Our Research on Methods of Delivering Brain Training
Moore, A.L., Miller, T.M., & Ledbetter, C. (2021). Remote vs. In-Person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 749898. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749898
The study compared remote delivery to in-person delivery of ThinkRx cognitive training during 2020. The sample included 381 child and adult clients from 18 cognitive training centers. One group (n = 178, mean age = 12.3) received traditional in-person delivery of cognitive training. The second group (n = 203, mean age = 11.7) received remote delivery of one-on-one cognitive training via Zoom. Paired samples t tests revealed significant differences from pretest to post-test across all constructs for both groups. After Bonferroni correction, MANOVA revealed no significant difference between the two intervention groups on any of the subtests. Noninferiority analyses indicated remote delivery is not inferior to in-person delivery on the primary outcome measure of overall IQ score along with processing speed, fluid reasoning, long-term memory, and visual processing. Although in-person training results were slightly higher than remote training results, the current study reveals remote delivery of cognitive training during COVID-19 was a viable alternative to in-person delivery of cognitive training.
Moore, A.L., Carpenter, D.M., Miller, T.M., & Ledbetter, C., (2019). ThinkRx Cognitive Training for Adults over Age 50: Clinician-Caregiver Partners in Delivery as Effective as Clinician-Only Delivery. Psychology and Neuroscience, 12(2), 291-306. doi: 10.1037/pne0000162
The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in cognitive outcomes and self-reported real-life improvements between two methods of delivering the ThinkRx cognitive training intervention: professional delivery solely by a clinician versus a partnership model where a caregiver or spouse delivers half of the intervention at home. The sample included 292 participants ranging in age from 51 to 95 with subjective memory or attention complaints. Participants completed an average of 79 training hours. The results showed no significant differences between delivery methods on any of the cognitive skills measured, and few remarkable differences in self-reported real-life improvements. Both delivery methods resulted in significant pretest to post-test gains across all six cognitive skills measured including working memory, long-term memory, processing speed, visual processing, auditory processing, and fluid reasoning, as well as self-reported improvements in five key areas: mood, memory, cognitive efficiency, life application skills, and focus/attention. Caveats include the need for caregivers to be motivated enough and cognitively sharp enough themselves to help deliver the program. (Link to author’s copy of the article)
Moore, A.L., Carpenter, D.M., Miller, T.M., & Ledbetter, C. (2019). Comparing Two Methods of Delivering ThinkRx Cognitive Training to Children Ages 8-14: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Equivalency. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 3(3), 261-270. doi.org/10.1007/s41465-018-0094-z
In a randomized controlled trial assessing equivalence of parallel groups of children ages 8-14, we compared cognitive outcomes between a group who received 60 hours of ThinkRx cognitive training delivered one-on-one by a clinician (n = 20) versus a group of children who received 30 hours of ThinkRx delivered by a clinician and the remaining 30 hours through supervised digital training procedures in a computer lab (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 nearly equivalent delivery methods of ThinkRx cognitive training for children. This study controlled for placebo effects because both groups attended the same number of sessions and spent the same number of hours in training (60) with an adult present. Finally, this was a single-blind study. The participants did not know there was a difference in training methods. Read the article (Link to results poster)
Hill, O.W., Zewelanji, S., & Faison, O. (2016). The Efficacy of the LearningRx Cognitive Training Program: Modality and Transfer Effects. Journal of Experimental Education: Learning, Instruction, and Cognition, 84(3), 600-620. doi: 10.1080/00220973.2015.1065218.
This article describes two trials testing the efficacy of the LearningRx one-on-one cognitive training program and its computer-based version (Brainskills) in laboratory and school settings. Study 1 tested Brainskills in a laboratory setting with 322 middle school students. Paired t-tests revealed significant gains on all cognitive measures and math performance after 3 weeks of training. Study 2, a randomized control study, included 225 high school students randomly assigned to one of three conditions: LearningRx, Brainskills, or study hall (control) in a school setting for a 15-week training period. Univariate ANCOVAs revealed significantly higher scores for the treatment groups compared with controls on working memory, logic and reasoning, and three of four math attitude measures. Funded by $3M National Science Foundation (NSF) grant. Link to abstract: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1065218