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 69 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate educational differences in treatment responses to memory, reasoning, and speed of processing cognitive training relative to no-contact control. Methods Secondary analyses of the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly trial were conducted. Two thousand eight hundred older adults were randomized to memory, reasoning, or speed of processing training or no-contact control. A repeated-measures mixed-effects model was used to investigate immediate post-training and 1-year outcomes with sensitivity analyses out to 10 years. Outcomes were as follows: (1) memory composite of Hopkins Verbal Learning Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, and Rivermead Behavioral Memory Test; (2) reasoning composite of letter series, letter sets, and word series; and (3) speed of processing measured using three trials of useful field of view and the digit symbol substitution test. Results The effects of reasoning and memory training did not differ by educational attainment. The effect of speed of processing training did. Those with fewer than 12 years of education experienced a 50% greater effect on the useful field of view test compared with those with 16 or more years of education. The training advantage for those with fewer than 12 years of education was maintained to 3 years post-training. Conclusion Older adults with less than a secondary education are at elevated risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. The analyses here indicate that speed of processing training is effective in older adults with low educational attainment.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 69/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 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. 40 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 69 of 100. Total 69 of 100.40 of the 58 points we could judge = 69 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size 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 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 69 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
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 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 3 / 3 Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study)
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 26644115)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 40 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 40 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 69 out of 100.
Total 69 / 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Clark, D. O., Xu, H., Unverzagt, F. W., & Hendrie, H. (2016). Does targeted cognitive training reduce educational disparities in cognitive function among cognitively normal older adults? International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4395

Vancouver

Clark DO, Xu H, Unverzagt FW, Hendrie H. Does targeted cognitive training reduce educational disparities in cognitive function among cognitively normal older adults? International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2016. doi:10.1002/gps.4395. PMID: 26644115.

BibTeX

@article{clark2016-26644115,
  author  = {Clark, D. O. and Xu, H. and Unverzagt, F. W. and Hendrie, H.},
  title   = {{Does targeted cognitive training reduce educational disparities in cognitive function among cognitively normal older adults?}},
  journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1002/gps.4395},
  pmid    = {26644115},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4395}
}

Related studies in Prevention trials

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →