Background: Home-based computerised cognitive training (CCT) is ineffective at enhancing global cognition, a key marker of cognitive ageing. Objectives: To test the effectiveness of supervised, group-based, multidomain CCT on global cognition in older adults and to characterise the dose-response relationship during and after training. Design: A randomised, double-blind, longitudinal, active-controlled trial. Setting: Community-based training centre in Sydney, Australia Participants: Eighty nondemented community-dwelling older adults (mean age = 72.1, 68.8% females) with multiple dementia risk factors but no major neuropsychiatric or sensory disorder. Of the 80 participants admitted to the study, 65 completed post-training assessment and 55 were followed up one year after training cessation. Interventions: Thirty-six group-based sessions over three months of either CCT targeting memory, speed, attention, language and reasoning tasks, or active control training comprising audiovisual educational exercises. Measurements: Primary outcome was change from baseline in global cognition as defined by a composite score of memory, speed and executive function. Secondary outcome was 15-month change in Bayer Activities of Daily Living from baseline to one year post-training. Results: Intention-to-treat analyses revealed significant effects on global cognition in the cognitive training group compared to active control after three weeks of training (ES = 0.33, P=.039) that increased after 3 months of training (ES = 0.49, P=.003) and persisted three months after training cessation (ES = 0.30, P=0.023). Significant and durable improvements were also noted in memory and processing speed. Dose-response characteristics differed among cognitive domains. Training effects waned gradually but residual gains were noted twelve months post-training. No significant effects on activities of daily living were noted and there were no adverse effects. Conclusions: In older adults with multiple dementia risk factors, group-based CCT is a safe and effective intervention for enhancing overall cognition, memory and processing speed. Dose-response relationships vary for each cognitive domain, vital information for clinical and community implementation and further trial design.

Context Validity arguments can be used to provide evidence that instructors are drawing accurate conclusions from the results of students' clinical performance assessments (PAs). Little research has been conducted in athletic training education to determine if the evidence supports the use of current PAs. Measurement theories designed to provide this evidence can be confusing and unfamiliar to athletic training educators. Objective The purpose of this article is to present contemporary concepts of validity and suggest approaches athletic training educators can use to offer evidence to support the best assessment methods. Background Educators often use PAs to determine a student's competence for professional practice. Competence is a complex concept that is difficult to define clearly, thus making assessments of competent performance difficult as well. Most methods of PA used in athletic training education can be classified into 2 general approaches: behavioral and holistic. Athletic training educators, in an attempt to develop effective, appropriate, and user-friendly PAs to evaluate students, may be measuring skill but not truly measuring competence. Description Modern validity concepts focus on the interpretations and meanings of assessment scores, not just on the characteristics of the test itself. Using an updated concept of validity can guide the development of competence PAs to determine if educational outcomes are being met. A framework for developing a validity argument is presented. Conclusions Validity can be used to provide a simple, but rational, defense of what clinical educators do. Knowing the process of establishing validity evidence will help educators revise PAs and educational standards to further promote the profession.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract