Skip to main content
. 2017 Mar;2(2):115–122. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2016.11.009

Table 3.

Cognitive Test Results at the Intervention Session

Modafinil (n = 30) (Mean ± SD) Placebo (n = 30) (Mean ± SD) F Value p Value ηp2
PAL Total Errors Adjusteda 29.97 ± 34.95 50.10 ± 49.90 6.199 .01 .10
PAL Total Errors Adjusted (12 Shapes) 13.90 ± 20.15 30.28 ± 35.43 4.211 .01 .11
PAL First Trial Memory Score 26.10 ± 7.29 23.52 ± 6.89 3.883 .054 .06
PAL Mean Errors to Success 5.67 ± 5.35 8.04 ± 6.31 9.935 <.01 .26
PAL Mean Trials to Success 2.72 ± 1.20 3.29 ± 1.63 3.771 .057 .06
SWM Between Errorsa 100.17 ± 62.74 102.47 ± 51.74 3.023 .08 .05
SWM Between Errors (12 Boxes) 44.40 ± 29.41 48.43 ± 22.91 4.125 .04 .06
SWM Strategy 53.63 ± 17.56 52.90 ± 17.42 0.984 .32 .01
OTS Problems Solved on First Choice 9.40 ± 2.40 10.07 ± 2.13 1.744 .19 .03
OTS Mean Choices to Correcta 1.63 ± 0.40 1.53 ± 0.32 1.057 .37 .01
OTS Mean Latency to Correct (ms) 29632.57 ± 20967.91 21693.82 ± 10171.27 1.198 .27 .02
RVIP A′ (Target Sensitivity) 0.919 ± 0.05 0.940 ± 0.04 1.544 .21 .02
RVIP B′′ (Response Bias) 0.843 ± 0.36 0.818 ± 0.39 0.127 .12 <.01
RVIP Mean Latency (ms) 469.48 ± 86.40 426.27 ± 77.87 2.208 .14 .03

OTS, One Touch Stockings; PAL, Paired Associates Learning; RVIP, Rapid Visual Information Processing; SWM, Spatial Working Memory.

Statistical values were obtained via general linear model–analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

a

For these measures, repeated measures ANCOVA was used with difficulty as the factor and relevant cognitive test scores at baseline as covariate. For other measures, univariate ANCOVA with relevant covariates from baseline session were used. PAL test results were from 29 participants in each group due to loss of data related to technical problems.

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure