## 3 Results
### CCT Effectiveness  
The performance scores for all neuropsychological tests for both groups from pre- and post-CCT are presented in Table 2.  
Mixed ANOVAs did not show any significant main effects for the group (\(p>0.14\)) across any of the outcome variables. However, the mixed ANOVA for the Verbal Fluency  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test** & **Pre-CCT** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Post-CCT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**RM ANOVA**} \\ \hline  & & & & & **Time** & **Group** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{_Interaction (Time \(\times\) Group)_} \\ \hline  & **M** & **SD** & **M** & **SD** & **\(p\) Value** & **\(p\) Values** & **\(F\) Value** & **\(p\) Value** & **Partial \(\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{ \mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{ \mathbf{  \mathbf{ }}}}}}}}}}}\) \\ \hline VF-L & & & & & **<0.001** & 0.24 & 4.387 & **0.04** & 0.099 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 9.16 & 2.79 & 17.32 & 3.82 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 9.39 & 2.81 & 15.13 & 3.43 & & & & \\ \hline VF-S & & & & & 0.06 & 0.14 & 2.31 & 0.14 & 0.061 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 20.00 & 6.71 & 19.72 & 6.61 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 22.45 & 4.27 & 20.03 & 5.35 & & & & \\ \hline Digit Span Forward & & & & & 0.44 & 0.91 & 0.98 & 0.33 & 0.024 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 6.32 & 1.06 & 6.37 & 1.01 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 6.52 & 1.28 & 6.21 & 1.68 & & & & \\ \hline Digit Span Backward & & & & & 0.06 & 0.61 & 0.223 & 0.63 & 0.006 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 5.84 & 1.17 & 6.16 & 1.54 & & & & \\ \hline Control & 5.52 & 1.56 & 6.04 & 1.65 & & & & & \\ \hline AVLT Learning & & & & & 0.33 & 0.24 & 0.15 & 0.70 & 0.004 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 10.35 & 1.37 & 10.23 & 1.06 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 9.95 & 1.56 & 9.68 & 1.57 & & & & \\ \hline AVLT-IR & & & & & 0.27 & 0.23 & 1.49 & 0.23 & 0.037 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 9.11 & 3.09 & 9.05 & 1.93 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 7.68 & 3.76 & 8.82 & 3.02 & & & & \\ \hline  & AVLT-DR & & & & & **0.02** & 0.35 & 0.91 & 0.35 & 0.023 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 8.58 & 2.17 & 9.79 & 1.62 & & & & \\ \hline  & Control & 9.23 & 2.69 & 9.77 & 2.62 & & & & \\ \hline  & & & & & **0.02** & 0.60 & 0.05 & 0.83 & 0.001 \\ \hline  & Intervention & 51.11 & 8.31 & 54 Letter test showed that there was a significant interaction effect between time and group f [F(1,40) = 4.387, \(p\) = 0.043, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.099] (See Figure 3). A subsequent post hoc analysis indicated a significant improvement in both groups (\(p\) < 0.001), though there was a significant difference between the post-CCT score for the groups (\(p\) = 0.05), demonstrating that participants in the intervention group significantly increased their performance on the Verbal Fluency Letter test more than participants in the control group (from 9.16 to 17.32 vs. 9.39 to 15.13, respectively).  
A mixed ANOVA also demonstrated a significant main effect of time for the AVLT Immediate Recall and Delayed Recall (\(p\) = 0.02) and Coding tests (\(p\) = 0.02). On each of these tests all participants on average improved their performance. For the comparison test, there was a tendency (\(p\) = 0.08) for a decrease in performance after CCT. Specifically, there was a significant decrease in performance in the control group (\(p\) = 0.04), while there was no significant change in the intervention group (\(p\) = 0.87).