Cited by 1,496Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCognitive Functions and MemoryCognitive Abilities and Testing

Long-term Effects of Cognitive Training on Everyday Functional Outcomes in Older Adults

Open access
Willis, Sherry L., Tennstedt, Sharon L., Marsiske, Michael, Ball, Karlene, Elias, Jeffrey, Koepke, Kathy Mann, Morris, John N., Rebok, George W. +4 more·2006·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Cognitive training has been shown to improve cognitive abilities in older adults but the effects of cognitive training on everyday function have not been demonstrated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of cognitive training on daily function and durability of training on cognitive abilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Five-year follow-up of a randomized controlled single-blind trial with 4 treatment groups. A volunteer sample of 2832 persons (mean age, 73.6 years; 26% black), living independently in 6 US cities, was recruited from senior housing, community centers, and hospitals and clinics. The study was conducted between April 1998 and December 2004. Five-year follow-up was completed in 67% of the sample. INTERVENTIONS: Ten-session training for memory (verbal episodic memory), reasoning (inductive reasoning), or speed of processing (visual search and identification); 4-session booster training at 11 and 35 months after training in a random sample of those who completed training. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported and performance-based measures of daily function and cognitive abilities. RESULTS: The reasoning group reported significantly less difficulty in the instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) than the control group (effect size, 0.29; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.55). Neither speed of processing training (effect size, 0.26; 99% CI, -0.002 to 0.51) nor memory training (effect size, 0.20; 99% CI, -0.06 to 0.46) had a significant effect on IADL. The booster training for the speed of processing group, but not for the other 2 groups, showed a significant effect on the performance-based functional measure of everyday speed of processing (effect size, 0.30; 99% CI, 0.08-0.52). No booster effects were seen for any of the groups for everyday problem-solving or self-reported difficulty in IADL. Each intervention maintained effects on its specific targeted cognitive ability through 5 years (memory: effect size, 0.23 [99% CI, 0.11-0.35]; reasoning: effect size, 0.26 [99% CI, 0.17-0.35]; speed of processing: effect size, 0.76 [99% CI, 0.62-0.90]). Booster training produced additional improvement with the reasoning intervention for reasoning performance (effect size, 0.28; 99% CI, 0.12-0.43) and the speed of processing intervention for speed of processing performance (effect size, 0.85; 99% CI, 0.61-1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Reasoning training resulted in less functional decline in self-reported IADL. Compared with the control group, cognitive training resulted in improved cognitive abilities specific to the abilities trained that continued 5 years after the initiation of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00298558.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.296.23.2805

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • When individuals participate in a cognitive-training program, beneficial effects on cognitive performance tend to be relatively narrow, usually localized to the specific cognitive test trained.

    “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 Willis et al., 2006

    Training Effects on Cognitive Abilities (p. 6) reports lasting improvement in the cognitive ability each intervention targeted, supporting the claim that benefits were relatively narrow. But Outcome Measures (p. 4) assesses each ability with three tests, so the paper does not establish that benefits were usually confined to the specific test trained. The Comment (p. 8) also reports modest transfer to everyday function. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • No transfer effects were observed on performance-based measures of everyday problem solving or everyday speed of processing.

    “No transfer effects were observed on performance-based measures of everyday problem solving or everyday speed of processing.”

    From Enrichment Effects on Adult Cognitive Development: Can the Functional Capacity of Older Adults Be Preserved and Enhanced? (2008) · cites this paper as Willis et al., 2006

    The Performance-Based IADL Measures section (p. 7) reports no general training effect on either performance-based measure. But it also reports a significant improvement in everyday speed of processing among participants assigned to booster training, so the unqualified claim that no transfer effects were observed is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Five-year retest data showed that training benefits were still observed after the longer retention interval.

    “Willis et al. (2006) reported 5-year retest data on the sample, showing that training benefits were still observed after the longer retention interval.”
  • All older adults showed some aggregate decline in IADL, but this decline was milder in the reasoning training group.

    “All older adults showed some aggregate decline in IADL, but this decline was milder in the reasoning training group.”
  • Reasoning training had 5-year lagged benefits on self-reported instrumental activities of daily living by older adults.

    “For example, Willis et al. (2006) showed that reasoning training had 5-year lagged benefits on self-reported aspects of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) by older adults (see also Wolinsky et al., 2006).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [15]15. Wolinsky, F.; Miller, D. Disability concepts and measurement: contributions of the epidemiology of disability to gerontological inquiry. In: Wilmoth, J.; Ferraro, K., editors. Gerontology: Perspectives and Issues. 3rd ed. Springer Publishing; New York, NY: 2006.
  2. [22]22. Ball, K. Increased mobility and reducing accidents of older drivers. In: Schaie, K.; Pietrucha, M., editors. Mobility and Transportation in the Elderly. Vol. Vol 5. Springer; New York, NY: 2000. p. 213-250.
  3. [25]25. Rey A. L'examen psychologique dans les cas d'encephalopathie tramatique. Arch Psychol 1941;28:286-340.
  4. [27]27. Gonda, J.; Schaie, K. Schaie-Thurstone Mental Abilities Test: Word Series Test. Consulting Psychologists Press; Palo Alto, Calif: 1985.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Willis, S. L., Tennstedt, S. L., Marsiske, M., Ball, K., Elias, J., Koepke, K. M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Unverzagt, F. W., Stoddard, A. M., Wright, E., & ACTIVE Study Group, F. T.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • New England Research Institutes (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Hebrew SeniorLife (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Venue
JAMA
Published
2006-12-20
Volume
296
Issue
23
Pages
2805
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2131162932
Cited by
1,496
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 100 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 125 · 2014: 111 · 2013: 100 · 2012: 101
FWCI
36.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Johns Hopkins University (AG14282, AG14263, NR04507, AG14289, U01 AG14260, NR04508)
  • New England Research Institutes (AG14282, U01 AG14282, NR04508, AG14263, NR04507, AG14289)
  • School of Medicine, Indiana University ((U01 NR04508), NR04508)
  • National Institute on Aging (U01 AG14282, U01AG014260, U01 AG 14263, R37AG024102, U01AG14260, U01-AG14289, U01AG014289, U01AG014263, U01AG014276, U01AG014282, U01 AG14276)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (U01NR004507, U01NR04507, U01NR004508, U01 NR04508)
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, daily functioning, instrumental activities of daily living, booster training, memory training, inductive reasoning, processing speed, visual search, problem solving, cognitive aging, independent living, senior housing, community-dwelling older adults, self-efficacy
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Memory, Mental Processes, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Single-Blind Method

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.

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