Working memory training in students with dyslexia: Additional effects to reading and spelling remediation not likely.
Extra working-memory drills do not make reading or spelling instruction work better for students with dyslexia.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers gave students with dyslexia either regular reading and spelling help or that help plus Cogmed working-memory training. The study used a coin-flip design to pick who got what. Both groups kept getting their normal reading lessons.
The team wanted to know if extra memory drills would make reading and spelling scores climb higher than lessons alone.
What they found
Cogmed added almost nothing. Kids in both groups made the same small reading and spelling gains. Memory scores budged only a tiny bit.
The training simply did not transfer to real school skills.
How this fits with other research
Van Hanegem et al. (2014) saw the same null pattern ten years earlier. In that study, executive-function scores did not predict later reading progress, foreshadowing these new results.
Spaniol et al. (2021) looks like a contradiction. Their attention-training program helped autistic students boost reading and math. The difference: kids, goals, and training style. Autism plus attention focus worked; dyslexia plus memory focus did not.
Kirk et al. (2017) ran a similar computer-training RCT and also found almost no academic payoff, backing the idea that cognitive games rarely transfer to schoolwork.
Why it matters
Save your minutes and budget. Stick to phonics-based reading lessons and skip the pricey memory software. Track decoding and spelling directly; don't assume fixing working memory will fix literacy. If a parent asks about Cogmed, show them these data and keep the focus on evidence-based reading strategies.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Drop the memory game station and add five more minutes of systematic phonics practice instead.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Poor decoding and spelling (literacy) skills have been associated with weak working memory. AIMS: The aim of this study was to elucidate the contribution of working memory to literacy progress in students with dyslexia. It has been suggested that working memory can be enhanced by training, which in turn may have a positive effect on reading and spelling abilities (e.g., Peijnenborg et al., 2023). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Participants consisted of a specific group of children with dyslexia and weak working memory skills (n = 62). The effect of Cogmed training on decoding and spelling progress during remediation was investigated using a randomized controlled trial with three research groups (experimental: Cogmed training; active control: fixed computerized training; passive control group). OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Findings revealed that the Cogmed training enhanced working memory to a rather small extent and that no effects of the Cogmed training on literacy progress occurred over and above the reading and spelling remediation program. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most likely, Cogmed training does not contribute to literacy development in children with dyslexia. The null results are important information for teachers of this specific group of students, albeit inevitably small samples in intervention studies applied to niche populations increase the risk of type-II errors. Therefore, replication studies are needed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2024 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2024.104865