Comparing Two Methods of Delivering ThinkRx Cognitive Training to Children Ages 8–14: a Randomized Controlled Trial of Equivalency

Abstract

Cognitive training is growing in popularity as an intervention for children who struggle to learn. In the current study, we compared the equivalency of two delivery models of the same cognitive training program, ThinkRx, for children ages 8-14. In a randomized controlled trial assessing equivalence, we compared cognitive outcomes between a group who received 60 h of ThinkRx cognitive training delivered one-on-one by a cognitive trainer (n = 20) versus a group of children who received 30 h of ThinkRx delivered by a cognitive trainer and the other 30 h through digital training procedures (n = 18). Results showed no significant differences between groups on tests of working memory, logic and reasoning, auditory processing, visual processing, processing speed, or overall IQ score. Results were significantly different on the test of long-term memory. These results suggest that both delivery models are equivalent cognitive training interventions for children. Keywords Cognitive training. Brain training. Cognition. Learning disabilities. LearningRx Learning struggles are a key characteristic of neurodevelopmental disorders-including specific learning disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and language disorder (American Psychiatric Association 2013)-but are also found among neurotypical children. Cognitive skill deficits are common among children who struggle to learn, especially deficits in working memory (Alloway et al. 2009), processing speed (Lewandowski et al. 2007), and executive functions (McQuade et al. 2011). Because cognitive skills are

Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study

“…A final strength of the study is the inclusion of qualitative data to evaluate transfer effects of both delivery methods. Indeed, the themes uncovered through the qualitative analysis were consistent with themes uncovered in prior research on the LearningRx cognitive training methods (Ledbetter et al, 2017;Moore et al, 2018Moore et al, , 2019aMoore et al, ,b, 2020.…”

“…The aim of the current study was to address a gap in the literature regarding the potential non-inferiority of remote delivery of oneon-one cognitive training vs. in-person one-on-one cognitive training. The efficacy of the LearningRx in-person cognitive training methodology had been previously demonstrated in multiple studies (Carpenter et al, 2016;Moore et al, 2019aMoore et al, ,b, 2018, but it was unknown prior to this study if remote delivery of the intervention was as effective as the traditional in-person delivery model. We found statistically significant changes across all constructs measured (working memory, long-term memory, processing speed, visual and auditory processing, attention, reasoning, and overall IQ score) for both intervention groups with robust effect sizes.…”

“…The efficacy and effectiveness of the LearningRx cognitive training methodology has been previously demonstrated in multiple studies on various populations including children with learning struggles (Carpenter et al, 2016;Gibson et al, 2015;Jedlicka, 2017;Moore et al, 2019a), children with ADHD (Moore et al, 2018), adolescents and adults with brain injury (Ledbetter et al, 2017;Moore et al, 2020) and adults with age-related cognitive decline (James et al, 2019;Moore et al, 2019b). Results have included statistically and clinically significant changes in working memory, long-term memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing, and Word Attack skills as well as reported improvements in self-esteem, self-discipline, cooperative behaviors, mood, perseverance, activities of daily living, and reduced oppositional behaviors and academic struggles.…”

The Promise of Clinician-Delivered Cognitive Training for Children Diagnosed with ADHD

“…The treatment group outperformed the control group on all cognitive measures with significant differences between 5 of the 7 constructs. Although the sample size was small, these outcomes were consistent with the results from several other studies on LearningRx cognitive training interventions (ThinkRx and ReadRx) for children and adolescents with learning struggles including ADHD [34][35][36][37][38] , soldiers with traumatic brain injury 39 , and adults over age 50 with memory and attention complaints 40 . In one study of 61 children with learning disabilities including attention deficits, the treatment group outperformed the control group on all measures with significant differences noted on measures of long-term memory, logic and reasoning, working memory, processing speed, auditory processing, and Word Attack skills after completing 120 hours of LearningRx cognitive training 35 .…”

Artificial Cognitive Systems Applied in Executive Function Stimulation and Rehabilitation Programs: A Systematic Review

“…Training in the classic N-back task, used to train WM, was one of the most frequent approaches in this population. In some studies, it generated improvements in WM updating, limited to very similar tasks to those trained [ 129 ], while in others, when implemented with strategy training, it showed transfer to other domains [ 130 ]. Another study with n-back demonstrated transfer to the ability to inhibit irrelevant information [ 131 ].…”