Do Individual Differences Predict Change in Cognitive Training Performance? A Latent Growth Curve Modeling Approach
- 1.7k Downloads
Cognitive training interventions have become increasingly popular as a potential means to cost-efficiently stabilize or enhance cognitive functioning across the lifespan. Large training improvements have been consistently reported on the group level, with, however, large differences on the individual level. Identifying the factors contributing to these individual differences could allow for developing individually tailored interventions to boost training gains. In this study, we therefore examined a range of individual differences variables that had been discussed in the literature to potentially predict training performance. To estimate and predict individual differences in the training trajectories, we applied Latent Growth Curve models to existing data from three working memory training interventions with younger and older adults. However, we found that individual differences in demographic variables, real-world cognition, motivation, cognition-related beliefs, personality, leisure activities, and computer literacy and training experience were largely unrelated to change in training performance. Solely baseline cognitive performance was substantially related to change in training performance and particularly so in young adults, with individuals with higher baseline performance showing the largest gains. Thus, our results conform to magnification accounts of cognitive change.
KeywordsWorking memory training Individual differences Latent growth curve modeling
During the work on her dissertation, Sabrina Guye was a pre-doctoral fellow of the International Max Planck Research School on the Life Course (LIFE; participating institutions: MPI for Human Development, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, University of Michigan, University of Virginia, University of Zurich).
Data reported in this work has been collected with the support of grants awarded to the first and second author from the Suzanne and Hans Biäsch Foundation for Applied Psychology (Ref 2014/32; 2016/08). The first author was further supported by the Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich (FK-16-062), and the second author by the Swiss National Science Foundation (No. 100014_146074). Moreover, both authors were supported by the URPP “Dynamics of Healthy Aging” of the University of Zurich.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Both studies were approved by the ethics committee of the Department of Psychology of the University of Zurich.
- Ackerman, P. L., & Lohman, D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 139–161). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
- Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson, K., & Becic, E. (2008). Transfer effects in task-set cost and dual-task cost after dual-task training in older and younger adults: further evidence for cognitive plasticity in attentional control in late adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 34(3), 188–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730802070068.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Bogg, T., & Lasecki, L. (2015). Reliable gains? Evidence for substantially underpowered designs in studies of working memory training transfer to fluid intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01589.
- Brehmer, Y., Westerberg, H., & Bäckman, L. (2012). Working-memory training in younger and older adults: training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00063.
- Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb01421.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEP five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI): professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
- Cumming, G. (2011). Understanding the new statistics: effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- De Simoni, C., & von Bastian, C. C. (2017). Process-specific effects of working memory training.Google Scholar
- Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Intrinsic motivation inventory. Retrieved from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/.
- Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781.
- Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Fleischhauer, M., Enge, S., Brocke, B., Ullrich, J., Strobel, A., & Strobel, A. (2010). Same or different? Clarifying the relationship of need for cognition to personality and intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209351886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Graham, E. K., & Lachman, M. E. (2012). Personality stability is associated with better cognitive performance in adulthood: are the stable more able? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67(5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbr149.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Estabrook, R. (2017). Growth modeling: structural equation and multilevel modeling approaches. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Guye, S., & von Bastian, C. C. (2017). Working memory training in older adults: evidence for the absence of transfer. Psychology and Aging. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000206.
- Hill, B. D., Foster, J. D., Elliott, E. M., Shelton, J. T., McCain, J., & Gouvier, W. D. (2013). Need for cognition is related to higher general intelligence, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intelligence, but not working memory. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ishihara, S. (1917). Tests for colour blindness. Tokyo: Handaya Hongo Harukichi.Google Scholar
- Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2008). Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(19), 6829–6833. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801268105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Katz, B., Jones, M. R., Shah, P., Buschkuehl, M., & Jaeggi, S. M. (2016). Individual differences and motivational effects in cognitive training research. In T. Strobach & J. Karbach (Eds.), Cognitive training: an overview of features and applications (pp. 157–166). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kelly, M. E., Loughrey, D., Lawlor, B. A., Robertson, I. H., Walsh, C., & Brennan, S. (2014). The impact of cognitive training and mental stimulation on cognitive and everyday functioning of healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Research Reviews, 15, 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2014.02.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kline, R. B. (2016). Mean structures and latent growth models. In Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed., pp. 369–393). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer”: evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. https://doi.org/10.3837/tiis.0000.00.000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Rabbitt, P., Diggle, P., Holland, F., & McInnes, L. (2004). Practice and drop-out effects during a 17-year longitudinal study of cognitive aging. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(2), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/59.2.P84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2). 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
- Schmiedek, F., Lövdén, M., & Lindenberger, U. (2014). A task is a task is a task: putting complex span, n-back, and other working memory indicators in psychometric context. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01475.
- Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: a user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). NFER-NELSON: Windsor.Google Scholar
- Soveri, A., Antfolk, J., Karlsson, L., Salo, B., & Laine, M. (2017). Working memory training revisited: a multi-level meta-analysis of n-back training studies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1217-0.
- Stern, E. (2017). Individual differences in the learning potential of human beings. Npj Science of Learning, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-016-0003-0.
- Tueller, S. J., Van Dorn, R. A., & Bobashev, G. V. (2016). Visualization of categorical longitudinal and times series data. Methods Report RTI Press, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2016.mr.0033.1602.
- von Bastian, C. C., Guye, S., & De Simoni, C. (2017). How strong is the evidence for the effectiveness of working memory training? In M. F. Bunting, J. M. Novick, M. R. Dougherty, & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Cognitive and working memory training: perspectives from psychology, neuroscience, and human development. Oxford University Press. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
- Wilhelm, O., Hildebrandt, A., & Oberauer, K. (2013). What is working memory capacity, and how can we measure it? Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00433.
- Willis, S. L., & Marsiske, M. (1993). Manual for the Everyday Problems Test. University Park: Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar