Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31939109›Full record

SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2020

Working memory training in typically developing children: A multilevel meta-analysis.

Giovanni Sala, Fernand Gobet

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Why does the brain matter for education?The British journal of educational psychology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Is working memory domain-general or domain-specific?Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Giovanni SalaFujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan. sala.giovanni@fujita-hu.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1589-3759
Fernand GobetLondon School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 17F17313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working memory (WM) training in typically developing (TD) children aims to enhance not only performance in memory tasks but also other domain-general cognitive skills, such as fluid intelligence. These benefits are then believed to positively affect academic achievement. Despite the numerous studies carried out, researchers still disagree over the real benefits of WM training. With this meta-analysis (m = 41, k = 393, N = 2,375), we intended to resolve the discrepancies by focusing on the potential sources of within-study and between-study true heterogeneity. Small to medium effects were observed in memory tasks (i.e., near transfer). The size of these effects was proportional to the similarity between the training task and the outcome measure. By contrast, far-transfer measures of cognitive ability (e.g., intelligence) and academic achievement (mathematics and language ability) were essentially unaffected by the training programs, especially when the studies implemented active controls ([Formula: see text] = 0.001, SE = 0.055, p = .982, τ

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentMemory, Short-TermTeachingAcademic SuccessChildCognitionHumansIntelligenceMathematicsResearch DesignAcademic achievementCognitive enhancementCognitive trainingMeta-analysisTransferWorking memory training

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.