Home › Research › Cognitive tests and assessment
Applying the Health Belief Model to Quantify and Investigate Expectations for Computerized Cognitive Training
Jerri D Edwards, Christine B Philllips, Melissa L O'Connor, Jennifer L O'Brien, Elizabeth M Hudak, Jody S Nicholson. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice, 2020-08-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior. We developed and tested scales to quantify expectations about such training, examine whether expectations predicted training adherence, and explore if training expectations changed from pre- to post-training. Participants (N=219) were healthy older adults aged 55-96 years (M=75.36, SD=9.39), enrolled in four studies investigating Dakim, Insight, or Posit Science Brain Fitness computerized cognitive training programs. Instruments were adapted from existing health behavior scales: Self Efficacy for Cognitive Training, Outcome Expectations for Cognitive Training, Perceived Susceptibility to Cognitive Decline, Dementia or Alzheimer's Disease, and Perceived Severity of Cognitive Decline, Dementia or Alzheimer's Disease. Participants completed scales at baseline (N=219) and post-training (n=173). Eight composites were derived from factor analyses. Adherence rates were high (M=81%), but none of the composites predicted training adherence. There was an overall significant effect of time, Wilks' λ=.843, F(8, 114)=2.65, p=.010, partial η 2 =.157, a significant overall effect of training group, Wilks' λ=.770, F(16, 228)=1.99, p=.015, partial η 2 =.123, and an overall significant group x time interaction, Wilks' λ=.728, F(16, 226)=2.44, p=.002, partial η 2 =.147. Significant effects of time were found for expected psychological outcomes and self-efficacy. Post-training, participants more strongly agreed that training was enjoyable and increased their sense of accomplishment. Changes in self-efficacy for cognitive training varied by program, improvingfor Dakim- and declining for the more challenging Brain Fitness- and InSight participants. These newly devised scales may be useful for examining cognitive training behaviors. However, more work is needed to understand factors that influence older adults' enrollment in and adherence to cognitive training.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Edwards, J. D., Philllips, C. B., O'Connor, M. L., O'Brien, J. L., Hudak, E. M., & Nicholson, J. S. (2021). Applying the Health Belief Model to Quantify and Investigate Expectations for Computerized Cognitive Training. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00183-3
Vancouver
Edwards JD, Philllips CB, O'Connor ML, O'Brien JL, Hudak EM, Nicholson JS. Applying the Health Belief Model to Quantify and Investigate Expectations for Computerized Cognitive Training. Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice. 2021. doi:10.1007/s41465-020-00183-3. PMID: 33817548.
BibTeX
@article{edwards2021-33817548,
author = {Edwards, Jerri D and Philllips, Christine B and O'Connor, Melissa L and O'Brien, Jennifer L and Hudak, Elizabeth M and Nicholson, Jody S},
title = {{Applying the Health Belief Model to Quantify and Investigate Expectations for Computerized Cognitive Training}},
journal = {Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1007/s41465-020-00183-3},
pmid = {33817548},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s41465-020-00183-3}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Despite the demonstrated benefits of computerized cognitive training for older adults, little is known about the determinants of training behavior.
- There was an overall significant effect of time, Wilks' λ=.843, F(8, 114)=2.65, p=.010, partial η 2 =.157, a significant overall effect of training group, Wilks' λ=.770, F(16, 228)=1.99, p=.015, partial η 2 =.123, and an overall significant group x time interaction, Wilks' λ=.728, F(16, 226)=2.44, p=.002, partial η 2 =.147.
- Significant effects of time were found for expected psychological outcomes and self-efficacy.
Study details
- Participants219
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of cognitive enhancement : towards the integration of theory and practice) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 219 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 33817548) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 28 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment
Also tagged “computerized”
238 studies in the library carry the topic tag “computerized”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 238 tagged studies.