Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Ball K, Berch DB, Helmers KF, et al. Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2002;288(18):2271–2281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.288.18.2271
Author Affiliations: Department of Psychology, University of Alabama at Birmingham (Dr Ball); National Institute on Aging (Dr Berch), National Institute of Nursing Research (Drs Helmers and Leveck), and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Dr Jobe), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md; Institute on Aging and Departments of Health Policy and Epidemiology and Clinical and Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville (Dr Marsiske); Hebrew Rehabilitation Center for the Aged, Roslindale, Mass (Dr Morris); Department of Mental Hygiene, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md (Dr Rebok); Department of Medicine (Dr Smith) and Department of Psychiatry (Dr Unverzagt), Indiana University School of Medicine, Bloomington; New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Mass (Dr Tennstedt); and Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park (Dr Willis). Order of authorship on this article is alphabetical by author by vote of the ACTIVE Steering Committee.
Context Cognitive function in older adults is related to independent living
and need for care. However, few studies have addressed whether improving cognitive
functions might have short- or long-term effects on activities related to
Objective To evaluate whether 3 cognitive training interventions improve mental
abilities and daily functioning in older, independent-living adults.
Design Randomized, controlled, single-blind trial with recruitment conducted
from March 1998 to October 1999 and 2-year follow-up through December 2001.
Setting and Participants Volunteer sample of 2832 persons aged 65 to 94 years recruited from
senior housing, community centers, and hospital/clinics in 6 metropolitan
areas in the United States.
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: 10-session group
training for memory (verbal episodic memory; n = 711), or reasoning (ability
to solve problems that follow a serial pattern; n = 705), or speed of processing
(visual search and identification; n = 712); or a no-contact control group
(n = 704). For the 3 treatment groups, 4-session booster training was offered
to a 60% random sample 11 months later.
Main Outcome Measures Cognitive function and cognitively demanding everyday functioning.
Results Thirty participants were incorrectly randomized and were excluded from
the analysis. Each intervention improved the targeted cognitive ability compared
with baseline, durable to 2 years (P<.001 for
all). Eighty-seven percent of speed-, 74% of reasoning-, and 26% of memory-trained
participants demonstrated reliable cognitive improvement immediately after
the intervention period. Booster training enhanced training gains in speed
(P<.001) and reasoning (P<.001)
interventions (speed booster, 92%; no booster, 68%; reasoning booster, 72%;
no booster, 49%), which were maintained at 2-year follow-up (P<.001 for both). No training effects on everyday functioning were
detected at 2 years.
Conclusions Results support the effectiveness and durability of the cognitive training
interventions in improving targeted cognitive abilities. Training effects
were of a magnitude equivalent to the amount of decline expected in elderly
persons without dementia over 7- to 14-year intervals. Because of minimal
functional decline across all groups, longer follow-up is likely required
to observe training effects on everyday function.
Create a personal account or sign in to: