Training gave little gain in attention. Behaviour improved, mostly when compared with no treatment.
No differenceThe short version
Across 11 studies, training did not clearly improve attention more than the other group did.

- 11
- studies pooled
- 905
- children and teenagers, some with ADHD
- Recorded
- behaviour was recorded
- 2 tools
- tested
The review
Who took part
905 children and teenagers older than 5, in 22 studies from nine countries. Some had ADHD or brain injuries, some had learning difficulties, and others were healthy.
What they did
Training was computer exercises for attention and memory, or therapy courses that taught children to talk themselves through tasks. Programmes lasted from 1 to 6 months, and one lasted a year. The other group got no treatment or a different treatment.
What happened
Behaviour improved against no treatment. It did not clearly beat another treatment. Attention, memory and other thinking skills showed no clear gain, and school results only slightly.
What the review found
- No differenceFocus
Across 11 studies, training did not clearly improve attention more than the other group did.
Pooled analysis of 11 studies · vs children who got no treatment or a different treatment · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- No differenceOther outcomes
On self-control and problem-solving tests, training did not clearly beat the other group.
Pooled analysis of 12 studies · vs children who got no treatment or a different treatment · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- No differenceOther outcomes
Across the memory tests, most studies found no effect, and two studies with big gains pulled up the average.
Pooled analysis of 9 studies · vs children who got no treatment or a different treatment · behaviour was recorded · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; the studies disagreed a lot; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
- HelpedOther outcomes
In 10 studies, children behaved better than the other group, mostly where it got no treatment.
Pooled analysis of 10 studies · vs mostly children who got no treatment · they rated themselves · ⚠ most studies had serious flaws; whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited; mixes trials with other kinds of study
How solid is this?
- Behaviour was recorded
- Summary claims more than the results show
- Whole programmes were tested, so no single part can be credited
- Mixes trials with other kinds of study
Source
The Efficacy of Cognitive Training Programs in Children and Adolescents: A Meta-analysis (2013)
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0643 (opens in a new tab)

