Cargando…

Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged in-person delivery of cognitive training. Some clinics pivoted to remote delivery for those impacted by lockdowns, illness, or fear of exposure to the virus. However, it was unknown if remote delivery using teleconferencing technology was as effective as in-person de...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Amy Lawson, Miller, Terissa Michele, Ledbetter, Christina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8586525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34777146
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749898
_version_ 1784597903144124416
author Moore, Amy Lawson
Miller, Terissa Michele
Ledbetter, Christina
author_facet Moore, Amy Lawson
Miller, Terissa Michele
Ledbetter, Christina
author_sort Moore, Amy Lawson
collection PubMed
description The COVID-19 pandemic challenged in-person delivery of cognitive training. Some clinics pivoted to remote delivery for those impacted by lockdowns, illness, or fear of exposure to the virus. However, it was unknown if remote delivery using teleconferencing technology was as effective as in-person delivery. The current study compared the outcomes of remote delivery to in-person delivery of ThinkRx cognitive training during 2020. The sample included 381 child and adult clients from 18 cognitive training centers. One group (n = 178, mean age = 12.3) received traditional in-person delivery of cognitive training. The second group (n = 203, mean age = 11.7) received remote delivery of one-on-one cognitive training via Zoom teleconferencing. Each client was assessed before and after the intervention using the Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Clients completed an average of 112 h of cognitive training delivered by a clinician in 90-min sessions 3 or 4 days per week. Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences from pretest to post-test across all constructs for both groups. After Bonferroni correction, MANOVA revealed no significant difference in changes scores between the two intervention groups on any of the subtests. With very small effect sizes, linear regression analyses indicated that age was a significant predictor of change in working memory and processing speed for the in-person group, and a significant predictor of change in overall IQ score for the teletherapy group. Non-inferiority analyses indicated remote delivery is not inferior to in-person delivery on the primary outcome measure of overall IQ score along with processing speed, fluid reasoning, long-term memory, and visual processing. Although in-person training results were slightly higher than remote training results, the current study reveals remote delivery of cognitive training during COVID-19 was a viable alternative to in-person delivery of cognitive training with little practical differences based on the age of client.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8586525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85865252021-11-13 Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study Moore, Amy Lawson Miller, Terissa Michele Ledbetter, Christina Front Psychol Psychology The COVID-19 pandemic challenged in-person delivery of cognitive training. Some clinics pivoted to remote delivery for those impacted by lockdowns, illness, or fear of exposure to the virus. However, it was unknown if remote delivery using teleconferencing technology was as effective as in-person delivery. The current study compared the outcomes of remote delivery to in-person delivery of ThinkRx cognitive training during 2020. The sample included 381 child and adult clients from 18 cognitive training centers. One group (n = 178, mean age = 12.3) received traditional in-person delivery of cognitive training. The second group (n = 203, mean age = 11.7) received remote delivery of one-on-one cognitive training via Zoom teleconferencing. Each client was assessed before and after the intervention using the Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Clients completed an average of 112 h of cognitive training delivered by a clinician in 90-min sessions 3 or 4 days per week. Paired samples t-tests revealed significant differences from pretest to post-test across all constructs for both groups. After Bonferroni correction, MANOVA revealed no significant difference in changes scores between the two intervention groups on any of the subtests. With very small effect sizes, linear regression analyses indicated that age was a significant predictor of change in working memory and processing speed for the in-person group, and a significant predictor of change in overall IQ score for the teletherapy group. Non-inferiority analyses indicated remote delivery is not inferior to in-person delivery on the primary outcome measure of overall IQ score along with processing speed, fluid reasoning, long-term memory, and visual processing. Although in-person training results were slightly higher than remote training results, the current study reveals remote delivery of cognitive training during COVID-19 was a viable alternative to in-person delivery of cognitive training with little practical differences based on the age of client. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8586525/ /pubmed/34777146 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749898 Text en Copyright © 2021 Moore, Miller and Ledbetter. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Moore, Amy Lawson
Miller, Terissa Michele
Ledbetter, Christina
Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title_full Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title_fullStr Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title_full_unstemmed Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title_short Remote vs. In-person Delivery of LearningRx One-on-One Cognitive Training During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Non-inferiority Study
title_sort remote vs. in-person delivery of learningrx one-on-one cognitive training during the covid-19 pandemic: a non-inferiority study
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8586525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34777146
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749898
work_keys_str_mv AT mooreamylawson remotevsinpersondeliveryoflearningrxoneononecognitivetrainingduringthecovid19pandemicanoninferioritystudy
AT millerterissamichele remotevsinpersondeliveryoflearningrxoneononecognitivetrainingduringthecovid19pandemicanoninferioritystudy
AT ledbetterchristina remotevsinpersondeliveryoflearningrxoneononecognitivetrainingduringthecovid19pandemicanoninferioritystudy