Trial reportNeuropsychological rehabilitation2012
Systematic instruction for individuals with acquired brain injury: results of a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Underrepresentation of Participants From Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups: A Secondary Analysis of the Cognitive Rehabilitation Literature.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2025Review
- The Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Implications for Improvements in Research Design, Reporting, Replication, and Synthesis.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Use of Smart Home Technology by People With Brain Impairment: Protocol for a Single-Case Experimental Design.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate experimentally systematic instruction compared with trial-and-error learning (conventional instruction) applied to assistive technology for cognition (ATC), in a double-blind, pre-test-post-test, randomised controlled trial. Twenty-nine persons with moderate-severe cognitive impairments due to acquired brain injury (15 in systematic instruction group; 14 in conventional instruction) completed the study. Both groups received 12, 45-minute individual training sessions targeting selected skills on the Palm Tungsten E2 personal digital assistant (PDA). A criterion-based assessment of PDA skills was used to evaluate accuracy, fluency/efficiency, maintenance, and generalisation of skills. There were no significant differences between groups at immediate post-test with regard to accuracy and fluency. However, significant differences emerged at 30-day follow-up in favour of systematic instruction. Furthermore, systematic instruction participants performed significantly better at immediate post-test generalising trained PDA skills when interacting with people other than the instructor. These results demonstrate that systematic instruction applied to ATC results in better skill maintenance and generalisation than trial-and-error learning for individuals with moderate-severe cognitive impairments due to acquired brain injury. Implications, study limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.