Processing speed showed no significant group × time interaction, with only a marginal intervention advantage at 4 weeks¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The mixed ANOVA found no significant interaction or main effect of time for processing speed; the intervention group's greater improvement at 4 weeks was significant only at α = .1 (p = .096). → Kelly Quinn 2018

Evidence¶

Kelly Quinn 2018¶

Kelly Quinn. (2018). Cognitive Effects of Social Media Use: A Case of Older Adults. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118787203

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA on Trail Making Test-Part A times in the wait-list controlled study. The article also reports a marginal between-group difference at 4 weeks, "F(1, 32) = 2.935, p = .096," significant only at the α = .1 level, and notes both groups improved over the period.

"There was no significant interaction between social media use and time at either the 4-week, Wilk's λ = .985, F(1, 32) = .495, p = .487, or the 4-month assessment, Wilk's λ = .971, F(2, 31) = .469, p = .630"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• No significant differences in attention or working memory were found between intervention and control groups at either follow-up — related
• CCT shows no significant effects on executive functions or attention in healthy older adults — related
• The training shows no significant transfer to academic learning tasks, with only a marginal post-test advantage in number conservation — related
• Between groups, the intervention showed a moderate inhibitory-control advantage at 4 weeks (p = .052) and a large advantage at 4 months (η2 = .135), with a significant main effect of time for both groups — related