Examining the Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation on the Working Memory of Students with Learning Disabilities

Saeidmanesh , Mohsen; Vaziri , Faezeh; Azizi Bondarabadi , Mahdieh

Volume 15 - Articles-1404 MEJDS (2025) 15: 28 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Saeidmanesh M, Vaziri F, Azizi Bondarabadi M. Examining the Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation on the Working Memory of Students with Learning Disabilities. MEJDS 2025; 15 (0) :28-28
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-3199-en.html

Examining the Effectiveness of Computerized Cognitive Rehabilitation on the Working Memory of Students with Learning Disabilities

Mohsen Saeidmanesh ^*¹

, Faezeh Vaziri²

, Mahdieh Azizi Bondarabadi³

1- Associate Professor, Science and Arts University, Yazd, Iran
2- MA in General Psychology, Science and Arts University, Yazd, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Science and Arts University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract: (819 Views)

Abstract
Background & Objectives: Learning disability is one of the most complex disorders of school children, which has a significant impact on educational performance that is completely different from expectations. Due to learning disabilities, school children perform below their competence, which causes them to have low self–esteem and sometimes causes considerable stress to the parents. One of the cognitive problems in learning disabilities is a problem with working memory. The treatments of learning disorders cannot solve the problems of children with learning disorders to a large extent. On the other hand, due to the increase in teachers' awareness, the diagnosis of children with learning disorders has increased in schools, and every day, many clients refer to psychological clinics due to learning disorders. Cognitive defects, including working memory defects seen in children with learning disabilities, can cause many problems in their academic life and future. Therefore, in this research, the effectiveness of computerized cognitive rehabilitation on the working memory of students with learning disabilities was investigated.
Methods: This study was quasi–experimental with a pretest–posttest design with a control group. The statistical population included 8–year–old students in the second grade of primary school with learning disabilities referred to psychology and psychiatry clinics in Yazd City, Iran. Among them, 30 qualified volunteers entered the study using the non–probability sampling method; 15 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 15 to the control group. The inclusion criteria were having a learning disorder and a psychiatrist's confirmation, the age of 8 years in the second grade of elementary school, and not using other treatment methods such as behavioral therapy and drug therapy. The exclusion criteria included absence from a computerized cognitive rehabilitation session and failure to complete the questionnaire during the study. The initial assessment of each subject was conducted on the first day and lasted 1.5 hours. The subject's file and information, such as treatments received so far, were also completed. In addition, before the treatment, the parents of the children participating in the study signed a consent form to participate in the study. Working memory variable scores were compared using the Wechsler Digit Span Test (Wechsler, 2003) before and after subsidized cognitive rehabilitation. The intervention group received eight sessions of computerized cognitive rehabilitation twice a week for four weeks, while the control group received no treatment. The treatment protocol used in this study was eight 90–minute sessions of computerized cognitive rehabilitation using the Captain's Log (2018) for each subject in the experimental group. Data analysis was done using covariance analysis in SPSS version 17. The significance level of the tests was set at 0.05.
Results: Data analysis showed that the working memory test score in children with learning disabilities in the intervention group and after treatment increased significantly compared to the control group (p<0.001). Based on the effect size results, 58% of the changes in the working memory component in the intervention group were due to the implementation of the computerized cognitive rehabilitation program.
Conclusion: The results of the present study showed that computerized cognitive rehabilitation significantly affects the working memory of students with learning disabilities and can improve their working memory.

Keywords: Computerized cognitive rehabilitation, Working memory, Learning disorder

Full-Text [PDF 230 kb] (117 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original Research Article | Subject: Rehabilitation

References

1. Lu H, Zhang K, Liu Q. Reading fluency and pitch discrimination abilities in children with learning disabilities. Technol Health Care. 2020;28(S1):361–70. [DOI]

2. Ambika A, Vijayasamundeeswari P, David A. Effectiveness of planned teaching program among primary school teachers regarding awareness of learning disabilities in children. J Family Med Prim Care. 2019;8(12):3845–9. [DOI]

3. Brandt J, Rosen JJ. Auditory phonemic perception in dyslexia: categorical identification and discrimination of stop consonants. Brain Lang. 1980;9(2):324–37. [DOI]

4. Mırıcı E, Ocak E, Bayrak S, Kocaöz D, Kankılıç ES, Dağlı E, et al. A noteworthy pathology in children with learning disabilities: late latency response failure in central auditory processing. J Int Adv Otol. 2018;14(3):404–7. [DOI]

5. Sam J, Solomon SG. A study to evaluate the effectiveness of self – instructional module on knowledge regarding learning disabilities of primary school children among primary school teachers of selected schools at Indore, M.P. International Journal of Current Research. 2016;8(10):39991–8.

6. Petretto DR, Carta SM, Cataudella S, Masala I, Mascia ML, Penna MP, et al. the use of distance learning and E–learning in students with learning disabilities: a review on the effects and some hint of analysis on the use during COVID–19 outbreak. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2021;17:92–102. [DOI]

7. Gabay Y, Holt LL. Incidental learning of sound categories is impaired in developmental dyslexia. Cortex. 2015;73:131–43. [DOI]

8. Nicolielo–Carrilho AP, Crenitte PAP, Lopes–Herrera SA, Hage SR de V. Relationship between phonological working memory, metacognitive skills and reading comprehension in children with learning disabilities. J Appl Oral Sci. 2018;26:e20170414. [DOI]

9. Sofologi M, Pliogou V, Bonti E, Efstratopoulou M, Kougioumtzis GA, Papatzikis E, et al. An investigation of working memory profile and fluid intelligence in children with neurodevelopmental difficulties. Front Psychol. 2021;12:773732. [DOI]

10. Henry LA, Christopher E, Chiat S, Messer DJ. A short and engaging adaptive working–memory intervention for children with developmental language disorder: effects on language and working memory. Brain Sci. 2022;12(5):642. [DOI]

11. Kim SH, Gwak DW, Jeong JG, Jung H, Min YS, Kim AR, et al. Effect of computerized cognitive rehabilitation in comparison between young and old age after traumatic brain injury. Medicine (Baltimore). 2022;101(33):e29874. [DOI]

12. De Luca R, Calabrò RS, Gervasi G, De Salvo S, Bonanno L, Corallo F, et al. Is computer–assisted training effective in improving rehabilitative outcomes after brain injury? A case-control hospital–based study. Disabil Health J. 2014;7(3):356–60. [DOI]

13. Farghaly WM, Ahmed MA, El–Tallawy HN, Elmestikawy TA, Badry R, Farghaly MS, et al. Construction of an Arabic computerized battery for cognitive rehabilitation of children with specific learning disabilities. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018;14:2123–31. [Persian] [DOI]

14. Abbariki A, Yazdanbakhsh K, Momeni K. The effectiveness of computer–based cognitive rehabilitation on reducing cognitive failure in students with learning disability. Psychology of Exceptional Individuals. 2017;7(26):127–57. [Persian] [DOI]

15. Esmailzadeh Roozbahani A, Behroozi N, Omidian M, Maktabi GH. Effect of computerized cognitive rehabilitation on executive function and problem–solving of students with a mathematic learning disability. Empowering Exceptional Children. 2022;12(4):98–87. [Persian] [DOI]

16. Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2003.

17. Abedi MR, Sadeghi A, Rabiei M. Standardization of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children – IV in Chahar Mahal va Bakhteyri state. Psychological Achievements. 2015;22(2):99–116. [Persian] [DOI]

18. Mendes L, Oliveira J, Barbosa F, Castelo–Branco M. A conceptual view of cognitive intervention in older adults with and without cognitive decline–a systemic review. Front Aging. 2022;3:844725. [DOI]

19. Clare L, Kudlicka A, Oyebode JR, Jones RW, Bayer A, Leroi I, et al. Individual goal–oriented cognitive rehabilitation to improve everyday functioning for people with early–stage dementia: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (the GREAT trial). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;34(5):709–21. [DOI]

20. Friedl–Francesconi H, Binder H. Training in cognitive functions in neurologic rehabilitation of craniocerebral trauma. Z Exp Psychol. 1996;43(1):1–21. [German]