Garret G Zieve1, Cara Woodworth1, Allison G Harvey2. 1. University of California, Berkeley, United States. 2. University of California, Berkeley, United States. Electronic address: aharvey@berkeley.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Client memory and learning is limited for psychological treatment contents. This study investigated different approaches to support client memory and learning of treatment contents and the relationship between memory and learning of treatment contents and outcome. METHODS: Adult participants (n = 428) were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized to complete one of three versions of a one-session procrastination intervention. Two versions of the intervention included different amounts of memory support strategy types from the Memory Support Intervention. A control version did not include any types of memory support. Memory and learning of treatment contents were assessed immediately after the intervention and one week later. Procrastination and two mechanisms of procrastination (impulsiveness and self-efficacy) were assessed at baseline and one week after the intervention. RESULTS: Contrary to the hypotheses, a version of the intervention with multiple types of memory support strategies was not associated with better memory and learning of treatment contents than a version of the intervention with only one type of memory support strategy or the control intervention. Greater memory and learning of treatment contents predicted improvement in mechanisms of procrastination, but not procrastination itself. LIMITATIONS: The mean level of procrastination in this study was lower than in other treatment studies of procrastination. CONCLUSIONS: Results partially support the rationale for the Memory Support Intervention that improving client memory and learning of treatment contents can improve outcome. Findings suggest that the Memory Support Intervention may be simplified to include fewer strategies without compromising efficacy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Client memory and learning is limited for psychological treatment contents. This study investigated different approaches to support client memory and learning of treatment contents and the relationship between memory and learning of treatment contents and outcome. METHODS: Adult participants (n = 428) were recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and randomized to complete one of three versions of a one-session procrastination intervention. Two versions of the intervention included different amounts of memory support strategy types from the Memory Support Intervention. A control version did not include any types of memory support. Memory and learning of treatment contents were assessed immediately after the intervention and one week later. Procrastination and two mechanisms of procrastination (impulsiveness and self-efficacy) were assessed at baseline and one week after the intervention. RESULTS: Contrary to the hypotheses, a version of the intervention with multiple types of memory support strategies was not associated with better memory and learning of treatment contents than a version of the intervention with only one type of memory support strategy or the control intervention. Greater memory and learning of treatment contents predicted improvement in mechanisms of procrastination, but not procrastination itself. LIMITATIONS: The mean level of procrastination in this study was lower than in other treatment studies of procrastination. CONCLUSIONS: Results partially support the rationale for the Memory Support Intervention that improving client memory and learning of treatment contents can improve outcome. Findings suggest that the Memory Support Intervention may be simplified to include fewer strategies without compromising efficacy.