Cited by 983Cognitive Abilities and TestingCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 231 of the 232 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 11 of the 73 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Working Memory Training Does Not Improve Performance on Measures of Intelligence or Other Measures of “Far Transfer”: Evidence From a Meta-Analytic Review

Open access
Melby-Lervåg, Monica, Redick, Thomas S., Hulme, Charles·2016·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

It has been claimed that working memory training programs produce diverse beneficial effects. This article presents a meta-analysis of working memory training studies (with a pretest-posttest design and a control group) that have examined transfer to other measures (nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, or arithmetic; 87 publications with 145 experimental comparisons). Immediately following training there were reliable improvements on measures of intermediate transfer (verbal and visuospatial working memory). For measures of far transfer (nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, arithmetic) there was no convincing evidence of any reliable improvements when working memory training was compared with a treated control condition. Furthermore, mediation analyses indicated that across studies, the degree of improvement on working memory measures was not related to the magnitude of far-transfer effects found. Finally, analysis of publication bias shows that there is no evidential value from the studies of working memory training using treated controls. The authors conclude that working memory training programs appear to produce short-term, specific training effects that do not generalize to measures of “real-world” cognitive skills. These results seriously question the practical and theoretical importance of current computerized working memory programs as methods of training working memory skills.

Verified 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691616635612

Cites

231 of 232 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

3 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

11 of 73 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 88 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 44
77 of 77
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The multiple comparisons from the same control group included in one analysis have zero correlation between their outcomes.

    “we choose to include these studies in the analyses assuming zero correlation between the outcomes.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Individuals with cognitive impairments may benefit more from working memory training.

    “Under the assumption that individuals who have cognitive impairments (e.g., ADHD, dyslexia, low working memory, or other neuropsychological disorders) may be more receptive to benefits from working memory training”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: Q(1) = 13.70, p = .0001

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .0001 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p < .001. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

1 of 1

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.

  • Doesn’t add upQ(1) = 13.7reported p = .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “Q(1) = 13.70, p = .0001”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 6.09reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014

    “Q (1) = 6.09, p = .01”

  • ConsistentQ(1) = 4.52reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .034

    “Q(1) = 4.52, p = .03”

3 of 3

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.

  • Control-group coefficient has the opposite sign from the reported effect

    Minor

    The regression codes treated controls as 1 and untreated controls as 0, so a positive coefficient indicates larger nonverbal-ability gains with treated controls. The paper instead says treated controls showed smaller gains. The second regression also reports a positive coefficient for control type.

1 of 1

Cited works that were retracted

Works this paper cites that were later retracted, from the retraction notices publishers deposit. Major when the notice came out before this paper was published.

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02172.x

    Major

    The cited work was retracted on 2011-03-31 (notice 10.1177/0956797611404902), before this paper was published (2016-07). Its authors could have known.

    Cited work 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02172.x · retracted 2011-03-31 · notice 10.1177/0956797611404902 · this paper published 2016-07

  • Cites a retracted work: 10.1073/pnas.1018601108

    Info

    The cited work was retracted on 2025-05-01 (notice 10.1073/pnas.2508040122), not before this paper was published (2016-07).

    Cited work 10.1073/pnas.1018601108 · retracted 2025-05-01 · notice 10.1073/pnas.2508040122 · this paper published 2016-07

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

2 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 212 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. *Alloway T. P., 2012, Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23, 197
  2. 10.1037/00332909.128.4.612 · DOI
  3. Borenstein M., 2005, Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Software]
  4. Buschkuehl M., 2010, Swiss Medical Weekly, 140, 266
  5. *Feiyue Q., 2009, The 1st international conference on information science and engineering, 3459
  6. 10.371/journal.pone.0007141
  7. *Horvat M. (2014). Vpliv treninga delovnega spomina na kognitivne sposobnosti [The effect of working memory training on cognitive abilities] (Master’s thesis). University of Maribor, Slovenia. (Grey)
  8. **Netto T. M., 2013, Psychology: Reflection and Review, 26, 122
  9. Passolunghi M. C., 2006, Working memory and neurodevelopmental condition, 113
  10. *Redick T. S., 2015, Poster present at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Psychological Science
  11. 10.1037/0022006X.64.6.1290 · DOI
  12. *Shavelson R. J., 2008, Contributions of educational psychology to changing institutions, environments, and people, 1
  13. Unsworth N., 2015, Reasoning as memory, 9
  14. *Weicker J., 2013, Poster presented at the 4th Joint Meeting of the European Societies of Neuropsychology (ESN) and the 28th Meeting of the German Society of Neuropsychology (GNP)
  15. 10.1037/neu00002 · DOI
  16. *Zhang Q., 2014, Poster presented at the 26th annual convention of the Association for Psychological Science
  17. 10.1159/000324240007 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 891

Metadata

Authors
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C.
Affiliations
  • Department of Special Needs Education, University of Oslo
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Redick, Thomas S.
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2016-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
512-534
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2480700159
Cited by
983
References
212
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 91 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 118 · 2020: 130 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 69 · 2016: 15
FWCI
9.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Bank (Australian Catholic University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Norges Forskningsråd
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA013650)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
working memory training, far transfer, intelligence, nonverbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, reading comprehension, arithmetic, mediation analysis, publication bias, computer-based training, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Cognitive Remediation, Humans, Intelligence, Memory, Short-Term, Transfer, Psychology

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-05, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-05 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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