CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderCognitive Abilities and TestingDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Exploring N -Back Cognitive Training for Children With ADHD

Open access
Jones, Masha R., Katz, Benjamin, Buschkuehl, Martin, Jaeggi, Susanne M., Shah, Priti·2020·Journal of Attention Disorders
DOI 10.1177/1087054718779230PMC PMC6445784
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: The efficacy of n-back training for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was tested in a randomized controlled trial. Method: 41 children aged 7 to 14 years with ADHD were trained on an n-back task, and their performance was compared with that of an active control group ( n = 39) who were trained on a general knowledge and vocabulary task. Results: The experimental group demonstrated transfer of training to a nontrained n-back task as well as to a measure of inhibitory control. These effects were correlated with the magnitude of training gains. Conclusion: Our results suggest that n-back training may be useful in addressing some of the cognitive and behavioral issues associated with ADHD.

Verified 2026-10-08 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a randomized controlled trial, children with ADHD who trained on an adaptive visuospatial n-back task showed transfer to an untrained n-back task and to a lab measure of inhibitory control, with effects correlated with training gains. The authors conclude n-back training may help address some cognitive/behavioral issues in ADHD, though effects were small and delayed parent-reported symptom reductions were marginal.

Key findings

  • At immediate posttest, the n-back group outperformed the active control group on a non-trained n-back task (F(1,77) = 11.41, p = 0.001, η²p = 0.13, BF = 29.50) and on inhibitory control measured by the CPT (F(1,77) = 6.48, p = 0.01, η²p = 0.08, BF = 3.73).
  • At 3-month delayed posttest, group differences remained but were less pronounced and did not survive correction for multiple comparisons (non-trained n-back: F(1,54) = 4.56, p = 0.04, η²p = 0.08, BF = 1.74; CPT: F(1,54) = 4.34, p = 0.04, η²p = 0.07, BF = 1.55).
  • Parent-reported ADHD symptoms showed only marginal reduction (F(1,43) = 3.38, p = 0.07, η²p = 0.07, BF = 1.11), and no significant group transfer was found for working memory composite, matrix reasoning, or school-related tasks.
  • Training gain predicted transfer on several measures, including CPT (b = −6.93, p = 0.03, BF = 1.34), parent-reported inattention/hyperactivity (b = −0.26, p = 0.02, BF = 2.58), school tasks (b = 0.14, p = 0.04, BF = 0.26), matrix reasoning at posttest (b = 0.21, p = 0.05, BF = 0.93), and matrix reasoning at delayed posttest (b = 0.36, p = 0.01, BF = 3.90).

Methods

  • Randomized controlled trial: 108 children with ADHD recruited; after exclusions, final sample was 80 children aged 7–14 (mean age 10.14 years, SD 2.02; 25 girls), matched on fluid reasoning, age, gender, and ADHD symptom severity, then randomly assigned to n-back training (n = 41) or active general knowledge/vocabulary control training (n = 39).
  • Training required 20 sessions over about 5 weeks: once daily at home with parent supervision plus one weekly researcher-supervised session; assessments occurred at pretest, immediate posttest, and 3-month delayed posttest.
  • Main analyses used ANCOVA with pretest as covariate, multiple regression to test whether training gain predicted transfer, and Bayesian analyses; outcome measures included an untrained object n-back task, CPT, verbal working memory composite, parent questionnaires (CBCL, BRIEF, CPRS–R:L), Woodcock-Johnson III school tasks, and matrix reasoning.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: outcome measures were either lab-based or parent report; lab measures may lack ecological validity, while parent report has ecological validity but may not be fully objective.
  • Stated by the authors: attrition/dropout was an issue—21 participants (20.79%) did not complete training or failed to adhere to the schedule—though this rate was lower than in similar non-ADHD samples, and excluded participants did not vary systematically from included participants.
  • Evident in the text: the sample was small, especially for delayed and parent-report analyses (e.g., delayed CPT/n-back F tests used df = 54; parent ADHD symptom analysis used df = 43), effect sizes were small, and the marginal parent-report finding did not survive multiple-comparison correction.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1087054718779230

Cites

86 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 79 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The size of training gains was correlated with the transfer effects.

    “These effects were correlated with the magnitude of training gains.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In children with ADHD, n-back training transferred to an untrained n-back task.

    “The experimental group demonstrated transfer of training to a non-trained n-back task as well as to a measure of inhibitory control.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In children with ADHD, n-back training transferred to a measure of inhibitory control.

    “as well as well as substantial evidence for group differences in the measure of inhibitory control (CPT; F(1, 77) = 6.48, p = 0.01, η2p = 0.08, BF = 3.73).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    At posttest, there was substantial evidence of group differences on the CPT measure of inhibitory control (F(1,77)=6.48, p=0.01, η2p=0.08, BF=3.73).

    “as well as well as substantial evidence for group differences in the measure of inhibitory control (CPT; F(1, 77) = 6.48, p = 0.01, η2p = 0.08, BF = 3.73).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was anecdotal evidence of reduced parent-reported ADHD symptoms (F(1,43)=3.38, p=0.07, η2p=0.07, BF=1.11).

    “We also observed anecdotal evidence of reduced ADHD symptoms as reported by the parents (F(1, 43) = 3.38, p = 0.07, η2p = 0.07, BF = 1.11; see figure 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At delayed posttest, group differences on the CPT remained but were less pronounced and did not survive multiple-comparison correction (F(1,54)=4.34, p=0.04, η2p=0.07, BF=1.55).

    “At delayed post-test, the group differences remained, however, the effects were less pronounced than at post-test, and furthermore, they did not survive corrections for multiple comparisons (non-trained n-back: F(1, 54) = 4.56, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.08, BF = 1.74; CPT: (F(1, 54) = 4.34, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.07, BF = 1.55), see figure 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    On average, children with ADHD improved by about half an n-back level, slightly less than typically developing children.

    “On average, children with ADHD improved by approximately half an n-back level, which is slightly below the improvement that has been observed in typically developing children (Jaeggi et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaeggi et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    At delayed posttest, group differences on the non-trained n-back task remained but were less pronounced and did not survive multiple-comparison correction (F(1,54)=4.56, p=0.04, η2p=0.08, BF=1.74).

    “At delayed post-test, the group differences remained, however, the effects were less pronounced than at post-test, and furthermore, they did not survive corrections for multiple comparisons (non-trained n-back: F(1, 54) = 4.56, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.08, BF = 1.74; CPT: (F(1, 54) = 4.34, p = 0.04, η2p = 0.07, BF = 1.55), see figure 1.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Training children's mean effort rating was 3.23 (SD = 1.17).

    “the average rating of the experimental group was also 3.23 (SD = 1.17)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Training gain predicted transfer on CPT, inattention/hyperactivity, school tasks, and matrix reasoning.

    “Our regression analyses revealed that the amount of training gain predicted the amount of transfer for CPT, inattention and hyeractivity, school tasks, and matrix reasoning (see Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Inhibitory control improved on the CPT, with small effect sizes.

    “we observed improved inhibitory control (as measured by the CPT), albeit with small effect sizes”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Sustained attention and inhibitory control can improve through n-back training.

    “the highlight of this study is the finding that sustained attention and inhibitory control can be improved via n-back training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Transfer occurred to objective executive-function measures (inhibition and some working memory) but not to parent-rated ADHD executive-function symptoms.

    “Although we found transfer to objective measures of executive functioning, namely inhibition and, to some extent, working memory, we found no transfer to parent-reported executive functioning symptoms of ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The ADHD children's performance levels were below those of typically developing children and adults.

    “The levels achieved by these children with ADHD were lower than those typically achieved by children without ADHD and even certainly lower than typical adult performance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The two working memory outcomes were verbal, while the training task was spatial.

    “both working memory outcome measures were verbal tasks while the training task was spatial.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Children with ADHD show deficits on several executive function tasks, including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, verbal fluency, Stroop, task-switching, and Tower of London.

    “a number of studies have documented impairments among children with ADHD in executive function tasks, including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (Pineda et al., 1998; Reeve & Schandler, 2001), verbal fluency tasks (Pineda et al., 1998), the Stroop task (Reeve & Schandler, 2001), task-switching (Cepeda, Cepeda, & Kramer, 2000; White & Shah, 2006), and the Tower of London task (Cornoldi, Barbieri, Ga”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pineda et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Reeve & Schandler, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cornoldi et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    About one fifth of people with ADHD stop taking stimulants within a year.

    “approximately 20% of individuals with ADHD cease stimulant use within the first year of taking them (Toomey, Sox, Rusinak, & Finkelstein, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Toomey et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A study by Bigorra et al. (2016) reported reduced inhibitory control as indexed by CPT commission errors.

    “a recent study by Bigorra, Garolera, Guijarro, and Hervas (2016) demonstrated reductions in inhibitory control, as measured by CPT errors of commission.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bigorra et al., 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Behavioral therapies are generally regarded as the most effective non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD symptoms.

    “While behavioral therapies are generally considered the most effective non-pharmacological approaches for addressing ADHD symptomatology (Evans et al., 2013; Fabiano et al., 2009)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Evans et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fabiano et al., 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other studies did not replicate those CWMT findings, producing conflicting reviews and meta-analyses.

    “However, others have failed to replicate those findings, leading to conflicting reviews and meta-analyses (Chacko et al., 2013; van der Donk, Hiemstra-Beernink, Tjeenk-Kalff, van der Leij, & Lindauer, 2015; Shipstead, Hicks, & Engle, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Chacko et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites van der Donk et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Shipstead et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Recent meta-analyses identified cognitive training as an area needing further study.

    “a recent meta-analysis of cognitive training (Cortese et al., 2015) and non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD more broadly (Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013), cognitive training was identified as an area that requires further exploration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Cortese et al., 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sonuga-Barke et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Behavioral management therapy is the most common non-drug intervention for children with ADHD.

    “The most widely used non-pharmacological interventions for children with ADHD is behavioral management therapy (Evans, Owens, & Bunford, 2013; Wolraich et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Evans et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wolraich et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Shavlev et al. (2002) found improved attention and academic outcomes after attentional control training.

    “Shavlev, Tsal, & Mevorach (2002), found improvements in attention and academic outcomes following an attentional control training program.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shavlev et al., 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It may still be possible to train inhibition, particularly alongside working memory, because the two domains overlap substantially.

    “Although some of the evidence is mixed, it may remain possible to train inhibition, especially if it occurs in combination with training working memory, as there seems to be considerable overlap between the domains of working memory and inhibitory control (Hsu, Jaeggi, & Novick, 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Hsu et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    CWMT has drawbacks including long sessions, the need for a coach, and high cost.

    “Additional challenges regarding CWMT include lengthy sessions (approximately 40 minutes per day over the course of 5 weeks), the necessity of a coach, and the significant cost (Chacko et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Chacko et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Typically developing children who improved on the n-back task also improved on fluid reasoning measures.

    “typically-developing children who showed improvement on the n-back task also demonstrated improvements on measures of fluid reasoning (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, Shah, et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaeggi et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The CPT is commonly used as a diagnostic measure for ADHD in neuropsychological testing.

    “Furthermore, the CPT is often used as a diagnostic measure for ADHD in neuropsychology testing (e.g., Corkum & Siegel, 1993).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Corkum & Siegel, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The two groups were continuously matched on fluid reasoning, age, gender, and ADHD symptom severity by a researcher not involved in testing or training.

    “participants in the two groups were continuously matched on measures of fluid reasoning (TONI and SPM), age, gender and ADHD symptom severity (as measured by parent rated CPRS–R:L Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales) by a researcher who was neither involved in testing nor in training of the participants.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study received ethics committee approval and followed the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and later amendments.

    “This study was approved by the appropriate ethics committee and performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The CPT has reported split-half reliability of 0.83, with a range of 0.66 to 0.95.

    “Split-half reliability for the CPT has been reported as 0.83 (range 0.66 to 0.95; Conners et al., 2000; 1994).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Conners et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Conners et al., 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The CPRS-R:L has reported Cronbach's alpha from 0.75 to 0.95.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for the scales range from 0.75–0.95 (Conners et al., 1998).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Conners et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The TONI has reported Cronbach's alpha in the 0.80 to 0.90 range.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for TONI is reported in the 0.80 and 0.90 range (Brown, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brown, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The BRIEF has reported Cronbach's alpha from 0.80 to 0.98.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for the scales range from 0.80–0.98 (Gioia et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gioia et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Woodcock Johnson III has reported split-half reliabilities of 0.80 or higher.

    “Individual test reliabities using a split half method are reported as 0.80 or higher (Grenwelge, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Grenwelge, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The CBCL has reported Cronbach's alpha of 0.83 for narrow scales and 0.94 for broad scales.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for the narrow scales (syndrome and DSM-oriented) is reported as 0.83, and for the broad scales (internalizing, externalizing, and total problems), it is 0.94 (Bullard, Griss, Greene, & Gekker, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bullard et al., 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study reported uncorrected p-values, Hochberg-Benjamini corrected p-values, and Bayesian analyses with default priors.

    “This includes uncorrected p-values and p-values corrected for multiple comparisons using the Hochberg-Benjamini method (Hochberg & Benjamini, 1990), and in addition, we conducted Baysean analyses using default priors in JASP, which allow us to report Bayes Factors that quantify evidence for and against the null hypothesis (Wagenmakers et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hochberg & Benjamini, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wagenmakers et al., 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

    “Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    All analyses met ANCOVA assumptions except school-related skills at posttest, which violated homogeneity of slopes and was analyzed as ANOVA without a covariate.

    “All analyses met the assumptions for ANCOVA with the exception of school-related skills at posttest, which violated the assumption of homogeneity of slopes. The analysis for this particular measure was therefore performed as an Analysis of Variance without a covariate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The SPM has an odd-even split-half corrected reliability of 0.96.

    “The odd-even split-half corrected coefficient of reliability for SPM is 0.96 (Raven, 2000)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Raven, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    After matching, participants were randomly assigned to n-back training or an active control condition.

    “Based on this matched pairing, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: n-back training (n=41) or an active knowledge training control condition (n=39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    All delayed posttest analyses met ANCOVA assumptions.

    “All these analyses met the assumptions for ANCOVA, and the results are presented in table 4.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The regression assumptions were checked and satisfied.

    “Assumptions for multiple regressions were tested and met.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Parents probably did not know whether their child improved on the training task because training was home-based and families did not interact.

    “they are likely to be unaware of whether they actually improved on the training task, as the training was completed in the home and as there was no interaction between the participating families.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Even low-performing training children had enough 2-back practice, so higher performers had no advantage on object n-back.

    “Thus, even low-performing participants who did not achieve high levels of n-back training still had ample practice at 2-back, providing no advantage to the higher-performing participants on this particular measure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Boosting cognitive training effectiveness may require keeping participants engaged and helping them learn from practice.

    “It also suggests that one way of boosting effectiveness of cognitive training interventions is to ensure that participants maintain engagement with training tasks and are able to learn from their practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The active control group trained on a general knowledge and trivia program.

    “Participants in the active control training group completed a general knowledge and trivia program as used before (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, Shah, et al., 2011), in which they answered questions about vocabulary, history, and general-knowledge facts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jaeggi et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    The insufficient-inhibition-improvement explanation fits the correlation between training gain and parent ratings.

    “This second interpretation is consistent with our finding that training gain is correlated with the parent ratings; if training gains were larger, it is possible we would have seen significant improvements in parent ratings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The absence of group differences may reflect ADHD-related attention problems needed for matrix reasoning, math, and reading.

    “The failure to observe group differences could reflect the fact that children with ADHD struggle with attention, which is strongly required in tests of matrix reasoning, math, and reading ability.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Parent-report measures have ecological and clinical value but may not be fully objective.

    “parent report measures offer a great deal of ecological validity and clinical relevance, but may not be fully objective.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    No improvement in achievement areas is unsurprising because the intervention did not target crystallized knowledge.

    “As our intervention did not target crystalized knowledge, it is perhaps unsurprising that we did not find improvements in those areas.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The intervention can be done at home without a trained professional and distributed cheaply.

    “it can be completed at home in the absence of a trained professional and can be easily distributed at minimal cost to families of children who struggle with ADHD.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The study provides theoretical support for cognitive training and insight into training gain-transfer links.

    “It also offers theoretical support for cognitive training more broadly, and provides insight into the relationship between training gains and transfer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Excluded and included participants did not differ systematically, reducing selection-bias concerns.

    “the excluded participants did not vary systematically from the included participants; alleviating concerns regarding selection bias (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Lab-based measures often lack ecological validity and relevance to daily life.

    “Lab-based measures often lack in ecological validity and thus have limited bearing on everyday life”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The intervention was completed at home by children and supervised by parents in an ecologically valid setting.

    “ours was done at home by participants and supervised by parents in an ecologically valid setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
50 of 50

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The active control training task only minimally engages working memory or controlled attention.

    “This game also had levels and was adaptive, but only minimally implicated working memory or controlled attention.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The n-back task requires active maintenance and updating of items in working memory and inhibition of responses to lures.

    “The n-back task requires both active maintenance and updating of items in working memory as well as deleting items that are further back in a sequence. It also requires inhibiting responses to near target items, or lures.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Inhibitory control is a mechanism underlying self-regulation and cognitive/achievement deficits in children with ADHD.

    “because inhibitory control is purported to be a mechanism underlying self-regulation and cognitive/achievement deficits in children with ADHD”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cognitive training works best when learners are actively engaged and try hard.

    “This approach was guided by our hypothesis that cognitive training is most effective when participants are actively engaged and put effort into doing their best.”
4 of 4

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?

  • There is no consensus on transfer to inhibitory control measures, with some WM training studies reporting benefits and others not.

    “there is no consensus regarding transfer to inhibitory control measures, with some WM training studies reporting training-related benefits59,60,71,72, yet others failing to find evidence of transfer51,73.”

    From Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning (2022) · cites this paper as [72]

    The citation is attached to the studies said to have failed to find transfer to inhibitory control. In the Discussion (page unavailable), this paper instead reports improved inhibitory control after n-back training in children with ADHD, albeit with small effects. Its background section describes mixed findings from other studies, but its own result is not a failure to find transfer. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(78) = -0.93reported p = .36 · recomputed p = .355

    “t(78) = −0.93, p = .36”

  • ConsistentF(1, 77) = 11.41reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “F(1,77) = 11.41, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 77) = 6.48reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .013

    “F(1, 77) = 6.48, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 4.56reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1, 54) = 4.56, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 4.34reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .042

    “F(1, 54) = 4.34, p = .04”

  • ConsistentF(1, 43) = 3.38reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .073

    “F(1, 43) = 3.38, p = .07”

6 of 6

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Abstract says both transfer effects tracked training gains, but the n-back effect did not

    Major

    The abstract refers to the non-trained n-back and inhibitory-control effects as correlated with training gains. The discussion states that training gain had no significant relationship with performance on the non-trained object n-back task.

  • Home-training session counts disagree

    Minor

    The procedure first says children were required to train at home for 20 sessions, but its parenthetical breakdown specifies only 16 sessions at home and four supervised sessions.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Conners C. K., 2001, Conners’ Rating Scale–Revised (CRS-R)
  2. 10.1023/a · DOI
  3. Conners C. K., 2000, Conners’ Continuous Performance Test II (CPT II V. 5)
  4. DuPaul G., 2014, ADHD in the schools
  5. Jaeggi S. M., 2011, Working memory training in typically developing children and children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Evidence for plasticity in executive control processes
  6. 10.1037/a0025250.why · DOI
  7. Reeve W. V., 2001, Adolescence, 36, 749
  8. 10.1207/s15326985ep2402 · DOI
  9. Wechsler D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8979-044&Mode=resource%5Cnhttp://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/100000310/wechsler-intelligence-scale-for-children-fourth-edition-wisciv.html?Pid=015-8979-044&Mo

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jones, M. R., Katz, B., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S. M., & Shah, P.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • MIND Research Institute (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Jones, Masha R.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Attention Disorders
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-06-07
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
704-719
ISSN
  • 1087-0547 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-1246
DOI
10.1177/1087054718779230
PMC
PMC6445784
OpenAlex
W2806377646
Semantic Scholar
04119b07711cd79371327e96adb12b54b52aada3
Cited by
64
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.sagepub.com/licence-information-for-chorus (vor, 365 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Attention Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Division of Graduate Education (DGE-1321846)
  • Institute of Education Sciences (R324A090164)
  • National Institute on Aging (1K02AG054665)
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, children, cognitive training, inhibitory control, transfer of training, working memory, active control
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Memory, Short-Term, Treatment Outcome

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-08.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-08.

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