Working Memory Training On Near and Far Transfer

Child Neuropsychology
A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and

Adolescence
ISSN: 0929-7049 (Print) 1744-4136 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncny20
The impact of working memory training on near

and far transfer measures: Is it all about fluid
intelligence?
H. Lee Swanson & Meaghan McMurran
To cite this article: H. Lee Swanson & Meaghan McMurran (2017): The impact of working memory
training on near and far transfer measures: Is it all about fluid intelligence?, Child Neuropsychology,
DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2017.1280142
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1280142
Published online: 01 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 46
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncny20
Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 22 February 2017, At: 05:47

CHILD NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1280142
The impact of working memory training on near and far

transfer measures: Is it all about fluid intelligence?
H. Lee Swanson and Meaghan McMurran
Department of Educational Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This randomized control study investigates the effects of working Received 4 August 2016
memory (WM) training on near (similar WM memory tasks) and far Accepted 3 January 2017
(math problem-solving processes and accuracy tasks) transfer in KEYWORDS
children aged 7 to 11 years who vary in fluid intelligence. Working memory; Fluid
Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or intelligence; Problem-solving;
one of two WM training conditions (repeated practice vs. cued Math performance
recall). When compared to the control condition, the results show
that the cued recall condition yields higher post-test scores for the
far transfer measures, whereas the repeated practice condition
yields higher scores for the near transfer measures. However,
these finding are qualified by significant treatment × fluid intelli-
gence interactions. Thus, improvements in WM and related mea-
sures, as well as the positive transfer in learning outcomes, are
moderated by fluid intelligence.
Several correlational studies show a significant relationship between working memory

(WM) span and academic performance in children (for a review, see Alloway &
Alloway, 2010; Peng, Namkung, Barnes, & Sun, 2016; Swanson & Alloway, 2012).
However, WM training studies that aim to improve academic performance have yielded
mixed results (e.g., Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Schwaighofer, Fischer, & Bühner,
2015), and few studies have shown any direct influence of WM training on academic
performance (e.g., Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; however, see Au, Buschkuehl,
Duncan, & Jaeggi, 2016). Although several WM training studies have attempted to
influence fluid intelligence as an outcome measure (Harrison et al., 2013; Jaeggi &
Buschkuehl, 2014; Klingberg et al., 2005), the influence of fluid intelligence on WM
training outcomes has not been investigated. One of the reasons for this poor transfer
to achievement measures is assumed to have occurred because the moderating influence
of intelligence has been overlooked.
Fluid intelligence refers to the abstract reasoning skills needed to adapt to novel or
complex situations (Cattell, 1971). Working memory has been referred to as a complex
cognitive system of limited capacity that stores information while simultaneously
processing the same or additional information (Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway,
1999). Fluid intelligence, also referred to as higher-order thinking skills, is highly
CONTACT Meaghan McMurran mmcmu001@ucr.edu; H. Lee Swanson lee.swanson@ucr.edu Department

of Educational Psychology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. L. SWANSON AND M. MCMURRAN
dependent on the cognitive functions of WM. Likewise, performance on WM tasks is

strongly related to individual differences in fluid intelligence. Several studies have paid
particular attention to how WM is related to fluid intelligence (Kyllonen & Christal,
1990). However, a clear understanding of the relationship between fluid intelligence and
WM is somewhat mixed. Some studies suggest WM and fluid intelligence in predictions
of academic performance operate as distinct constructs (Ackerman, Beier, & Boyle,
2005), whereas others suggest that WM and fluid intelligence are identical constructs
(Kyllonen & Christal, 1990). In addition, several studies suggest that WM and fluid
intelligence are driven by the same executive processes (Conway, Cowan, Bunting,
Therriault, & Minkoff, 2002); consequently several studies have been developed to
assess training related to WM and its influence on fluid intelligence. However, studies
have rarely compared how fluid intelligence may influence outcomes related to WM
training. This is unfortunate because fluid intelligence may include separate processes
(e.g., those related to reasoning skills) that, when combined with those related to WM
training, could have a positive influence on transfer measures. This study therefore
investigates how variations in fluid intelligence may influence outcomes related to WM
training.
As a starting point in explaining this relation between fluid intelligence and WM
training, it is assumed from an aptitude-treatment perspective that not all children
may be expected to benefit from WM training. For example, WM training compen-
sates for the excessive processing demands placed on the mental resources tied to
fluid intelligence. Children with relatively low fluid intelligence prior to training may
be more responsive to WM training because it helps them to compensate for
relatively limited abstract reasoning skills. In contrast, children with relatively high
levels of fluid intelligence may experience a level of redundancy, or unnecessary
processing, related to WM training that does not facilitate learning. A contrasting
hypothesis is that children with relatively low performance on fluid intelligence
measures may be easily overtaxed by WM training, which may even lead to poorer
learning outcomes after training. Their poor performance on WM tasks, plus their
relatively low fluid intelligence, may have direct consequences on the effectiveness of
WM training interventions. Although either hypothesis is plausible when explaining
why transfer effects are weak in WM training studies, other hypotheses are in need
of testing. For example, one alternative hypothesis is that fluid intelligence operates
as a general system that subsumes many higher- and lower-order processes related
to WM capacity—that is, processes related to fluid intelligence share common
resources with WM (Colom, Abad, Quiroga, Shih, & Flores-Mendoza, 2008; Engle,
Cantor, & Carullo, 1992). Thus, fluid intelligence predicts the outcome variables of
training but does not directly interact with WM training conditions. Thus, there is
no direct moderation of fluid intelligence on WM training outcomes. Indeed, there
is theoretical controversy in the literature with respect to whether children with
lower and higher fluid intelligence will benefit from WM training (Alloway &
Alloway, 2010; Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Redick et al., 2013; Schwaighofer
et al., 2015).
The purpose of this exploratory study is to determine if variations in treatment
outcomes related to WM training are moderated by fluid intelligence. To this end, this
study addresses two questions, the first of which is: Do individual levels of fluid
CHILD NEUROPSYCHOLOGY 3
intelligence play an important role in accounting for WM training outcomes? Although a

strong relationship between fluid intelligence and WM is assumed based on previous
research, the relationship between these two variables under training conditions is
unclear. The following hypotheses are considered. First, as suggested earlier, children
with relatively low fluid intelligence prior to training may be more responsive to WM
training; that is, children with relatively high levels of fluid intelligence may experience
a level of redundancy or unnecessary processing related to WM training that does not
facilitate transfer. An alternative hypothesis, of course, is that children with relatively
low fluid intelligence may be easily overtaxed when given WM training, which may
even lead to poorer learning outcomes after training. In contrast, children with rela-
tively high fluid intelligence could have spare resources and thus may benefit more from
related WM training compared to children with lower fluid intelligence. This hypoth-
esis predicts that fluid intelligence moderates training outcomes, but the effects are
different from the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis (compensatory hypothesis)
predicts that WM training effects are more effective for children who are relatively
low on the measure of fluid intelligence, whereas the latter hypothesis (limited capacity
hypothesis) predicts that WM training effects are greatest for children who are high in
fluid intelligence.
The second question is: Does WM training facilitate near and far transfer? For the
present study, the near transfer task (defined as tasks that match intervention) focuses
on WM measures similar to the post-test. It is assumed that because children in each
training session practice performing WM tasks, some increases in post-test WM
measures are expected. For the far transfer measure (tasks not directly related to
treatment), it was chosen to assess whether improvements in WM have an impact on
math problem-solving processes and accuracy. Some previous studies have found that
WM training improves far (academic performance) transfer (Holmes, Gathercole, &
Dunning, 2009; Karbach, Strobach, & Schubert, 2015; Loosli, Buschkuehl, Perrig, &
Jaeggi, 2012; Titz & Karbach, 2014). Other studies have found that WM training effects
are isolated to near transfer measures (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012). Thus, pre-
dictions related to training and transfer outcomes are unclear.
The present study compares two WM treatment conditions. The first comprises
practice on an array of WM measures over six sessions. It was predicted that practice on
these measures would allow participants to continue to use their self-initiated strategies
over several sessions. Thus, performance on the transfer measures would reflect a fine-
tuning of these strategies. The second condition comprises a scaffolding approach that
tests the WM limits of the participant in each session. It was assumed that testing WM
limits via scaffolded feedback under cued recall conditions would enhance the perfor-
mance of the participants’ maximum span length and thus maximize processing
efficiency (focused attention) by bringing their WM performance to an asymptote
level. That is, participants are required to focus their attention on items they failed to
recall and therefore are provided practice in focusing on recalling previously forgotten
information in the context of distracting information. It is assumed that because
successfully solving math problems requires focusing attention on the relevant proposi-
tions within the context of distracting information (irrelevant information), this process
(focused attention) aligns with processes related to WM (Engle et al., 1999; Kane,
Bleckley, Conway, & Engle, 2001; Shipstead, Harrison, & Engle, 2015). This explanation
of sharing a common process is consistent with studies that have attempted to directly
intervene on WM performance and influence achievement (Holmes et al., 2009;
Klingberg et al., 2005).
In general, it is assumed that self-initial strategies are beneficial to near transfer
measures (same task format), whereas conditions that maximize performance and
thereby enhance focusing attention on previously forgotten items may be better suited
to far transfer measures.
To investigate whether individual differences in fluid intelligence influence treatment
outcomes, a mixed regression model was implemented by adjusting the covariate (fluid
intelligence in this case) at pretest and estimating post-test performance. In contrast to
an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) procedure, this multiple linear regression (MLR)
increases power in treatment estimates, provides greater precision to treatment out-
comes, and avoids a dichotomization of the covariate (Hernández, Steyerberg, &
Habbema, 2004; Pocock, Assmann, Enos, & Kasten, 2002; Safarkhani & Moerbeek,
2013). The model assumes a treatment by covariate interaction (Judd, McClelland, &
Smith, 1996; Leon, Portera, Lowell, & Rheinheimer, 1998; Littell, Milliken, Stroup,
Wolfinger, & Schabenberger, 2006), but also has the added benefit of detailing the
role of individual differences as a function of the experimental conditions at pretest.
This procedure is consistent with a number of studies which have indicated that
individual differences need to be taken into consideration when interpreting WM
training effects (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Shah, & Jonides, 2014; Shah, Buschkuehl, Jaeggi,
& Jonides, 2012).
Method
Participants
A total of 81 second, third, and fourth graders drawn from elementary schools in
southern California participated in this study. After parent permission letters were
received, random assignment placed 36 children into the control group, 22 children
into the repeated practice condition, and 23 children into the cued recall condition. The
oversampling in the control group is based on the assumption that finding a sufficient
match in propensity scores occurs when the samples in the control groups are larger
than those in the treatment conditions (Rubin, 1979). Although children were ran-
domly assigned to conditions, propensity scores were computed to control for potential
unobserved biases emerging in the random assignment.1 A logistic regression was used
to predict treatment assignment. Consistent with Luellen, Shadish, and Clark (2005),
several covariates were entered into a logistic regression model to estimate propensity
scores, including forward digit span on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children –
Third Edition (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991), fluid intelligence on the Raven Colored
Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, 1976), pretest math problem-solving accuracy on
1
As a result of the use of random assignment to treatment, this study has high internal validity. However, as found in
several randomized treatment control studies, participants vary in WM span as well as a host of individual differences
(Jaeggi et al., 2014). As indicated in the literature, participants are very rarely randomly selected from a well-defined
population of interest into an experiment, which in turn results in low external validity (Tipton, 2013). To control for
any unintended pretest biases in the present study, propensity scores were computed in order to improve the
generalization of the findings.
KeyMath (Connolly, 1998), and math calculation on the Wide Range Achievement Test
3 (WRAT3; Wilkinson, 1993), along with grade level, gender, pretest listening span and
pretest operation span. Only children with propensity scores within a 0.25 SD band
were analyzed (participants < 0.25 and > 0.75 were deleted for the analysis; see
Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985).
From the initial sample of 81 children, the analysis was limited to participants who
were within the propensity score range of 0.25 to 0.75 SDs; thus, the final sample
includes 54 participants, with 19 in the control condition, 16 in the practice condition,
and 19 in the cued recall condition. A mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) conducted
on propensity scores as a function of treatment was not found to be significant, F(2,
51) = 0.94, p = .40.
The mean age, gender representation and performance on normed reference mea-
sures—as a function of treatment conditions—are shown in Table 1. The mean age of
the sample was 8.57 years (SD = 1.01, range = 7.00–10.00) and the mean fluid
intelligence (Raven Test) was 108.03 (SD = 13.20, range = 77.00–133.00).
Design and Statistical Analyses

The participants were drawn from 12 elementary classrooms. Because the data
reflects treatments of children nested within classrooms, a mixed ANCOVA was
computed to analyze treatment effects. The analysis was a one-way mixed
ANCOVA that compared the three treatment conditions (repeated practice, cued
recall and control) on post-test performance. The covariates for the mixed
ANCOVA are the continuous variables of pretest and fluid intelligence. Fluid
intelligence was left as a continuous variable so a follow-up regression could be
computed by adjusting fluid intelligence high, medium, and low values at pretest.
This approach is consistent with MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, and Rucker (2002),
Table 1. Sample Psychometric Information.

Variable n M SD Min Max
Control Group
Age 19 8.32 1.00 7 10
Fluid Int 19 106.69 14.37 77 140
Math Pr 18 11.61 3.48 5 19
Calc 19 95.16 15.04 76 136
Comp 17 103.24 15.38 75 125
Repeated Practice Group
Age 16 9.00 0.73 7 10
Fluid Int 16 109.31 12.07 82 128
Math Pr 16 12.13 3.59 8 19
Calc 16 102.38 13.05 81 123
Comp 16 100.38 10.71 80 122
Cued Recall Group
Age 19 8.47 1.12 7 10
Fluid Int 19 108.29 13.5 88 133
Math Pr 19 12.42 3.59 6 19
Calc 19 96.32 8.65 76 110
Comp 18 107.72 6.09 97 120
Note. Calc = Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT3), Standard Score; Comp = Passage
Comprehension from the Test of Reading Comprehension, Standard Score; Fluid
Int = fluid intelligence from the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices Test, Standard
Score; Math Pr = Math Word Problems for KeyMath, Scale Score.
who assert that assigning participants to conditions on artificially dichotomized

continuous variables yields several negative methodological consequences as well as
creating several artifacts and unwarranted assumptions about linearity, group
membership, and the reliability of the findings (also see Preacher, Rucker,
MacCallum, & Nicewander, 2005). The fixed and random effect parameter estimates
for the regression were obtained using PROC MIXED in SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute,
2010). The estimates for the transfer measures are based on full-information max-
imum-likelihood and utilize robust standard errors (Huber–White) to allow for the
nonindependence of observations from children nested within classrooms. In situa-
tions where full-information maximum-likelihood could not be used because of
possible violations related to the normality of the data (in this case, the mathema-
tical word problem-solving component measure), a minimum vaqiance Quadratic
unbiased estimation was used.
If a significant treatment × fluid intelligence interaction emerged, the adjusted post-
test score was estimated via a mixed regression model of the complete sample by setting
pretest fluid intelligence to high, middle, and low values. The middle value of fluid
intelligence is the mean fluid intelligence score of the sample at pretest, and the low and
high fluid intelligence levels reflect the first and third quartile of the sample’s perfor-
mance on the fluid intelligence measure.
Training
The control condition received no training or practice on WM tasks. For the training
conditions, one designated WM task was administered for each session until an error
occurred. Errors are defined as recalling information out of order, inserting a non-
targeted item, and/or providing an incorrect answer related to the process question.
Training occurred for 15 minutes for six separate sessions that occurred on six separate
consecutive weekdays (e.g., Friday, Monday–Friday). The designated WM tasks admi-
nistered include WM tasks that were administered for both the repeated practice and
the cued recall conditions. The presentation of items and the duration of presenting the
WM measures are comparable between the two treatment conditions. The WM training
tasks require the participant to hold increasingly complex information in memory while
responding to a question about the task. The questions serve as distracters to item recall
because they reflect the recognition of targeted and closely related non-targeted items.
A question was asked for each set of items and the tasks were discontinued if the
question was answered incorrectly or if all items within a set could not be remembered.
A full description of each WM task, as well as the construct validity and reliability of
each measure, is reported in Swanson (1992, 1996). A brief description of each WM
task, administered in order for each session, is provided below.
Day 1, Task 1: Rhyming

The purpose of the rhyming task is to assess the participant’s recall of acoustically
similar words. The participant listens to sets of words that rhyme. Each successive word
in the set is presented every 2 s. There are 9 word sets that range from 2 to 14
monosyllabic words. Before recalling the words, the participant is asked whether a
particular word was included in the set. For example, the participant is presented with
the words lip, slip, and clip, and asked whether ship or lip was presented in the word set.
The participant is then asked to recall the previously presented words (lip, slip, and clip)
in order. The dependent measure is the number of sets recalled correctly (range = 0–9).
Day 2, Task 2: Digit Sentence Span

The purpose of the digit sentence span task is to assess the participant’s ability to
remember numerical information embedded in a short sentence. Prior to stimulus
presentation, the participant is shown a figure depicting four strategies for recalling
numerical information. These strategies are pictorial representations of rehearsal,
chunking, association, and elaboration of information. After all strategies have been
explained, the participant is presented with numbers in a sentence context. For exam-
ple: “Now suppose somebody wanted to have you take them to the supermarket at 8-6-
5-1 Elm Street. . .”. The participant is then presented with a process question: “What is
the name of the street?”. The participant is told to select (point to) the strategy that he
or she will attempt to use to remember the information. Finally the participant is asked
to recall the numbers. The range of recall difficulties is 3 to 14 digits, and the dependent
measure is the number of sets correctly recalled (range = 0–9).
Day 3, Task 3: Semantic Association

The purpose of this task is to determine the participant’s ability to organize words
into abstract categories. The participant is presented with some words, asked a
process question, and asked to recall the words that go together. For example,
some words that are to be categorized include the following: shirt, saw, pants,
hammer, shoes, and nails. The participant is directed to retrieve the words that go
together (i.e., shirt, pants, and shoes; saw, hammer, and nails). Thus, the task requires
that the participant transform information which has been encoded serially into
categories during the retrieval phase. The participant is told that the words can be
recalled in any temporal order within a particular category, provided that they are
related to the appropriate category. The process question is: “Which word, saw or
level, was said in the list of words?”. Task difficulty ranges from 2 categories of 2
words to 5 categories of 4 words. The dependent measure is the number of sets
recalled correctly (range = 0–8).
Day 4, Task 4: Semantic Categorization

The purpose of the semantic categorization task is to determine the participant’s ability
to remember words within categories. A category name is presented first, followed by
the words that go with that category, e.g., the category job and the words teacher,
fireman, and policeman, or the category season and the words summer, winter, and fall.
Prior to the recall of the words, the participant is first asked to select a strategy to help
him or her remember the information. The four pictorial strategies are top-down
superordinate organization, interitem discrimination, interitem association, and sub-
jective organization. The participant is then asked to answer a process question: “Which
word, soldier or summer, was presented?”. The participant is then asked to recall the
category name first and then any word that went with that category. The range of
difficulty for the sets is from 2 words within a category to 8 categories with 3 words
within each category. The dependent measure is the number of sets recalled correctly
(range = 0–8).
Day 5, Task 5: Phrase Sequencing

The purpose of the phrase sequencing task is to determine the participant’s ability to
remember isolated phrases. An increasing number of phrases are presented. After each
presentation, a process question is asked and the participant is informed that he or she
will have to remember this information shortly after selecting the best strategy to aid in
remembering the material. The strategies are pictorial representations of elaborating,
indexing, associating, and chaining information. A sample sequence of phrases is the
following: a flowing river, a slow bear, a growing boy, and a gripping tire. A sample
process question is: “Are the words about a bear or a boat?”. The range of difficulty,
represented by numbers of phrases, is 2 to 12. The dependent measure is the number of
sets recalled correctly (range = 0–9).
Day 6, Task 6: Picture Sequencing

The purpose of the picture sequencing task is to assess the participant’s ability to
remember a sequence of shapes of increasing spatial complexity. Pictures of shapes
are presented on a series of cards, a process question is presented, cards are gathered
and shuffled, and the participant is instructed to arrange the cards in the correct
sequences. The process question is: “Is this card [the distracter card] or this card [the
card selected from another set] the one I presented?”. The set size varies from 3 to 15.
The dependent measure is the number of sets of cards correctly reproduced
(range = 0–9).
Probing Procedures
Participants in the cued recall condition were administered tasks in which initial,
probe, and gain scores were determined. The order of probing (cueing) is based on
the assumption that the first hint provides information about the final items
because these items are least susceptible to interference (Swanson, 1992). The
second hint provides information about the primacy (first) items because it is
assumed that they are most reliant on long-term memory processes. The third
hint provides additional information about the middle-presented items because
these items are the most susceptible to interference and storage limitations.
Finally, if the participant failed to benefit from the first three hints, all items
were repeated and retested.
Sample instructions related to the probing procedures are provided for Task 1 (the
rhyming task). If the participant omits or incorrectly inserts or orders the words, a
series of probe responses is presented. For example, consider the sample item “car, star,
bar, far” (Item 3) and the process question “Which word did I say—jar or star?”. The
probe sequence for this item is as follows:
(1) The last word in the sequence was far; now can you tell me all the words in
order?
(2) The first word in the sequence was car; now can you tell me all the words in
order?
(3) The middle words in the sequence are star and bar; now can you tell me all the
words in order?
(4) All the words in order are car, star, bar, far; now can you tell me all the words?
For each set of items not recalled in the correct order, and for omitted or substituted
items, the experimenter provides a series of hints based on the error that most closely
relates to the probe. That is, the probes proceed from the least obvious hint (Probe 1) to
the next explicit hint that facilitates the recall of the answer. Once the appropriate hint
has been identified, on the basis of the location of the error, probes are presented in
order until the correct sequence is given. For example, suppose the participant responds
“car, bar, far” to Item 3. A word in the middle has been left out, so the experimenter
provides a hint related to the middle words (Probe 3 in this case). If Probe 3 does not
provide the correct response, the experimenter would then move on to Probe 4. In
contrast, if the participant initially responds by saying only “car” then the sequence
begins with Probe 1 and proceeds through all probes until the correct response is given.
If a correct response does not occur after the probing, the task is discontinued and the
next task is administered. If a correct response is given then the next set of items of
increased difficulty is presented.
Tasks and Materials

The battery of individually administered tasks at pre- and post-test is described below.
The means, SDs, skewness, kurtosis, and range of the raw scores at pre- and post-test
are provided in the Appendix.
Pre- and Post-Test Far Transfer Measures

Word Problem-solving Accuracy
The word problem subtest from KeyMath (Connolly, 1998) was administered to assess
the participant’s ability to accurately solve word problems. This measure yields a scale
score (M = 10, SD = 3). The technical manual for this subtest reports adequate
reliabilities (> .86) and moderate correlations (rs > .50) with other math standardized
tests (e.g., the Stanford Diagnostic Mathematics Test). The KeyMath problem-solving
subtest (raw scores range from 0 to 18 with 1 point for each correct item) involves the
tester reading a series of story problems to the student while showing a picture
illustrating the problem, after which the participant is asked to verbalize the answer
to the math problem. Both equivalent forms of KeyMath were used (Form Aand Form
B). The two forms were counterbalanced across presentation order. Two forms of the
measures varied only in names and numbers.
Mathematical Word Problem-solving Components

This experimental test assesses the participant’s ability to identify (retrieve) proposi-
tional information within word problems (Swanson & Beebe-Frankenberger, 2004).
Each booklet contains three problems that include pages assessing the recall of text
from the mathematical word problems. The categories of mathematical word problems
are addition, subtraction, and multiplication. The problems are four sentences in length
and contain two assignment propositions, one relation, one question, and one extra-
neous proposition (irrelevant sentence) related to the solution. To control for reading
problems, the examiner orally read (a) each problem and (b) all multiple-choice
response options as the participant followed along. The total score possible for proposi-
tions relating to question, number, goal, operations, algorithms, and true/false questions
is 12.
Pre- and Post-Test Near Transfer Measures

Operation Span
A version of the Turley-Ames and Whitefield (2003) Operation Span task, modified
for children (Swanson, Kehler, & Jerman, 2010), was individually administered pre-
and post-test. Two identical forms were created and counterbalanced for presenta-
tion order. The Operation Span test assesses WM span by having participants solve
simple math problems (e.g., 2 + 3 = x, 4 − 1 = x) while also remembering the
unrelated words (e.g., car, pencil, etc.) that follow each math problem. Operation–
word sequences increase in set size. The participant completes two practice trials
with a set size of 2 and is then presented with operation–word sequences in sets of 2,
3, 4, and 5 with two trials for each set size for a total of 10 sets. Two versions of test
stimuli (form A and form B) were counterbalanced for presentation order. The
participants receive points toward their span score for correctly solving the math
problems, for the number of correctly recalled words, and for correct order of word
recall.
Listening Sentence Span

This measure is an adaptation of Daneman and Carpenter’s (1980) Listening Sentence
Span task that can be administered to young children and older adults. This subtest
involves the presentation of groups of sentences that are read aloud, from which the
participant attempts to simultaneously understand the sentence content and remember
the last word of each sentence. The materials for the Listening Sentence Span Task are
unrelated declarative sentences that are 7 to 10 words in length. The task requires the
participant to recall the last word of several sentences and answer a comprehension
question about a sentence. The sentences are arranged randomly into sets of 2, 3, 4, or
5. An example of sentences for recalling the last word in a series of 3 sentences is as
follows:
● We waited in line for a ticket.

● Sally thinks we should give the bird its food.
● My mother said she would write a letter.
To ensure that the participants comprehend the sentences (i.e., processed their
meaning and did not merely try to remember the target word or treat the task as one
of short-term memory), they are required to answer a question after each group of
sentences that was presented. Questions are related to a randomly selected sentence in
the set other than the last sentence. For example, for the 3-sentence example set from
above, the participants were asked “Where did we wait?”. After each set of unrelated
sentences is presented, the participant answers a question about one of the sentences
and is then asked to recall the last word of each sentence. The number of sentences in
the set gradually increases from 1 to 8. Two identical forms were created and counter-
balanced for presentation order.
Moderator Measure
Fluid Intelligence
Fluid intelligence was assessed by the Raven Colored Progressive Matrices Test (Raven,
1976), which is considered a prime example of a fluid intelligence test in the WM
literature (Engel de Abreu, Conway, & Gathercole, 2010; Engle et al., 1999). For this
study, participants were given a booklet with patterns displayed on each page. There
was a piece missing from each pattern and six possible replacement pattern pieces were
displayed. Participants are required to circle the replacement piece that best completes
the patterns. After the introduction of the first matrix, the participants completed their
booklets at their own pace. The patterns progressively increase in difficulty. The
dependent measure (range 0 to 36) is the number of problems solved correctly,
which yields a standardized score (M = 100, SD = 15).
Procedures
Two post-doctoral fellows and six doctoral students administered the treatment condi-
tions and/or the pre- and post-tests. The WM training was conducted individually, with
one task delivered each day for 10 to 15 minutes for the total of 6 consecutive weekdays
of training. Two doctoral students who did not administer treatment conditions
implemented fidelity checks related to the administration of the treatment conditions.
The mean implementation fidelity across all sessions is 96%.
Statistical Analysis
A mixed ANCOVA was computed (SAS v9.4, PROC MIXED) as a function of treat-
ment on two near transfer measures (operation span, listening span) and two far
transfer measures (KeyMath problem-solving accuracy and identification of word
problem-solving components). The covariates in each mixed ANCOVA computation
are the continuous variables of pretest and fluid intelligence. A mixed ANCOVA was
computed because of the nested structure of the data. The nested structure includes the
children who participated in this study who were drawn from 12 separate classrooms
within 3 different schools. The primary purpose of the mixed ANCOVA is to determine
if a treatment × fluid intelligence interaction would emerge.
As a followed up to the interaction, a mixed regression model was computed that
adjusted fluid intelligence at pretest. This regression procedure is commonly used in
clinical trials when the sample size is small because the procedure allows for use of the
complete sample without dichotomizing the data (e.g., high and low fluid intelligence).
In addition, the procedure increases power and provides more accurate estimates of
treatment outcomes (Hernández et al., 2004; Pocock et al., 2002; Safarkhani &
Moerbeek, 2013). Thus, because a major focus of the present study is the influence of
fluid intelligence (as a moderator variable) on post-test outcomes, a mixed regression

analysis predicted the post-test scores by varying fluid intelligence at pretest to the
sample mean at 109, below the sample mean at 99 (25th percentile) and above the
sample mean at 115 (75th percentile). A Tukey test was used to provide a post hoc
comparison of treatment effects on the estimated post-test scores.
Results
Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 presents the demographic data and mean performance of the participants in
different treatment conditions at pretest. As shown in Table 1, the majority of partici-
pants performed within the normal range on measures of fluid intelligence (Raven Test)
and reading (WRAT3 and Test of Reading Comprehension). The Appendix presents
the means, SDs, kurtosis and skewness of raw score at pre- and post-test as a function of
each treatment condition.
For comparative purposes across the criterion measures, post-test criterion mea-
sures were converted to z-scores based on pretest performance (M = 0, SD = 1).
Table 2 shows the adjusted post-test z-scores (adjusted for pretest, fluid intelligence,
and random effects) for accuracy based on the means and SDs at pretest for the far
transfer measures (KeyMath, mathematical word problem-solving components).
Table 3 shows the same information as Table 2, but reports the results related to
Table 2. Adjusted Far-Transfer Post-Test z-scores as a Function of Treatment and Measures.

KeyMath Gain PS Components Gain
Group M SE M SE M SE M SE
Sample
Control 0.41 0.16 0.02 0.15 −0.06 0.02 −0.10 0.16
Repeated Practice 0.51 0.11 −0.06 0.25 −0.01 0.05 −0.22 0.16
Cued Recall 0.67 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.13 0.31 0.06
Tukey NS CR>RP; RP = C; CR>RP > C CR>RP =C
CR = C
High Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.65 0.16 0.28 0.14 0.05 0.11 −0.28 0.23
Repeated Practice 0.46 0.29 −0.35 0.55 0.31 0.06 −0.21 0.17
Cued Recall 0.76 0.33 0.30 0.41 0.56 0.08 0.18 0.01
Tukey CR>RP; RP = C; CR = C CR>RP; RP < C; CR>RP > C CR>RP =C
CR = C
Average Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.46 0.16 0.08 0.15 −0.03 0.04 −0.14 0.17
Repeated Practice 0.49 0.15 −0.13 0.33 0.07 0.03 −0.22 0.16
Cued Recall 0.68 0.23 0.30 0.33 0.41 0.12 0.28 0.05
Tukey CR>RP; RP = C; CR = C CR>RP; RP = C; CR>RP > C CR>RP =C
CR = C
Low Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.14 0.17 −0.24 0.15 −0.17 0.10 0.08 0.08
Repeated Practice 0.53 0.08 0.22 0.05 −0.32 0.12 −0.22 0.14
Cued Recall 0.56 0.08 0.31 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.44 0.12
Tukey RP > C; RP = CR; CR = C RP > C; RP = CR; CR>RP; RP = C; CR>C > RP
CR > C CR = C
Note. Average Fluid Intelligence = 50th percentile; C = control group; CR = cued recall group; Gain = post-test minus
pretest; High Fluid Intelligence = 75th percentile; Low Fluid Intelligence = 25th percentile; PS
Components = identification of problem-solving components; RP = repeated practice group; Sample = scores without
setting fluid intelligence level: NS = not significant.
Table 3. Adjusted Near Transfer Post-Test z-scores as a Function of Treatment and Measure.
Operation Span Gain Listening Span Gain
Group M SE M SE M SE M SE
Sample
Control 0.09 0.01 −0.21 0.08 0.02 0.17 −0.22 0.24
Repeated Practice 0.63 0.03 0.62 0.11 0.60 0.01 0.34 0.04
Cued Recall 0.20 0.12 −0.11 0.24 0.12 0.12 −0.11 0.08
Tukey RP>CR =C RP>CR = C RP>CR = C RP>CR = C
High Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.09 0.01 −0.21 0.09 0.05 0.19 −0.30 0.29
Cued Recall 0.22 0.15 0.04 0.32 −0.23 0.12 −0.39 0.08
Average Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.09 0.01 −0.21 0.08 0.03 0.17 −0.23 0.24
Cued Recall 0.21 0.13 −0.10 0.25 0.08 0.12 −0.15 0.08
Low Fluid Intelligence
Control 0.08 0.02 −0.21 0.06 −0.02 0.16 −0.11 0.17
Cued Recall 0.18 0.08 −0.21 0.14 0.59 0.11 0.26 0.09
Tukey RP>CR =C RP>CR = C CR>C; NS
RP = C; CR = RP
Note. Average Fluid Intelligence = 50th percentile; C = control group; CR = cued recall group; Gain = post-test minus
pretest; High Fluid Intelligence = 75th percentile; Low Fluid Intelligence = 25th percentile; RP = repeated practice
group; Sample = scores without setting fluid intelligence level.
the near transfer measures (operation span, listening span). Also shown in Tables 2
and 3 are the estimated adjusted post-test scores for the sample means (post-test
scores are not adjusted for pretest fluid intelligence levels). A comparison of the
treatment conditions when the fluid intelligence was not set to pretest levels shows
that the cued recall condition favors the far transfer measures and the repeated
practice condition favors the near transfer measures when compared to the control
conditions.
For all the analyses below, a mixed ANCOVA was first computed comparing the
three treatment conditions on post-test performance. The covariates in the analysis are
pretest and fluid intelligence. As a follow-up to the treatment × covariate interaction,
Tables 2 and 3 show the estimated post-test scores as a function of the mixed regression
setting fluid intelligence scores at pretest to high (75th percentile), middle (50th
percentile) and low (25th percentile) levels. As a further follow-up analysis, gain scores
(post-test to pretest) were computed to identify those conditions that yielded the largest
changes in performance.
Far Transfer
KeyMath Story Problem Accuracy
A mixed ANCOVA was computed on post-test KeyMath accuracy scores as a function
of treatment conditions. A significant effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 12.04,
p < .0001, pretest, F(1, 50) = 68.17, p < .0001, and the treatment × fluid intelligence
interaction, F(2, 50) = 55.90, p < .0001. No significant effect was found for fluid
intelligence as a main effect, F(1, 50) = 0.96, p = .33. Table 2 shows the adjusted post-
test scores as a function of treatment conditions.
As a follow-up to the interaction, a regression analysis estimated post-test scores
when setting fluid intelligence to high, average and low levels at pretest. The Tukey test
comparing the estimated means indicates a significant post-test advantage for the
treatment conditions relative to the control that occurred when fluid intelligence is
set to a low level (25th percentile; ps < .05). However, an inspection of the estimated
post-test scores reported in Table 2 suggests that performance for the control condition
is more likely to decrease as the fluid intelligence score decreases relative to the other
treatment conditions. Thus, it appears that the post-test advantage related to treatment
conditions is related to the decreasing performance on the control condition as fluid
intelligence scores decrease. A comparison of estimated mean post-test scores, via a
Tukey test, indicates that a significant difference occurs between the treatment condi-
tions and the control condition when fluid intelligence is set to a low level (ps < .05). No
other significant advantages relating to the treatment group when compared to the
control group emerged.
As a follow-up to this analysis, gain scores were computed. A significant effect was found
for treatment, F(2, 50) = 69.47, p < .001, and the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, F
(2, 50) = 156.42, p < .0001. No significant effect was found for fluid intelligence as a main
effect, F(1, 50) = 0.01, p = .94. The estimated mean gain scores as a function of levels of fluid
intelligence are shown in Table 2. A Tukey test of the estimated mean gain scores yielded a
significant advantage for both WM conditions when compared to the control condition
when fluid intelligence is set to a low level (25th percentile; ps < .05).
Math Problem-solving Components

A significant effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 144.51, p < .0001, fluid
intelligence, F(1, 50) = 7.97, p < .01, and the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction,
F(2,50) = 73.61, p < .0001. No significant effect was found for pretest, F(1, 50) = 3.06,
p = .09. As shown in Table 2, a Tukey test indicated a significant (ps < .05) advantage
for the cued recall condition when compared to the other conditions
Table 2 shows the estimated post-test scores when fluid intelligence is set to high,
average and low levels. A significant post-test advantage, via a Tukey test, was found for
mean post-test scores for the repeated practice and cued recall conditions compared to
the control condition when pretest fluid scores are set to average (50th percentile) and
high (75th percentile; p < .05). In addition, the estimated post-test mean scores for the
cued recall condition are significantly higher than the post-test scores for the repeated
practice condition at all levels of fluid intelligence. As was found for the post-test scores
for the KeyMath story problem subtest, the adjusted post-test scores for the control
condition on the math problem-solving component task decrease as the pretest fluid
intelligence scores decrease.
A mixed three-way ANCOVA was computed on the gain scores with fluid intelli-
gence as the covariate. A significant effect was found for treatment F(2, 50) = 15.80,
p < .0001, fluid intelligence, F(1, 50) = 22.62, p < .0001, and the treatment × fluid
intelligence interaction, F(2, 50) = 8.00, p < .01. As shown in Table 2, a significant post-
test advantage occurs for adjusted gain scores for the cued recall condition when
compared to the other conditions when fluid intelligence is set to the three levels
(p < .05). In addition, the results suggest that the adjusted post-test mean scores
increase in the control and cued recall conditions as the fluid intelligence scores
decrease.
Summary
In general, the above results indicate that the post-test scores for the far transfer
measures are generally higher under the cued recall condition than the control condi-
tion. Figure 1 demonstrates a clear advantage for the cued recall condition relative to
the other conditions at post-test when fluid intelligence is set to a high level compared
to a low level. In addition, the general pattern in Figure 1 is that the estimated post-test
scores when fluid intelligence is set to a low level (25th percentile) do not supersede
estimates of the post-test scores when set to a high level (75th percentile). Thus, weak
support was found for the assumption that WM training compensates for low fluid
intelligence on far transfer measures.
Near Transfer
Operation Span
A significant main effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 113.71, p < .0001, pretest, F
(1, 50) = 91.09, p < .0001, and the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, F(2,
50) = 507.86, p < .0001. No significant effect was found for fluid intelligence, F(1,
50) = 0.38, p = .54. As shown in Table 3, the Tukey test indicates a significant advantage
for the repeated practice condition when compared to the other conditions (ps < .05).
1
Far Transfer
0.8
0.6
0.4
Adjusted
Post-Test 0.2 High GF
Z-score Low GF
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
K-Control K-Practice K-Cued P-Control P-Practice P-Cued
Figure 1. Comparison of estimated adjusted post-test scores on far transfer (KeyMath Story
Problems and Identification of Problem-solving Components) as a function of setting fluid intelli-
gence to high (75th percentile) and low (25th percentile) levels.
Note. Control = control group; Cued = cued recall group; K = KeyMath Story Problems;
P = Identification of Problem-solving Components; Practice = repeated practice group; GF =
Group Fluid Intelligence.
As a follow-up to the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, post-test scores were

again estimated via a regression analysis with fluid intelligence set to high, average, and
low levels. As shown in Table 3, the Tukey tests of the mean estimates show a
significant post-test advantage for the repeated practice condition when compared to
the other conditions at each of the three levels (ps < .05). The results in Table 3 also
show an increase in estimated post-test scores in the repeated practice condition as the
fluid intelligence scores decrease. In contrast, the estimated post-test scores for the
control and cued recall conditions remain stable with variations in fluid intelligence.
A mixed three-way ANCOVA was computed on gain scores with fluid intelligence as
the covariate. A significant effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 11.11, p < .001,
and the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, F(2, 50) = 10.02, p < .001. No
significant effect was found of fluid intelligence as a main effect, F(1, 50) = 0.24,
p = .63. As shown in Table 3, a significant post-test advantage is present for the
repeated practice condition relative to the control condition across all pretest settings
of fluid intelligence (p < .05). As can be seen, the estimated gain scores increase in the
repeated practice condition as the fluid intelligence scores decrease, whereas the gain
scores are fairly stable in the other two conditions across fluid intelligence levels.
Listening Sentence Span

A significant main effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 73.33, p < .0001, and the
treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, F(2, 50) = 44.99, p < .0001. No significant
effect was found for the covariate of pretest, F(1, 50) = 2.15, p = .15, or fluid intelligence,
F(1, 50) = 0.07, p = .79.
As with the investigation of the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, a mixed
regression estimated post-test scores at the three levels of fluid intelligence. As shown in
Table 3, when fluid intelligence values at pretest are set to average (50th percentile) and
high (75th percentile) levels, a significant advantage is found for the repeated practice
condition compared to the other conditions (p < .05); conversely, when fluid intelli-
gence values are set to low levels, a significant post-test advantage is found for the cued
recall condition (p < .05).
A mixed three-way ANCOVA was computed on gain scores with fluid intelligence as
the covariate. A significant effect was found for treatment, F(2, 50) = 18.96, p < .0001,
and the treatment × fluid intelligence interaction, F(2, 50) = 17.04, p < .0001. No
significant effect was found with fluid intelligence as a main effect, F(1, 50) = 2.28,
p = .14. As shown in Table 3, when setting fluid intelligence values to average and high
pretest levels, a significant gain score advantage is found for the repeated practice
condition when compared to other conditions (p < .05).
Summary
For the near transfer measures, the results in Table 3 show that the gain scores are
larger for the repeated practice condition relative to the control condition and this
advantage occurs across high and low levels of fluid intelligence. The general pattern is
that gain scores increase for the operation span measures as the fluid intelligence
measures decrease, whereas the reverse effect occurs for the listening span measure.
The clear advantage at post-test for the repeated practice condition relative to the
1.2
Near Transfer
1
0.8
0.6
Adjusted 0.4
Post-Test High GF
Z-score 0.2 Low GF
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
O-Control O-Practice O-Cued L-Control L-Practice L-Cued
Figure 2. Comparison of estimated adjusted post-test scores on near transfer (Operation Span,
Listening Sentence Span) as a function of setting fluid intelligence to high (75th percentile) and low
(25th percentile) levels.
Note. Control = control group; Cued = cued recall group; L = Listening Sentence Span;
O = Operation Span; Practice = repeated practice group.
control condition is illustrated in Figure 2. When compared to setting pretest fluid

intelligence to a high level (75th percentile), Figure 2 also shows a post-test advantage
for setting the pretest fluid intelligence to a low level (25th percentile) for the repeated
practice condition on the operation span measure. This pattern (high post-test scores
for low rather than high intelligence levels) also occurs for the cued recall condition on
the listening span measure. This pattern in the results provides support for the
compensatory hypothesis which suggests that WM training has a more robust effect
for individuals with relatively low levels of fluid intelligence.
Effect Sizes (ESs)

Because the above statistical outcomes for the various treatment conditions are related
to the power in the analysis, the effect sizes (ESs) were computed (Table 4). A
calculation was performed: Hedge’s g = γ / [(n1−1)(SD12) + (n2−1)(SD22) / (n1+n2
−2)]1/2, where γ is the hierarchical linear modeling coefficient for the intervention effect,
which represents the mean difference between the treatment-adjusted post-test for both
the level-1 and level-2 covariates, n1 and n2 are the sample sizes, and SD1 and SD2 are
the unadjusted post-test SDs (WWC, 2006, Formula 10). The level-2 coefficients are
adjusted for the level-1 covariates. For the interpretation of the magnitude of the ESs,
Cohen’s (1988) distinction was used; ESs of 0.20, 0.50 and 0.80 are considered small,
moderate and large, respectively. ESs were computed for the sample means (scores not
adjusted for fluid intelligence at pretest) and estimated means based on the mixed
regression results. The general pattern of the results is that the ESs are higher when
fluid intelligence is set to a low level compared to a high level for tasks that require the
processing of numbers (KeyMath, operation span), whereas the reverse pattern occurs
Table 4. Effect Sizes on Partialed Post-Test Scores.

RP vs. C CR vs. C CR vs. RP RP vs. C CR vs. C CR vs. RP
KeyMath Accuracy Operation Span Accuracy
Sample 0.09 0.21 0.14 0.47 0.13 −0.36
High −0.17 0.09 0.26 0.40 0.15 −0.28
Average 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.46 0.14 −0.35
Low 0.36 0.33 0.03 0.57 0.12 −0.47
KeyMath Gain Operation Span Gain
Sample −0.05 0.23 0.22 0.85 0.10 −0.73
High −0.43 0.02 0.40 0.68 0.26 −0.41
Average −0.14 0.18 0.27 0.82 0.12 −0.69
Low 0.32 0.45 0.06 1.07 0.01 −1.04
Components Accuracy Listening Span Accuracy
Sample 0.05 0.56 0.36 0.42 0.08 −0.34
High 0.28 0.69 0.24 0.57 −0.23 −0.76
Average 0.11 0.59 0.33 0.43 0.04 −0.39
Low −0.16 0.47 0.49 0.22 0.49 0.22
Components Gain Listening Span Gain
Sample −0.05 0.33 0.22 0.51 0.13 −0.38
High 0.03 0.37 0.16 0.73 −0.10 −0.75
Average −0.04 0.34 0.21 0.54 0.09 −0.43
Low −0.13 0.29 0.28 0.22 0.43 0.11
Note. Average = covariate adjusted to z-score = 0; C = control group; CR = cued recall group; High = covariate adjusted
to +1.00; Low = covariate adjusted to −1.00 z-score; RP = repeated practice group; Sample = unadjusted covariate.
Positive ESs are in favor of the first group in the comparison, i.e., a positive ES for RP vs. C means that the repeated
practice group outperformed the control group.
for tasks that primarily require the processing of sentences (problem-solving compo-
nents, listening span). In addition, the ESs are generally higher for the cued recall
condition on the far transfer measures, whereas the ESs are higher for the repeated
practice condition on the near transfer measures.
The left side of Table 4 shows the magnitude of the ESs at post-test for the far
transfer measures. None of the ESs for problem-solving on the KeyMath measures
exceed a moderate magnitude (ESs > .50). Of interest, however, is the magnitude of the
ES when the treatment conditions are compared to the control condition. As shown in
Table 4, the magnitude of the ES for KeyMath performance for the cued recall
condition compared to the control condition is higher when fluid intelligence is set
to a low level (ES = 0.33 for accuracy, ES = 0.45 for gain score) compared to a high level
(ES = 0.09 for accuracy, ES = 0.02 for gain score). However, as mentioned earlier, these
findings may reflect a substantial decrease in post-test performance for the control
condition. In contrast to the KeyMath measure, the magnitude of the ES for the
problem-solving component measure for the cued recall condition is highest when
fluid intelligence is set to a high level (ES = 0.69 for accuracy, ES = 0.37 for gain score)
compared to a low level (ES = 0.47 for accuracy, ES = 0.29 for gain score). A moderate
ES emerges when comparing the cued recall condition to the control condition
(ES = 0.69 for accuracy).
The right side of Table 4 shows the magnitude of ESs at post-test for the near
transfer measures. The magnitude of the ES shows a clear advantage for the repeated
practice condition when compared to the other conditions. When compared to the
control condition, the highest ES for the operation span measure occurs for the
repeated practice condition when the fluid intelligence pretest level is low (ES = 0.57
for accuracy, ES = 1.07 for gain scores). The reverse pattern occurs for performance on
the listening span measure. When compared to the control condition, the highest ES for
the listening span measure occurs for the repeated practice condition when the fluid
intelligence pretest level is high (ES = 0.57 for accuracy, ES = 0.73 for gain scores)
rather than low (ES = 0.22 for accuracy, ES = 0.22 for gain scores).
Correlations among Training and Post-Test Measures

To determine the relationship between treatment training and post-test outcomes,
correlations between the highest span level achieved during training and the post-test
performance were computed. Because there were six training sessions, a partial correla-
tion of the average span on WM performance across training sessions with post-test
measures was performed. Correlations were partialed for pretest performance on the
criterion measure. For the repeated practice condition, the partial correlations are −.18,
.15, −.21, and .07 for KeyMath, the problem-solving components, the operation span
and the listening span, respectively. These low correlations are consistent with the
assumption that self-initiated strategies were not disrupted by the repeated practice
conditions. For the cued recall condition, the partial correlations are .68, .32, .74, .29 for
KeyMath, the problem-solving components, the operation span and the listening span,
respectively. Thus, the links between the training sessions and post-test outcomes are
stronger (based on the magnitude of the partial correlation coefficients) for the cued
recall condition than the repeated practice condition.
Discussion
This study investigates the role of fluid intelligence on WM training outcomes. The
criterion measures that are used to assess training outcomes include both near and far
transfer measures. A significant treatment × fluid intelligence interaction emerged
across all criterion measures. For the far transfer measure (tasks not directly related
to treatment), improvements on orally solving math problems or identifying compo-
nents of sentences in word problems were assessed. The performance analysis shows a
general advantage for the cued recall condition. In general, as shown in Figure 1, few
advantages in performance for the cued recall condition occur in the far transfer
performance when the fluid intelligence at pretest is set to a low level compared to a
high level. For the near transfer measures, improvements on the operation and listening
span measures are assessed. Because the participants in each training session received
practice on the WM tasks, and because this skill is closely aligned with the intervention,
increases in the near transfer measures at post-test were expected. The performance
analysis shows a general advantage for the repeated practice condition. As shown in
Figure 2, an advantage is found for the repeated practice condition on the operation
span measure when the fluid intelligence at pretest is set to a low level. The reverse
pattern occurs for the listening span measure. The results are now discussed in terms of
the two questions that directed the study.
The first question is: Do individual levels of fluid intelligence play an important role in
accounting for WM training outcomes? Although the answer to this question is in the
affirmative, the results must be placed in the context of the models discussed in the
introduction. One model argues that individual differences in fluid intelligence would
supersede any advantages in WM training on transfer measures. Thus, one would

predict from this model minimal variations in WM training outcomes as a function
of fluid intelligence (no fluid intelligence × treatment interaction). In contrast to this
hypothesis, however, it was found that fluid intelligence interacts with the WM training
conditions across all criterion measures. Thus, the results do not support the notion
that individual differences in fluid intelligence play a secondary role in WM training
outcomes.
A second model suggests that WM training compensates for individual differences in
fluid intelligence. WM training helps individuals with relatively low fluid intelligence
access resources more efficiently when compared to their counterparts with higher
levels of fluid intelligence. Thus, children with relatively lower fluid intelligence
would benefit more from WM training when compared to the control condition than
children with higher fluid intelligence. That is, because participants with high levels of
intelligence have the necessary levels of executive processing for transfer, WM training
may be redundant to those skills and may in fact interrupt efficient processing. Such is
the case in this study on one of near transfer measures (operation span). Overall, this
study shows some advantages for children with relatively low fluid intelligence com-
pared to children with relatively high fluid intelligence, but these advantages are
treatment- and task-specific (Figure 2).
A final model, suggests that training in WM is more likely improve outcomes for
children with higher fluid intelligence because these children have the spare mental
resources to allow them to effectively benefit from the training conditions. Relative to
setting the fluid intelligence to high levels, the general pattern of the current study on
the far transfer measures is that the estimated post-test scores decrease as the fluid
intelligence scores decrease. Thus, the relationship between variations in fluid intelli-
gence and WM may be mediated by the maximum number of items that can be
simultaneously stored in WM.
This study has not addressed, however, the theoretical question as to why transfer
occurs. Some of these possibilities are that children with higher fluid intelligence are
better able to filter out irrelevant information (Fukuda, Vogel, Mayr, & Awh, 2010), are
able to simultaneously store a maximum number of items in WM (Dunning, Holmes, &
Gathercole, 2013; Swanson, 2014) and/or draw on a common resource (i.e., controlled
attention; Shipstead et al., 2015). Another possibility is that WM training allows for a
refinement of procedural skills (Swanson, 2017). That is, the results suggest that
changes on the transfer measure may have reflected changes, or refinements, in
procedural knowledge (Hayes, Petrov, & Sederberg, 2015). Thus, a distinction can be
made along the lines of Anderson (1987), who views transfer as being related to the
improvement of abilities versus the acquisition of skills. The former implies gains in
general mechanisms and capacities that carry the potential for widespread transfer
across diverse tasks, whereas the latter supports transfer only between tasks that have
procedural and/or declarative knowledge in common. Given the difficulty of making
changes in far transfer measures after WM training (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013), it
seems much more likely that the present findings reflect refinements in procedural
knowledge.
The second question is: Does WM training facilitate near and far transfer? The
answer to this question is also in the affirmative, but the magnitude of the ESs suggests
that the training advantages in performance were generally better for the repeated
practice condition on the near transfer measures and better for the cued recall condi-
tion on the far transfer measures. The best explanation for this is that the two
conditions draw upon different strategies. The repeated practice condition reflects the
participant’s self-initiated strategies to access information. In contrast, the cued recall
condition may have eliminated idiosyncratic retrieval processes by requiring partici-
pants to reinstate memory traces or retrieve forgotten items in a serial fashion. Thus, it
appears that advantages related to practice conditions may reflect procedures related to
self-initiated strategies for accessing information whereas the cued recall condition
directs attention toward retrieving forgotten items. Thus, it is inferred that one of the
reasons why the performance on the near transfer measure was improved is that similar
strategies related to practice could be used. In contrast, it is inferred that the cued recall
condition may have facilitated far transfer because the training emphasized maximizing
performance, fine-tuning procedural knowledge, and more specifically directing parti-
cipants to focus their attention on retrieving forgotten items.
There are at least three limitations to this study. First, the regression estimates made
of post-test outcomes are limited to the range of the fluid intelligence data. Thus,
although the study uses regression modeling with an adequate sample to task ratio as
well as taking into consideration the complete sample and ranges in fluid intelligence,
further testing is necessary with a larger sample and larger ranges in measures of fluid
intelligence.
Second, depending on where the pretest values of fluid intelligence are set, some
participants did not appear to benefit from WM training, suggesting that such training
may need to be adapted to the fluid intelligence of the individual at pretest. Although
such procedures make random assignment to conditions difficult, accounting for
individual differences prior to treatment may yield different treatment outcomes (on
adaptive procedures, see Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Shah, 2012; Karbach et al.,
2015).
Finally, the mechanism that WM training compensates for when fluid intelligence is
set to a relatively low level has not been identified. That is, fluid intelligence and WM
comprise much more than controlled attention or increases in procedural knowledge.
Although controlled attention is a mechanism associated with both fluid intelligence
and WM, there may be other areas of overlap not captured in this study. No doubt,
measures at several levels of WM (primary memory, secondary memory, and attention
control) are required before suggesting that WM training has facilitated both near and
far transfer (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2010). The training in this study is assumed to
have tapped into one process (attention control), but others (primary memory, second-
ary memory) may also have played an important role.
There are important implications from the findings of this study. Namely, depending
on the type of training and the level of the child’s fluid intelligence, WM training can
have a positive impact on both near and far transfer measures. Moreover, assuming that
the effect of WM training on near and far transfer measures depends on the individual’s
degree of fluid intelligence, it may be possible to identify which individuals, based on
their measure of fluid intelligence, will benefit from WM training and which will not.
Thus, future work aimed toward identifying precisely at what threshold of fluid
intelligence training begins and/or ceases to improve performance would be very
beneficial. In this manner, it may be possible to better understand the interaction

between WM training and fluid intelligence in order to better interpret the association
between WM training and higher cognitive functions such as problem-solving and
math performance.
In summary, the results of this study show that direct WM training does seem to have
an impact on both near and far transfer measures; however, the effect of WM training is
moderated by levels of fluid intelligence. The most robust advantage of WM training on
the far transfer measure was found to be for children with higher fluid intelligence under
the cued recall condition, while the performance on the near transfer measures provided
some positive outcomes for children with lower fluid intelligence, but these findings are
qualified to the type of near transfer measure and treatment condition.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Lindsay Flynn, Xinhua Zheng, Dana Bronwell, Loren Alberg,
Catherine Tung, Dennis Sisco-Taylor, Kenisha Williams, Garett Briney, Kristi Bryant, and
Orheta Rice for their work on the data collection and/or treatment administration.
Appreciation is given to Bonsall School and the Academy for Academic Excellence/Lewis
Center for Educational Research (Corwin and Norton Campus).
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences
[grant number USDE R324A090002].
References
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The
same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.131.1.30
Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory
and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20–29.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003
Anderson, J. R. (1987). Skill acquisition: Compilation of weak-method problem situations.
Psychological Review, 94, 192–210. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.192
Au, J., Buschkuehl, M., Duncan, G. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2016). There is no convincing evidence
that working memory training is NOT effective: A reply to Melby-Lervåg and Hulme (2015).
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 331–337. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0967-4
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. (2nd ed.) Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Colom, R., Abad, F. J., Quiroga, M. Á., Shih, P. C., & Flores-Mendoza, C. (2008). Working
memory and intelligence are highly related constructs, but why? Intelligence, 36(6), 584–606.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.002
Connolly, A. J. (1998). KeyMath (revised/normative update). Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance.
Conway, A. R., Cowan, N., Bunting, M. F., Therriault, D. J., & Minkoff, S. R. (2002). A latent
variable analysis of working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, processing
speed, and general fluid intelligence. Intelligence, 30(2), 163–183. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896
(01)00096-4
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 450–466. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)
90312-6
Dunning, D. L., Holmes, J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2013). Does working memory training lead to
generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized controlled
trial. Developmental Science, 16(6), 915–925. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/doc
view/1499095407?accountid=14521
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2010). Working memory and
fluid intelligence in young children. Intelligence. doi:10.1016/j.intel.2010.07.003
Engle, R. W., Cantor, J., & Carullo, J. J. (1992). Individual differences in working memory and
comprehension: A test of four hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 18, 972–992. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.18.5.972
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. (1999). Working memory, short-
term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.128.3.309
Fukuda, K., Vogel, E., Mayr, U., & Awh, E. (2010). Quantity, not quality: The relationship
between fluid intelligence and working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17
(5), 673–679. doi:10.3758/17.5.673
Harrison, T. L., Shipstead, Z., Hicks, K. L., Hambrick, D. Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2013).
Working memory training may increase working memory capacity but not fluid intelligence.
Psychological Science, 24, 2409–2419. doi:10.1177/0956797613492984
Hayes, T. R., Petrov, A. A., & Sederberg, P. B. (2015). Do we really become smarter when our
fluid-intelligence test scores improve? Intelligence, 48, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.10.005
Hernández, A. V., Steyerberg, E. W., & Habbema, J. D. (2004). Covariate adjustment in
randomized controlled trials with dichotomous outcomes increases statistical power and
reduces sample size requirements. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(5), 454–460.
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.09.014
Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., & Dunning, D. L. (2009). Adaptive training leads to sustained
enhancement of poor working memory in children. Developmental Science, 12, F9–F15.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00848.x
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Shah, P. (2012). Cogmed and working memory
training—Current challenges and the search for underlying mechanisms. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(3), 211–213. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.07.002
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2014). The role of individual differences in
cognitive training and transfer. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 464–480. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-
0364-z
Jaeggi, S. M., & Buschkuehl, M. (2014). Working memory training and transfer: Theoretical and
practical considerations. In B. Toni (Ed.), New frontiers of multidisciplinary research in
STEAM-H. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Smith, E. R. (1996). Testing treatment by covariate interac-
tions when treatment varies within subjects. Psychological Methods, 1, 366–378. doi:10.1037/
1082-989X.1.4.366
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention
view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169–
183. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169
Karbach, J., Strobach, T., & Schubert, T. (2015). Adaptive working-memory training benefits
reading, but not mathematics in middle childhood. Child Neuropsychology, 21(3), 285–301.
doi:10.1080/09297049.2014.899336
Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P. J., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., Dahlström, K., & Westerberg,
H. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD–A
randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 44(2), 177–186. doi:10.1097/00004583-200502000-00010
Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory
capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(05)80012-1
Leon, A. C., Portera, L., Lowell, K., & Rheinheimer, D. (1998). A strategy to evaluate a covariate
by group interaction in an analysis of covariance. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 34(4), 805–
809.
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS
for mixed models (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
Loosli, S. V., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2012). Working memory training
improves reading processes in typically developing children. Child Neuropsychology, 18(1), 62–
78. doi:10.1080/09297049.2011.575772
Luellen, J. K., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction and
experimental test. Evaluation Review, 29(6), 530–558. doi:10.1177/0193841X05275596
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of
dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19–40. doi:10.1037/
1082-989X.7.1.19
Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic
review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. doi:10.1037/a0028228
Peng, P., Namkung, J., Barnes, M., & Sun, C. (2016). A meta-analysis of mathematics and
working memory: Moderating effects of working memory domain, type of mathematics
skill, and sample characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 455–473.
doi:10.1037/edu0000079
Pocock, S. J., Assmann, S. E., Enos, L. E., & Kasten, L. E. (2002). Subgroup analysis, covariate
adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: Current practiceand problems.
Statistics in Medicine, 21(19), 2917–2930. doi:10.1002/sim.1296
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005). Use of the
extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological
Methods, 10(2), 178–192. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.178
Raven, J. C. (1976). Colored Progressive Matrices Test. London, England: H. K. Lewis.
Redick, T. S., Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., Hicks, K. L., Fried, D. E., Hambrick, D. Z., . . . Engle,
R. W. (2013). No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: A
randomized, placebo-controlled study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2),
359–379. doi:10.1037/a0029082
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate
matching sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistican, 39,
33–38.
Rubin, D. B. (1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustments to control
bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 318–328.
Safarkhani, M., & Moerbeek, M. (2013). Covariate adjustment strategy increases power in the
randomized controlled trial with discrete-time survival endpoints. Journal of Educational and
Behavioral Statistics, 38(4), 355–380. doi:10.3102/1076998612461832
SAS Institute, Inc. (2010). SAS program version 9.3. Cary, NC: Author.
Schwaighofer, M., Fischer, F., & Bühner, M. (2015). Does working memory training transfer? A
meta-analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist, 50(2),
138–166. doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1036274
Shah, P., Buschkuehl, M., Jaeggi, S., & Jonides, J. (2012). Cognitive training for ADHD: The
importance of individual differences. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1
(3), 204–205. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.07.001
Shipstead, Z., Harrison, T. L., & Engle, R. W. (2015). Working memory capacity and the scope
and control of attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(6), 1863–1880.
doi:10.3758/s13414-015-0899-0
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Does working memory training generalize?
Psychologica Belgica, 50(3–4), 245–276. doi:10.5334/pb-50-3-4-245
Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2012). Is working memory training effective?
Psychological Bulletin, 138(4), 628–654. doi:10.1037/a0027473
Swanson, H. L. (1992). Generality and modifiability of working memory among skilled and less
skilled readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 473–488. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.84.4.473
Swanson, H. L. (1996). Individual and age-related differences in children’s working memory.
Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 70–82. doi:10.3758/BF03197273
Swanson, H. L. (2014). Does cognitive strategy training on word problems compensate for
working memory capacity in children with math difficulties? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 106(3), 831–848. doi:10.1037/a0035838
Swanson, H. L. (2017). Word problem solving, working memory and serious math difficulties:
Do cognitive strategies really make a difference? Journal of Applied Memory and Cognition.
doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.04.012
Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement.
In K. R. Harris, S. Graham., T. Urdan, C. B. McCormick, G. M. Sinatra, & J. Sweller (Eds.),
APA educational psychology handbook, vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–
366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Swanson, H. L., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. B. (2004). The relationship between working
memory and mathematical problem solving in children at risk and not at risk for serious
math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 471–491. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.96.3.471
Swanson, H. L., Kehler, P., & Jerman, O. (2010). Working memory, strategy knowledge, and
strategy instruction in children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(1),
24–47. doi:10.1177/0022219409338743
Tipton, E. (2013). Improving generalizations from experiments using propensity score subclas-
sification: Assumptions, properties, and contexts. Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics, 38(3), 239–266.
Titz, C., & Karbach, J. (2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on
academic achievement. Psychological Research, 78(6), 852–868. doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0537-1
Turley-Ames, K. J., & Whitefield, M. M. (2003). Strategy training and working memory task
performance. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 446–468. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)
00095-0
Wechsler, D. (1991) Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
What Works Clearing House. (2006). Technical details of WWC-conducted comparisons (9-12-
2006). U.S. Department of Education.
Wilkinson, G.S. (1993). The wide range achievement test. Wilmington, DE: Wide Range, Inc.
Appendix
Table A1. Raw Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Measures.

Variable M SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis
Control Group
KeyMath, pre 5.53 2.46 2 10 0.29 −1.20
KeyMath, post 6.65 3.00 3 11 0.15 −1.37
Compon, pre 13.84 3.42 8 18 −0.47 −1.08
Compon, post 14.06 1.89 9 17 −0.73 1.97
Operation, pre 6.42 4.57 0 15 0.24 −0.99
Operation, post 6.95 4.17 0 15 0.19 −0.61
Listen, pre 2.47 2.17 0 7 0.77 −0.30
Listen, post 2.41 2.27 0 6 0.29 −1.44
Repeated Practice Group
KeyMath, pre 7.00 2.78 4 12 0.38 −1.24
KeyMath, post 7.88 2.31 4 12 −0.27 −0.57
Comp, pre 15.00 2.94 8 18 −1.18 0.83
Comp, post 14.63 3.59 5 18 −1.43 2.11
Operation, pre 7.69 5.68 0 17 0.43 −1.03
Operation, post 10.75 7.21 0 31 1.43 3.29
Listen, pre 2.06 1.24 0 3 −0.86 −0.99
Listen, post 3.56 3.14 0 9 0.11 −1.53
Cued Recall Group
KeyMath, pre 5.89 2.05 2 9 0.07 −0.72
KeyMath, post 7.56 3.20 2 13 0.19 −0.58
Comp, pre 14.16 2.85 10 18 −0.15 −1.17
Comp, post 15.07 2.60 9 18 −0.81 0.41
Operation, pre 7.00 5.35 0 20 0.74 0.24
Operation, post 8.05 4.56 3 20 0.93 1.16
Listen, pre 2.47 2.46 0 9 1.29 1.39
Listen, post 2.76 2.59 0 9 0.81 0.41
Note. Comp = problem-solving components; Listen = listening span; Operation = operation span.

Working Memory Training On Near and Far Transfer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Working Memory Training On Near and Far Transfer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Working Memory Training On Near and Far Transfer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Child Neuropsychology

A Journal on Normal and Abnormal Development in Childhood and

ISSN: 0929-7049 (Print) 1744-4136 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncny20

The impact of working memory training on near

H. Lee Swanson & Meaghan McMurran

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1280142

Published online: 01 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Download by: [FU Berlin] Date: 22 February 2017, At: 05:47

The impact of working memory training on near and far

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Several correlational studies show a signiﬁcant relationship between working memory

CONTACT Meaghan McMurran mmcmu001@ucr.edu; H. Lee Swanson lee.swanson@ucr.edu Department

dependent on the cognitive functions of WM. Likewise, performance on WM tasks is

intelligence play an important role in accounting for WM training outcomes? Although a

Design and Statistical Analyses

Table 1. Sample Psychometric Information.

who assert that assigning participants to conditions on artiﬁcially dichotomized

Day 1, Task 1: Rhyming

Day 2, Task 2: Digit Sentence Span

Day 3, Task 3: Semantic Association

Day 4, Task 4: Semantic Categorization

Day 5, Task 5: Phrase Sequencing

Day 6, Task 6: Picture Sequencing

Tasks and Materials

Pre- and Post-Test Far Transfer Measures

Mathematical Word Problem-solving Components

Pre- and Post-Test Near Transfer Measures

Listening Sentence Span

● We waited in line for a ticket.

ﬂuid intelligence (as a moderator variable) on post-test outcomes, a mixed regression

Table 2. Adjusted Far-Transfer Post-Test z-scores as a Function of Treatment and Measures.

Math Problem-solving Components

As a follow-up to the treatment × ﬂuid intelligence interaction, post-test scores were

Listening Sentence Span

control condition is illustrated in Figure 2. When compared to setting pretest ﬂuid

Eﬀect Sizes (ESs)

Table 4. Eﬀect Sizes on Partialed Post-Test Scores.

Correlations among Training and Post-Test Measures

supersede any advantages in WM training on transfer measures. Thus, one would

beneﬁcial. In this manner, it may be possible to better understand the interaction

Table A1. Raw Scores for Pre- and Post-Test Measures.

You might also like