Tullo Domenico, Feng Yi, Pahor Anja, Cote John M, Seitz Aaron R, Jaeggi Susanne M
University of California Irvine, Irvine, USA.
Univerza v Mariboru, Maribor, Slovenia.
J Cogn. 2023 Aug 22;6(1):48. doi: 10.5334/joc.315. eCollection 2023.
Consistent with research across several domains, intervention adherence is associated with desired outcomes. Our study investigates adherence, defined by participants' commitment to, persistence with, and compliance with an intervention's regimen, as a key mechanism underlying cognitive training effectiveness. We examine this relationship in a large and diverse sample comprising 4,775 adults between the ages of 18 and 93. We test the predictive validity of individual difference factors, such as age, gender, cognitive capability (i.e., fluid reasoning and working memory), grit, ambition, personality, self-perceived cognitive failures, socioeconomic status, exercise, and education on commitment to and persistence with a 20-session cognitive training regimen, as measured by the number of sessions completed. Additionally, we test the relationship between compliance measures: (i) spacing between training sessions, as measured by the average time between training sessions, and (ii) consistency in the training schedule, as measured by the variance in time between training sessions, with performance trajectories on the training task. Our data suggest that none of these factors reliably predict commitment to, persistence with, or compliance with cognitive training. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence from the large and representative sample extends the knowledge from previous research exploring limited, heterogenous samples, characterized by older adult populations. The absence of reliable predictors for commitment, persistence, and compliance in cognitive training suggests that nomothetic factors may affect program adherence. Future research will be well served to examine diverse approaches to increasing motivation in cognitive training to improve program evaluation and reconcile the inconsistency in findings across the field.
与多个领域的研究一致，干预依从性与预期结果相关。我们的研究将依从性（定义为参与者对干预方案的承诺、坚持和遵守）作为认知训练有效性的关键机制进行调查。我们在一个由4775名年龄在18岁至93岁之间的成年人组成的大型多样化样本中研究这种关系。我们测试个体差异因素的预测效度，如年龄、性别、认知能力（即流体推理和工作记忆）、毅力、抱负、个性、自我感知的认知失误、社会经济地位、运动和教育对20节认知训练方案的承诺和坚持程度，通过完成的节数来衡量。此外，我们测试依从性指标之间的关系：（i）训练课程之间的间隔，通过训练课程之间的平均时间来衡量，以及（ii）训练时间表的一致性，通过训练课程之间时间的方差来衡量，与训练任务的表现轨迹之间的关系。我们的数据表明，这些因素中没有一个能可靠地预测对认知训练的承诺、坚持或依从性。然而，来自这个大型且具有代表性的样本的证据缺失，扩展了以往对有限的、异质性样本（以老年人群体为特征）的研究知识。认知训练中缺乏对承诺、坚持和依从性的可靠预测因素，表明一般因素可能会影响项目依从性。未来的研究最好研究多种增加认知训练动机的方法，以改善项目评估并调和该领域研究结果的不一致性。
