Aging
Conditions
Keywords
everyday memory, ecological momentary assessment, memory complaint, metacognition, mnemonics, external aids
Brief summary
Evaluates an intervention designed to improve everyday memory function, contrasting people receiving the intervention with a group that receives traditional memory strategy training.
Detailed description
This project seeks to develop and validate a novel approach to training everyday memory functioning in older adults. The approach (1) trains people to use simple but effective memory skills that have broad applicability in everyday life and (2) shapes a set of skills and habits of mind that will increase the likelihood of effective use of skills and memory aids. It is based on a metacognitive perspective on self-regulation in cognitively demanding situations and informed by recent theories about how suboptimal habit patterns can be altered. The approach has not yet been used in an everyday memory intervention in high-functioning, community-dwelling older adults. The proposed research validates ecological momentary assessment methods to get actual behavioral measures of forgetting in everyday life. It then uses these procedures in a randomized experiment that contrasts the everyday memory intervention group with a traditional memory-strategy training group. The hypothesis is that the everyday memory training intervention will reduce everyday memory errors and memory complaints, whereas the memory strategy training will alter strategy use and memory performance, with little cross-over effect. The hypothesized pattern will establish the explicit benefits of our everyday memory intervention procedures and demonstrate the limitation of standard memory training for that purpose.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALEveryday Metacognitive Memory Intervention
Provides training in use of techniques and procedures to enhance proactive self-regulatory control over everyday memory demands, including strategies for learning information, planning for meeting everyday goals, and monitoring of efficacy of goal pursuit.
BEHAVIORALMemory Strategy Control Intervention
Trains use of standard mnemonic techniques such as imagery and sentence generation for learning new associations and organizational and distinctiveness-based strategies for learning sets of items (e.g., word lists).
Sponsors
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
BASIC_SCIENCE
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
70 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* 70 - 85 years of age * in fair to good health * free of major neurocognitive impairment * English speaking * endorsed Smartphone and computer users (or willing to learn)
Exclusion criteria
* diagnosis of any major neurological problems (e.g. stroke, Parkinson's disease, dementia) * 1.5 SD below age-normed mean (or lower) on the TICS * low computer and smart phone literacy * and poor self-rated health.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Time in Seconds) | posttest only | Computerized task to simulate use of an automated telephone program to refill prescriptions. Measure: time to complete task (in seconds) |
| Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Number of Errors) | posttest only | Computerized task to simulate use of an automated telephone program to refill prescriptions. Measure: Number of errors |
| Free Recall Test | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Computerized task to present 30 concrete nouns, 6 from 5 taxonomic categories (Hultsch, Hertzog, Dixon, & Small, 1998) Measure is proportion of 30 words recalled |
| Associative Recall Test | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Computerized task to present 40 concrete-concrete associatively unrelated noun pairs (Hertzog, Sinclair, & Dunlosky, 2010) Outcome is proportion of 40 words correctly recalled. |
| Story Recall | posttest only | gist recall of narrative story (total number of propositions (ideas) from story recalled) |
| Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Time in Seconds) | posttest only | Computerized task to simulate use of an ATM machine. Measure: time to complete task (in seconds) |
| Everyday Memory Failures | minimum 8 day period after training on app prior to posttest | Across the data collection period, participants audio recorded descriptions of their memory failures on a smartphone app. The audio recordings were transcribed and then cleaned and qualitatively coded so that the number of memory failures each participant reported during the data collection period could be counted. The data was qualitatively coded to ensure an accurate count of the number of memory failures per participant without counting duplicate events or accidental reports. Average daily number of reported memory failures from EMA & daily diaries is reported. |
| Prospective Memory Lab Contacts | Two weeks prior to posttest | Number of successfully completed lab contacts (maximum of 4) |
| Prospective Memory Lab Contact Efficiency | Two weeks prior to posttest | median absolute time deviation (in minutes) from scheduled lab contact for completed contacts |
| Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Number of Errors) | posttest only | Computerized task to simulate use of an ATM machine. Measure: number of errors |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | The Personal Beliefs about Memory Instruments (PBMI) Specific Memory Self-Efficacy measurement is a summative visual analog rating scale measuring self-rated memory aggregated over multiple specific types of memory. Outcomes scaled in average proportion of distance from left (0) to maximum of 1.00 (higher scores indicate greater memory self-efficacy). |
| PBMI Memory Control | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Summative visual analog rating scale measuring self-rated control over everyday. Outcome is scaled as average proportion of maximum endorsement (ranging from 0 to 1.0, with higher scores indicate greater perceived control) |
| MCQ Internal Scale | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Summative Likert scale obtaining self-rated frequency of use of internal mnemonic strategies in everyday life. Average Likert rating on 1-5 scale (higher scores indicate greater use of strategies) |
| MCQ External | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Summative Likert scale obtaining self-rated frequency of use of external memory aids. Outcome is scaled as average Likert rating on 1-5 scale. Higher score indicates greater use of external aids. |
| MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale) | pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag) | Summative Likert scale measuring frequency of reported memory problems for specific types of problems Measure is average item Likert rating on a 1-7 scale. Higher score indicates fewer memory problems |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
The study was converted to a completely on-line study due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrollment began in March of 2021.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory Training in techniques for managing memory demands in everyday life
Everyday Metacognitive Memory Intervention: Provides training in use of techniques and procedures to enhance proactive self-regulatory control over everyday memory demands, including strategies for learning information, planning for meeting everyday goals, and monitoring of efficacy of goal pursuit. | 35 |
| Memory Strategy Control Trains the use of memory strategies for learning new associations and concepts
Memory Strategy Control Intervention: Trains use of standard mnemonic techniques such as imagery and sentence generation for learning new associations and organizational and distinctiveness-based strategies for learning sets of items (e.g., word lists). | 33 |
| Total | 68 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 | FG001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Study | Lack of Efficacy | 0 | 1 |
| Overall Study | Withdrawal by Subject | 5 | 0 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Memory Strategy Control | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB5C Personality Scales AB5C Conscientiousness | 3.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 4.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 | 4.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 |
| AB5C Personality Scales AB5C Gregariousness | 3.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 | 2.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 3.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 |
| AB5C Personality Scales AB5C Introspection | 3.7 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 | 4.0 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 3.9 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 |
| AB5C Personality Scales AB5C Stability | 3.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 3.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.7 | 3.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 |
| AB5C Personality Scales AB5C Understanding | 4.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 | 4.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5 | 4.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4 |
| Age, Continuous | 76.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.8 | 75.2 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.6 | 75.8 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.7 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 3 Participants | 0 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 31 Participants | 33 Participants | 64 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| ETS Letter Sets Test | 8.9 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.5 | 9.1 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.3 | 9.0 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.9 |
| Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (MDPQ-16) | 31.5 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 7.2 | 31.8 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.4 | 31.7 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.8 |
| Pattern Comparison Test | 16.1 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3 | 14.8 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.6 | 15.5 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.9 |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 1 Participants | 1 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 4 Participants | 5 Participants | 9 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 2 Participants | 0 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 2 Participants | 1 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 26 Participants | 26 Participants | 52 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 35 participants | 33 participants | 68 participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 21 Participants | 19 Participants | 40 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 13 Participants | 14 Participants | 27 Participants |
| Shipley Vocabulary Test | 34.3 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.4 | 35.7 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.1 | 35.0 scores on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.3 |
| Technology Experience Profile | 23.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.1 | 23.4 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.4 | 23.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.3 |
| Victoria Activity Scale | 4.2 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 4.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 | 4.1 units on a scale STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.6 |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 30 | 0 / 32 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 30 | 0 / 32 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 30 | 0 / 32 |
Outcome results
Primary
Associative Recall Test
Computerized task to present 40 concrete-concrete associatively unrelated noun pairs (Hertzog, Sinclair, & Dunlosky, 2010) Outcome is proportion of 40 words correctly recalled.
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Associative Recall Test | Pretest | 0.52 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Associative Recall Test | Posttest | 0.55 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Associative Recall Test | Pretest | 0.53 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.04 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Associative Recall Test | Posttest | 0.66 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.04 |
Comparison: We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest).~Predicted hypothesis was greater pretest-posttest improvement in the Memory Strategy Contol groupp-value: <0.037Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Number of Errors)
Computerized task to simulate use of an automated telephone program to refill prescriptions. Measure: Number of errors
Time frame: posttest only
Population: Missing data caused by program run-time errors aborting program without recording results for several participants (6 Everyday Metacognitive Memory; 5 Memory Strategy Control)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Number of Errors) | 9.29 number of errors | Standard Error 1.74 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Number of Errors) | 8.44 number of errors | Standard Error 1.55 |
p-value: 0.7295% CI: [-3.8, 5.5]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Time in Seconds)
Computerized task to simulate use of an automated telephone program to refill prescriptions. Measure: time to complete task (in seconds)
Time frame: posttest only
Population: Missing data caused by program run-time errors aborting program without recording results for several participants (6 Everyday Metacognitive Memory; 5 Memory Strategy Control)
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Time in Seconds) | 590.50 seconds | Standard Error 31.68 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Czaja Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: Prescription Refill Task (Time in Seconds) | 579.90 seconds | Standard Error 30.15 |
p-value: 0.8195% CI: [-77.4, 98.5]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Number of Errors)
Computerized task to simulate use of an ATM machine. Measure: number of errors
Time frame: posttest only
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Number of Errors) | 9.08 number of errors | Standard Error 0.79 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Number of Errors) | 10.14 number of errors | Standard Error 1.59 |
p-value: 0.5795% CI: [-4.8, 2.6]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Time in Seconds)
Computerized task to simulate use of an ATM machine. Measure: time to complete task (in seconds)
Time frame: posttest only
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Time in Seconds) | 852.10 seconds | Standard Error 61.74 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Everyday Cognition Simulation Task: ATM Task (Time in Seconds) | 902.10 seconds | Standard Error 80.53 |
p-value: 0.6395% CI: [-257.4, 157.4]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Everyday Memory Failures
Across the data collection period, participants audio recorded descriptions of their memory failures on a smartphone app. The audio recordings were transcribed and then cleaned and qualitatively coded so that the number of memory failures each participant reported during the data collection period could be counted. The data was qualitatively coded to ensure an accurate count of the number of memory failures per participant without counting duplicate events or accidental reports. Average daily number of reported memory failures from EMA & daily diaries is reported.
Time frame: minimum 8 day period after training on app prior to posttest
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Everyday Memory Failures | 0.55 average daily number memory failures/day | Standard Error 0.57 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Everyday Memory Failures | 0.62 average daily number memory failures/day | Standard Error 0.71 |
p-value: 0.6795% CI: [-0.42, 0.55]t-test, 2 sided
Primary
Free Recall Test
Computerized task to present 30 concrete nouns, 6 from 5 taxonomic categories (Hultsch, Hertzog, Dixon, & Small, 1998) Measure is proportion of 30 words recalled
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
Population: One missing case due to program failure when administering the test
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Free Recall Test | Pretest | 0.27 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Free Recall Test | Posttest | 0.37 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Free Recall Test | Pretest | 0.31 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.05 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Free Recall Test | Posttest | 0.44 proportion of words recalled | Standard Error 0.05 |
Comparison: We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed model analysis with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).~Hypothesis was that Memory Strategy Control group would show greater improvements from pretest to posttest in recall scoresp-value: <0.69Mixed Models Analysis
Primary
Prospective Memory Lab Contact Efficiency
median absolute time deviation (in minutes) from scheduled lab contact for completed contacts
Time frame: Two weeks prior to posttest
Population: data only available for persons who successfully completed at least one laboratory contact
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Prospective Memory Lab Contact Efficiency | 4.4 minutes | Standard Error 1.7 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Prospective Memory Lab Contact Efficiency | 4.2 minutes | Standard Error 1.1 |
p-value: <0.1395% CI: [-3.7, 7.6]t-test, 1 sided
Primary
Prospective Memory Lab Contacts
Number of successfully completed lab contacts (maximum of 4)
Time frame: Two weeks prior to posttest
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Prospective Memory Lab Contacts | 2.8 number of contacts | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Prospective Memory Lab Contacts | 3.0 number of contacts | Standard Error 0.2 |
p-value: <0.47t-test, 1 sided
Primary
Story Recall
gist recall of narrative story (total number of propositions (ideas) from story recalled)
Time frame: posttest only
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | Story Recall | 30.8 number of ideas recalled | Standard Error 1.6 |
| Memory Strategy Control | Story Recall | 29.7 number of ideas recalled | Standard Error 1.9 |
p-value: 0.6995% CI: [-4, 8.4]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary
MCQ External
Summative Likert scale obtaining self-rated frequency of use of external memory aids. Outcome is scaled as average Likert rating on 1-5 scale. Higher score indicates greater use of external aids.
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MCQ External | Pretest | 3.34 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.09 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MCQ External | Posttest | 3.38 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MCQ External | Pretest | 3.28 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.09 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MCQ External | Posttest | 3.30 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.08 |
p-value: <0.2Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
MCQ Internal Scale
Summative Likert scale obtaining self-rated frequency of use of internal mnemonic strategies in everyday life. Average Likert rating on 1-5 scale (higher scores indicate greater use of strategies)
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MCQ Internal Scale | Pretest | 1.92 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.12 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MCQ Internal Scale | Posttest | 2.31 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.11 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MCQ Internal Scale | Pretest | 2.01 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.11 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MCQ Internal Scale | Posttest | 2.26 average units on a scale | Standard Error 0.11 |
Comparison: We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater increase in memory control in EMMI groupp-value: <0.2Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale)
Summative Likert scale measuring frequency of reported memory problems for specific types of problems Measure is average item Likert rating on a 1-7 scale. Higher score indicates fewer memory problems
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale) | Pretest | 4.9 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale) | Posttest | 5.0 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale) | Pretest | 5.1 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
| Memory Strategy Control | MFQ Memory Complaint (Frequency of Forgetting Scale) | Posttest | 5.0 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.2 |
Comparison: We conducted a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest). Hypothesis was greater reduction in memory complaints from pretest to posttest in EMMI groupp-value: <0.14Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
PBMI Memory Control
Summative visual analog rating scale measuring self-rated control over everyday. Outcome is scaled as average proportion of maximum endorsement (ranging from 0 to 1.0, with higher scores indicate greater perceived control)
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | PBMI Memory Control | Pretest | 0.79 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.03 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | PBMI Memory Control | Posttest | 0.90 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
| Memory Strategy Control | PBMI Memory Control | Pretest | 0.80 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.03 |
| Memory Strategy Control | PBMI Memory Control | Posttest | 0.89 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
Comparison: We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effects model with repeated measures on Time (pretest, posttest).p-value: <0.33Mixed Models Analysis
Secondary
PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy
The Personal Beliefs about Memory Instruments (PBMI) Specific Memory Self-Efficacy measurement is a summative visual analog rating scale measuring self-rated memory aggregated over multiple specific types of memory. Outcomes scaled in average proportion of distance from left (0) to maximum of 1.00 (higher scores indicate greater memory self-efficacy).
Time frame: pretest and posttest (approximately 1 month lag)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy | Pretest | 0.65 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
| Everyday Metacognitive Memory | PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy | Posttest | 0.72 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
| Memory Strategy Control | PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy | Pretest | 0.71 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
| Memory Strategy Control | PBMI Specific Memory Self-Efficacy | Posttest | 0.73 units on a scale | Standard Error 0.02 |
Comparison: We ran a 2 X 2 (Group X Time) mixed effect model with repeated measures on Time (pretest-posttest)p-value: 0.037Mixed Models Analysis