A Single-case Design to Investigate a Compensatory Strategy Game Supporting Goal Management Training

June 28, 2023 updated by: Klimmendaal Revalidatiespecialisten

Evaluation of a Compensatory Brain Game Supporting Goal Management Training Targeting Executive Function After Acquired Brain Injury Using Single-case Experimental Design Methodology

The main cognitive complaint in brain-injured patients is often the everyday disorganization caused by executive function (EF) deficits. In order to minimize the everyday disorganization, effective EF interventions are required. Interventions which incorporate compensatory strategies have the potential to enable patients to minimize disabilities, minimize participation problems and to function more independently in daily life. A well-known evidence-based intervention that incorporates compensatory strategies is Goal Management Training (GMT). GMT entails learning and applying an algorithm, in which a daily task is subdivided into multiple steps to handle executive difficulties of planning, and problem solving. To adopt the GMT strategy and ensure maximal profitability for patients, they have to learn to use the algorithm in different situations and tasks. Therefore, GMT is a comprehensive, time-consuming and thus labour-intensive treatment. Along with this, brain games become increasingly attractive as an (add-on) intervention, most notably in an effort to develop home-based personalized care. Until now, however, the rationale behind brain games is based on what can be considered the restorative approach (i.e. strengthening of executive problems) rather than practicing compensatory strategies, with little or no transfer to improvements in daily life functioning. This study therefore aims to assess the potential of a newly developed Brain Game, based on compensatory strategies, as an add-on to GMT to develop a shortened and partly home-based GMT intervention. The primary objective of this study is to assess whether the use of a compensatory brain game supported GMT treatment could be of interest in people with EF deficits after ABI, to improve goal achievement, their executive function performance during goal-related tasks, and their executive performance during an ecological valid shopping task. The study will be a multiple-baseline across individuals single-case experimental design (SCED). The study population consists of patients referred for outpatient cognitive rehabilitation. Participants eligible for the study must have executive deficits due to Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) of nonprogressive nature (i.e. TBI, stroke), with a minimum time post-onset of 3 months. Age has to be between 18 and 75 and participants have to live independently at home. Executive deficits will be assessed by extensive neuropsychological examination. Participants will be recruited from the outpatient clinic and the department of neurorehabilitation of Klimmendaal and Vogellanden. Four participants will be recruited.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
4

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • Netherlands
    • Gelderland
      • Arnhem, Gelderland, Netherlands, 6813 GG
        • Recruiting
        • Klimmendaal Revalidatiespecialisten
        • Contact:
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Elise Verhoog, MSc.

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age: 18 - 75 years
  • Non-progressive acquired brain injury
  • Minimal time post-onset of 3 months
  • Outpatient rehabilitation
  • Living independently at home
  • Executive deficits (as determined on a neuropsychological assessment)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Inability to speak/understand the Dutch language
  • Severe psychiatric problems (history)
  • Neurodegenerative disorders
  • Substance abuse
  • Severe cognitive comorbidity (i.e. dementia)
  • Aphasia
  • Neglect
  • No access to a smartphone, and laptop or tablet
  • Unable to look at a computer screen for 15 minutes
  • Unable to operate a keyboard or computer mouse

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
No Intervention: Baseline phase (Phase A)
At the start of the study, all participants are assigned to the baseline phase (phase A). During phase A, patients do not receive interventions related to executive function problems. The start of the intervention phase (phase B) is determined randomly for each participant, given the restriction that phase A should last for at least three weeks (21 days) and at most five weeks (30 days). This means that phase B can start on any day between the 21th and the 30th days, resulting in a total of 10 possible assignments. So, in the first three weeks, all participants are in phase A. The duration of phase A will thus be different for each subject. Phase A acts as a control and is therefore compared with phase B.
Experimental: Intervention phase (Phase B): Goal Management Training
During the intervention phase (phase B), all included participants will have 6 sessions of Goal Management Training (GMT; twice per week) in which two individual chosen IADL-tasks will be subdivided into multiple steps under guidance of a therapist using the GMT method. In addition participants play the compensatory brain game in which they are challenged to apply the learned GMT strategy in an imaginary and safe environment.
Behavioral: Intervention during phase B: Compensatory brain game supporting Goal Management Training intervention
The investigational treatment is only given during the intervention phase (phase B), and consists of six treatment sessions. In the treatment sessions, patients learn and apply the GMT algorithm. This means that the multiple steps of the GMT as well as the actual performance of the IADL-task goals will be learned under guidance of a therapist. In order to facilitate generalization, patients will learn to use the algorithm during the performance of untrained tasks by playing the treatment supporting Plan Game. Because of this, patients are able to practice the application of the GMT algorithm independently at their own home. Besides, the intervention also includes a Plan Tool. This is a mobile application that can be used as an aid during the performance of (instrumental) activities of daily living (IADL) tasks in order to perform activities more independently. The GMT treatment sessions are given twice a week (max. 60 minutes for each attendance).
No Intervention: Follow-up period
A follow-up period of three weeks takes place after phase B. During this follow-up period, patients receive no intervention.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in performance on the Oxford Multiple Errands Test- Dutch version (OxMET-NL) from phase A to phase B
Time Frame: The target behavior (i.e. performance on the OxMET-NL) will be measured repeatedly, two times a week, for the duration of phase A (3 to 5 weeks) and phase B (3 weeks)
The target behavior will be assessed repeatedly, on a minimum of six occasions in phase A and B, in accordance with the recommendations of the What Works Clearinghouse and RoBiNT criteria (Tate et al., 2013). The OxMET-NL task is a computer-tablet based version of the Multiple Errands Test and is scored automatically. The task requires patients to buy six items and to answer two questions.
The target behavior (i.e. performance on the OxMET-NL) will be measured repeatedly, two times a week, for the duration of phase A (3 to 5 weeks) and phase B (3 weeks)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from phase A to phase B to follow-up
Time Frame: The VAS will be assessed repeatedly, two times a week, for the duration of phase A (3 to 5 weeks), phase B (3 weeks) and follow-up (3 weeks)
Subjective experience of strategy use in daily life and during the performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADL).
The VAS will be assessed repeatedly, two times a week, for the duration of phase A (3 to 5 weeks), phase B (3 weeks) and follow-up (3 weeks)
Change in performance on treatment goals as measured with the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS)
Time Frame: pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
GAS is a mathematical technique for quantifying the achievement of goals set, used in rehabilitation. GAS is described as a method of scoring the extent to which patient's individual goals are achieved in the course of intervention. In effect, each patient has a own outcome measure, but this is scored in a standardized way as to allow statistical analysis. The achievement of each goal (IADL-task) can be measured on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2. Outcomes can be quantified in a single aggregated goal attainment score. This method gives a numerical T-score which is normally distributed about a mean of 50 (if the goals are achieved precisely) with a standard deviation of around this mean of 10 (if the goals are overachieved or underachieved).
pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
Change in everyday difficulties in activities/participation as measured on the Daily Living Questionnaire (DLQ-R-NL)
Time Frame: pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
The Dutch version of the Daily Living Questionnaire measures how much mental or cognitive difficulty the participant generally has by performing daily activities.
pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
Change in strategy use during the performance of trained and untrained IADL tasks
Time Frame: pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
A self-designed questionnaire to examine self-reported strategy use will also be administered after the performance of the trained and untrained IADL tasks, based on the strategy questionnaire used by Frankenmolen, Fasotti, Kessels & Oosterman (2018), in order to measure strategy use in a traditional memory task. First, participants are openly asked which strategies they use during the performance of an IADL task. Subsequently, they are given a list with possible strategy components of GMT that one could use to perform a task and are asked to place a check mark next to each strategy that they had used.
pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
Change in subjective experience of strategy use in daily life
Time Frame: pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
GMT strategy use is assessed through an adjustment of the Strategy Use Inventory; SUI (Koning-Haanstra, Berg, & Deelman, 1990). Participants have to indicate how often they use a certain strategy in daily life situations using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (often). Average item scores are calculated.
pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
Change in performance on two trained IADL task (treatment goals)
Time Frame: pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up
Performance on two treatment goals is measured with a standardised scale which is similar to the one used by Bertens et al. (2015) and Dechamps et al. (2011). The tasks will be divided into multiple steps using the GMT method. Each task step will be assessed following a 3-point scale (ranging from 2=competent to 0=deficit). Total scores per task will be adjusted to a 100-point scale using the following formula: performance = (total score / (number of steps × 2)) × 100. Thus, a performance of 100% indicating perfect IADL task performance.
pre-intervention, immediately following intervention and at three weeks follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Klimmendaal Revalidatiespecialisten

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Elise Verhoog, MSc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
April 7, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
February 1, 2024

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
February 1, 2024

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
December 2, 2022

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
February 19, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
February 21, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
June 29, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 28, 2023

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • Karman Line GMT SCED

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings