There is no convincing evidence that working memory training is effective: A reply to Au et al. (2014) and Karbach and Verhaeghen (2014)

• Published in: Psychonomic bulletin & review Vol. 23; no. 1; pp. 324 - 330
• Main Authors: Melby-Lervåg, Monica, Hulme, Charles
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.02.2016; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Age; Aging; Aptitude; Behavioral Science and Psychology; Brief Report; Cognition & reasoning; Cognitive ability; Cognitive Psychology; Executive Function; Female; Geriatric Assessment - methods; Humans; Intelligence; Learning; Male; Memory; Memory, Short-Term; Meta-analysis; Practice (Psychology); Psychology; Studies; Cognitive training; Working memory
• ISSN: 1069-9384; 1531-5320
• DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0862-z

The possible cognitive benefits of working memory training programs have been the subject of intense interest and controversy. Recently two meta-analyses have claimed that working memory training can be effective in enhancing cognitive skills in adulthood (Au et al. Behavioural Brain Research 228:(1) 107-115, 2014) and stemming cognitive decline in old age (Karbach & Verhaeghen Psychological Science 25:2027–2037, 2014). The current article critically evaluates these claims. We argue that these meta-analyses produce misleading results because of (1) biases in the studies included, (2) a failure to take account of baseline differences when calculating effect sizes, and (3) a failure to emphasize the difference between studies with treated versus untreated control groups. We present new meta-analyses and conclude that there is no convincing evidence that working memory training produces general cognitive benefits.