Effects of a Multicomponent Cognitive Stimulation Program on Cognitive Function Improvement Among Elderly Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to identify the effect of a multicomponent cognitive stimulation program (MCSP) on the improvement of older people's cognitive abilities. It also aimed to determine whether the effectiveness of the MCSP is related to age. METHODS: A one-group pretest-posttest design was used. The program was conducted once a week for 10 weeks. The Korean-Montreal Cognitive Assessment (K-MoCA) was used to measure cognitive functions before and after the MCSP. Participants included 37 people aged over 65 years with normal cognitive functions and living in I city. A paired t-test was used to compare K-MoCA scores before and after the MCSP, and a two-way analysis of variance was performed to confirm whether there is an interaction between the MCSP and age. RESULTS: It was found that the MCSP had a significant effect on improving cognitive functions (t = -5.15, p < .001). Regarding the subdomains, visuospatial/executive ability, recall, naming, and language ability showed significant effects; however, abstractive ability-which was not a focus of the program-showed no significant effect. There were differences in visuospatial/executive functions, language skills, and memory between the 65-79 years age group and the aged over 80 group. Further, regarding the relationship between the MCSP and age, it was found that their interaction was significant only with regard to visuospatial/executive ability. CONCLUSION: The MCSP helps to improve the cognitive functions of the elderly; however, its effect differs between the young-old group and the old-old group. Therefore, age should be considered when developing MCSPs.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".