MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806859889 · doi:10.2196/resprot.7908

Enhancing Executive Functions Among Dutch Elementary School Children Using the Train Your Mind Program: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial

2018· article· en· W2806859889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joachim Bervoets, Lisa M. Jonkman, Sandra Mulkens, Hein de Vries, Gerjo Kok

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit Maastricht
KeywordsExecutive functionsPsychologySocioemotional selectivity theoryCognitionRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Developmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Executive functions are higher cognitive control functions, which are essential to physical and psychological well-being, academic performance, and healthy social relationships. Executive functions can be trained, albeit without broad transfer, to this date. Broad transfer entails the translation of improved cognitive functions to daily life (behaviors). The intervention Train your Mind was designed to train executive functions among elementary school children aged 9 to 11 years, and obtain broad transfer in terms of enhanced physical activity, healthy eating, and socioemotional regulation. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the cluster randomized trial to test the effectiveness of the Train your Mind intervention. METHODS: Train your Mind was integrated into the existing school curriculum for 8 months (25 weeks excluding holidays). The effectiveness of the intervention was tested in a cluster randomized trial comprising 13 schools, 34 groups (school classes), and 800 children, using a battery of 6 computer tasks at pre- and postmeasurement. Each of the 3 core executive functions was measured by 2 tasks (Flanker and Go/No-Go; N-Back and Running Span; Attention Switching Task and Dots/Triangles). Moreover, we administered questionnaires that measure emotion-regulation, cognitive errors, physical activity, dietary habits, and the psycho-social determinants of diet and physical activity. Body mass index was also measured. Multilevel analyses will account for clustering at the school and group levels, and randomization took place at the school level. RESULTS: Results are currently being analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The main purpose of this study is to test Train your Mind's effectiveness in enhancing executive functions. Second, we investigate whether increased executive functions lead to improved physical activity and healthy eating. If found effective, executive function training could easily be integrated into school curricula everywhere, and as such, boost health, academic performance, and emotion-regulation of elementary school children, in a cost-effective manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5804; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5804 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6z9twosJ8). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/7908.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0580.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.499
GPT teacher head0.617
Teacher spread0.118 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→