Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Brief Report

Individual vs. Group Administration of Tablet-Based Working Memory Tasks – Does Setting Matter?

Published Online:June 17, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000594

Abstract

Abstract. Working memory (WM) is a key determinant of academic success. Therefore, standardized assessment tools are needed. In the past, WM assessment has been time-consuming and costly, especially in children, as WM instruments could only be used in one-to-one settings. The development of automatized, self-reliant WM tasks such as the tablet-based application EI-MAG (Oesterlen, Gade, & Seitz-Stein, 2016) allows for a more economic assessment of WM in groups. However, so far, only few studies have empirically validated the comparability of WM scores obtained in individual and group setting. To close this gap, N = 89 children between 7 and 10 years of age (M = 8.8 years, SD = 0.6 years) were administered four WM tasks of EI-MAG individually as well as in groups. The analyses show that independent of WM task, there are no mean score differences between individual and group setting. It can be concluded that automatized WM assessment with EI-MAG leads to comparable results in individual and group setting.

References

  • Alloway, T. P. (2006). How does working memory work in the classroom. Educational Research and Reviews, 1, 134–139. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Alloway, T. P., & Alloway, R. G. (2010). Investigating the predictive roles of working memory and IQ in academic attainment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.11.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01538-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. BerkowitzEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Becker, N., Koch, M., Schult, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2017). Setting doesn’t matter much: A meta-analytic comparison of the results of intelligence tests obtained in group and individual settings. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35, 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000402 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Cowan, N., & Alloway, T. (2009). Development of working memory in childhood. In M. L. CourageN. CowanEds., Studies in developmental psychology: The development of memory in infancy and childhood (pp. 303–342). New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Elliott, E. M. (2002). The irrelevant-speech effect and children: Theoretical implications of developmental change. Memory & Cognition, 30, 478–487. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194948 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Elliott, E. M., Hughes, R. W., Briganti, A., Joseph, T. N., Marsh, J. E., & Macken, B. (2016). Distraction in verbal short-term memory: Insights from developmental differences. Journal of Memory and Language, 88, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.12.008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gathercole, S., Lamont, E., & Alloway, T. P. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In S. PickeringEd., Working memory and education (pp. 219–240). London, UK: Elsevier Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gathercole, S. E., Durling, E., Evans, M., Jeffcock, S., & Stone, S. (2008). Working memory abilities and children’s performance in laboratory analogues of classroom activities. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1019–1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1407 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hasselhorn, M., Schumann-Hengsteler, R., Grube, D., König, J., Mähler, C., Schmidt, I., … Zoelch, C. (2012). Arbeitsgedächtnistestbatterie für Kinder von 5 bis 12 Jahren (AGTB 5–12) [Working Memory Test Battery for children aged 5 to 12 years]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kanerva, K., Kiistala, I., Kalakoski, V., Hirvonen, R., Ahonen, T., & Kiuru, N. (2019). The feasibility of working memory tablet tasks in predicting scholastic skills in classroom settings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 1224–1237. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3569 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muller, D., Atzeni, T., & Butera, F. (2004). Coaction and upward social comparison reduce the illusory conjunction effect: Support for distraction-conflict theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Obradović, J., Sulik, M. J., Finch, J. E., & Tirado-Strayer, N. (2018). Assessing students’ executive functions in the classroom: Validating a scalable group-based procedure. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 55, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2017.03.003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oesterlen, E., Eichner, M., Gade, M., & Seitz-Stein, K. (2018). Tablet-based working memory assessment in children and adolescents. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 50, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1026/0049-8637/a000189 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Oesterlen, E., Gade, M., & Seitz-Stein, K. (2016). EI-MAG: Eichstätter Messung des Arbeitsgedächtnisses [Eichstätt Working Memory Assessment; application]. Unpublished research instrument. Eichstätt, Germany: Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Oesterlen, E., & Seitz-Stein, K. (2019). Phonological span in children and adults: Does response format matter? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43, 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025419840709 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pardo-Vázquez, J. L., & Fernández-Rey, J. (2008). External validation of the computerized, group administrable adaptation of the “operation span task”. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.46 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schuster, R. M., Mermelstein, R. J., & Hedeker, D. (2015). Acceptability and feasibility of a visual working memory task in an ecological momentary assessment paradigm. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1463–1470. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000138 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.52 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shelton, J. T., Metzger, R. L., & Elliott, E. M. (2007). A group-administered lag task as a measure of working memory. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 482–493. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193017 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • St Clair-Thompson, H. (2013). Establishing the reliability and validity of a computerized assessment of children’s working memory for use in group settings. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913497344 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Süß, H.-M., Oberauer, K., Wittmann, W. W., Wilhelm, O., & Schulze, R. (2002). Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability – and a little bit more. Intelligence, 30, 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(01)00100-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Swanson, H. L., & Alloway, T. P. (2012). Working memory, learning, and academic achievement. In K. R. HarrisT. U. S. GrahamC. B. McCormickG. M. SinatraJ. SwellerEds., APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 1: Theories, constructs, and critical issues (pp. 327–366). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13273-012 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., Jolani, S., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2016). The Monkey game: A computerized verbal working memory task for self-reliant administration in primary school children. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 756–771. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0607-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., Prast, E. J., & van Luit, J. E. H. (2015). Validity and reliability of an online visual-spatial working memory task for self-reliant administration in school-aged children. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 708–719. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0469-8 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Yang, T.-X., Allen, R. J., & Gathercole, S. E. (2015). Examining the role of working memory resources in following spoken instructions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1101118 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.149.3681.269 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar