Assessing and Improving the Durability of Compensatory Cognitive Training for Older Veterans (AID-CCT)

August 12, 2025 updated by: VA Office of Research and Development

Assessing and Improving the Durability of Compensatory Cognitive Training for Older Veterans (AID-CCT)

Veterans have numerous risk factors (e.g., PTSD, TBI, cerebrovascular problems) for later-life cognitive and functional decline. Evidence supports the effectiveness of strategy-based cognitive rehabilitation therapies, including compensatory cognitive training (CCT), for such decline. However, questions remain about the length of time that CCT-driven improvements in cognitive and everyday function last, and whether additional 'booster' training sessions could provide additional benefit to aging Veterans who previously underwent treatment. This study examines the long-term durability of CCT in Veterans aged 55+ and provides an opportunity to develop and pilot test a series of CCT booster sessions that can be personalized toward individual everyday functional goals.

Study Overview

Detailed Description

The RCT portion of this study is a pilot trial evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a "booster" CCT intervention for individuals who have already previously participated in CCT. 28 Veterans who previously participated in the ME-CCT intervention group of the "Cognitive Rehabilitation for Older Veterans with Mild Cognitive Impairment" study [PI: Twamley, VA CSRD: I01CX001592] will be recruited to participate in this pilot RCT.

All participants will receive an initial assessment that consists of neuropsychological and functional capacity tests, and will complete several self-reports of quality of life and daily function. Participants will complete questionnaires focused on acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Participants will then be randomized to pilot RCT booster training or Treatment as Usual (TAU) group, yielding approximately 14 participants in each group. Participants will receive either three to four booster intervention modules/sessions or treatment as usual. Directly following the approximately 4-week intervention window, all 28 participants will receive the same battery of tests and questionnaires they received at the beginning of the sub-study.

Although the investigators will attempt to estimate possible initial effects of the CCT booster on cognitive and functional outcomes, the purpose of this pilot RCT is to examine feasibility and acceptability, not to complete an adequately-powered efficacy study.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

28

Phase

  • 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 Locations

    • California
      • San Diego, California, United States, 92161-0002
        • VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA

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

Ages Eligible for Study

55 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Veterans aged 55 and older who are able to provide informed consent
  • Previous completion of the "Cognitive Rehabilitation for Older Veterans with Mild Cognitive Impairment" [PI: Twamley, VA CSRD: I01CX001592] study and received the ME-CCT intervention
  • Independently living
  • English-speaking: this is necessary to complete cognitive and functional testing and participate in booster development and other study procedures

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Participation in sub-study 2 of this CDA, in which study participants assist with the design of booster intervention modules
  • DSM-5 criteria for current substance use disorder and has been substance abstinent for less than 30 days
  • History of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or other primary psychotic disorder
  • History of significant brain injury with loss of consciousness >30 minutes
  • Auditory or visual impairments that would prevent ability to participate in booster sessions or ability to benefit from compensatory strategies

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: Other
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Other: Treatment as Usual
Treatment for MCI is generally managed by Primary Care or Neurology. Participants will continue to receive their usual care with their current providers. With no effective pharmacological treatment known for persons with MCI, providers tend to focus on encouraging a healthy lifestyle, prevention and management of modifiable risk factors for cognitive impairment, and treatment of behavioral and psychiatric symptoms.
Other Names:
  • TAU
Experimental: ME-CCT Booster Training
3-4 Sessions of ME-CCT Booster Training
ME-CCT is a traditionally a manualized group-based behavioral intervention (8 weeks, 2 hours per week) designed to improve cognitive and everyday functioning in patients with MCI. Our booster modules will be shortened and distilled from ME-CCT using the IM Adapt protocol (and thus will not be new information but rather 'reminder' content) for a personalized four-session sequence of booster training targeted toward specific everyday functional needs of individual participants.
Other Names:
  • ME-CCT Booster

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
"Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM)" questionnaire mean score
Time Frame: 4 weeks
Four-item measure of perceived intervention implementation acceptability from Weiner et al., (2017) that has demonstrated strong psychometric properties. On a scale of 1-5 (completely disagree to completely agree), participants are asked to respond to the following: 1) implementation strategy meets my approval 2) implementation strategy is appealing to me 3) I like the implementation strategy 4) I welcome the implementation strategy. Average score of these four questions is calculated for measure score. Mean of participants' measure scores will be reported.
4 weeks
"Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)" questionnaire mean score
Time Frame: 4 weeks
Four-item measure of perceived intervention implementation appropriateness from Weiner et al., (2017) that has demonstrated strong psychometric properties. On a scale of 1-5 (completely disagree to completely agree), participants are asked to respond to the following: 1) implementation strategy seems fitting 2) implementation strategy seems suitable 3) implementation strategy seems applicable 4) implementation strategy seems like a good match. Average score of these four questions is calculated for measure score. Mean of participants' measure scores will be reported.
4 weeks
"Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)" questionnaire mean score
Time Frame: 4 weeks
Four-item measure of perceived intervention implementation feasibility from Weiner et al., (2017) that has demonstrated strong psychometric properties. On a scale of 1-5 (completely disagree to completely agree), participants are asked to respond to the following: 1) implementation strategy seems implementable 2) implementation strategy seems possible 3) implementation strategy seems doable 4) implementation strategy seems easy to use. Average score of these four questions is calculated for measure score. Mean of participants' measure scores will be reported.
4 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Initial estimate of change in objective cognitive performance composite z score
Time Frame: baseline, 4 weeks
Change in composite z score
baseline, 4 weeks
Initial estimate of change in functional capacity performance composite z score
Time Frame: baseline, 4 weeks
Change in composite z score
baseline, 4 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Jacqueline E Maye, PhD, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA

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)

July 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

June 30, 2028

Study Completion (Estimated)

June 30, 2028

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 27, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 13, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

March 15, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

August 13, 2025

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 12, 2025

Last Verified

August 1, 2025

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • E3821-W
  • 1IK2RX003821-01A1 (U.S. NIH Grant/Contract: VA)

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.

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.

Clinical Trials on Mild Cognitive Impairment

Clinical Trials on Motivationally-Enhanced Compensatory Cognitive Training (ME-CCT) Booster Modules

Subscribe