Individual Differences in Training Gains and Transfer Measures: An Investigation of Training Curves in Children with Attention‐Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

Abstract

Currently, evidence for the beneficial effects of working memory (WM) training on transfer measures in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is inconsistent. Although there is accumulating evidence for the role of individual differences in training and transfer gains of cognitive training, this area has been left unexplored for children with ADHD. In the current study, an advanced latent growth curve model analysis was used to investigate the individual differences in learning curves (training gains) of WM training tasks within a new cognitive intervention 'Paying Attention in Class'. It was investigated whether certain baseline variables (age, intelligence quotient, externalizing behaviour problems and presence of learning disability) predicted the learning curves and how these individual learning curves influenced near-transfer and far-transfer measures. A total of 164 children diagnosed with ADHD, between the age of 8 and 12 years old, followed this new Paying Attention in Class intervention. WM (near-transfer) and academic performance (far-transfer) measures were assessed before treatment and directly after treatment. Results showed that individual differences at the start of training were predicted by age and intelligence quotient, but the individual differences in learning curves were not predicted by any of the baseline variables. Both for the verbal and the visuospatial WM training, children with larger training gains (i.e. steeper training curves) showed larger benefits on the near untrained transfer measures. These effects were absent for the far-transfer measures. Current study shows that training WM is quite complex and has its limitations for children with ADHD. Nonetheless, it highlights that training and transfer gains are affected by many different factors and warrants the need of a more in-depth investigation of individual differences in future studies.

Why Does Cognitive Training Yield Inconsistent Benefits? A Meta-Analysis of Individual Differences in Baseline Cognitive Abilities and Training Outcomes

“…There has been steady and growing interest in developing effective methods to manipulate an individual's cognitive abilities. Work on this topic has exploded in recent decades, motivated by rehabilitative and therapeutic goals for impaired or aging populations (Lustig et al, 2009 ; Dahlin, 2011 ; van der Donk et al, 2017 ), by interest in cognitive enhancement for children or the general public (Diamond and Lee, 2011 ; Diamond, 2012 ; Simons et al, 2016 ), as well as by a desire to find means of testing cognitive theories (Cepeda et al, 2001 ; Chevalier et al, 2014 ). However, results of cognitive training research have not always been consistent.…”

Effects of Cognitive Training upon Working Memory in Individuals with ADHD: An Overview of the Literature

“…This makes the results dubious about the near-transfer effects of the training on ADHD-specific deficits in working memory. Moreover, these studies found no evidence of far-transfer effects on broader constructs such as IQ, academic performance, behaviour in the classroom, and quality of life (Holmes et al, 2009;van der Donk et al, 2015;van der Donk et al, 2017).…”

“…Studies in the past two decades have suggested that cognitive training can improve the working memory of children with ADHD (Holmes et al, 2009;Klingberg et al, 2005;Klingberg et al, 2002;van der Donk, 2015;van der Donk, 2017; see Klingberg, 2010 for a review). In general, those studies have found near-transfer effects by using computerized training batteries and/or subtests of neuropsychological batteries.…”

Cognition, métacognition, éducation : l’approche intégrative de l’Atelier d’Apprentissage

“…La littérature montre des résultats mitigés pour les programmes du troisième groupe. Des gains significatifs dans les processus cognitifs entrainés sont assez souvent observés, mais les effets de transfert au domaine scolaire ou à d'autres contextes n'ont pas encore pu être démontrés (Deforge, 2011 ;Van der Donk, et al, 2017). Cela est principalement dû au fait que ces programmes utilisent des tâches de laboratoire artificielles, conçues de manière à ne mettre en jeu que certains processus en particulier.…”