Using Tablets to Assess Working Memory Capacity in School Settings Kaisa Kanerva1, Ilkka Kiistala2, Noona Kiuru2 1University of Helsinki and 2University of Jyv¨askyl¨a kaisa.kanerva@helsinki.fi Introduction Working memory (WM) refers to simultaneous storage and processing of information during an ongo- ing task (Baddeley, 2002). Capacity of domain-general central executive component is not sufﬁciently assessed by simple span tasks, such as digit span. • Complex span tasks (e.g., Reading span task, (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980)) WM deﬁcits are observed in broad cognitive impairments, such as SLI and childhood aphasia, and also in genetic syndromes such as Down syndrome (verbal WM) and Williams syndrome (visuo- spatial WM) (Majerus & Van der Linden, 2013). • WM deﬁcits are common in different learning difﬁculties such as dyslexia and dyscalculia • Individual differences in WM capacity are related to academic achievement and scholastic skills, and to children’s classroom behavior (Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, 2006) WM is assessed using different types of tasks and batteries: • Standard paper-and-pencil tests, behavioral ratings (WMRS), computerized test batteries (AWMA) • Commonly used WM tasks are Complex Span tasks (Reading Span task, Counting Span task), backward span tasks (Digit Span task) Figure 1: On level three of the Counting span task, the subjects were presented with series like the one shown here followed by a screen asking how many circles were displayed. Why tablet tasks? • Self-reliant group testing allows large sample sizes and screening • Computer-paced WM tasks are better predictor of cognitive performance than self-paced WM tasks (McCabe, 2010) • Reaction times are more realistic when no mouse is needed • However, there can be distraction, noise and technical problems in a classroom during assessment Main Objectives The aims of the study were to develop self-reliant WM tasks for tablet and to examine (i) the process of using tablets in WM assessment in a classroom in a research setting and (ii) the quality of the developed WM tasks as assessment tools • Predictive validity: tasks’ relationships with scholastic achievement scores • Concurrent validity: the tasks’ relationships with each other and individual WM performance • The reported distraction in the classroom during the testing • The effect of class on WM performance Methods This study is part of a broader Tikapuu research project which will be reported elsewhere. Participants • A total of 705 sixth grade (12-year-old) children from 53 classes in 30 schools (63 testing sessions) • Subsample of 190 children in individual testing (Digit Span reported here) • In a testing session there were from 9 to 30 children (mean group size = 18 pupils) WM span tasks for tablet • Counting Span task (Figure 1), Reading Span task Academic Achievement • Grade Point Average, Math test, Literacy test Individually administered STM/WM tasks (N = 190˜) • Digit Span Forward and Digit Span Backward Figure 2: Tablet carrying case and charging station 30 tablets with the experiment application installed were used in 63 testing sessions. To ensure the devices could be used in the sessions without interruption their battery needed to be charged every night. A carrying case was built for the tablets (Figure 2). To ensure no data was lost, the data logs were copied from the tablets by a Raspberry Pi computer into a ﬂash drive. Tablets used in testing were Samsung Tab 3 (GT-P5210) devices. They were running Android 4.2.2 with minimal set of features turned on. For example, no network connection was needed during the tasks. The tasks were run on top of OpenSesame Runtime for Android (version 2.8.3). The tasks were designed with OpenSesame, an open-source experiment builder (Mathˆot, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2012). Results CountingSpan ReadingSpan Literacy Math FluidIntelligence ReadingSpan 0.41*** Literacy 0.41*** 0.45*** Math 0.46*** 0.33*** 0.43*** FluidIntelligence 0.39*** 0.32*** 0.26***