Working Memory Training in ADHD: Controlling for Engagement, Motivation, and Expectancy of Improvement (Pilot Study)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a shortened-length session of CogMed Working Memory Training (CWMT) would be a suitable active control group and evaluate study protocol to aid in design refinements for a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHOD: Thirty-eight post-secondary students diagnosed with ADHD were randomized into 25 sessions of standard (45 min/session) or shortened (15 min/session) CWMT, or into a waitlist control group. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in completion rate or training index score between the standard- and shortened-length groups indicating that both groups showed improvement and put forth good effort during training. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings suggest that shorter training sessions may induce similar levels of engagement, motivation, and expectancy of improvement in participants. We conclude that a larger scale RCT that utilizes shortened-length training as an active control group is warranted, but that a few modifications to the study protocol will be required.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it