Can Research Findings be Used in Clinical Neuropsychology? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Working Memory Intervention for Children.

Blause, Sacha; Léonard, François; Willems, Sylvie; Tirelli, Ezio

doi:10.1093/arclin/acaf048

Article (Scientific journals)

Can Research Findings be Used in Clinical Neuropsychology? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Working Memory Intervention for Children.

Blause, Sacha; Léonard, François; Willems, Sylvie et al.

2025 • In Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/334950

DOI
10.1093/arclin/acaf048

PubMed
40485054

Files (2)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

Can research findings be used in clinical neuropsychology.pdf

Embargo Until 01/Jan/2026 - Author postprint (747.26 kB)

Request a copy

Annexes

Supplementary material mémoire.pdf

Embargo Until 01/Jan/2026 (326.86 kB)

Request a copy

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Cognitive rehabilitation; Neuropsychology; Research quality; Scientific communication; Short-term memory; Working memory

Abstract :

[en] [en] OBJECTIVE: Working memory difficulties are prevalent in children with cognitive disorders, affecting their academic performance and quality of life. To offer optimal care, neuropsychologists rely on evidence-based practice principles, particularly drawing from relevant research data. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for assessing intervention effectiveness, but for these studies to be reliable and clinically applicable, they must meet specific quality standards. This article aims to assess the quality of RCTs published on working memory interventions in children. METHODS: Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of a sample of 30 RCTs on the revalidation of working memory in children with the help of the CONSORT SPI grid (completeness of reporting) and the RoB 2 tool (risk of bias). RESULTS: In our sample, only an average of 11.9 out of 45 CONSORT items were fully reported per article. Key elements like intervention descriptions, outcome definitions, and the blinding process were inadequately reported in over 80% of articles. According to the RoB 2 classification, 36 RCTs were deemed high risk for bias, 10 had some concerns, and 1 was rated as low risk. CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed RCTs on cognitive rehabilitation in children reveal considerable transparency issues and high bias risks, limiting their clinical reliability. Researchers need to enhance the quality and clarity of their studies to better support clinical neuropsychologists.

Disciplines :

Theoretical & cognitive psychology

Author, co-author :

Blause, Sacha ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Psychologie > Neuropsychologie de l'adulte

Léonard, François ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des Sciences de l'éducation > Psychométrie et édumétrie

Willems, Sylvie ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Psychologie et Neuroscience Cognitives (PsyNCog)

Tirelli, Ezio ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Psychologie

Language :

English

Title :

Can Research Findings be Used in Clinical Neuropsychology? Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Working Memory Intervention for Children.

Publication date :

09 June 2025

Journal title :

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology

ISSN :

0887-6177

eISSN :

1873-5843

Publisher :

Oxford University Press, United States

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://academic.oup.com/acn/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/arclin/acaf048/63451932/acaf048.pdf

Available on ORBi :

since 03 August 2025

Statistics

Number of views

46 (5 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

0 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Agoritsas, T., Vandvik, P., Neumann, I., Rochwerg, B., Jaeschke, R., Hayward, R., et al. (2015). Finding current best evidence. In users’ guides to the medical literature: A manual for evidence-based clinical practice (3rd ed.). NYC: McGraw Hill.
Alloway, T. P., Gathercole, S. E., & Éds. (2006). Working memory and neurodevelopmental disorders (1st pub.). East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Anderson, B. L., Williams, S., & Schulkin, J. (2013). Statistical literacy of obstetrics-Gynecology residents. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(2), 272–275. 10.4300/JGME-D-12-00161.1.
APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. The American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285. 10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.271.
Barker, T. H., Stone, J. C., Sears, K., Klugar, M., Tufanaru, C., Leonardi-Bee, J., et al. (2023). The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 494–506. 10.11124/JBIES-22-00430.
Bharadwaj, S. V., Yeatts, P., & Headley, J. (2022). Efficacy of cogmed working memory training program in improving working memory in school-age children with and without neurological insults or disorders: A meta-analysis. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 11(4), 891–903. 10.1080/21622965.2021.1920943.
Blause, S., Tirelli, E., Wauquiez, G., Raffard, S., Didone, V., & Willems, S. (2023). What information do neuropsychologists use to guide their clinical decisions? A survey on knowledge and application of evidence-based practice in a French-speaking population. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 39(2), 140–156. 10.1093/arclin/acad057.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., et al. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. 10.1038/nrn3475.
Calin-Jageman, R. J., & Cumming, G. (2019). The new statistics for better science: Ask how much, how uncertain, and what Else is known. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 271–280. 10.1080/00031305.2018.1518266.
Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200–207. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
Cuijpers, P., Karyotaki, E., Andersson, G., Li, J., Mergl, R., & Hegerl, U. (2015). The effects of blinding on the outcomes of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: A meta-analysis. European Psychiatry, 30(6), 685–693. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.06.005.
Cybulski, L., Mayo-Wilson, E., & Grant, S. (2016). Improving transparency and reproducibility through registration: The status of intervention trials published in clinical psychology journals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84(9), 753–767. 10.1037/ccp0000115.
Davison, G. C., & Lazarus, A. A. (1995). The dialectics of science and practice. In Scientific standards of psychological practice: Issues and recommendations (, pp. 95–120). Oakland, CA: Context Press/New Harbinger Publications.
Dehn, M. J. (2010). Long-term memory problems in children and adolescents: Assessment, intervention, and effective instruction. New Jersey: Wiley.
Falkenström, F., Markowitz, J. C., Jonker, H., Philips, B., & Holmqvist, R. (2013). Can psychotherapists function as their own controls?: Meta-analysis of the crossed therapist Design in Comparative Psychotherapy Trials. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 74(05), 482–491. 10.4088/JCP.12r07848.
Faulkner, C., Fidler, F., & Cumming, G. (2008). The value of RCT evidence depends on the quality of statistical analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(2), 270–281. 10.1016/j.brat.2007.12.001.
Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide for teachers (1. publ ed.). California: SAGE Publ.
Gigerenzer, G. (2018). Statistical rituals: The replication delusion and how we got there. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(2), 198–218. 10.1177/2515245918771329.
Goh, M. S. L., Looi, D. S. H., Goh, J. L., Sultana, R., Goh, S. S. M., Lee, J. H., et al. (2021). The impact of traumatic brain injury on neurocognitive outcomes in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 92(8), 847–853. 10.1136/jnnp-2020-325066.
Hardwicke, T. E., Thibault, R. T., Kosie, J. E., Wallach, J. D., Kidwell, M. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2022). Estimating the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related research practices in psychology (2014–2017). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 239–251. 10.1177/1745691620979806.
Hardwicke, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2023). Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 15–26. 10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2.
Hawkins, R. O., & Axelrod, M. I. (2008). Increasing the on-task homework behavior of youth with behavior disorders using functional Behavioral assessment. Behavior Modification, 32(6), 840–859. 10.1177/0145445508318846.
Hoffmann, T., Bennett, S., & Del Mar, C. (2017). Evidence-based practice across the health professions (3rd ed). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Hulley, S. B., & Éd. (2013). Designing clinical research (4th ed.). Waltham, MA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Fanelli, D., Dunne, D. D., & Goodman, S. N. (2015). Meta-research: Evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biology, 13(10), e1002264. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Munafò, M. R., Fusar-Poli, P., Nosek, B. A., & David, S. P. (2014). Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: Detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(5), 235–241. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.010.
Kilicoglu, H., Jiang, L., Hoang, L., Mayo-Wilson, E., Vinkers, C. H., & Otte, W. M. (2023). Methodology reporting improved over time in 176,469 randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 162, 19–28. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.004.
Leichsenring, F., Abbass, A., Hilsenroth, M. J., Leweke, F., Luyten, P., Keefe, J. R., et al. (2017). Biases in research: Risk factors for non-replicability in psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy research. Psychological Medicine, 47(6), 1000–1011. 10.1017/S003329171600324X.
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. The Lancet, 357(9263), 1191–1194. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3.
Montgomery, P., Grant, S., Mayo-Wilson, E., Macdonald, G., Michie, S., Hopewell, S., et al. (2018). Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: The CONSORT-SPI 2018 extension. Trials, 19(1), 407. 10.1186/s13063-018-2733-1.
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Du Percie, N., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. 10.1038/s41562-016-0021.
Munder, T., Flückiger, C., Gerger, H., Wampold, B. E., & Barth, J. (2012). Is the allegiance effect an epiphenomenon of true efficacy differences between treatments? A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(4), 631–637. 10.1037/a0029571.
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and sciences (2018). Replication studies: Improving reproductibility in the empirical sciences. Amsterdam: Advisory Report.
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn’t. BMJ, 312(7023), 71–72. 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71.
Satterfield, J. M., Spring, B., Brownson, R. C., Mullen, E. J., Newhouse, R. P., Walker, B. B., et al. (2009). Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(2), 368–390. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00561.x.
Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R. M. J., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2), 251524592110074. 10.1177/25152459211007467.
Séguin, M., Gagner, C., Tuerk, C., Lacombe Barrios, J., MacKay, P., & Beauchamp, M. H. (2022). What about the little ones? Systematic review of cognitive and Behavioral outcomes following early TBI. Neuropsychology Review, 32(4), 906–936. 10.1007/s11065-021-09517-0.
Sessler, D. I., & Imrey, P. B. (2015). Clinical research methodology 3: Randomized controlled trials. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 121(4), 1052–1064. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000862.
Shamseer, L., Hopewell, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & Schulz, K. F. (2016). Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: A survey of journal “instructions to authors” in 2014. Trials, 17(1), 301. 10.1186/s13063-016-1408-z.
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., et al. (2019). RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898.
Straus, S. E., Glasziou, P., Richardson, W. S., & Haynes, R. B. (2019). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM (5t ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Tate, R. L., & Perdices, M. (2015). N-of-1 Trials in the Behavioral Sciences. In J. Nikles & G. Mitchell (Éds.), The essential guide to N-of-1 trials in health (pp. 19–41). Netherlands: Springer.
Thabane, L., Mbuagbaw, L., Kosa, D., Borg Debono, V., Dillenburg, R., Zhang, S., et al. (2013). A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 6, 169–188. 10.2147/JMDH.S43952.
Villemonteix, T. (2018). L’entraînement de la mémoire de travail est-il bénéfique pour les enfants présentant un trouble déficit de l’attention/hyperactivité ? Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence, 66(1), 3–12. 10.1016/j.neurenf.2017.07.003.
Wang, C., Xu, T., Geng, F., Hu, Y., Wang, Y., Liu, H., et al. (2019). Training on abacus-based mental calculation enhances visuospatial working memory in children. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 39(33), 6439–6448. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3195-18.2019.
Watson, D. P., Adams, E. L., Shue, S., Coates, H., McGuire, A., Chesher, J., et al. (2018). Defining the external implementation context: An integrative systematic literature review. BMC Health Services Research, 18(1), 209. 10.1186/s12913-018-3046-5.
Westover, M. B., Westover, K. D., & Bianchi, M. T. (2011). Significance testing as perverse probabilistic reasoning. BMC Medicine, 9(1), 20. 10.1186/1741-7015-9-20.