Lesley A Ross1, Jerri D Edwards2, Melissa L O'Connor3, Karlene K Ball4, Virginia G Wadley4, David E Vance4. 1. The Department of Human Development and Family Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. lross@psu.edu lesleyaross@gmail.com. 2. School of Aging Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa. 3. Department of Human Development and Family Studies, North Dakota State University, Fargo. 4. Department of Psychology.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multilevel models assessed the effects of cognitive speed of processing training (SPT) on older adults' self-reporteddriving using intention-to-treat (ITT, randomization to training or control conditions) and dosage (treatment-received via number of training sessions) analyses across 5 years. METHOD: Participants randomized to SPT (n = 598) were compared with those randomized to either the no-contact control (n = 598) or memory training, which served as an active control (n = 610). Driving mobility (frequency, exposure, and space) was assessed over time. RESULTS: No significant effects were found within the ITT analyses. However, number of SPT sessions did affect driving mobility outcomes. In the full sample (N = 1,806), higher SPT doses were associated with maintained driving frequency as compared with both control groups, but no effects were found for driving exposure or space. Subsample analyses (n = 315) revealed that persons at-risk for mobility declines (i.e., poor initial processing speed) who received additional booster SPT sessions reported greater maintenance of both driving frequency and exposure over time as compared with the no-contact and active control groups. DISCUSSION: These results and prior research indicate that cognitive SPT transfers to prolonged driving mobility among older adults. Future research should investigate the mechanisms behind transfer effects to real-world activities, such as driving.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Multilevel models assessed the effects of cognitive speed of processing training (SPT) on older adults' self-reported driving using intention-to-treat (ITT, randomization to training or control conditions) and dosage (treatment-received via number of training sessions) analyses across 5 years. METHOD:Participants randomized to SPT (n = 598) were compared with those randomized to either the no-contact control (n = 598) or memory training, which served as an active control (n = 610). Driving mobility (frequency, exposure, and space) was assessed over time. RESULTS: No significant effects were found within the ITT analyses. However, number of SPT sessions did affect driving mobility outcomes. In the full sample (N = 1,806), higher SPT doses were associated with maintained driving frequency as compared with both control groups, but no effects were found for driving exposure or space. Subsample analyses (n = 315) revealed that persons at-risk for mobility declines (i.e., poor initial processing speed) who received additional booster SPT sessions reported greater maintenance of both driving frequency and exposure over time as compared with the no-contact and active control groups. DISCUSSION: These results and prior research indicate that cognitive SPT transfers to prolonged driving mobility among older adults. Future research should investigate the mechanisms behind transfer effects to real-world activities, such as driving.
Authors: Jerri D Edwards; Lesley A Ross; Michelle L Ackerman; Brent J Small; Karlene K Ball; Stacy Bradley; Joan E Dodson Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Stephen D Anton; Adam J Woods; Tetso Ashizawa; Diana Barb; Thomas W Buford; Christy S Carter; David J Clark; Ronald A Cohen; Duane B Corbett; Yenisel Cruz-Almeida; Vonetta Dotson; Natalie Ebner; Philip A Efron; Roger B Fillingim; Thomas C Foster; David M Gundermann; Anna-Maria Joseph; Christy Karabetian; Christiaan Leeuwenburgh; Todd M Manini; Michael Marsiske; Robert T Mankowski; Heather L Mutchie; Michael G Perri; Sanjay Ranka; Parisa Rashidi; Bhanuprasad Sandesara; Philip J Scarpace; Kimberly T Sibille; Laurence M Solberg; Shinichi Someya; Connie Uphold; Stephanie Wohlgemuth; Samuel Shangwu Wu; Marco Pahor Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Caroline L Lassen-Greene; Kayla Steward; Ozioma Okonkwo; Ellen Porter; Michael Crowe; David E Vance; H Randall Griffith; Karlene Ball; Daniel C Marson; Virginia G Wadley Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Lesley A Ross; Christina E Webb; Christine Whitaker; Jarrod M Hicks; Erica L Schmidt; Shaadee Samimy; Nancy A Dennis; Kristina M Visscher Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Briana N Sprague; Sara A Freed; Christina E Webb; Christine B Phillips; Jinshil Hyun; Lesley A Ross Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 10.895