Premium
Changes in verbal and visuospatial working memory from Grade 1 to Grade 3 of primary school: Population longitudinal study
Author(s) -
Nicolaou E.,
Quach J.,
Lum J.,
Roberts G.,
SpencerSmith M.,
Gathercole S.,
Anderson P. J.,
Mensah F. K.,
Wake M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
child: care, health and development
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.832
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1365-2214
pISSN - 0305-1862
DOI - 10.1111/cch.12543
Subject(s) - working memory , psychology , recall , verbal memory , short term memory , working population , working memory training , spatial memory , population , raw score , audiology , developmental psychology , cognition , cognitive psychology , medicine , statistics , raw data , psychiatry , mathematics , environmental health
Background Adaptive working memory training is being implemented without an adequate understanding of developmental trajectories of working memory. We aimed to quantify from Grade 1 to Grade 3 of primary school (1) changes in verbal and visuospatial working memory and (2) whether low verbal and visuospatial working memory in Grade 1 predicts low working memory in Grade 3. Method The study design includes a population‐based longitudinal study of 1,802 children (66% uptake from all 2,747 Grade 1 students) at 44 randomly selected primary schools in Melbourne, Australia. Backwards Digit Recall (verbal working memory) and Mister X (visuospatial working memory) screening measures from the Automated Working Memory Assessment ( M = 100; SD = 15) were used to assess Grades 1 and 3 (ages 6–7 and 8–9 years) students. Low working memory was defined as ≥1 standard deviation below the standard score mean. Descriptive statistics addressed Aim 1, and predictive parameters addressed Aim 2. Results One thousand seventy (59%) of 1802 Grade 1 participants were reassessed in Grade 3. As expected for typically developing children, group mean standard scores were similar in Grades 1 and 3 for verbal, visuospatial, and overall working memory, but group mean raw scores increased markedly. Compared to “not low” children, those classified as having low working memory in Grade 1 showed much larger increases in both standard and raw scores across verbal, visuospatial, and overall working memory. Sensitivity was very low for Grade 1 low working memory predicting Grade 3 low classifications. Conclusion Although mean changes in working memory standard scores between Grades 1 and 3 were minimal, we found that individual development varied widely, with marked natural resolution by Grade 3 in children who initially had low working memory. This may render brain‐training interventions ineffective in the early school year ages, particularly if (as population‐based programmes usually mandate) selection occurs within a screening paradigm.