Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Feb 15.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Aging. 2011 Sep;26(3):503–517. doi: 10.1037/a0022687

Table 3.

Memory Training Effect Sizes of Strategy Clustering Scores: Results from ACTIVE (N=1,401)

HVLT Clustering Scores
AVLT Clustering Scores
Semantic Subjective Serial Subjective Serial
Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95%CI Estimate 95% CI Estimate 95% CI
Effect Sizes of Training on Strategy Clustering Scores at Each Time
Baseline to Immed. PT 0.73 (0.66, 0.88) 0.39 (0.30, 0.52) −0.08 (−0.19, 0.02) 0.33 (0.24, 0.45) 0.36 (0.27, 0.49)
Baseline to Yr1 0.53 (0.44, 0.67) 0.32 (0.22, 0.45) −0.12 (−0.23, −0.01) 0.30 (0.20, 0.43) 0.29 (0.20, 0.42)
Baseline to Yr2 0.45 (0.35, 0.60) 0.23 (0.12, 0.37) −0.09 (−0.21, 0.03) 0.24 (0.13, 0.38) 0.17 (0.06, 0.30)
Baseline to Yr3 0.42 (0.32, 0.57) 0.24 (0.12, 0.37) −0.20 (−0.34, −0.09) 0.31 (0.20, 0.45) 0.24 (0.13, 0.38)
Baseline to Yr5 0.42 (0.30, 0.57) 0.23 (0.11, 0.37) −0.10 (−0.24, 0.03) 0.17 (0.05, 0.31) 0.13 (0.00, 0.27)

Legend. Interactions between treatment and time from GEE models are effect sizes for the standardized difference in strategy clustering score outcome gain between memory-trained and control groups. These models are adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, self-rated health status, and education. 95% CI: 95% Confidence interval.