We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
As social and behavioral scientists, it is of fundamental importance to understand the factors that drive the behaviors that we measure. Careful design is thus required to minimize the influence of extraneous factors. Yet, we often overlook one major class of such extraneous factors – those related to us, the experimenters. Experimenter effects can potentially arise at every step in the research process – from the selection of hypotheses, to interacting with research participants in ways that might alter their behavior, to biases in data interpretation. While such experimenter-driven effects often occur without notice, and without ill intent, they nonetheless threaten the replicability and generalizability of research. In this chapter, we discuss when and how such effects arise, preventative measures that can be taken to reduce their influence, and methods for accounting for such effects, when appropriate.
Working memory (WM) training explores whether and how repeated practice on working memory tasks might generalize to a variety of outcome measures. Although this field of research is part of the growing literature in cognitive sciences, it has spawned contentious debates. The controversies are largely driven by inconsistent findings and commercial interests, and as a result, numerous meta-analyses and systematic reviews have focused on the validity of WM training. Similarly, there is an inconsistency in the conclusions drawn by these meta-analyses; while there seems to be an agreement about the generalization to proximal cognitive measures; there is a discrepancy in the interpretation of any translational outcomes (e.g., behavioral, clinical, and academic). In this chapter, we review the collection of meta-analyses with a particular focus on children diagnosed with ADHD and other developmental disabilities, and recommend that the field should focus on improving our understanding of the mechanistic and effectiveness properties of WM training, which might result in the development of valuable alternative and/or supplemental approaches, when traditional interventions might fall short, especially for individuals typically underrepresented and underserved.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.