Skip to main content

Table 4 Prognostic factors for training improvement in verbal long-term memory

From: Prognostic factors for change in memory test performance after memory training in healthy older adults: a systematic review and outline of statistical challenges

StudyTest for outcome assessmentDependent variablePrognostic factor
Multiple regression
   AgeEducationSexNeuropsychologyImagingOthers
O'Hara et al. [9]Number of words correctly recalled.Post-test scores
Pre-test and change scores were integrated in regression.
 Gain scores following training ↑ * Length of training (short vs. long) ↑
Reported use of mnemonic at follow-up ↑ *
Type of pre-training (standard vs. comprehensive) ↓
Pre-training ↑ *
Brooks et al. [8]Proper name recall taskPost-test scores↑ *  Pre-test score →* Pre-training * Length →
Length of training →
Pre-training →
McDougall et al. [40]RBMTChange score
Relative gains from beginning to end of training
x   Ethnical group x
Park et al. [7]Elderly verbal learning test, delayed recall
However, results are reported forcognitive functionas outcome measure, which is not clearly defined
Change score
Post-pre
↓*Pre-test scores of neuropsychological tests (Digit Span Test, Spatial Span Test, Categorical Fluency Test, short version of Boston Naming test) →  
Pesce et al. [20]RVLTChange score
Post-pre
     Change in dROMs ↓
Change in BAP ↑
Correlation analysis
Leahy, Ridout, Mushtaq et al., [25]Autobiographical memory specificityChange score     Independence
Depression
Functional limitations
Memory specificity
Andrewes et al. [26]Laboratory Prospective Memory Assessment
Everyday Prospective Memory Assessment
Change score   NART →
Warrington Forced Choice Recognition →
RAVT →
 Mattis dementia scale →
Depression →
Anschutz et al. [27]Free recall of 2 lists
Recognition of 2 lists
No clear reporting.No clear reporting.
Hill et al. [38]Improvement in list recallChange scores   MMSE ↑  
Leahy, Ridout, and Holland, [24]Autobiographical memory specificity.Change scores   Baseline cognitive flexibility ↑  
Group comparisons (ANOVA, t test)
McDougall et al. [40]RBMTPre-test and Post-test scores calculated in an ANOVA.xx   Ethnicity x
O’Hara et al., [43]List-learning testPre-test and Post-test scores calculated in an ANOVA.     Apolipoprotein E4 ↓
Mixed models
/
  1. Studies are sorted according to the statistical method used for obtaining the prognostic factors
  2. ANOVA analysis of variance, MMSE Mini Mental State Examination, NART National Adult Reading Test, RAVL Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, RBMT Rivermead behavioural memory test, RVLT Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, dROMs reactive oxygen metabolites derivative compounds, BAP antioxidant levels; ↑ the higher the prognostic factor, the higher the improvement/positive correlation; ↓ the lower the prognostic factor, the higher the improvement/negative correlation; → no direction of effect reported; * significant; x unclear reporting
\