Home › Research › Prevention trials
Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?
Simons DJ, Boot WR, Charness N, Gathercole SE, Chabris CF, Hambrick DZ, Stine-Morrow EA.. Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society, 2016-10-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting "consensus" views about the effectiveness of brain training?In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence. We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.
Key findings
- How could two teams of scientists examine the same literature and come to conflicting "consensus" views about the effectiveness of brain training?In part, the disagreement might result from different standards used when evaluating the evidence.
- We conclude with detailed recommendations for scientists, funding agencies, and policymakers that, if adopted, would lead to better evidence regarding the efficacy of brain-training interventions.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society) |
| 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 | 1 / 5 | 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 27697851) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2016). Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work? Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
Vancouver
Simons DJ, Boot WR, Charness N, Gathercole SE, Chabris CF, Hambrick DZ, et al. Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work? Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society. 2016. doi:10.1177/1529100616661983. PMID: 27697851.
BibTeX
@article{simons2016-27697851,
author = {Simons, D. J. and Boot, W. R. and Charness, N. and Gathercole, S. E. and Chabris, C. F. and Hambrick, D. Z. and Stine-Morrow, E. A.},
title = {{Do "Brain-Training" Programs Work?}},
journal = {Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society},
year = {2016},
doi = {10.1177/1529100616661983},
pmid = {27697851},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983}
}