Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Study of Two Working Memory Assessment Tools

by

Dana Davis

A Research Paper Submitted in Patiial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

In

Education

Approved: 2 Semester Credits

Ruth Nyland

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

March,2011

Author:

Title:

Davis, Dana S.

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Study of Two Working Memory

Assessment Tools

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: Ruth Nyland, Ph.D.

MonthrYear: March, 2011

Number of Pages: 49

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

Abstract

Working memory is the ability of the brain to hold and manipulate information for very

brief periods of time. Working memory capacity directly impacts an individual's performance

on cognitive tasks and, consequently, influences a student's performance in school. Currently,

the teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, Wisconsin have no readily

2

available method to identify students who struggle with limited working memory capacity. Two

working memory assessment tools, the Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS, Alloway,

Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2009) and the Automated Working MemOlY Assessment, North

American Version (AWMA, Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2008), were field tested to

determine if the behaviors described in the WMRS were accurate predictors of working memory

deficits. In addition, the results were compared to determine if higher WMRS scores were

associated with lower A WMA scores.

3

Teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School administered the WMRS to 51

students in kindergarten through fifth grade and 12 students were selected from this group to take

the A WMA. The results from this study indicate that a negative correlation exists between the

WMRS and the A WMA. However, the data supporting behavioral observation as an accurate

indicator of working memory deficits is inconclusive.

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin Stout

Menomonie, WI

Acknowledgments

4

I would like to thank Dr. Nyland for her help and guidance through this research process.

In addition, I would like to thank my husband, Matt, for his endless support, encouragement and

invaluable feedback. Tim, Michael and Eric, thanks for your patience and understanding.

5

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 8

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................... 1 0

Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... l 0

Research Hypothesis .......................................................................................................... 1 0

Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11

Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 11

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 11

Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 13

The Function of Working Memory .................................................................................... 13

Common Characteristics of Children with Limited Working Memory ............................. 16

Assessing Working Memory Capacity .............................................................................. 19

Classroom Support for Children with Low Working Memory Capacity .......................... 23

Chapter III: Methodology .......................................................... , '" ................................................ 28

Selection and Description of the Sample ........................................................................... 28

Instrumentation .................................................................................................................. 29

Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 31

Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 32

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 32

6

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................ 33

WMRS Results ................................................................................................................... 33

A WMA Results .................................................................................................................. 33

WMRS and A WMA Comparative Results ........................................................................ 34

Figure 1: WMRS T Score vs. Verbal. ................................................................................ 35

Figure 2: WMRS T Score vs. SpatiaL ............................................................................. 36

In Depth Qualitative Results .............................................................................................. 36

Accuracy of WMRS Behavioral Characteristics ............................................................... 37

Summary ............................................................................................................................ 39

Chapter V: Discussion ................................................................................................................... 40

Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 40

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 41

Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 42

References ...................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix A: Parent Consent Form ................................................................................................ 46

Appendix B: Child Assent Form ................................................................................................... 49

7

List of Tables

Table 1: WMRS Results-T Score Distribution ............................................................................ 33

Table 2: AWMA Results-Verbal Working Memory and Visual-Spatial Working Memory ....... 34

Table 3: The Correlation Coefficients for WMRS and AWMA Test and Subtests ....................... 35

Table 4: Comparison of Groups - WMRS, A WMA Verbal, A WMA Visual-Spatial ................. 38

8

Chapter I: Introduction

Working memory, the capacity of the brain to store and manipulate information for very

brief periods of time, is critical in many real-world activities. (Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood &

Elliot,2008). Following directions, mentally adding up the total amount spent while selecting

items from the supermarket shelves and remembering to measure and combine the correct

ingredients when the recipe is no longer in sight are all examples of tasks that depend on

working memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). In addition, mathematical problems require

remembering numeric totals while combining results and performing other operations.

Similarly, reading requires an individual to hold important information in memory while

decoding text and comprehending implicit meanings. Working memory is considered the

"workbench of cognition" and, consequently, working memory capacity directly impacts an

individual's performance on high-level cognitive activities (Jarrold & Towse, 2006, p.40).

Because working memory affects individual outcomes on cognitive tasks, it follows that

working memory capacity will also influence a child's performance in school. Gathercole,

Pickering, Knight & Stegmann (2004) found a direct correlation in the United Kingdom between

students' scores on working memory assessments and national curriculum tests. Because

working memory capacity is not dependent on environn1ental factors or learned skills,

researchers found working memory, not IQ, to be the purest indicator of a child's future success

in school. Cain (2006) wrote, "Between the ages of eight and 11 years, working memory

capacity explains variance in reading comprehension over and above that explained by verbal

ability, vocabulary knowledge and word reading skill" (p. 87). Researchers from Durham

University surveyed over three thousand children and found that 10% of school children across

all age ranges suffered from poor working memory seriously affecting their learning as

evidenced by scores on standardized tests (Durham University, 2008).

9

Students with a healthy working memory concentrate on tests and are equipped for

important subjects like math and reading because they can retain information and prioritize the

steps needed to solve problems (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Children with low working

memory capacity often exhibit low abilities in reading and numeracy, frequently fail to complete

instructions, and often fail to complete learning activities. In addition, many students with poor

working memory go undiagnosed' and are instead labeled by teachers as being inattentive,

unmotivated and having lower intelligence levels (Durham University, 2008). As a result,

classroom practices are not adjusted to address working memory problems and students are not

presented with oppOliunities to improve their working memory capacity.

Traditionally, working memory difficulties have been identified using cumbersome

assessment tools usually administered by specialists. The Automated Working Memory

Assessment, North American Version (A WMA, Alloway et aI., 2008) is the "first standardized

tool for non-specialist assessors such as classroom teachers to use to screen their pupils for

significant working memory problems quickly and effectively" (p. 726). The computerized test

requires participants to access the phonological loop, visual-spatial sketchpad and episodic buffer

to recall verbal information and visual sequences. The participant must process and store larger

amounts of information until a recall error is made. This test can be used to screen individuals

from 4-22 years of age.

In addition to the A WMA, researchers created the Working A1emOlY Rating Scale

(WMRS, Alloway, Gathercole, Kirkwood & Elliot, 2009). This screening tool enables teachers

to identify students at risk of the learning difficulties commonly associated with working

memory problems. The WMRS consists of20 descriptions of behaviors that children with

working memory problems often demonstrate. Teachers rate how typical these behaviors are for

10

the student to exhibit on a four-point rating scale. Examples of the descriptions include: "'the

child raised his hand but when called upon, he had forgotten his response'; 'she lost her place in

a task with multiple steps'; and 'the child had difficulty remaining on task'" (Alloway et aI.,

2009, p. 243). After being identified with the WMRS, students take the A WMA to determine if

a working memory problem exists.

Statement of the Problem

Currently, teachers at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, Wisconsin have no

method available to them to identify students who struggle with limited working memory

capacity. If the WMRS and the AWMA are determined to be effective, teachers will have

unprecedented access to two assessment tools to help them quickly and easily identify working

memory problems so that appropriate accommodation and remediation can be made for students.

Purpose of the Study

The study determined if a negative correlation existed between the WMRS scores of

students and the assessment scores of these students on the A WMA. Teachers at Calvary Baptist

Christian School pre-screened their students by observing student behavior and completing the

WMRS. Students were grouped into three categories based on their results on the WMRS and

students were selected from each group to take the A WMA. The data collected from the WMRS

was compared to the student results on the A WMA to determine if a negative cOl1'elation

between the two assessment tools existed.

Research Hypotheses

Several studies have examined the connection between classroom behavior and working

memory problems, as well as the effectiveness of the A WMA and WMRS (Alloway et aI., 2008;

Alloway et aI., 2009). The following hypotheses are based on the results of these studies.

1. The observed behaviors described in the WMRS are reliable indicators of a working

memory problem.

2. Higher teacher ratings on the WMRS are associated with lower memory scores on the

A WMA resulting in a negative statistical conelation.

Definition of Terms

11

Working memory. The ability of the brain to hold and manipulate information for brief

periods of time.

Central executive. The part of working memory that controls attention and processing.

Phonological Loop. The verbal storage system in the working memory model.

Visual Spatial Sketchpad. The system responsible for processing and maintaining

information that can be represented with visual or spatial characteristics.

Episodic Buffer. The temporary storage system in the working memory model that

integrates information from a variety of sources.

Assumptions

This study was founded on several assumptions. First, the WMRS and A WMA were

valid instruments, conectly designed to measure working memory levels. Second, each

classroom teacher administered the WMRS correctly. Finally, the identified students gave their

best effort when taking the A WMA.

Limitations

The homogeneous population of the school was a limitation in this study. The school had

an enrollment of 110 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. Because of the small

enrollment and the lack of diversity in the school population, the research may not result in

enough data to adequately address the research problem.

12

Methodology

The teachers of grades kindergmien through fifth grade observed their students' behavior

and completed a WMRS form for each student for whom parental consent was obtained. The

scores of the WMRS were tallied and the results analyzed. Students were selected from three

categories of WMRS results: average classroom behavior, average classroom behavior-low, and

classroom behavior indicating working memory impairment. Individual results on the A WMA

were compared to results on the WMRS to determine if the two tests were negatively correlated.

13

Chapter II: Literature Review

Researchers have been trying to understand the factors that contribute to children's

successes and failures in learning for many years. Recent studies investigating the role that

working memory plays in educational achievement have discovered that deficits in a child's

ability to store and manipulate information for brief periods of time can significantly impact the

child's performance in school. This thorough review of recent literature will examine the

function of working memory in processing information, describe common characteristics of

children with poor working memory, investigate the development of working memory

assessment tools and discuss classroom support options for these students.

The Function of Working Memory

Working memory model. The commonly accepted model of working memory was

developed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) and then expanded by Baddeley (2000). The model

consists of a central executive that controls attention, processing and three subsystems: the

phonological loop, the visual-spatial sketchpad and the episodic buffer (Alloway,Gathercole,

Willis & Adams, 2004). According to Dehn (2008), the central executive has several core

functions. The first function, selective attention, is the ability to focus on the relevant

information while inhibiting disruptions. Switching, the second function, is the capacity to

coordinate several cognitive activities at once. The central executive also has the ability to

allocate resources to other pmis of working memory and the ability to temporarily retrieve, store

and manipulate infonnation from long-term memory

One of the subsystems controlled by the central executive is the phonological loop. The

phonological loop is a limited-capacity verbal storage system. Dehn (2008) analogized the

phonological loop to an audio tape recorder loop of a certain length. Orally presented verbal

information is recorded on the loop until it decays or is recorded over by new auditory

information. Unless the information is rehearsed or stored in long-term memory, the

phonological loop will only store verbal information for 2 seconds or less.

14

The visual-spatial sketchpad is responsible for processing and maintaining information

that can be represented with visual or spatial characteristics. The visual-spatial sketchpad plays

an important role in reading as it visually encodes print while maintaining a frame of reference

that allows the reader to backtrack and keep his or her place in the text (Dehn, 2008). The

visual-spatial sketchpad also pmiicipates in the generation and manipulation of mental images.

Similar to the phonological loop, information is quickly forgotten unless it is rehearsed or stored

in long-term memory.

The episodic buffer is a temporary storage system that accesses long-term memory in

order to construct representations based on the new information (Baddeley, 2000). The episodic

buffer also encodes new information into long-term memory. According to Dehn (2008), the

episodic buffer combines visual and verbal codes and links them to representations in the long­

term memory.

Comparing short term memory and working memory. Although the terms 'ShOli

term memory' and 'working memory' are often used interchangeably, it is the manipulation and

integration of information to achieve a cognitive goal that differentiates working memory from

ShOli term memory (Janold & Tow'se, 2006). For example, short term memory can be tested by

presenting participants with a series of visual-spatial or verbal items that must be recalled in

conect serial order. The individuals must store the items for a short time, but are not asked to

manipulate the information in any meaningful way. These assessments are often called simple

span tasks. In contrast, working memory tests present the pmiicipants with a series of items that

15

they must maintain in storage while carrying out additional processing tasks. Such tests are often

called complex span tasks. Individuals who perform well on working memory tests are able to

store information efficiently while rapidly processing and retrieving information to solve

complex problems.

Because working memory's storage capacity is limited, it can often fail individuals. Two

of the most common situations that lead to working memory failure are distractions and doing

something else while trying to hold information in working memory (Gathercole & Alloway,

2009). Information that is lost from working memory cannot be recovered. The only option in

this situation is to begin again.

Individual differences in working memory. The study of individual differences and

variances in working memory has helped to shed some light on why working memory

performance varies in individuals (Jarrold & Towse, 2006). Each person has a limit to working

memory and this capacity remains relatively fixed and consistent over different occasions

(Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Some variance in working memory can be attributed to the

normal cognitive development of individuals as they age. "Working memory capacity increases

from childhood through adolescence, when adult levels are reached" (Gathercole & Alloway,

2009, p. 32). For example, the longest sequence of numbers that an average four year old would

be expected to remember in reverse sequence is two digits. An average fifteen year old would be

expected to remember four digits in reverse sequence, possibly even five digits.

However, atypical variances may be accounted for by an individual's ability to process

information. Some people process information quickly and efficiently, thereby lessening the

amount of time information must be held in storage. Others process information slowly which

impacts the time the information must be stored. In addition, some individual differences in

16

working memory can be explained by storage capacity. "A fundamental characteristic of

working memory is that it has a limited capacity, which constrains cognitive performance"

(Conway, Jarrold, Kane, Miyake & Towse, 2007, p. 4). Individuals with a greater capacity tend

to perform better on cognitive tasks than individuals with a lesser capacity. Finally, differences

in the central executive system that coordinates both processing and storage may also account for

the working memory variances that occur on high-level cognitive tasks.

Common Characteristics of Children with Limited Working Memory Capacity

Behavioral characteristics. Children with poor working memory share several common

behavioral characteristics. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) reported children with poor working

memory in their study usually had normal social relationships with their peers. However, they

were often reserved during larger group activities in the classroom that involved teacher-led

discussions. These students rarely raised their hands to answer questions. They did not engage

in classroom discussions and often appeared to be distracted and uninterested. In a study by

Gathercole, Alloway and Lamont (2006), students did not display oveli behavioral problems and

were socially well-adjusted. Researchers expanded this finding in a 2009 study that found

students with low working memory did not exhibit high levels of hyperactivity or impulsivity

(Alloway et al.).

Teachers described students with poor working memory as inattentive with low attention

spans and a high level of distractibility (Alloway et aI., 2009). In addition, teachers repOlied that

the students often forgot what they were cUlTently doing and the things they had learned, failed

to remember instructions and failed to complete tasks. These behavioral characteristics were

consistently observed in children with poor working memories.

Learning characteristics. In addition, children with impaired working memories

typically display similar learning characteristics. Gathercole et aI. (2006) reported students

17

failed to complete tasks that required storing information while engaging in demanding

processing activities. Gathercole and Alloway (2009) observed this characteristic in a child

identified with low working memory capacity. The child's teacher wrote a sequence of numbers

on the board that had some numbers missing. The child was asked to identify the missing

numbers. In each sequence there was more than one missing number such as in the sequence

0,1,2,4,5,7,8,9. To complete this task, students needed to retrieve knowledge of numbers and

store the missing numbers until the end of the sequence. In the study, the observed child failed at

each attempt because he was unable to both retrieve and store the missing numbers.

In addition, students with impaired working memory often lost their place in complicated

tasks (Gathercole et aI., 2006). According to the research, students with poor working memory

had difficulty copying information from the board because the task required students to keep

track of their place and then write the information on their paper. Because place-keeping is so

difficult, the child with poor working memory will often make multiple errors when copying

information.

Gathercole et aI. (2006) also noted another similarity in students with poor working

memory. These students prefelTed t{) simplify tasks when possible. In one instance, a child was

taught a five-step process for learning his spelling words. He was told to "look, say, cover,

write, check" (p. 231). Instead of following this multi-step process, the student avoided the

memory element of this procedure and did not look, say or cover the word. Instead, he simply

copied the word a second time with the target word in full sight. As a result of simplifying this

process, the child missed the oPPOliunity to practice the memory aspect of the learning activity.

18

Because the memory aspect of the activity was skipped, the child's perfOlmance on the spelling

test was impacted.

Gathercole et al. (2006) summarized that students with low working memory frequently

displayed four learning failures: "forgetting instructions, failing to meet combined storage and

processing demands, losing track in complex tasks and forgetting from episodic long-term

memory at high rates" (p. 237). These common learning characteristics affect the academic

progress of students with low working memory capacity.

Attention difficulties. Maintaining attention to the task at hand is one of the foremost

operations of working memory (Dehn, 2008). According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009),

when teachers were asked to describe students who had been identified with impaired working

memory, they rarely described the students as having memory problems. Instead, teachers

commonly used phrases like '''he's in a world of his own', 'he doesn't listen to a word I say',

'she's always day-dreaming', and 'with him, it's in one ear and out the other'" (p. 62).

Comparisons between groups rated by teachers as having good or poor attention have shown

differences in working memory function (Cornish, Wilding & Grant, 2006). Attention seems to

be linked to the central executive system of working memory.

In a study of young adults, Kane et al. (2007) found individuals with low working

memory were more likely to engage in mind-wandering when attempting difficult cognitive

tasks. Kane called this phenomenon "zoning out" and determined that these attention problems

were more likely to occur when the working memory was overloaded. Gathercole and Alloway

(2009) found that students with poor working memory typically started a learning activity

purposefully, performing well at the beginning of the task. However, after making mistakes, the

students lost attention, became distracted and failed to complete the task. The short attention

19

span of students with poor working memory makes successfully completing leaming tasks very

difficult.

Students with low working memory capacity exhibit similar behavioral and leaming

characteristics. In addition, children with working memory impairments typically have difficulty

maintaining attention when cognitive tasks cause working memory overload. Understanding the

common characteristics of students with limited working memory capacity can help educators

identify struggling students and implement strategies for remediation and accommodation.

Assessing Working Memory Capacity

Viliually everything that must be leamed or remembered must pass through the working

memory. Dehn (2008) wrote, "Classroom performance and the development of verbal and

academic skills, such as reading decoding, reading comprehension, mathematics, and written

expression depend heavily on the adequate functioning of working memory" (p.92). If working

memory tests measure a capacity that is critical for academic leaming, then working memory

measures should be an essential part of every assessment for cognitive abilities (Dehn, 2008).

Even if working memory scores are not used to diagnose specific leaming disabilities, they can

still provide a better understanding of a student's strengths and weaknesses.

The span task. Assessing memory has been of interest to scientists for 100 years

(Pickering, 2006). Over the last century, the span task has remained the most commonly used

measure of memory. Dehn (2008) defined memory span as "the maximum amount of sequential

information an individual can remember accurately" (p. 132). Joseph Jacobs, a London teacher,

developed the first digit span test in the 1880s to measure the mental abilities of his students. In

a span task, the examiner is careful to present the numbers, letters or words in a steady and even

monotone. Doing this discourages any kind of chunking based on the tone in which the

information is presented.

20

Span activities can be classified as simple span or complex span tasks. Simple span

measures short term memory and complex span is considered to measure working memory

(Dehn, 2008). Simple span tasks require the individual to retain information passively. The

serial recall of digits, letters, words and nonwords are examples of simple span tasks. Complex

span tasks require an individual to process information while attempting to retain a list of items

for a short interval. Complex span tasks measure verbal and executive working memory and

require the storage and processing of information.

Because the simple span task is simple and easy-to-administer, it is widely used to

measure the capacity of an individual to hold information in memory for a short period of time.

However, there are limitations to the simple span task. First, because ofthe inherent structure of

the task, it restricts the measure of memory to short term verbal information only (Pickering,

2006). Second, the digits (1-9) and letters are already well established in the individual's long

term memory. As a result of this familiarity, long term memory supports the phonological loop

and contributes to the span obtained. Additional variables affecting an individual's performance

on both simple and complex span tasks include: the extent to which the person is paying

attention when the list is presented, hearing ability and capacity for speech. One way to

overcome these limitations is to include a large number of trials. Doing this will allow the

examiner to obtain a number of responses to sequences and will be a better indicator of an

individual's memory capacity.

Memory test batteries. A number of memory test batteries have been used extensively

for years. According to Pickering (2006), the Rivermead Behavioral MemOlY Test for Children

21

(Wilson, Ivani-Chalian, & Aldrech, 1991), The Wechsler MemOlY Scale III (Wechsler, 1997),

The Test of A1emOlY and Learning (Reynolds & Bigler, 1994), and The Children's A1emOlY Scale

(Cohen, 1997) provide the user with a range of subtests to measure a child's memory

performance. The subtests provide information about different types of memory including both

long term memory and short term memory. Users interested in a range of memory scores will

find the information gathered from these memory batteries helpful. However, according to

Pickering (2006), individuals interested in measuring working memory with these batteries will

find that the tests only have limited application for two reasons. First, these batteries include

subtests that measure all aspects of memory and, as a result, the number of subtests devoted to

the measurement of working memory is, out of necessity, limited. Second, the subtests included

in these batteries are not always based on well-established and well-researched models of

memory functioning.

Verbal working memory subtests. Verbal working memory is required when the

information is long, complex and needs to be manipulated. Dehn (2008) wrote, "Verbal working

memory tasks also depend on knowledge and processes beyond working memory" (p. 135). The

following subtests measure the verbal component of working memory.

Memory for sentences. This subtest may be the purest form of verbal working

memory because the processing task does not enlist the executive working memory (Dehn,

2008). A sentence is read aloud and the examinee is asked to recall the sentence.

Memory for stories. Immediately after hearing a story, the examinee is directed

to retell as much of the story as possible (Dehn, 2008). Points are awarded for each key element

and paraphrasing is allowed.

22

Reading span. This subtest is found in most measures of verbal and executive

working memory (Dehn, 2008). The examinee reads a series of sentences and then, sequentially,

recalls the final word in each sentence.

Listening span. The examiner reads a series of sentences and then the examinee

recalls the final word of each sentence (Dehn, 2008). The examiner makes the task more

challenging by inseliing a question before the examinee recalls the final word in the sentence.

For example, the sentence might be, "Apples live in water." The examinee is asked if the

sentence is tlUe and then asked to recall the final word in the sentence.

Operation span. Examinees solve a simple math problem before being given a

stimulus word (Dehn, 2008). After completing a set, the examinee must recall the stimulus

words in the correct sequence.

Visuospatial working memory subtests. These subtests measure the ability of an

individual to process and maintain information that can be represented with visual or spatial

characteristics.

Backward block recall. Nine identical blocks are placed on a board in a fixed

random arrangement (Dehn, 2008). The examiner taps two to nine blocks in a preselected

random sequence. The examinee must then tap the same blocks in reverse order.

Mazes memory. This subtest consists of two-dimensional mazes presented to the

examinee (Pickering, 2006). A route is shown through the maze in red and the examiner traces

the route with his or her finger. The examinee is asked to draw the exact route that was just

observed on an identical, but empty, maze.

Visual patterns test. This task involves the recall of matrix patterns (Pickering,

2006). Patterns consisting of equal numbers of black and white squares in a matrix are presented

to the examinee for 3 seconds. Then, the pmiicipant is asked to recall the location of the black

squares by marking an empty matrix.

23

Executive working memory subtests. Dual-task techniques are the classic method for

assessing executive working memory (Dehn, 2008). Dual-task activities require the examinee to

perform two tasks at the same time. The primary task is usually the short-term storage of

information. The secondary task is designed to interfere and disrupt any strategy to maintain the

information. Interference requires the involvement of the executive working memory.

Counting recall. The examinee is asked to recall dot tallies while counting other

arrays of dots (Pickering, 2006). The participant is presented with a card on which there are

dots. The examinee is asked to count the dots one at a time by placing a finger on the dot and

counting out loud. This process is repeated until all of the dot cards are counted. The individual

is then asked to recall the tallies of each card in the order that they were encountered.

Stroop task. The Stroop task requires an individual to read a list of color words

that are printed in ink colors unrelated to the printed word (Dehn, 2008). For instance, the word

green may be printed in red ink. This task measures the ability of the executive working

memory to focus attention and disregard irrelevant information.

Classroom Support for Children with Low Working Memory Capacity

Because students with poor working memories face substantial learning difficulties, it is

critical that teachers understand the techniques that they can use to minimize working memory

failures and enhance the learning oppOliunities for these children. While much has been written

about working memory training and intervention strategies (Beck, Hanson, Puffenberger,

Benninger & Benninger, 2010; Dahlin, Backman, Neely & Nyberg, 2009; Dehn, 2008), the

following practical strategies were designed for classroom teachers to use with students that

struggle with working memory deficits.

24

Recognize working memory failures. According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009), it

is important to detect the four main warning signs of working memory failure: incomplete recall,

failure to follow instructions, place-keeping errors and task abando1Unent.

Monitor the child. In addition, teachers should regularly monitor students with poor

working memories during mentally demanding activities (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009).

Teachers should look for signs of working memory overload. Often, working memory failures

lead to inactivity and may not attract the attention of a busy teacher. Another strategy for

monitoring the child is to ask children what they are doing and what they intend to do next. By

asking questions, the teacher can quickly determine if the child's memory is overloaded. In

addition, repeating important infornlation can prolong storage in working memory.

Evaluate the working memory demands of learning activities. According to Dehn

(2008), "The first step in encouraging teachers to adopt more practices that support working

memory is to promote more teacher awareness of the working memory loads created by

classroom activities and instruction" (p.298). Teachers should be able to identify the features in

a patiicular learning activity that will place considerable demands on working memory

(Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). First, activities that are excessive in length will exceed a child's

capacity and will not be remembered. Children under the age of ten will struggle to store

sequences of three or more unrelated items. According to Gathercole and Alloway (2009), the

longer the sequence, the greater the working memory demands on the child. Second, activities

that are unfamiliar and not meaningful will place heavy demands on a child's working memory

because children are unable to use their existing memory (long term memory) to support their

25

performance. For example, remembering the digits 5, 9, 2 has a greater working memory load

than remembering the digits 2, 4, 6 and the sequence cat, floor, car is harder to remember than

mom, dad, brother because in both example there are no meaningful links to the child's long

term memory (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Finally, demanding mental activities that require

the child to perform a difficult processing task while storing information at the same time often

lead to working memory overload. A fairly easy storage task may exceed a child's working

memory capacity when combined with another processing activity.

Reduce working memory loads. Teachers may need to modify lesson plans to

accommodate students with poor working memories. Tasks may also need to be modified as

they take place if the child is exhibiting any of the warning signs of working memory failure

(Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Often, working memory load can be challenged by complex

tasks like listening to a speaker while attempting to take notes (Dehn, 2008). Teachers can

reduce the amount of material in an activity, provide more structure and make the instructions

more meaningful by using actions to accompany verbal content (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009).

In addition, teachers can increase the meaningfulness and familiarity of material by linking new

information to knowledge that has already been acquired by the child. Gathercole and Alloway

(2009) suggested teachers simplify mental processing by using simple sentence structure for

giving instructions in both general classroom procedures and learning activities. A final way to

reduce working memory loads is to restructure complex tasks by breaking down multi-step tasks

into separate independent steps.

Be prepared to repeat. Children with working memory difficulties benefit greatly from

repetition. The repetition of classroom management instructions and task-specific instructions

helps students move information from ShOli term memory to their long term memory. Dehn

26

(2008) suggested that teacher repeat instructions and directions frequently and require students to

repeat information as well. It is also important to encourage children to request repetition when

necessary (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). It may also be helpful to partner a child with poor

working memory with a child with good memory abilities, although it is impOliant that this does

not place too large of a burden on the more capable child.

Encourage the use of memory aids. Providing memory aids can be a key element to

help students with poor working memories (Gathercole & Alloway, 2009). Writing aids (wall

charts, word strips, personalized dictionaries), mathematical aids (cubes, beads, blocks, number

lines) and computer software (interactive whiteboards, digital notepads) are devices that can

provide crucial information and reduce the working memory demands. There are two things that

are impOliant for teachers to remember when encouraging the use of memory aids. First, the

memory aids should be in close proximity to the child. Children are more likely to make use of

aids that are within hand's reach. Often, children do not even try to attempt using memory aids

that are distant, probably because the demands on working memory are increased when the child

must shift from the task at hand to a distant task. Second, children are more likely to use

memory aids when they have practiced with the aid and know how to use it. It is important for

students to receive practice with memory aids under low load conditions (Dehn, 2008).

Develop the child's use of strategies for supporting memory. In addition to adopting

strategies to help students minimize working memory overload, Teachers can help students

develop their own strategies to overcome memory problems. Gathercole and Alloway (2009)

wrote, "Arming the child with self-help strategies will promote their development as independent

learners able to identify and suppOli their own learning needs" (p. 85). Some of the strategies

27

that children can use to help themselves include the following: requesting help, rehearsal, note­

taking, using long term memory and organizational strategies.

When observant teachers support students within the classroom with appropriate

accommodations and changes, the teachers can reduce the load demand placed on the working

memory of students and decrease working memory failures. With assistance, students with poor

working memories can also develop their own self-help tools to successfully complete classroom

activities and proceed with learning.

28

Chapter III: Methodology

This field test of the Working },;[emory Rating Scale (WMRS, Alloway et ai., 2009) and

the Automated Working Mem01Y Assessment, North American Version (AWMA, Alloway et ai.,

2008) was designed to determine if the behaviors listed on the WMRS are accurate indicators of

working memory deficits and if a negative correlation exists between the two assessment tools.

This study was dependent on a careful selection of the sample, a thorough understanding of the

instrumentation, and a clear account of the data collection process and analysis.

Selection and Description of the Sample

The research subjects for this study were students in kindergatien through fifth grade at

Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, WI. The school had 64 students enrolled in

kindergarten through fifth grade with four, full-time teachers. There were three combined

classrooms in the study: a combined K-4/K-5, a combined first/second grade and a combined

third/fourth grade. The ethnicity of the students was predominately Caucasian and all

individuals spoke English as their first language.

A parental consent form was sent home with every student in kindergatien through fifth

grade. The kindergarten through fifth grade classroom teachers completed a WMRS form for

every student in their classes for whom signed parental consent was obtained. Students' scores

on the WMRS were tallied by the investigator and the results interpreted. Based on individual

results on the WMRS, students were grouped into three categories: 1) displays average

classroom behavior, 2) displays average classroom behavior-low and 3) classroom behavior

indicates moderate working memory deficits. A sampling of students was selected from each

category. The investigator administered the A WMA to each of the selected students.

Instrumentation

The Working Memory Rating Scale. The Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS) is a

behavioral rating scale developed by researchers in the United Kingdom to facilitate easy

identification of students with working memory deficits. The WMRS consists of 20 short

descriptions of problem classroom behaviors characteristic of students with low working

memory abilities (Alloway, Gathercole & Kirkwood, 2008). Teachers rate how typical each

behavior is of the child on a scale ranging from not typical (0) to very typical (3). The WMRS

takes no more than 5 minutes to complete and is easy to score and interpret.

29

The WMRS was developed as a result of an observational study of children with low

working memory. The researchers observed the low-memory students were more likely than

their typical working memory classmates to forget instructions, lose track of their place on

complex tasks and to struggle on tasks that involved simultaneous storage and processing

(Alloway et aI., 2008). Interviews were systematically conducted with the teachers of 50

primary-age students with working memory deficits. On the basis of the interviews, the

researchers eliminated redundant items and added extra items to accurately describe the common

classroom behaviors that differentiate children with low and normal working memory.

A total of 417 children from primary schools in England participated in a study to determine

the reliability and validity of the WMRS (Alloway et aI., 2008). Schools were selected from

across the United Kingdom to provide a representative sample based on national assessments.

The study found a strong relationship between all of the questions on the WMRS, supporting

convergent validity. In addition, the study established that the WMRS has internal reliability and

construct validity.

30

The Automated Working Memory Assessment, North American Version. The Automated

Working Memory Assessment was primarily created to provide classroom teachers and specialists

with a tool to quickly and easily identify working memory difficulties. The tests used in the

computerized A WMA battery were selected based on research "establishing that they provide

reliable and valid assessments of verbal and visual-spatial ShOli term and working memory"

(Alloway, 2007, p.55). All of the tests were piloted on two groups of children: young children

(4-5 years) and older children (9-10 years). The tests were adjusted to ensure that both the

practice and test trials were age-appropriate and extensive practice trials with visuals were

included. The A WMA was field tested for two years and the feedback received from educators,

psychologists and other professionals helped to refine the current version.

The test reliability of the AWMA was measured on 128 students in England randomly

selected across schools and age ranges (Alloway, 2007). Four weeks separated the two test

administrations. There was very little change in the scores of the students between the first

testing time and the second testing time, indicating that the A WMA is reliable. In addition, the

researchers evaluated the validity of the AWMA by comparing student scores on the A WMA to

their scores on the Weschsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth UK Edition. Alloway

(2007) repOlied "75% of children with poor working memory on the basis of identification by

the AWMA also obtained standard scores of 85 or less on the WISe-IV Memory Index" (p. 60).

These results suppOlied the validity of the test.

For the purposes of this study, the Automated Working MemOlY Assessement, North

American version was obtained. This version of the software, although not currently on the

market, was released to the investigator for research purposes only with special permission from

Tracy Alloway, the author of the AWMA, and Pearson Assessment. Three batteries of tests are

included on the A WMA software: A WMA Screener, A WMA ShOli Form and A WMA Long

Form. The AWMA Screener was used for this study.

Data Collection

31

Before the data was collected, the investigator met with the teachers of kindergarten through

fifth grade. The purpose and scope of the research was explained to the teachers and their

participation was requested. Each teacher signed a form indicating their agreement to participate

in the study.

Next, a parent consent form (Appendix A) was sent home in the weekly communication

folder of every student in kindergarten through fifth grade. Of the 64 consent forms sent home,

51 forms, signed by a parent, were returned in the communication folders. The teachers

completed a WMRS form for every student for whom parental consent was obtained. Teachers

placed the completed forms in an envelope, sealed the envelope and gave it to the investigator.

The investigator tallied the scores and interpreted the results in an off-campus location. Based

on individual results, students were grouped into three categories: 1) displays average classroom

behavior, 2) displays average classroom behavior-low and 3) classroom behavior indicates

moderate working memory deficits. Students in category one had a T score on the WMRS

between 37 and 55. Students in category two had a T score between 56 and 60. Students in

category three had a T score greater than 61

A random sampling of five students was selected from category one and all of the students

in categories two and three were selected to take the A WMA. The investigator administered the

A WMA Screener to the 12 selected students individually. Before each testing session, the

investigator read the Child Assent Form (Appendix B) to the student. This form explained the

process and assured the child that their patiicipation was strictly voluntary.

32

Data Analysis

The data was examined to determine if the two assessment tools were negatively correlated.

The students' T scores on the WMRS were compared to the A WMA standardized scores on both

the verbal section of the battery and the visual-spatial section. A scatter plot was used to

determine if a negative cOlTelation existed between the two assessments.

In addition, the students' scores on the two working memory assessment tests were analyzed

to determine if the behaviors rated on the WMRS were accurate indicators of working memory

deficits. Scores on the WMRS were determined to be "average", "average-low" or "below

average". These rankings were compared to student scores on the AWMA that were also

determined to be "average", "average-low" or "below average". A percentage was calculated to

determine the accuracy rate of the WMRS.

Limitations

The biggest weakness in this study was that the two assessment tools were normed in the

United Kingdom and not in the United States. Another weakness in the study was the lack of

diversity in the research sample. Because of the small size and homogeneous composition of the

student population, this study did not uncover any students with marked working memory

deficits.

Chapter IV: Results

Early detection of students with limited working capacity enables educators to plan

classroom strategies to accommodate these learners. CUlTently, the teachers at Calvary Baptist

Christian School (CBCS) in Wateliown, Wisconsin have no method to identify students with

working memory difficulties. A field test of the Working Memory Rating Scale and the

Automated Working MemOlY Assessment, North American Version would determine if the two

tests were effective assessment tools that would benefit both teachers and students at CBCS.

WMRS Results

33

Teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade used the WMRS to assess 51 students at

CBCS. The raw scores were convelied to T scores using the conversion table located in the

Working Memory Rating Scale Manual (Alloway et aI., 2008). Student results were distributed

into three groups based on the T scores: average, average-low and working memory deficits

(Table 1).

Table 1

WMRS Results - T Score Distribution

Group l:A verage Group 2 : Average - Low

T Scores 37 - 55 T Scores 56-60

Students (N=51) 44 3

A WMA Results

Group 3: WM Deficits

T Scores 61 +

4

The investigator administered the A WMA to a total of 12 students. Five randomly

selected students from WMRS Group One (Table 1) and all of the students from Group Two and

Group Three were given the A WMA Screener test battery. This battery assessed the verbal and

34

visual-spatial working memory of the subject. The verbal pOliion of the test was divided into

two subtests: listening recall and listening processing. The visual-spatial portion of the test was

also divided into two subtests: spatial recall and spatial processing. The computer program

automatically converted the raw data into standardized scores and percentiles for each subtest.

In addition, the program put student results on the verbal and visual-spatial pOliions of the

battery into three categories: average, average-low and working memory deficits (Table 2).

Table 2

AWMA Results - Verbal Working lyiemOlY and Visual-Spatial Working MemOlY

Group 1 : Average Group 2: Average - Low

N=12

Verbal

Visual-Spatial

Scores 90 +

9

7

WMRS and A WMA Comparative Results

Scores 81-89

2

5

Group 3: WM Deficits

Scores 80 and under

1

o

According to the Working MemOlY Rating Scale Manual (Alloway et aI., 2008), higher

teacher ratings on the WMRS were associated with lower memory scores on the A WMA. To

determine if this study attained the same results, WMRS scores and the A WMA scores on the

verbal and visual-spatial subtests were correlated. The correlation coefficients are shown in

Table 3. The WMRS scores were negatively correlated with the scores of all four memory

subtests. There was a more significant negative correlation on the visual-spatial subtests than on

the listening subtests. The data suppOlis this study'S hypothesis: higher teacher ratings on the

WMRS are associated with lower memory scores on the A WMA resulting in a statistical

negative correlation.

35

Table 3

The correlation coefficients/or WMRS and AWMA test and subtests.

A WMA subtest WMRS correlation coefficients

Listening Recall -0.19

Listening Processing -0.27

Spatial Recall -0.49

Spatial Processing -0.45

To compare individual results on the WMRS with the A WMA, student scores were

plotted on an XY scatter chati. Figure 1 and Figure 2 indicated that, while there was some

degree of negative correlation between the scores on the WMRS and A WMA, several sets of

scores did not follow the trend line. An examination of the individual test scores explained these

unanticipated results.

Figure 1

130

60

40

\V1\IRS T Score VS. A\V1\IA Vel'b~d

•• • • ++

• •

55 70

\VIHRS T Score

• Wl\1RST ScOret'il AWl\1A'v'erbnl

- Linear (Wl\fRS T l:i<'ore Vii A Wl\1A Verbal)

40

WMRS T Score VS. A\Vl\IA Visual-SI)atial

•

• 55

WMRSTScore

• WMRS T Score VK AWMA Vii<uo-Spatinl

--Linear (WMRS T Score v:>. A W1\1:\ \'isuo-Spatial)

In Depth Qualitative Results

36

70

Case Study 1. One student in this study had a low WMRS score of 46. This score

indicated that the student's classroom behavior was typical of students with average working

memory capacity. This student was randomly selected to take the A WMA. The student's score

on the verbal portion of the assessment was 86. This score put him in the average-low category.

In addition, the student earned a score of 87.5 on the visual-spatial pOliion of the test. This score

also put him in the average-low category. Although the student's scores on the A WMA did not

indicate working memory deficits, the report generated by the A WMA program suggested that

the student undergo fmiher testing to determine if his low scores were the result of working

memory deficits.

Case Study 2. A second student's classroom behavior was observed by his teacher and

recorded on the WMRS form. His score on the WMRS was 58. This score put him in the low

average group. According to the WMRS Manual (Alloway et aI., 2008), "If a child's score falls

in this range, it is unlikely that they have a working memory impairment." However, because of

37

However, because of his low-average score, the investigator selected him to take the A WMA

His score on the verbal portion of this test was 77.2 and his score on the visual-spatial portion of

this test was 89.25. His verbal score was in the working memory deficits range. In this case, the

WMRS score did not accurately represent the working memory abilities of the student.

Case Study 3. After tallying the WMRS scores, a student was found to have a score of

61. According to this score, the student displayed behaviors consistent with moderate working

memory deficits. The student was selected to take the A WMA. Surprisingly, the student scored

in the average range for both the verbal and visual-spatial tests.

Case Study 4. A student earned a score of 69 on the WMRS. This score indicated that

the student displayed behaviors characteristic of students with working memory deficits.

However, the student's results on both the verbal and visual-spatial pOliions ofthe A WMA

indicated that the student had an average working memory capacity.

Case Study 5. Of the 51 students assessed by the WMRS, 4 students received scores that

indicated their behaviors were consistent with working memory deficits. After administering the

A WMA to each of these students, it was found that none of the students had verbal or visual­

spatial working memory deficits.

Accuracy of WMRS Behavioral Characteristics

This study hypothesized the observed behaviors described in the WMRS are reliable

indicators of a working memory problem. The data to support this hypothesis was inconclusive.

In Table 4, individual students were recorded along with the resulting groups from their scores

on both the WMRS and AWMA Four (#2, #5, #10, #11) out of the 12 students were grouped

into the same group on both the WMRS and the AWMA Conversely, there was a disparity

between the groupings of four (#1, #3, #8, #9) other students. Approximately 33% of the

students were accurately identified. 83% of the students received the same or improved

grouping on the A WMA. 17% of the selected students were put into a lower grouping after

completing the A WMA.

Table 4

Comparison of Groups WMRS, A WMA Verbal, A WMA Visual-Spatial

D All three groups match.

m There is a significant disparity between WMRS scores and AWMA scores.

38

Student WMRS Group A WMA Verbal Group AWMA Visual-Spatial Group

#2 I-Average I-Average I-Average

#3 2-Below Average I-Average I-Average

#5 I-Average I-Average I-Average

#6 3-WM Deficits 2-Below Average 2-Below Average

#7 2-Below Average I-Average 2-Below Average

#10 I-Average I-Average I-Average

#11 I-Average I-Average I-Average

#12 2-Below Average 3-WM Deficits 2-Below Average

39

Summary

The data support this study's hypothesis that a negative correlation exists between the

WMRS and the A WMA. In this field study, higher scores on the WMRS were generally

matched by lower scores on the A WMA. Individual student results do not conclusively support

the hypothesis that the observed behaviors described in the WMRS are reliable indicators of a

working memory problem.

40

Chapter V: Discussion

To determine the effectiveness of the Working Memory Rating Scale and the Automated

Working MemOlY Assessment, North American Version, this field study compared the scores of

selected students at Calvary Baptist Christian School in Watertown, WI. The data was used to

determine if higher scores on the WMRS corresponded to lower scores on the A WMA. In

addition, the scores on the WMRS were examined to determine if they accurately predicted

student memory scores on the AWMA. Teachers in grades kindergarten through fifth grade

observed the classroom behaviors of 51 students and recorded their findings of the 20 specific

behaviors listed on the WMRS. Student scores on the WMRS were categorized into three groups

and a total of 12 students were selected to take the A WMA Screener battery. This battery

assessed the verbal and spatial working memory of the students. Student scores on the WMRS

were then compared to student scores on the A WMA to determine the correlation coefficient and

the accuracy of the WMRS.

Limitations

Both of the working memory assessments used in this study were researched, developed

and normed in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the scores of the students who were assessed

with these tools at CBCS in Watertown, WI were compared to the scores of students taken from

a sampling in the United Kingdom. This limitation may have impacted the results of both tests.

Another limitation of this study was the small and homogenous sample size. The scores

of 12 students on both the WMRS and A WMA were compared and contrasted. All 12 of these

students were Caucasian and spoke English as their first language. 92% of these students came

from a two parent household. The lack of size and diversity in the sample limited the range and

scope of this proj ect.

41

Conclusions

The data SUppOltS the researchers' claim and this study's hypothesis that higher scores on

the WMRS are associated with lower scores on the A WMA. However, it is impOltant to note that

the negative correlation coefficients for the verbal portions of the A WMA were significantly less

than the spatial subtests, indicating a weaker association with the WMRS. Four students had

scores that did not follow the trend. Two of these students had high scores on the WMRS and

scored high on the A WMA. The other two students had low scores on the WMRS and low

scores on the A WMA.

The data does not conclusively SUppOlt this study's hypothesis that the classroom

behaviors listed on the WMRS are accurate indicators of working memory deficits. Four

students received scores on the WMRS that indicated working memory deficits, however all four

of these students received average memory scores on the AWMA. In addition, only four

students received the same ranking of memory level on both the WMRS and the A WMA. There

are several possible reasons to explain these inconsistencies. First, it is possible that, because the

tests were normed in the United Kingdom and not in the United States, the results were

inaccurate. It is also possible that the descriptions of behaviors on the WMRS were unclear to

teachers and, consequently, their rankings do not accurately reflect the frequency of student

behaviors. Perhaps, it was difficult for teachers to distinguish the frequency of behaviors based

on the WMRS ratings of "occasionally", "fairly typical" and "very typical".

Both of the assessment tools were easy to use. The WMRS took the teachers

approximately five minutes to complete and the scores were easy to tally. The A WMA was also

easy to use and administer and the report generated for each student was detailed and clear.

42

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations are

made for further research and test development.

.. It is imperative that both the WMRS and A WMA are normed in the United States to

ensure that assessment results are accurate.

• This field study should be replicated with a larger sample selected from a more

diverse population of students.

• Along with the WMRS form, teachers should receive a more thorough set of

instructions for observing and ranking student behaviors.

• The WMRS manual should instruct teachers to administer the A WMA to students

who fall in the average-low range. Currently, the directions only encourage teachers

to administer the A WMA to students whose T scores indicate moderate or marked

working memory deficits.

• The 12 students in this study should also be given the Wechsler Memory Scale III

(Wechsler, 1997). Student scores on this test could be used as a point of comparison

to student results on the WMRS and A WMA.

References

Alloway, T.P. (2007). Automated working memOlY assessment manual. United

Kingdom:Pearson.

Alloway, T.P, Gathercole, S.E., & Kirkwood, H. 1. (2008). Working memOlY rating scale,

manual. United Kingdom: Pearson

43

Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., Kirkwood, H. & Elliot, 1. (2008). Evaluating the validity of

the Automated Working Memory Assessment. Educational Psychology, 28(7),725-734.

Retrieved September 9,2009 from EBSCOhost.

Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., Kirkwood, H. & Elliot, 1. (2009). The working memory

rating scale: A classroom-based behavioral assessment of working memory.

Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 242-245. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from

EBSCOhost.

Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., Willis, C. & Adams, A. (2004). A structural analysis of

working memory and related cognitive skills in young children. Experimental Child

Psychology, 87,85-106. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from EBSCOhost.

Baddeley, A.D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 4, 417-423.

Baddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of

learning and motivation (pp. 47-90). New York: Academic Press.

Beck, S. 1., Hanson, C. A., Puffenberger, S. S., Benninger, K. L. & Benninger, W. B. (2010). A

controlled trial of working memory training for children and adolescents with ADHD.

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(6),825-836. Retrieved January

29,2011 from EBSCOhost.

44

Cain, K. (2006). Children's reading comprehension: The role of working memory in normal and

impaired development. Pickering, S.J. (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 61-91).

Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Cohen, M. (1997). Children's MemOlY Scale. London: The Psychological Corporation.

Conway, A. R., Jarrold, c., Kane, M.J., Miyake, A. & Towse, J. N. (2007). Variation in

working memory. New York: Oxford.

Cornish, K., Wilding, J. & Grant, C. (2006). Deconstructing working memory in developmental

disorders of attention. In Pickering, S.J. (Ed.), Working memOlY and education (pp. 157-

188). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Dahlina, E., Backman, L., Neely, A. S. & Nyberg, L. (2009). Training of the executive

component of working memory: Subcortical areas mediate transfer effects. Restorative

Neurology and Neuroscience, 27,405-419. Retrieved January 29, 2011 from

EBSCOhost.

Dehn, M.J. (2008). Working memOlY and academic learning: assessment and intervention. New

Jersey: Wiley.

Durham University. (2008). Children's under-achievement could be down to poor working

memory. Retrieved September 21,2009, from

http://www.dur.ac. ukinews/newsitem/?itemno=6219&rehref=%2Fnews%2Farchive%2F

&resubj=%20Headlines

Gathercole, S.E. & Alloway, T.P. (2009). Working mel110lY and learning: a practical guide for

teachers. Los Angeles: Sage.

Gathercole, S.E., Lamont, E. & Alloway, T.P. (2006). Working memory in the classroom. In

45

Pickering, SJ. (Ed.), Working memory and education (pp. 219-240). Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Knight, C. & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills

and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14

years of age. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-16. Retrieved September 28, 2009

from EBSCOhost.

Jarrold, C. & Towse, IN. (2006). Individual differences in working memory. Neuroscience

139,39-50. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from EBSCOhost.

Kane, MJ., Brown, L.H., McVary, lC., Silvia, PJ., Myius-Gameys, I. & Kwapil, T.R. (2007).

For whom the mind wanders, and when. Psychological Science, 18,614-21. Retrieved

September 21,2010 from EBSCOhost.

Pickering, S. 1 (2006). Assessment of working memory in children. In

Pickering, S.l (Ed.), Working memOlY and education (pp. 241-271). Amsterdam:

Elsevier.

Reynolds, C.R. & Bigler, E.D. (1994). Test of memory and learning. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler memOlY scale-third edition UK. London: The Psychological

Corporation.

Wilson, B.A., Ivani-Chalian, R., & Aldrich, F. (1991). The rivermead behavioural memory test

for children. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Company.

Appendix A: Parent Consent Form

Consent to Participate In UW-Stout Approved Research

Title: Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Field Test of Two Working Memory Assessment Tools

Investigator: Dana Davis

Research Sponsor: Dr. Ruth Nyland

Description:

46

Working memory is the ability of the brain to store and manipulate information for very brief periods of time. Working memory capacity can be assessed with cognitive tests. The purpose of this research is to compare two tests of working memory. The research will examine if the two tests produce similar results. The Working Memory Rating Scale (WMRS) and the Automated

Working Memory Assessment, North American Version (A WMA) will be compared. The WMRS is a behavior rating scale and the A WMA is an automated computer software program.

The CBCS teachers of kindergarten through fifth grade will use the Working Memory Rating

Scale to observe and record student behaviors in the classroom. The investigator, not the student's teacher, will analyze the individual results of the WMRS and will classify students into three categories based on their WMRS scores. A small sampling of students from each category will be randomly selected to participate in a field test of the Automated Working Memory

Assessment. The A WMA will be administered by the investigator.

Risks and Benefits:

We foresee minimal to no risk for the students who pmiicipate in this study. Although your child's teacher will complete the WMRS form, the teacher will not tally the scores or interpret the results. The objective of this research is to assess the compatibility of the WMRS and A WMA, rather than to assess an individual child. Thus, neither the teacher nor the parent

will be provided with the individual assessment results for either test. A benefit of student pmiicipation will be an increase in educators' understanding and knowledge about the effectiveness of the WMRS and AWMA.

Special Populations: The study will involve children in kind erg mien through fifth grades at Calvary Baptist Christian School, Wateliown, WI.

Time Commitment:

47

Step 1: Teachers will observe students and complete a WMRS form for each student during the last two weeks of January 2011. The first phase of this project requires no time or effort from

your child.

Step 2: A small number of students will be randomly selected to take the AWMA. These students will participate in one 10 to 15 minute computerized session administered by the investigator during a school day in February 2011. The short A WMA test will present students with a series of computerized problems that will assess students' listening recall and spatial recall abilities.

Confidentiality:

Your child's name will not be included on any documents. Assessment results will be kept completely confidential and will not be released to your child's teacher or the administration of Calvary Baptist Christian School. We do not believe that your child can be identified from any of this information. Individual identifiers like gender, age and grade will not be included in published documents in any manner that could potentially identify the research subjects. This informed consent will not be kept with any of the other documents completed with this project.

Right to Withdraw:

Your child's pmiicipation in this study is entirely voluntary. You may choose not to allow your child to participate without any adverse consequences to him/her. Should you choose to let your child pmiicipate and later wish to withdraw him/her from the study, you may discontinue his/her pmiicipation without incurring adverse consequences. If you choose to withdraw your child from the study, please contact the investigator.

IRB Approval: This study has been reviewed and approved by The University of Wisconsin-Stout's Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB has determined that this study meets the ethical obligations required by federal law and University policies. If you have questions or concerns regarding this

study please contact the Investigator or Advisor. If you have any questions, concerns, or reports regarding your rights as a research subject, please contact the IRB Administrator. Investigator: Dana Davis

Advisor: Dr. Ruth Nyland IRB Administrator: Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services 152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg. UW-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751

48

Statement of Consent:

By signing this consent form you agree to allow your child to participate in the project entitled, "Identifying Working Memory Capacity: A Field Test of Two Working Memory Assessment Tools."

Child's Name

Signature of parent or guardian: Date

49

Appendix B: Child Assent Form

Child Assent Form

I am doing a study to try to figure out if a special computer test is a good test. I am asking you to help because I want to find out if this special computer test would be a good test for teachers to use in their classrooms. Your parents already know about this study and they have signed this paper that says it is okay for you to help me if you want to.

If you agree to help me, I am going to ask you to play some word games on the computer. You will listen to some instructions and then do your best to answer the questions. The test will only take about 10 minutes. You will not get a grade for taking this test.

You can ask me questions at any time about the study that I am doing. Also, if you decide at any time not to finish the computer test, you may stop whenever you want.

Signing this paper means that you have read this or had it read to you and that you want to be in the study. If you don't want to be in the study, don't sign the paper. Remember, being in the study is up to you, and no one will be mad if you don't sign this paper or even if you change your mind later.

Signature of Participant _________ Date _____ _

Signature of Investigator _________ Date _____ _

Dana Davis, Investigator

Investigator: Dana Davis

Advisor: Dr. Ruth Nyland

IRB Administrator: Sue Foxwell, Director, Research Services 152 Vocational Rehabilitation Bldg. UW-Stout Menomonie, WI 54751