↓ Skip to main content

The effectiveness of working memory training with individuals with intellectual disabilities – a meta-analytic review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effectiveness of working memory training with individuals with intellectual disabilities – a meta-analytic review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Danielsson, Valentina Zottarel, Lisa Palmqvist, Silvia Lanfranchi

Abstract

Working memory (WM) training has been increasingly popular in the last years. Previous studies have shown that individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) have low WM capacity and therefore would benefit by this type of intervention. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of WM and cognitive training for individuals with ID. The effects reported in previous studies have varied and therefore a meta-analysis of articles in the major databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria included to have a pretest-posttest design with a training group and a control group and to have measures of WM or short-term memory. Ten studies with 28 comparisons were included. The results reveal a significant, but small, overall pretest-posttest effect size (ES) for WM training for individuals with ID compared to controls. A mixed WM approach, including both verbal and visuo-spatial components working mainly on strategies, was the only significant training type with a medium ES. The most commonly reported training type, visuo-spatial WM training, was performed in 60 percent of the included comparisons and had a non-significant ES close to zero. We conclude that even if there is an overall effect of WM training, a mixed WM approach appears to cause this effect. Given the few studies included and the different characteristics of the included studies, interpretations should be done with caution. However, different types of interventions appear to have different effects. Even if the results were promising, more studies are needed to better understand how to design an effective WM intervention for this group and to understand if, and how, these short-term effects remain over time and transfer to everyday activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Researcher 11 11%
Professor 5 5%
Other 24 23%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,288,585
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,095
of 29,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,241
of 266,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#539
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,780 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,077 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.