Meta‐analysis of explicit memory studies in populations with intellectual disability
Abstract
This meta‐analysis combines the effect size (ES) of 40 explicit memory experiments in populations with intellectual disability (ID). Eight meta‐analyses were performed, as well as contrast tests between ES. The explicit memory of participants with ID was inferior to that of participants with typical development (TD). Relatively preserved explicit memory performance was found among participants with Williams syndrome compared with participants with TD and with Down syndrome. The mean ES between the groups with ID vs. TD, when control group selection was based on chronological age, was greater than when comparison was based on mental age. There was no difference in the ES between recall and recognition tests. Verbal memory was more impaired than visual memory.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 Picture Sequence Memory Test measures episodic memory, an aspect of long-term memory that evidence thus far indicates may be relatively preserved in intellectual disability.
“The Picture Sequence Memory Test measures episodic memory (Gershon et al., 2013), an aspect of long-term memory that evidence thus far indicates may be relatively preserved in ID (Lifshitz et al., 2011).”
From NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Feasibility in Individuals With Williams Syndrome (2022) · cites this paper as Lifshitz et al., 2011
Cites
The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?
Baddeley, A. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2 · Cited by 7,359 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Baddeley (2000) claimed that recall requires more explicit and episodic encoding than recognition.”
BackgroundCarlesimo, G. A., Marotta, L., & Vicari, S. (1997) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/s0028-3932(96)00055-3 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Advances in statistical methods for meta‐analysis
Hedges, L. V. (1984) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1376 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery Feasibility in Individuals With Williams Syndrome
Condy, E. E., Becker, L., Farmer, C., Kaat, A. J., Chlebowski, C., Kozel, B. A., & Thurm, A. (2022) · American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1352/1944-7558-127.6.473 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lifshitz, H., Shtein, S., Weiss, I., & Vakil, E.
- Affiliations
- Bar-Ilan University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Lifshitz, Hefziba
- Venue
- European Journal of Special Needs Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-02
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 93-111
- ISSN
- 0885-6257 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-591X
- OpenAlex
- W2037044385
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 2.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Special Needs Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Williams Syndrome Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Keywords
- declarative memory, intellectual disability, Williams syndrome, Down syndrome, verbal memory, visual memory, memory retrieval, recognition memory, mental age, chronological age, typical development
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
