Trial reportApplied neuropsychology. Child
Disseminability of computerized cognitive training: Performance across coaches.
Trial report in Applied neuropsychology. Child. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cogmed is a computerized cognitive intervention utilizing coaches who receive standardized instruction in analyzing training indices and tailoring feedback to remotely monitor participant's performance. The goal of this study was to examine adherence, satisfaction, and efficacy of Cogmed across coaches. Survivors of pediatric brain tumors and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (N = 68) were randomized to intervention (Cogmed) or waitlist control. The intervention group was matched with one of two coaches. Cognitive assessments were completed before and after intervention, and participants and caregivers in the intervention group completed satisfaction surveys. T-tests showed no differences in adherence across coaches (number of sessions completed p = .38; d = .32). Noninferiority statistics were not consistently equivalent for satisfaction, but equivalence was supported for caregiver perceptions of pragmatic utility and participant perceptions of logistical ease of Cogmed. Equivalence was not consistently suggested for cognitive outcomes, but was supported on measures tapping relevant cognitive domains (attention, working memory, processing speed, academic fluency). This study suggests adherence can be maintained across coaches. While aspects of satisfaction and cognitive outcomes were equivalent, the possible influence of coach-based variables cannot be ruled out. Findings highlight challenges in standardizing the coaching component of multicomponent computerized interventions and the need for ongoing research to establish dessiminability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.