Cited by 73Cognitive Abilities and TestingReading and Literacy DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

A Randomized Control Trial of Working Memory Training With and Without Strategy Instruction: Effects on Young Children’s Working Memory and Comprehension

Open access
Peng, Peng, Fuchs, Douglas·2017·Journal of Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Researchers are increasingly interested in working memory (WM) training. However, it is unclear whether it strengthens comprehension in young children who are at risk for learning difficulties. We conducted a modest study of whether the training of verbal WM would improve verbal WM and passage listening comprehension and whether training effects differed between two approaches: training with and without strategy instruction. A total of 58 first-grade children were randomly assigned to three groups: WM training with a rehearsal strategy, WM training without strategy instruction, and controls. Each member of the two training groups received a one-to-one, 35-min session of verbal WM training on each of 10 consecutive school days, totaling 5.8 hr. Both training groups improved on trained verbal WM tasks, with the rehearsal group making greater gains. Without correction for multiple group comparisons, the rehearsal group made reliable improvements over controls on an untrained verbal WM task and on passage listening comprehension and listening retell measures. The no-strategy-instruction group outperformed controls on passage listening comprehension. When corrected for multiple contrasts, these group differences disappeared but were associated with moderate to large effect sizes. Findings suggest—however tentatively—that brief but intensive verbal WM training may strengthen the verbal WM and comprehension performance of young children at risk. Necessary caveats and possible implications for theory and future research are discussed.

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 · 10.1177/0022219415594609

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • 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.”
  • This training study provides further support for the strategy mediation theory of working memory improvement compared with the capacity theory.

    “This training study provides further support for the strategy mediation theory of WM improvement (Dunning & Holmes, 2014; Peng & Fuchs, 2017), compared with the capacity theory (Engle & Kane, 2003).”

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: 3

  1. Baddeley AD Working memory 1986 New York Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Fuchs LS Compton DL Fuchs D Paulsen K Bryant JD Hamlett CL The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty Journal of Educational Psychology 2005 97 493 513
  3. Leslie L Caldwell J Qualitative reading inventory −3 2001 New York Addison Wesley Longman

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peng, P., & Fuchs, D.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Peng, Peng
Venue
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Published
2016-08-03
Volume
50
Issue
1
Pages
62-80
ISSN
  • 0022-2194 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4780
OpenAlex
W751774294
Cited by
73
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Learning Disabilities (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Institute of Education Sciences
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P30HD015052, U54HD083211, R01HD056109)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
working memory training, verbal working memory, rehearsal strategies, strategy instruction, listening comprehension, passage comprehension, first grade students, learning difficulties, transfer of training, multiple testing correction
MeSH terms
Cognitive Remediation, Child, Female, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Verbal Learning, Comprehension

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