Table 4.
Proportion of children exhibiting reliable change and the number needed to treat (NNT) for central executive training vs. behavioral parent training (Study 1) and inhibitory control training (Study 2).
| Study 1 | Study 2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % Reliably Improved | χ2 p-value | Number Needed to Treat | % Reliably Improved | χ2 p-value | Number Needed to Treat | |||
| BPT | CET | CET | ICT | |||||
| Teacher-reported academic performance | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Academic success | 0 | 33 | < .001 | 3 | 36 | 0 | < .001 | 3 |
|
|
||||||||
| Impulse control | 0 | 11 | < .001 | 3 | 55 | 8 | < .001 | 2 |
|
|
||||||||
| Academic productivity | 8 | 33 | < .001 | 4 | 33 | 18 | .01 | 7 |
|
|
||||||||
| Objectively-assessed academic achievement | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
| Reading comprehension | 18 | 38 | .002 | 5 | 72 | 50 | .001 | 4 |
| Math concepts & applications | 54 | 72 | .008 | 5 | 72 | 50 | .001 | 4 |
|
|
||||||||
| Listening comprehension | 0 | 30 | < .001 | 3 | 0 | 15 | <.001 | −4 |
Note: Number needed to treat was computed for central executive training, based on the proportion of children in the CET treatment group who demonstrated reliable change from CET relative to the proportion of children who demonstrated reliable change in the active, credible control conditions in Study 1 and Study 2. Number needed to treat (NNT) refers to the number of patients who need to be treated to get one more patient better than would have improved without the treatment; 1/NNT estimates the probability that any given patient will benefit from the treatment (Wang et al., 2000). Smaller positive values suggest more effective treatments; the negative NNT value for listening comprehension in study 1 indicates that fewer children reliably improved in the CET relative to ICT treatment group, consistent with the primary analyses indicating that CET does not produce significant benefits on listening comprehension. NNTs ≤ 5 based on the current clinical trials are bolded; boxes reflect outcomes where CET showed significant benefits in the primary analyses that replicated across Study 1 and Study 2 (these outcomes also showed low NNTs suggestive of clinically significant benefits). P-values computed based on 2 (treatment: CET, BPT/ICT) x 2 (status: improved, not improved) χ2 tests with Yates continuity correction.