Working Memory Training in College Students With ADHD or LD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of working memory (WM) training in college students with ADHD or learning disabilities (LD). METHOD: A total of 62 students (21 males, 41 females) were randomized to a 5-week intensive WM training program or a wait-list control group. Participants were evaluated before treatment, 3 weeks after completion, and at 2-month follow-up. The criterion measures were standardized tests of auditory-verbal and visual-spatial WM. Near transfer measures included other cognitive tasks; far transfer measures included academic tasks and behavioral rating scales. RESULTS: Intent-to-treat analysis revealed that participants receiving WM training showed significantly greater improvements on the criterion WM measures and self-reported fewer ADHD symptoms and cognitive failures. The follow-up assessment indicated that gains in WM were maintained, as were improvements in cognitive failures. CONCLUSION: Computerized WM training is a feasible and possibly viable approach for enhancing WM in college students with ADHD or LD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".