Cited by 71Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Component analysis of verbal versus spatial working memory training in adolescents with ADHD: A randomized, controlled trial

Gibson, Bradley S., Gondoli, Dawn M., Johnson, Ann C., Steeger, Christine M., Dobrzenski, Bradley A., Morrissey, Rebecca A.·2011·Child Neuropsychology

Abstract

Adaptive training of working memory (WM) using the Cogmed-RM intervention has recently shown some efficacy as an alternative treatment for ADHD, but this intervention may not be optimally designed. A recent component analysis of WM has suggested that maintenance in primary memory (PM) appears to be largely intact whereas recall from secondary memory (SM) appears to be deficient in ADHD relative to age-matched controls. However, extrapolating from basic research, there is reason to believe that Cogmed-RM may target the PM component more than the SM component; though training with spatial exercises may target the SM component more than training with verbal exercises. To investigate, participants diagnosed with ADHD were randomly assigned to either a verbal training condition (n = 24) or a spatial training condition (n = 23) using a randomized, controlled design, and both groups were instructed to complete at least 20 days of training. The PM and SM components of WM were assessed immediately before and after training using both verbal and spatial free recall tasks. The main findings showed that both versions of the intervention enhanced the maintenance of information in PM regardless of test modality, but not the recall of information from SM. Therefore, the component of WM that is improved by Cogmed-RM is not the same component of WM that is deficient in ADHD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09297049.2010.551186

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gibson, B. S., Gondoli, D. M., Johnson, A. C., Steeger, C. M., Dobrzenski, B. A., & Morrissey, R. A.
Affiliations
University of Notre Dame (US)
Corresponding author
Gibson, Bradley S.
Venue
Child Neuropsychology
Published
2011-11
Volume
17
Issue
6
Pages
546-563
ISSN
  • 0929-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-4136
OpenAlex
W2166711339
Cited by
71
References
31
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, working memory, working memory training, spatial training, adolescents, free recall
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Analysis of Variance, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Neuropsychological Tests, Mental Recall, Serial Learning, Space Perception, Spatial Behavior, Task Performance and Analysis, Verbal Learning

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