Comprehension
Conditions
Interventions
The study was composed of three groups of children:
- Group 1H: 20 children with reading comprehension difficulties. All of these children were exposed to cognitive (intervention) training based on sh
Behavioural
Sponsors
Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulos
FAculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo
Eligibility
Age
8 Years to 11 Years
Inclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria: age between 8 and 10 years and 11 months; attending the fourth or fifth year of elementary school; not having speech therapy because of difficulties in reading, writing and speaking; have no syndromes or hearing or visual loss.
Exclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria: percentage greater than 25% of absences during the 15 days of therapy (intervention meetings); not carry out the activities during the meetings.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Children who participated in the intervention based on shared reading of stories as well as those who participated in the training in working memory presented a statistically superior performance in the comprehension of sentences written in the post workout (comparison of each group before and after treatment); Data collected through standardized instruments for the Brazilian population. These were applied before and after the 15 intervention meetings; P-value and mean score in the pre and post-sentence sentence comprehension test: history intervention group (pre: 25 points, post: 33 points, p-value: 0.0001); intervention group in working memory (pre: 28 points, post: 34 points, p-value: 0.0001); control group (pre: 36 points, post: 36 points, p-value: 0.1); | — |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| The children who participated in the intervention group based on work memory training had significant improvement in post workout in the three tasks of working memory - phonological loop, whereas the children in the intervention group in memory and in the control group performed only better in two tests. This shows that working memory intervention in addition to improving the ability to understand written sentences has also brought about improvement in other aspects; Data collected through standardized instruments for the Brazilian population. These were applied before and after the 15 intervention meetings. Stimuli presented in the three tests that evaluated the working memory - phonological loop: direct order digit repetition, repetition of pseudowords and repetition of nonwords. P-value and mean score in pre and post-work memory tests: - Repetition of direct order digits: history intervention group (pre: 21 points, post: 23 points, p-value: 0.03); intervention group in working memory (pre: 22 points, post: 25 points, p-value: 0.02); control group (pre: 25 points, post: 27 points, p-value: 0.001); - Repetition of pseudowords: history intervention group (pre: 33 points, post: 36 points, p-value: 0.001); intervention group in working memory (pre: 34 points, post: 37 points, p-value: 0.0007); control group (pre: 36 points, post: 36 points, p-value: 0.4); - Repetition of non-words: history intervention group (pre: 20 points, post: 21 points, p-value: 0.07); intervention group in working memory (pre: 21 points, post: 24 points, p-value: 0.009); control group (pre: 22 points, post: 24 points, p-value: 0.007); | — |
Countries
Brazil
Contacts
Public ContactCarolina Novaes
FAculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo
Outcome results
None listed