Cited by 292Cognitive Abilities and TestingReading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Strategy training and working memory task performance

Turley-Ames, K·2003·Journal of Memory and Language

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0749-596x(03)00095-0

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Turley-Ames and Whitfield found that for low WM span individuals, strategy instruction, especially rehearsal, improved complex span performance.

    “Turley-Ames and Whitfield11 found that for low WM span individuals, strategy instruction (especially a rehearsal strategy that was contrasted with an imagery strategy and a semantic strategy) improved complex span performance.”
  • The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance.

    “The present results using the n-back paradigm align well with previous findings mainly from complex span studies that have indicated that explicit WM strategy instruction can be effective10–13, and that self-generated WM strategies are associated with higher task performance9,10,14–16.”
  • Earlier studies with WM strategy intervention have not explicitly reported results from power analyses.

    “Earlier studies with WM strategy intervention have not explicitly reported results from power analyses10–13.”
  • The description of rehearsal or chunking does not capture the unique structure of working memory tasks, which are designed to require online manipulations that cannot be organized into fixed chunks, or at least not in any straightforward manner.

    “The description of rehearsal or chunking (McNamara & Scott, 2001; Peng & Fuchs, 2017; Turley-Ames & Whitfield, 2003) does not capture the unique structure of WM tasks, which are designed to require online manipulations that cannot be organized into fixed chunks, or at least not in any straightforward manner.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turley-Ames, K.
Affiliations
Idaho State University (US)
Corresponding author
Turley-Ames, K
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
49
Issue
4
Pages
446-468
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969255917
Cited by
289
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
9.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
working memory span, strategy training, rehearsal strategies, semantic strategies, operation span, Nelson-Denny Reading Test, reading skills

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