Cogmed working memory training: Does the evidence support the claims?

Shipstead, Zach; Hicks, Kenny L.

doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.06.003

Cited by 222 publications

(243 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much of the cognitively-inspired applied research, on the other hand, would qualify as effect-centric (i.e., CIEC). As is the case in cognitive research more generally, in CIEC research, behavioral effects are often treated as proxies for mental processes (e.g., memory span as a proxy for working memory capacity; see Shipstead et al, 2012). Likewise, interventions are often described in terms of the mental process that they are assumed to target (e.g., attentional bias training or working memory training).…”

Section: On the Nature Of Applied Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological engineering: A functional–cognitive perspective on applied psychology.

Houwer¹,

Hughes²,

Barnes‐Holmes³

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The functional-cognitive framework for psychological research implies that functional and cognitive researchers operate at two separate but mutually supportive levels of explanation.From a functional-cognitive perspective, all applied psychologists are ultimately directed at the functional level but they can differ in the way they conduct functional research and the degree to which they seek guidance from cognitive models. We propose a taxonomy that encompasses four different types of applied psychology and evaluate the merits of each type.We also argue that applied psychology can be fortified by strengthening its functional core, thus evolving into a more integrated but still diverse discipline of psychological engineering.Finally, we explore the implications of these ideas for applied memory research.Keywords: functional psychology, cognitive psychology, levels of explanation In a recent paper, Hughes, De Houwer, and Perugini (2016) likened the current state of psychological science to an archipelago of islands, each home to a different "tribe" of researchers. The members of the various tribes differ not only with regard to the topics that they study (e.g., psychopathology, social behavior, …) but also with regard to the approach that they adopt when studying these topics. Generally speaking, communication between the different islands is limited. This is particularly the case for two groups of islands, one group that adopts a cognitive approach and a second group that adopts a functional approach. The cognitive approach has dominated psychology for about half a century now. It aims to uncover mental mechanisms, that is, the way in which organisms process information (see Bechtel, 2008;Gardner, 1987). The functional approach, on the other hand, can be linked to behaviorism, at least certain forms of behaviorism such as radical behaviorism as it was introduced by B. F. Skinner (see Chiesa, 1992Chiesa, , 1994Hayes & Brownstein, 1986) and to more recent scientific approaches such as contextual behavioral science (Hayes, BarnesHolmes, & Wilson, 2012). Functional psychologists, as we will call them, are interested primarily in the environmental determinants of behavior, that is, in the way that behavior is a function of the (present and past) environment. 1 The cognitive approach is often thought of as a reaction against and thus as incompatible with the functional approach. For instance, in a column about the state of behaviorism at the centenary of B. F. Skinner's birth, Roediger (2004) cited Tulving who argued that "psychology now designates at least two rather different sciences, one of behavior 1 We use the term "functional" in the mathematical sense of "function of" (i.e., behavior is a function of the environment) rather than in the teleological sense of "function for" (i.e., behavior serves a purpose). This also clarifies the distinction between functional psychology as we see it (i.e., the study of environment-behavior relations) and functional psychology as the approach adopted by a group of A...

show abstract

Section: On the Nature Of Applied Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological engineering: A functional–cognitive perspective on applied psychology.

Houwer¹,

Hughes²,

Barnes‐Holmes³

2017

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A heated discussion around this topic is still present not only in scientific magazines, but it is also observed in form of the above mentioned open letters published online and exchanged between two opponent groups of researchers. Growing number of meta-analysis and reviews demonstrates how much controversy the issue of effectiveness of WMT stirs (Dougherty, Hamovitz, & Tidwell, 2015;Hulme & MelbyLervåg, 2012;Klingberg, 2010;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013;Morrison & Chein, 2012;Redick, Shipstead, Wiemers, Melby-Lervåg, & Hulme, 2015;Redick, 2015;Schwaighofer, Fischer, & Bühner, 2015;Shipstead, Hicks, & Engle, 2012a, 2012bShipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012;von Bastian & Oberauer, 2013). There are also publications reviewing the research conducted on clinical groups (Gates, Fiatarone Singh, Sachdev, & Valenzuela, 2013;Weicker & Thöne-otto, 2015).…”

Section: Are Working Memory Trainings Effective?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another mistake commonly made during research on WMT are either a total lack of control groups or inclusion of passive controls (Dougherty et al, 2015;Shipstead et al, 2012aShipstead et al, , 2012b. The problem with passive controls is that the advantage in scores of the training group at posttest may reflect the placebo effect instead of the real effectiveness of WMT.…”

Section: The Most Commonly Commented Weaknesses Of Wmtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shipstead, Hicks, et al, (2012a) allege that there is no convincing proof that the training results in expected outcomes. They justify their opinion with several arguments.…”

Section: The Most Commonly Commented Weaknesses Of Wmtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Firstly, according to the authors, the way of measuring transfer effects is not sufficient to claim about the real improvements of WM capacity. (Shipstead, Hicks, et al, 2012a) Shipstead, Hicks, et al, (2012a) criticise negative practices of measuring near-transfer by methods that are very similar to the ones used during the training. Secondly, even when several measures of WMC are administered, the results of such research tend to be inconsistent.…”

Section: The Most Commonly Commented Weaknesses Of Wmtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations