Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review
Melby-Lervag M, Hulme C · 2013
grade Cmeta-analysisindependentunreplicated
Sample
23 studies, 30 group comparisons
Population
Clinical samples (including ADHD), typically developing children, and healthy adults
Design
RCTs and quasi-experiments with a treated or untreated control group. Graded C because it pools mixed-quality designs including passive controls, which the later literature shows is the single largest source of spurious transfer.
Key findings
Reliable short-term improvement on working-memory tasks. Verbal WM near-transfer effects were NOT sustained at follow-up; visuospatial WM gains showed limited evidence of maintenance. No convincing evidence of generalisation to non-verbal ability, verbal ability, attentional inhibition, word decoding or arithmetic. Casts doubt on both the clinical and the educational case.
Genetic confound
Low. Randomised and quasi-experimental training contrasts; the null is on transfer, not on between-family comparison.
DOI / URL
Effects
| Outcome | Metric | Value | Measure | Timing | Vs | Horizon | Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working memory (near transfer) | pooled effect | reliable short-term gains; verbal not sustained at follow-up | standardized | post-training and follow-up | unclear | unclear | near-transfer |
| Non-verbal ability, verbal ability, word decoding, arithmetic (far transfer) | pooled effect | no convincing evidence of generalisation | standardized | post-training | unclear | end-of-treatment | far-transfer |
Cited by
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?no effectconf: highgc: low