Table 2.
Description of measures.
| Measure | Items/description |
|---|---|
| Feasibility and acceptability | |
| Treatment evaluation inventory—Short form (TEI-SF; Kelley et al., 1989) | Parents rate on a Likert scale their responses to items assessing the following: acceptability of the program, willingness to use this procedure to target behavior change, acceptability without child consent, likability of procedures, expectations of discomfort, likelihood of improvement, parent-enforced use of the program, overall reaction to the program |
| Treatment acceptability questionnaire (TAQ; Hunsley, 1992) | Parents rate on a Likert scale their responses to items assessing the following: level of acceptability, degree of ethicality, level of effectiveness, perceptions of side effects, degree of provider knowledge, degree of provider trustworthiness |
| ATQ (Study-specific questionnaire created by principal investigators) | Parents rate on a Likert scale their responses to items and provide optional comments for the following: phone or email preference, comfort using the study's videoconference tool, alternative videoconference preferences, problems, and comments, ease and independence in computer setup, staff assistance with technology and training, session number, length, and effectiveness, ideas for improving study or staff, more rigorous sessions and child fatigue, likelihood of participation if session frequency or length increased, particular likes or dislikes, staff correspondence and involvement, supervision vs. independent completion, suggestions for improving clarity, likelihood of recommending to others and why |
| Training and evaluation | Experimental Tasks used for RI assessment and training measures |
| Go/No-Go task (Lee, 2014) | The 8-min computerized Go/No-Go task adapted for this study consists of 75% go trials requiring a button press after each stimulus (alphabet letter) and 25% no-go trials. It assesses response time and inhibition after the discriminatory stimulus (the letter ‘X') |
| Motor stroop task (Lee, 2014) | The 10-min computerized Motor Stroop Task adapted for this study requires participants to press a particular button depending on which side of the screen the stimulus appears |
| Stop-signal task (Lee, 2014) | The 10-min computerized Stop Signal Task adapted for this study instructs participants to press computer keys indicating whether an arrow on the screen points left or right. Participants were to inhibit the response if the stop signal (audible beep) followed the appearance of the stimulus |
| Response inhibition training program (Lee, 2014) | Computerized training program developed for this study is a game-like computer program tapping into motor inhibition and interference control within an engaging story line. An introduction and ‘practice level’ is administered prior to training. Participants complete three 5-min “levels” per session, and levels incorporate various demands on inhibitory requirement and include feedback. Inhibitory demands become more challenging as participants progress. Adaptations were designed with consideration of the lowered IQ present in WS and the potential for frustration stemming from inability to meet passing criterion. All participants received approximately the same ‘dosage’ of training |
Note: The larger pilot study included baseline assessment of cognitive ability, executive functioning, and comorbidities. Additionally, at each time point, parents completed six online questionnaires pertaining to everyday functioning in areas of attention, anxiety, affect, question-asking frequency, and emotion regulation.