty of obtaining such transfer”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“The Advanced Cognitive Training in Vital Elderly (ACTIVE) study examined the longitudinal effects of cognitive training in 2,832 older adults [10]. Cognitive training groups demonstrated improvements on trained tasks which remained over time and evidence of transfer to functional tasks [10–12].”
From Primary outcome from the augmenting cognitive training in older adults study (ACT): A tDCS and cognitive training randomized clinical trial (2023) · cites this paper as [10]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For instance, research suggests that when individuals participate in a cognitive-training program, the beneficial effects on cognitive performance tend to be relatively narrow in scope, usually localized to the specific cognitive test that was trained (e.g., Ball et al., 2002; Willis et al., 2006; but see Tranter & Koutstaal, 2008).”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“For example, individuals trained in visual search showed strong gains in visual-search performance but little improvement, relative to controls, in performance on the memory and reasoning tests.”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“That is, training of skills relevant for one ability has not generally been found to improve performance on other abilities (e.g., Ball et al., 2002).”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Findings showing that mental stimulation and cognitive training improve memory in older adults43,44 have led to the development of several memory apps and computer games.”
From Brain health consequences of digital technology use (2020) · cites this paper as [43]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The results showed strong training effect sizes in each group relative to controls, and also showed a pattern of specificity in performance improvements.”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some previous studies have adopted what might be termed an inoculation or vaccination model. That is, a single ''dose'' of an intervention is provided, occasionally followed by a small number of refresher doses (e.g., Ball et al., 2002; Willis et al., 2006).”
From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“CCT is an established method to improve cognitive functioning in older healthy adults47, 48”
From State of the Science of Neural Systems in Late‐Life Depression: Impact on Clinical Presentation and Treatment Outcome (2018) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“cognitive training studies of older adults suggest lifelong neuroplasticity and ability to improve key neurocognitive functions such as processing speed, perceptual reasoning, and memory (Ball et al., 2002).”
From Improving Outcomes for Youth with ADHD: A Conceptual Framework for Combined Neurocognitive and Skill-Based Treatment Approaches (2014) · cites this paper as Ball et al., 2002
In the citing paper
“While lifestyle interventions using physical exercise and diet have been found to attenuate declines in physical function and health, interventions aimed at slowing or preventing age-related decline in thinking and memory skills also hold promise for improving physical function.(Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, Morris, Rebok, Smith, Tennstedt, Unverzagt, and Willis 2002;Ball and Ows”
From Successful aging: Advancing the science of physical independence in older adults (2015) · cites this paper as Ball, Berch, Helmers, Jobe, Leveck, Marsiske, Morris, Rebok, Smith, Tennstedt, Unverzagt, and Willis 2002
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
“A total of 2832 persons were eligible, 905 (18.1%) were ineligible, and 1263 (25.3%) refused (either directly or passively by not coming to any appointments) prior to randomization.”
§ Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial > RESULTS
“Potential participants who were eligible and randomized (n=2802) were comparable with the group that was eligible and not randomized (n=1263).”
Citations
Cites
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975) · Journal of Psychiatric Research · doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 · Cited by 88,282
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,415
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,412
Hirono, N., Mori, E., Ikejiri, Y., Imamura, T., Shimomura, T., Hashimoto, M., Yamashita, H., & Ikeda, M. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 21,012
Kok, J. S., Berg, I. J., & Scherder, E. J. A. (2013) · Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra · doi:10.1159/000353441 · Cited by 20,589
Older Adults' Reasons for Using Technology while Aging in Place
Peek, S. T. M., Luijkx, K. G., Rijnaard, M. D., Nieboer, M. E., van der Voort, C. S., Aarts, S., van Hoof, J., Vrijhoef, H. J., & Wouters, E. (2015) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000430949 · Cited by 19,852
Sensitivity and False Alarm Rate of a Fall Sensor in Long-Term Fall Detection in the Elderly
Kangas, M., Korpelainen, R., Vikman, I., Nyberg, L., & Jämsä, T. J. (2014) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000362720 · Cited by 19,007
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Booth, D. E., & Schafer, J. L. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271466 · Cited by 5,627
Population-Based Norms for the Mini-Mental State Examination by Age and Educational Level
Crum, R. M. (1993) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03500180078038 · Cited by 2,958
L'examen psychologique ; Dans les cas d'ence-phalopathie traumatique (Les problemes)
Rey, A. (1941) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,702
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Recanzone, GH. Cerebral cortical plasticity: perception and skill acquisition. In: Gazzaniga, S., editor. The New Cognitive Neurosciences. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press; 2000. p. 237-247.
- Pietrucha, M., editors. Mobility and Transportation in the Elderly. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co Inc; 2000. p. 213-251.
- Folstein MF, Flolstein SE, McHugh PR. "Minimental state ": a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189-198. [PubMed: 1202204]
- Kliegl R, Smith J, Baltes PB. On the locus and process of magnification of age differences during mnemonic training. Dev Psychol 1990;26:894-904.
- Ball K, Beard B, Roenker D, Miller R, Ball D. Visual search: age and practice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1988;29:448.
- Rey A. L'examen psychologique dans les cas d'encephalopathie tramatique. Archives de Psychologie 1941;28:21.
- Gonda, J.; Schaie, K. Schaie-Thurstone Mental Abilities Test: Word Series Test. Palo Alto, Calif: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1985.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–105 of 105
Hardcastle, C., Hausman, H. K., Kraft, J. N., Albizu, A., O’Shea, A., Boutzoukas, E. M., Evangelista, N. D., Langer, K., Van Etten, E. J., Bharadwaj, P. K., et al. (2022) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-022-00535-1 · Cited by 22
Self-citationThe impact of processing speed training on working memory in old adults.
Peng, H., Wen, J., Wang, D., & Gao, Y. (2012) · Journal of Adult Development · doi:10.1007/s10804-012-9142-6 · Cited by 19
Boutzoukas, E. M., O’Shea, A., Kraft, J. N., Hardcastle, C., Evangelista, N. D., Hausman, H. K., Albizu, A., Van Etten, E. J., Bharadwaj, P. K., Smith, S. G., et al. (2022) · GeroScience · doi:10.1007/s11357-022-00538-y · Cited by 15
Self-citationHausman, H. K., Alexander, G. E., Cohen, R., Marsiske, M., DeKosky, S. T., Hishaw, G. A., O'Shea, A., Kraft, J. N., Dai, Y., Wu, S., et al. (2023) · Brain Stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2023.05.021 · Cited by 13
Self-citationLange, S., & Süß, H. (2015) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3126 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Smith, D. M., Tennstedt, S. L., Unverzagt, F. W., Willis, S. L., & for the ACTIVE Study Group
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- New England Research Institutes (US)
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2002-11-13
- Volume
- 288
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 2271
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- PMC
- PMC2916176
- OpenAlex
- W2118104542
- Cited by
- 2,049
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 107 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 129 · 2014: 140 · 2013: 119 · 2012: 116
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Boston College
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Johns Hopkins University (AG14282, AG14260, AG14263, AG014276, NR04507, U01 AG14260, NR04508)
- Case Western Reserve University
- University of South Carolina
- New England Research Institutes (AG14282, AG14260, U01 AG14282, NR04508, AG14263, AG014276, NR04507)
- School of Medicine, Indiana University ((U01 NR04508), NR04508)
- National Institute on Aging (AG14263, U01 AG14282, U01AG014260, U01 AG 14263, U01AG14260, AG014276, U01-AG14289, NR04508, U01AG014289, U01AG014263, AG14260, U01AG014276, NR04507, AG14282, U01AG014282)
- National Institute of Nursing Research (U01NR004507, NR04508, U01NR04507, U01NR004508, AG14263, AG014276, U01 NR04508, NR04507)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- cognitive training, older adults, independent living, memory training, reasoning training, processing speed, booster training, daily functioning, cognitive decline, verbal episodic memory
- MeSH terms
- Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Humans, Memory, Mental Processes, Psychological Tests, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method, Treatment Outcome
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
