Examining the Impact of Motivation on Working Memory Training in Youth With ADHD.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Working memory (WM) is often a deficit in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is related to other impairments within this clinical population. Cogmed, a computerized WM training program, is sometimes prescribed as a treatment for ADHD youth - although the efficacy of this intervention remains controversial. Our main objective was to explore whether ADHD youths' motivational style predicted training engagement or performance on outcome measures. A second objective was to obtain a more nuanced understanding of potential benefits of the program via interviews. METHOD: The current study focuses on 10 ADHD youth (age 8 - 14 years) randomized to a modified 30-session Cogmed protocol, as part of a larger clinical trial. Youth completed an adapted Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) and participated in a semi-structured interview at three-month follow-up. RESULTS: All youth showed adherence to the modified Cogmed protocol. More externally motivated youth started training at a higher level of performance and also reached higher peak performance. At follow-up, higher levels of external forms of motivation correlated with better spatial working memory but worse academic performance. In addition, greater endorsement of external motivation was associated with lower self-concept. Qualitative analyses suggested that youth displayed multiple motivational styles with regard to participation and noted subjective improvements in their everyday lives. CONCLUSIONS: Youth endorsed both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation and reported that training was useful. Larger studies should consider assessing individual differences in motivational style and incorporating qualitative methodology to identify additional intervention outcome variables to consider amongst ADHD youth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".