Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objectives Deficits in working memory (WM) are associated with age-related decline. We report findings from a clinical trial that examined the effectiveness of Cogmed, a computerized program that trains WM. We compare this program to a Sham condition in older adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Methods Older adults (N = 68) living in the community were assessed. Participants reported memory impairment and met criteria for MCI, either by poor delayed memory or poor performance in other cognitive areas. The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS, Delayed Memory Index) and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale (CDR) were utilized. All presented with normal Mini Mental State Exams (MMSE) and activities of daily living (ADLs). Participants were randomized to Cogmed or a Sham computer program. Twenty-five sessions were completed over five to seven weeks. Pre, post, and follow-up measures included a battery of cognitive measures (three WM tests), a subjective memory scale, and a functional measure. Results Both intervention groups improved over time. Cogmed significantly outperformed Sham on Span Board and exceeded in subjective memory reports at follow-up as assessed by the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire (CFQ). The Cogmed group demonstrated better performance on the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), a measure of adjustment and far transfer, at follow-up. Both groups, especially Cogmed, enjoyed the intervention. Conclusions Results suggest that WM was enhanced in both groups of older adults with MCI. Cogmed was better on one core WM measure and had higher ratings of satisfaction. The Sham condition declined on adjustment.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 52/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 30 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 52 of 100. Total 52 of 100.30 of the 58 points we could judge = 52 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and effect reported 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Clinical gerontologist)
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 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 68 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 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
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 29471774)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 30 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 30 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total 52 / 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.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Hyer, L., Scott, C., Atkinson, M. M., Mullen, C. M., Lee, A., Johnson, A., et al. (2016). Cognitive Training Program to Improve Working Memory in Older Adults with MCI. Clinical gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2015.1120257

Vancouver

Hyer L, Scott C, Atkinson MM, Mullen CM, Lee A, Johnson A, et al. Cognitive Training Program to Improve Working Memory in Older Adults with MCI. Clinical gerontologist. 2016. doi:10.1080/07317115.2015.1120257. PMID: 29471774.

BibTeX

@article{hyer2016-29471774,
  author  = {Hyer, L. and Scott, C. and Atkinson, M. M. and Mullen, C. M. and Lee, A. and Johnson, A. and Mckenzie, L. C.},
  title   = {{Cognitive Training Program to Improve Working Memory in Older Adults with MCI}},
  journal = {Clinical gerontologist},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1080/07317115.2015.1120257},
  pmid    = {29471774},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2015.1120257}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Also tagged “cognitive-function”

1,118 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cognitive-function”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,118 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →