Working Memory Training in Children with Mild Intellectual Disability - Research Proposal Example

Effectiveness of Working Memory Training in Children with Mild Intellectual Disability Name Institution Name Introduction Working memory is regarded as the central intellectual faculty that is directly linked to one’s IQ, ageing and mental health. Working memory training in this essence is aimed at improving the individual’s working memory. Some studies have claimed that training programs for working memory are essential for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) effectively together with other children cognitive disorders. Similarly it is said to be an effective tool for improving cognitive ability as well as scholastic achievements particularly in adults and developing children. Contrastingly, these results/effects across different research studies have been found to vary significantly thus posing a critical question in regard to working memory training effectiveness. This paper is a research proposal that is aimed at investigating the working memory training effectiveness in children suffering from mild intellectual disabilities. Study Background Concepts of working memory became widely accepted together with its relevance better understood in 1970s (Holmes et al., 2010; Raven, Raven & Court, 2003). During this time various studies attempting to enhance the one’s working memory were initiated. Different varying views have been established with regard to effects of working memory training; there are still wide inconsistencies (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). No study so far has established that indeed working memory training improves ones working memory in the long term. Currently, commercial computer based programs have been designed with a singular objective of working memory training. These programs include: CogMed, Jungle Memory, and Cognifit. They have been claimed to offer massive benefits in terms of improving and enhancing one’s working memory. Strongly, manufacturers of these programs have alluded that the aforementioned programs are effective. According to the Jungle Memory website; www.junglememory.com it is claimed that children suffering from ADHD, dyslexia, sensory integration difficulties, dyspraxia, autism spectrum disorders, language impairments, and children with poor grades stand high chances to benefit by using the Jungle Memory working memory training program. Accordingly, it is said that Jungle Memory is the only proven brain training program with the capacity to enhance grades immediately after use (www.junglememory.com). Like Jungle Memory, CogMed website; www.cogmed.com claims that their working memory training program CogMed is the solution for persons who are held back by their working memory capacity ( www.cogmed.com). In order to establish the validity of the above claims, it is significantly important to conduct an in-depth study to establish working memory training effectiveness of (Holmes et al., 2010). Children with mild intellectual disabilities serve as the best specimen given the fact that their cognitive inabilities are not to the extreme. The study will examine the working memory training effectiveness in mild intellectually disabled children (IQ 55-75) using the Baddeley models. Significance of the Study This study provides a comprehensive understanding working memory training effectiveness. Various experts established that the results regarding studies about the working memory training effectiveness vary extensively; this research will help in furthering the understanding of this topic. Given this understanding, this paper provides the following as it significance: 1. This paper provides working memory trainers together with programmers with information regarding working memory training effectiveness will essential be important in improving the current training programs to make them more efficient and reliable (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). 2. The field of working memory is still undergoing growth and thus this study can be used for professional purposes where different researchers can refer to it in future to expand the understanding of the working memory training effectiveness particularly in children with mild intellectual abilities Research Aim To determine the Working Memory Training effectiveness in children with mild intellectual abilities. Research Question The main research question of this study is; What is the level of effectiveness of working memory training in children with mild intellectual disabilities? Theoretical Framework Intellectual Disability This is a disability that occurs in the growth and development period of an individual and is mainly characterized by sub-average intellectual functioning, their IQ is said to be under or equal to 70, and they are deficient in at least two areas of adaptive behaviour including: self care, communication, home living, self direction, learning, social skills, leisure and learning. In clinical perspectives, intellectual disability is mainly defined in terms of the severity of condition; for instance, it is categorized into Mild intellectual disability, Moderate, and Severe. Individual suffering from mild intellectual disability comprise of approximately 75% of the entire population with intellectual disability and their IQ ranges from 50 to 70 (Chein & Morrison, 2010). Persons with mild intellectual disability are unable to effectively manage their lives without training and/or support (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). Some of these individuals can live independently; however, they experience significant struggles particularly in managing everyday issues. They have great difficulties in understanding what is happening and what is required of them without assistance (Chein & Morrison, 2010). Some studies have established that persons with mild intellectual disability have much in common with those with learning disabilities. For instance, their intellectual development is usually slow; nonetheless, students with mild intellectual disability are potentially able to learn within frequent and regular classroom particularly with appropriate modifications (Holmes et al., 2010). Accordingly, some students will need immense support and/or withdrawal than others will require. Students with mild intellectual disabilities and depending on the educational jurisdiction, their intellectual functioning is approximately 2-4 years behind normal students (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). Working Memory Training The working memory is defined as the system of brain that temporarily stores and manipulates information relevant for complex cognitive tasks (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). This concept originated from earlier short-term memory concepts; having a memory storage capacity that is limited as a result of rapid loss due decay (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Various researches have established that short term-memory measures including digit span, is significantly related to measures of higher levels of cognitive functioning like IQ, reading, and arithmetic skills (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Contrastingly, short-term memory tasks like digit span, working memory is majorly inclined towards trying to maintain information in active memory together with simultaneously performing distracting and/or interfering activities (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). For instance, working memory capacity is viewed as a limit to one’s ability to repeatedly retrieve information form secondary or permanent memory lost from focus of attention due to competing cognitive activity (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Accordingly, the working memory measures show higher correlations with higher level cognitive function measures (Engle, 2002). Many tasks involving both nonverbal and verbal materials have been widely used to try and assess working memory skills (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). A range of experts in this field have come up with different views as to whether working memory capacity holistically reflects separable, modality specific system or a domain general cognitive capacity (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Results from large scale latent variable investigations with children (Alloways et al., 2006) and adults (Kane et al., 2004) support that working memory capacity is predominantly a domain-general capacity (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Working Memory Training Programs There are various working memory training programs that are commercial computer based specifically designed for the aforementioned task (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). The most widely used program for instance is CogMed; it is used in more than 30 countries across the world widely used in clinics and schools. CogMed is based on eight dissimilar exercises that are mainly tied to visuospatial and working memory tasks where the difficulty levels adaptively varies during the training (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Jungle Memory is another working memory training program available; it is based on three different tasks including auditory, visual, and cross modal working memory tasks (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Another working memory training program available is Cogniifit which is also based on auditory, visual, and cross modal working memory tasks (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Working Memory Training In the recent past various reviews have been conducted to analyze working memory training programs effects (Chein & Morrison, 2010). The conclusions that were drawn from these reviews were significantly varied. For instance, Morrison and Chein (2011) established that results from individual studies encouraged optimism with regard to working memory training as a tool for general cognitive enhancement (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Additionally, Klingberg (2010) also concluded that the training effects observed in working memory training show that this training could be used as remedy interventions for persons with low working memory capacity and which is regarded as the limiting factor for their performance in academics or in everyday life (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Regardless of the above conclusions, Shipstead et al., (2010) had a contrasting conclusion; they observed that their findings were inconsistent and that they were probably derived from inadequate controls and ineffective measurements with regard to cognitive variables of interest (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). The wide disparity in conclusions as drawn from different studies is a clear reflection that there are large variations in the findings across studies in the field of working memory training. For instance, some studies suggest that there are large effects on far-transfer measures while other have zero transfer effects (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). The meta-analytic review that was undertaken in 2012 where all randomized controlled trials were included established that there were short-term improvements in practiced skills. However, no convincing evidence for transfer or generalized effect was established (Holmes et al., 2010; Klingberg, 2010). This study significantly shows that there is no solid evidence supporting working memory training effectiveness together with the methods used in enhancing cognitive functioning in developing children. The New York University and University of York also studied the effects of Cogmed working memory training program on children with attention issues. No promising evidence was established to support the effectiveness of Cogmed program (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Theoretical Issues: Training Working Memory Capacity When working memory reflects attentional resource limitation; then working memory training in practice should produce results that show transfer effects to untrained tasks (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). In essence, working memory training should culminate into an increased domain-general attentional capacity that is essential for undertaking many diverse tasks (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). The training should lead to both far- and near- transfer effects (Barnett & Ceci, 2002). The near-transfer effects refer to impairments on a visuospatial working memory task after training on a verbal working memory task (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). The far-transfer effects are different from trained tasks including improvements in IQ after training in a working memory task (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2010). In the same line of discussion, deficiencies in working memory is a potential description for a number of cognitive development disorders including ADHD, reading disorders, specific language impairment, as well as mathematics disorders. Increase in working memory capacity is largely expected to alleviate the learning difficulties particularly for children suffering from intellectual disabilities (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). In this regard, successful domain-general working memory training capabilities should also transform into acquiring far-transfer effects to diverse skills together with other tasks that children might be having problems with arithmetic, decoding words , attentional control, language abilities, and behavioural inhibition (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Accordingly, this transfer effect notion Holmes et al.,(2010) and Klingberg (2010) explains the working memory training practical importance; translating these effects to other tasks in the real world including IQ testing as well as showing attentional skills that are improved improved which may have general effect on cognitive development together with excellence in school activities. A number of assumptions have been made to support the notion that working memory training has significant general effects; it can result into increased standardized measures of intelligences like the Raven’s Progressive Matrices test (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). From the above discussion, far-transfer effects are expected if working memory training is effective; the working memory performance should reflect the effects of general-purpose attentional system. In this regard, if at all working memory training programs are effective, they should result into improvement of attentionally demanding tasks. Given these reasoning, it is essential to assess the effectiveness or the extent to which working memory training programs are able to enhance or improve scores on such tests like the Raven’s matrices (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). The levels of transfer effects are also vital particularly in showing the clinical and/or practical advantages of working memory training. Important to note, in the event that programs of working memory training provide similar effects like those gained from training, then, the whole working memory training is not effective and not in line with what is proposed in the theoretical and practical importance (Hulme and Melby-Lervag, 2012). Methodology The researcher will use the Baddeley Model in investigating working memory training effectiveness in children with mild intellectual disabilities. Baddeley Model This system claims that here are different systems for different types of information rather than having information going through one single store (McLeod, 2008). In this essence, the working is comprised of a central executive that is tasked with controlling and coordinating the operations of two subsystems; the phonological loop and visuo-spatial sketchpad (Thorell et al., 2009) Central Executive: the driver of the whole system; the boss of working memory and responsible for allocating data to subsystems. It is also responsible for cognitive tasks like mental arithmetic and problem solving (McLeod, 2008). Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS): also referred to as the inner eye, it is responsible for storing and processing information in a visual spatial form. The VSS is mainly used for navigation (McLeod, 2008). Phonological Loop: the part of the working memory that is tasked with spoken and written material. It consists of two parts: Phonological store (inner ear): it is linked to the speech reception. It holds information in speech-based form like spoken words Articulatory control process (inner voice): this is associated with speech production and is used for rehearsal and store verbal information from phonological store (McLeod, 2008). Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html Data collection The researcher will investigate working memory in 75 children suffering from mild intellectual difficulties grouped in three groups with an average age of 15 years, 25 mental age-matched control children with mean age of 12 years, and 25 chronological age -matched control children with a mean age of 15 years. The research participants will be asked to perform two tasks at the same time (dual task technique) (McLeod, 2008);for instance they will undertake a digit span task that requires them to repeat a list of numbers, and a verbal reasoning task that require them to answer true or false to various questions. Data Analysis and Presentation The researcher will use the questionnaire survey, interviews and observations as primary data collection tools. After data collection the researcher will simplify the interpretation and analysis of the data collected to make it easier to understand; in this regard, the researcher will use SPSS software to analyse and present the research findings on working memory training effects in children with mild intellectual abilities. In this regard, the tables, pie charts, and Bar charts. Below is the explanation as to how these data analysis tools will be used: Frequency Tables This is a basic form of data analysis that shows responses, total number of respondents for each variable together with the percentage of respondents who selected each answer. Frequency tables are essential particularly when dealing with a large number of responses or when the difference between the percentages of each option is minimal. The researcher will use frequency tables for recording the responses from participants. Pie Charts This is a data analysis and presentation tool that is a circular chart divided into sectors which illustrate the numerical proportions. For instance, each arc length of a sector is directly proportional to the quantity it represents. In this particular research, the researcher will use the pie chart to analyse and present numerical proportions of data. Bar Chart This is a chart with rectangular bars whereby the length is proportional to the values that they represent. They can either be plotted horizontally or vertically. The vertical bar chart is also referred to as a column bar chart. For instance, one axis of the bar chart is designed to display the specific categories being compared while the other axis represents a discrete value. In the Police Corruption researcher, the researcher will use bar charts to show the frequency of different variables. The bar charts will also help the researcher to present the information in same order in each grouping. The researcher will be able to record discrete data. Timeline The research will take six months; in this regard the first month will be dedicated to intensive document analysis with regard to Working Memory Training Effectiveness in Children with Mild Intellectual Abilities. In this case, the researcher will review different readily available documents to have an inherent understanding of the previous works on the research topic. The researcher will review reports, journals, books as well as online libraries on working memory training and its effectiveness. The next three months will be used for conducting main study together with main data collection. After the data collection, the researcher will use the fifth month to conduct data analysis and write a dissertation plan. The sixth and last month, the researcher will compile the findings of the final report. References Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Pickering, S. J. (2006). Verbal and visuo-spatial short-term and working memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77, 1698 –1716. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00968.x Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612– 637. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.612 Chein, J. M., & Morrison, A. (2010). Expanding the mind’s workspace: Training and transfer effects with a complex working memory span task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 193–199. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.2.193 Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A method-ological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769 –786. doi:10.3758/BF03196772 Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19 –23. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00160 Holmes, J., Gathercole, S. E., Place, M., Dunning, D. L., Hilton, K. A., & Elliott, J. G. (2010). Working memory deficits can be overcome: Impacts of training and medication on working memory in children with ADHD. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 827– 836. doi:10.1002/acp.1589 Hulme, C. And Melby-Lervag, M. (2012). Is Working Memory Training Effective? A Meta-Analytic Review. Source; https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-49-2-270.pdf Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 133, 189 – 217. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.189 Klingberg, T. (2010). Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 317–324. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.002 McLeod, S. (2008) Working Memory. Simply Psychology. Source: http://www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2010). Serial and free recall in children can be improved by training: Evidence for the importance of phonolog-ical and semantic representations in immediate memory tasks. Psycho-logical Science, 21, 1694–1700 doi:10.1177/0956797610385355 Morrison, A., & Chein, J. (2011). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 46 – 60. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0034-0 Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales - Section 1: General over-view. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment Shipstead, Z., Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2010). Does working memory training generalize? Psychologica Belgica, 50, 245–276. Thorell, L. B., Lindqvist, S., Bergman, S., Bohlin, N. G., & Klingberg, T. (2009). Training and transfer effects of executive functions in preschool children. Developmental Science, 12, 106 –113. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00745.x Unsworth, N., & Engle, R. W. (2007). On the division of short-term and working memory: An examination of simple and complex spans and their relation to higher-order abilities. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1038 –1066. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.6.1038 Westerberg, H., Jacobaeus, H., Hirvikoski, T., Clevberger, P., Ostensson, M. L., Bartfai, A., & Klingberg, T. (2007). Computerized working memory training after stroke–A pilot study. Brain Injury, 21, 21–29. doi:10.1080/02699050601148726 Read More