No significant group difference in working memory as measured by the Digit Span Backward subtest¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The four bullying-role groups showed similar working memory performance on the DSB subtest; no effect size was printed for this null result. → Medeiros W 2016

Evidence¶

Medeiros W 2016¶

Medeiros W, Torro-Alves N, Malloy-Diniz LF and Minervino CM (2016) Executive Functions in Children Who Experience Bullying Situations. Front. Psychol. 7:1197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01197

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Kruskal–Wallis comparison of Digit Span Backward weighted scores across bullies, victims, bully-victims, and controls (n = 15 per group) found "no significant difference between the groups with regard to DSB" (χ2 = 2.587, p = 0.46); equivalence was not tested.

"There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to DSB ( χ2= 2.587, p= 0.46), indicating that they had similar patterns of performance in working memory."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Music training RCTs show improved verbal working memory (backward digit span), but not visuospatial or forward-span tasks
• Congenitally blind adults show higher verbal backwards digit span than sighted controls
• Backward digit span performance does not emerge until about age 5, whereas forward span is measurable from age 3
• When PSID-CDS data are restricted to ages 6–11, backward digit span growth is best characterized by a quadratic (not cubic) function
• No significant group differences in Stroop color and word card times or in error rates on any Stroop card