Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 12 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nazari S, Hassanzadeh S, Shokoohi-Yekta M, Kharrazi S K, Farzad V. Conditions of Effectiveness and Near and Far Transfer Effects of Executive Function’s Interventions: Systematic Review. MEJDS 2020; 10 :12-12
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1258-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1258-en.html
Somayeh Nazari * 
1, Saeid Hassanzadeh1 , Mohsen Shokoohi-Yekta1 , Seyyed Kamal Kharrazi2 , Valiollah Farzad3
1, Saeid Hassanzadeh1 , Mohsen Shokoohi-Yekta1 , Seyyed Kamal Kharrazi2 , Valiollah Farzad3
1- Department of Psychology and Education of Exceptional Children, University of Tehran
2- Department of Educational Administration and Planning, University of Tehran
3- Department of Psychology, University of Kharazmi
2- Department of Educational Administration and Planning, University of Tehran
3- Department of Psychology, University of Kharazmi
Abstract: (2181 Views)
Background & Objective: Executive functions (EFs; also called executive control or cognitive control) refer to a family of top–down mental processes needed when you have to concentrate and pay attention. different types of interventions have focused on trying to improve executive functions (EFs). However, the generalizability of these training to complex everyday functions namely "near and far transfer effect" of cognitive training is one of the most challenging topics in the field of cognitive science, disability and rehabilitation. Given the role of executive dysfunction in cognitive and educational disorders on the one hand and inconsistency results in the near and far transfer effect of executive function’s interventions, on the other hand, caused to be necessary attention to the variables that affect the effectiveness and generality of these interventions. In order to solve this problem, a closer look at interventional studies can illustrate the role of the characteristics and variables that affect the success or failure of the transfer of cognitive program effects. The purpose of the present study was to introduce the variables and conditions affecting the near and far transfer effects of executive function’s interventions.
Methods: The present study was a systematic review and descriptive study. The materials reviewed were all electronically published studies relevant to the subject, published in scientific databases including; Sage pub, PubMed, Springer, ProQuest, Elsevier and Eric in 2008 until 2018. The materials screened through keywords such as; executive function intervention, near and far transfer effect, cognitive program, generality of cognitive intervention effects, intervention, working memory, inhibition, switching, shifting, memory updating, executive control, cognitive control, strategy based training, process based training, multi domain training. Result of these searches was 113 researches. For determining the main sample, abstract and full text of researches and methodological and interventional aspects of those, was investigated. The quality of the articles was evaluated by checklist of critical appraisal of controlled randomized trials research (Public Health Resource Unit; 2018). Finally 16 experimental researches (controlled randomized trials) as main sample selected.
Results: The present study introduced 18 variables that affect the success and generalizability of interventions, which can be categorized into three groups: Program conditions, Task characteristics, and Participants' characteristics. Training program conditions contains; type of the training regimes (including process–based, strategy–based, and multi–domain training), the intensity of the training regimes, duration of per training session, Total amount of training, per Session duration, Frequency of training session training in per week, training sessions interval) are effective on the success and generalizing of the program. Tasks characteristics including; quality and material of tasks, a number of exercises per task, general and specific domains of tasks, the optimal level of challenging tasks and the adaptation of the level of difficulty of tasks for each person have been considered in the designing of interventions. Participants' characteristics including; sample age, baseline intelligence and cognitive abilities of the individual, the baseline ability of participants in training variables, the number of training gains in training tasks, attitudes toward tasks, perceived difficulty level from training tasks, individual motivation, and age interactions with training regimes are other effectiveness factors.
Conclusion: The literature review suggests that internal researches have taken steps towards investigating the effect of different variables on the efficiency and generalizability of cognitive interventions to near and far goals. In order to, researchers should be doing more efforts instead of applying commercial intervention programs that have public content, do more efforts to design interventions using Specific assignments that are tailored to the cognitive domain–general and domain–specific factors of the goal.
Methods: The present study was a systematic review and descriptive study. The materials reviewed were all electronically published studies relevant to the subject, published in scientific databases including; Sage pub, PubMed, Springer, ProQuest, Elsevier and Eric in 2008 until 2018. The materials screened through keywords such as; executive function intervention, near and far transfer effect, cognitive program, generality of cognitive intervention effects, intervention, working memory, inhibition, switching, shifting, memory updating, executive control, cognitive control, strategy based training, process based training, multi domain training. Result of these searches was 113 researches. For determining the main sample, abstract and full text of researches and methodological and interventional aspects of those, was investigated. The quality of the articles was evaluated by checklist of critical appraisal of controlled randomized trials research (Public Health Resource Unit; 2018). Finally 16 experimental researches (controlled randomized trials) as main sample selected.
Results: The present study introduced 18 variables that affect the success and generalizability of interventions, which can be categorized into three groups: Program conditions, Task characteristics, and Participants' characteristics. Training program conditions contains; type of the training regimes (including process–based, strategy–based, and multi–domain training), the intensity of the training regimes, duration of per training session, Total amount of training, per Session duration, Frequency of training session training in per week, training sessions interval) are effective on the success and generalizing of the program. Tasks characteristics including; quality and material of tasks, a number of exercises per task, general and specific domains of tasks, the optimal level of challenging tasks and the adaptation of the level of difficulty of tasks for each person have been considered in the designing of interventions. Participants' characteristics including; sample age, baseline intelligence and cognitive abilities of the individual, the baseline ability of participants in training variables, the number of training gains in training tasks, attitudes toward tasks, perceived difficulty level from training tasks, individual motivation, and age interactions with training regimes are other effectiveness factors.
Conclusion: The literature review suggests that internal researches have taken steps towards investigating the effect of different variables on the efficiency and generalizability of cognitive interventions to near and far goals. In order to, researchers should be doing more efforts instead of applying commercial intervention programs that have public content, do more efforts to design interventions using Specific assignments that are tailored to the cognitive domain–general and domain–specific factors of the goal.
Keywords: Cognitive intervention, Executive functions, Effectiveness, near and far transfer effects.
Type of Study: Systematic Review Article |
Subject:
Rehabilitation
References
1. Diamond A. Understanding executive functions: What helps or hinders them and how executive functions and language development mutually support one another. Perspectives on language and literacy. 2014;40(2):7–11.
2. Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal Lobe” tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cogn Psychol. 2000;41(1):49–100. [DOI]
3. Diamond A. Executive Functions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2013;64:135–68. [DOI]
4. Zelazo PD, Blair CB, Willoughby MT. Executive Function: Implications for Education. NCER 2017-2000. Washington: National Center for Education Research; 2016.
5. Dias NM, Seabra AG. Intervention for executive functions development in early elementary school children: effects on learning and behaviour, and follow-up maintenance. Educational Psychology. 2017;37(4):468–86. [DOI]
6. Perrig WJ, Hollenstein M, Oelhafen S. Can we improve fluid intelligence with training on working memory in persons with intellectual disabilities? Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology. 2009;8(2):148–64. [DOI]
7. Cragg L, Keeble S, Richardson S, Roome HE, Gilmore C. Direct and indirect influences of executive functions on mathematics achievement. Cognition. 2017;162:12–26. [DOI]
8. Best JR, Miller PH, Naglieri JA. Relations between Executive Function and Academic Achievement from Ages 5 to 17 in a Large, Representative National Sample. Learn Individ Differ. 2011;21(4):327–36. [DOI]
9. Rapport MD, Orban SA, Kofler MJ, Friedman LM. Do programs designed to train working memory, other executive functions, and attention benefit children with ADHD? A meta-analytic review of cognitive, academic, and behavioral outcomes. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(8):1237–52.
10. Kim H, Cameron CE. Implications of visuospatial skills and executive functions for learning mathematics: evidence from children with autism and williams syndrome. AERA Open. 2016. doi: 10.1177/2332858416675124 [DOI]
11. Vinogradov S, Fisher M, de Villers-Sidani E. Cognitive training for impaired neural systems in neuropsychiatric illness. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012;37(1):43–76. [DOI]
12. Karbach J, Strobach T, Schubert T. Adaptive working-memory training benefits reading, but not mathematics in middle childhood. Child Neuropsychol. 2015;21(3):285–301. [DOI]
13. Cassetta BD, Goghari VM. Working memory and processing speed training in schizophrenia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17:49. [DOI]
14. Redick TS, Shipstead Z, Wiemers EA, Melby-Lervåg M, Hulme C. What’s working in working memory training? An educational perspective. Educ Psychol Rev. 2015;27(4):617–33. [DOI]
15. Maraver MJ, Bajo MT, Gomez-Ariza CJ. Training on working memory and inhibitory control in young adults. Front Hum Neurosci. 2016;10:588. [DOI]
16. Traverso L, Viterbori P, Usai MC. Improving executive function in childhood: evaluation of a training intervention for 5-year-old children. Front Psychol. 2015;6:525. [DOI]
17. Witt M. School based working memory training: Preliminary finding of improvement in children’s mathematical performance. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2011;7:7–15. [DOI]
18. Dunning DL, Holmes J, Gathercole SE. Does working memory training lead to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized controlled trial. Dev Sci. 2013;16(6):915–25. [DOI]
19. Brehmer Y, Westerberg H, Bäckman L. Working-memory training in younger and older adults: training gains, transfer, and maintenance. Front Hum Neurosci. 2012;6:63. [DOI]
20. Chein JM, Morrison AB. Expanding the mind’s workspace: training and transfer effects with a complex working memory span task. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010;17(2):193–9. [DOI]
21. Souders DJ, Boot WR, Blocker K, Vitale T, Roque NA, Charness N. Evidence for narrow transfer after short-term cognitive training in older adults. Front Aging Neurosci. 2017;9:41. [DOI]
22. Singh J. Critical appraisal skills programme. Journal of pharmacology and Pharmacotherapeutics. 2013;4(1):76. [DOI]
23. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme(CASP) Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist [Internet]. Oxford: CASP. 2018. [Article]
24. Dwyer CP, Quinn CM, O’Connor L, Slattery BW, McGuire BE. Critical Analysis of Research Literature. In: Byrne M. How to conduct research for service improvement: A guidebook for Health and Social Care Professionals. Tullamore: Health Service Executive; 2015.
25. Kroesbergen EH, van ’t Noordende JE, Kolkman ME. Training working memory in kindergarten children: effects on working memory and early numeracy. Child Neuropsychol. 2014;20(1):23–37. [DOI]
26. Kray J, Fehér B. Age Differences in the Transfer and Maintenance of Practice-Induced Improvements in Task Switching: The Impact of Working-Memory and Inhibition Demands. Front Psychol. 2017;8:410. [DOI]
27. Karbach J, Kray J. How useful is executive control training? Age differences in near and far transfer of task-switching training. Dev Sci. 2009;12(6):978–90. [DOI]
28. Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Jonides J, Shah P. Short- and long-term benefits of cognitive training. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(25):10081–6. [DOI]
29. Zhao X, Chen L, Maes JHR. Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training in children and adults. Dev Sci. 2018;21(1). [DOI]
30. Dias NM, Seabra AG. Is it possible to promote executive functions in preschoolers? A case study in Brazil. ICEP. 2015;9(1):6. [DOI]
31. Bergman-Nutley S, Klingberg T. Effect of working memory training on working memory, arithmetic and following instructions. Psychol Res. 2014;78(6):869–77. [DOI]
32. Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Jonides J, Perrig WJ. Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(19):6829–33. [DOI]
33. Wang Z, Zhou R, Shah P. Spaced cognitive training promotes training transfer. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014;8:217. [DOI]
34. Passolunghi MC, Costa HM. Working memory and early numeracy training in preschool children. Child Neuropsychol. 2016;22(1):81–98. [DOI]
35. Holmes J, Gathercole SE, Dunning DL. Adaptive training leads to sustained enhancement of poor working memory in children. Dev Sci. 2009;12(4):F9–F15. [DOI]
36. Linares R, Borella E, Lechuga MT, Carretti B, Pelegrina S. Training working memory updating in young adults. Psychol Res. 2018;82(3):535–48. [DOI]
37. Honoré N, Noël M-P. Impact of working memory training targeting the central executive on kindergarteners’ numerical skills. JETS. 2017;5(5):131. [DOI]
38. Karbach J. Plasticity of executive functions in childhood and adolescence: Effects of cognitive training interventions. Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento. 2015;7(1):64–70.
39. Karbach J, Unger K. Executive control training from middle childhood to adolescence. Front Psychol. 2014;5:390. [DOI]
40. Morrison AB, Chein JM. Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011;18(1):46–60. [DOI]
41. Kray J, Ferdinand NK. How to improve cognitive control in development during childhood: Potentials and limits of cognitive interventions. Child Development Perspectives. 2013;7(2):121–5. [DOI]
42. Schwaighofer M, Fischer F, Bühner M. Does working memory training transfer? A meta-analysis including training conditions as moderators. Educational Psychologist. 2015;50(2):138–66. [DOI]
43. Titz C, Karbach J. Working memory and executive functions: effects of training on academic achievement. Psychol Res. 2014;78(6):852–68. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
