A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence on the near- and far-transfer effects among children's executive function skills
Kassai R, Futo J, Demetrovics Z, Takacs ZK · 2019
grade Bmeta-analysisindependentunreplicated
Sample
k = 43 near-transfer comparisons; k = 17 far-transfer comparisons
Population
Children; training of working memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility
Design
Asks the tightest possible transfer question: does training ONE executive function move ANOTHER executive function? This is a far shorter jump than 'working memory training raises maths achievement', which makes the null especially informative - if transfer fails at this distance, the longer jumps are hopeless.
Key findings
Significant near transfer, g+ = 0.44 (k = 43, p < .001): the interventions did train what they targeted. No convincing far transfer, g+ = 0.11 (k = 17, p = .11): training one component did not move the others. The authors argue this explains the absence of far transfer from WM training to academic skills.
Genetic confound
Low. Experimental training contrasts in children.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trained executive-function component (near transfer) | Hedges g+ | g+ = 0.44 (k = 43), p < .001 | standardized | post-training | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | near-transfer |
| Untrained executive-function components (far transfer) | Hedges g+ | g+ = 0.11 (k = 17), p = .11 (null) | standardized | post-training | business-as-usual | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
Cited by
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?no effectconf: highgc: low
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?no effectconf: highgc: low