Objective: To examine the intervention effect of two types of memory training, as compared to a waiting-list control group in community-dwelling elderly.
Design: A pretest-post test follow-up, waiting list control group design was used. All groups were tested at four moments; two pre-test assessments (double baseline, one week in between), a post-test (at 9 weeks, one week after the intervention) and a follow-up assessment (after 4 months). The same test battery and questionnaires were administered on all occasions.
Materials and Methods: 139 older adults (all 55+) with self-reported memory complaints were randomly assigned to three conditions. The first group received a group memory intervention directed at the modification of memory beliefs, combined with memory skills training. Topics like memory changes due to ageing, the influence of worrying and memory self-efficacy were discussed. Exercises and homework supported the discussed issues. In the second condition, participants received a book on memory, which had to be read individually. The content of this book is comparable to the information given in the group intervention. Finally, a waiting list control group did not receive any intervention.
Outcome variables were the Visual Verbal Learning Test, A Short Story, the abridged Metamemory in Adulthood questionnaire and the Cognitive Failure Questionnaire.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) measurements were carried out to examine the influence of the interventions. In order to examine short-and long term effects separately, pre-test measurements were subtracted from immediate post-test scores and post-test scores after four months follow-up, respectively.
Results: Results showed that participants who followed the group intervention had more confidence in the effectiveness of their own memory in different situations, reported less perceived decline or more stability in memory functioning and had less feelings of anxiety and stress in relation to memory functioning. In addition, they were better able to recall a list of words they had learned twenty minutes earlier. The effects were not found for participants who were assigned to the book condition. The intervention gains decayed after four months follow-up. An exception was the effect on the recall of previously learned words, where the group intervention continued to improve more. A total of 22 persons dropped out the study, 14 persons were originally assigned to the group training, three to the book intervention and five to the control condition.
Conclusion: Findings suggest that only the memory group training was effective in improving subjective and objective memory performance, particularly on the short-term. However, the intervention effects are limited to persons who had the time, opportunity and motivation to complete the intervention
Back to Poster Session 2
Back to Oral and Poster Sessions
Back to The IPA European Regional Meeting (1-4 April 2003) of IPA